Aphra

Very close to us so very easy. Drop me a PM with details. :)

I'm not sure how you could go about breeding "aggression" out of dogs. Aggression is a fundamental drive in most animals, including humans, to get resources and to protect resources including their own lives. Aggression is a behavioural expression, not a thing of itself. That expression may be more or less severe (a dog might just growl at another dog looking at it's bone, or it might start a full-on attack). Calling a dog aggressive tells you about its behaviour, but not what is the cause of the behaviour. Clearly there was something at fault with the way these dogs were in terms of behaviour and management, but just calling them aggressive doesn't help explain an awful incident, nor help prevent it another time. It's really easy to fall back on breed as an explanation, once again, ignoring the fact that hundreds of Bullmastiffs go about their business every day without causing any harm. I think this is a really relevant article in this context.

Kelpies and working breeds along with poor, bloody Staffs and Staff xs have always made up a large part of the population of the pounds we work with. I haven't see an increase in the numbers and its a while since I saw a red Kelpie anyway, most are black and tan (although we have just rehomed the most gorgeous blue boy). Farmers will typically breed a litter to get a couple of working dogs and take the rest to the pound either as the remainder of the litter or as young dogs when they aren't working well. A lot depends on the individual dog, some work really well in a suburban home as long as they get company and some entertainment. We never used to do Kelpies, but kind of got sucked into it, and I've found them generally to be really well balanced, agreeable dogs. Energetic but not hysterical and because they are so smart, they're actually easy to get along with because they pick up routines so quickly. I think Kelpies are the one dog people are a bit cautious about taking unless they know the breed because they worry about their activity level.

Thank you everyone for the suggestions, I'll happily pass them on. The granddaughter contacted us on her granddad's behalf, but they are local to us, so if we'd had a suitable dog would have been handy. On further conversation, the gentleman has decided he'd like a small dog with a shorter coat, his last dog was a Chi X Foxie. As Andrea said, as long as there is a family member willing to take responsibility if necessary, either to keep the pet, or bring it back to us, homes with older people can be excellent homes. Many elderly people are still fit and healthy, and having a pet can be of enormous benefit to their health and emotional well being. We'll always decide on a case by case basis, but wouldn't reject a home simply on the basis of age. Mita, we had people come and look at one of our dogs ... they were very active retired people, but the wife's frail, elderly mother lived with them. The husband really wanted a big dog, but they were concerned for the elderly lady. After a couple of visits to a couple of dogs we suggested a Greyhound, so they went off to GAP, found a lovely Grey who was not only big enough for the husband to be happy with, but was good for the older woman because she could use the big dog as a prop for when she was a bit unsteady on her feet.

He's adorable. I've developed a late-in-life affection for Poms after having a couple in foster care. I did point them to Rescued with Love, so hopefully they'll pick up on Tigger.

I had a call from someone looking for a small breed, older dog for an old man (he's 89). His granddaughter is looking on his behalf, his old dog died and he's very lonely. Would be a good place for a senior, littley looking for a quiet berth. Grand daughter seems happy to be responsible if something happens to her granddad. If you're got a suitable dog, drop me a PM and I'll pass on her contact details.

I have tried to make raise these issues with NARGA, most recently when we received the letter of invitation - I sent them a list of questions, but received no answer. Given that the president requests only texts and not phone calls, it's not all that easy to ask any questions.

Because if we don't cover our costs we'll go under and not be able to save any more dogs or cats. As well as desexing there is vaccinations (two or three for puppies), microchipping, defleaing and worming. If there's any additional vet work that needs doing, such as dentals or other surgery we try and cover that out of rescue funds, but can't always do so. We subsidise all the food ourselves. We try and set our adoption fees so that there is a bit of profit on the small, young dogs to cover vet costs for bigger animals or ones which need more work. It's a matter of survival for us. We have a dog who needs a couple of thousand dollars worth of orthopedic surgery ... we're too small a group to attract the kind of donations that RWL or Pound Rounds do, so we have to try and save up the costs from a very small profit on each dog.

I three admiration for Mita's cool good sense and intellect! I have to disagree with you here Steve, although I do appreciate your even-handed approach. :-) The Oscar's Law campaign is a single-issue campaign. Deb Tranter said "this is what we want, if you want it too, join us" and built Oscar's Law very effectively from the grassroots level. But from the very beginning Oscar's Law has been clear about their purpose. And agree with Deb Tranter or not, she has been campaigning against puppy farms for decades, she has the reputation and experience in the field to lead such a campaign. However, NARGA are quite different. They are making some big claims. This is not a campaign, this is representation, quite a different thing. If someone claims they are going to speak on my behalf, then it is important that I know who those people are, what their experience and skill level is, what their level of understanding of the field is and that I am in broad agreement with what they are going to say to in those submissions and consultations. I write a blog about rescue which has an audience of about ten people on a good day, but I make sure I can substantiate any figures or statistics I use when I publish ... so I would expect a group which intends to speak on my behalf to be at least as careful about making sure they are publishing facts and not just an emotional stance. Particularly when their source is PETA who have a higher kill rate for companion animals than the Lost Dogs Home. I'm not opposed to animal rights, I've been a vegetarian on ethical grounds for over 20 years and a fan of Peter Singer for at least that long. The anti-breeder mentality is one stream of animal activism, driven out of PETA's nihilistic stance on companion animals. But beyond that, there are no figures or evidence at all that registered breeders are a significant contributor to the numbers of animals in pounds, and demonising them is just another way of ignoring the real issues in favour of emotive slogans. Frankly, I think that far from being something to strive toward, the Heart Reward System is a bare minimum and one that doesn't make much sense anyway. It is also really disrespectful of people like Maree, who as she said earlier in the thread, has been rescuing for 12 years and does know what she is doing. But NARGA are representing themselves as a peak body able to mentor and develop other rescuers, without any evidence at all that they have the ability to do so. There is much for us all to learn, and every year I look back and think how much I've learned about rescue in that time and how much there is still to learn, but if someone is going to claim that they can improve what we do I want to know who they are. This one made me particularly stabby. It's a myth that rescues don't work together and that it's all back-biting and bitching. I've been rescuing with other groups and now with our own group for a decade or so, and in that time have made lots of terrific connections with other rescues. We work co-operatively with a lot of other groups and we do share resources, including donations and transport. This finger wagging thing that someone like NARGA has to come in and force us to play nice is making me very cranky. This is just one example from a recent blog post of ours, but that's pretty much business as usual for rescue groups all over the country. http://www.headingfo...life-of-rescue/ Given the shoddy legislation around animal welfare currently in place in Victoria, I think legislation around rescue will be the death knell for private rescues. I do think a generally agreed code of practice for groups would be useful, but DRAV are already working on that in Victoria. I don't agree Steve (again!). I think there is considerable scope for some collaborative work across rescue groups, but it has to come from the ground up and be developed as collaborative, inclusive process. The way to have begun this business would have been to begin with an email to every rescue group inviting them to participate in a conversation about what rescue needs on a state-by-state basis. There are any number of online tools which would make this entirely possible. From there people could have been invited to join an organisation and nominate known represenatives to the committee. That way the values and body of work would be decided by those who are being represented. In the normal course of events, I wouldn't care what NARGA did and would be happy to leave them to their own devices. But I believe that as the profile of the companion animal issue and rescue, are achieving a higher profile internationally, the next couple of years will be a watershed for rescue. What I don't want to happen is for a group like NARGA to become the mouthpiece for rescue based on their own say-so. If a group is going to represent thousands of rescuers, foster carers and volunteers then I want that group to have the commitment to collaboration; deep understanding of the field; intellectual rigor; political savvy; innovative approach and professional standards to do so well.

That's an excellent outcome. Congratulations. :)

An update on Ilka from her family. As you can see, she's taken the transition from backyard breeding machine to lady of the house with remarkable ease! Her family say, "As you can see Ilka is settling in. Her family think she's the best dog in the world. Most of the time she is getting cuddles, going for walks and meeting up with her new doggie friends in the park. During quiet times she sits on her verandah and watches the world go by. Thanks so much to you and the team for finding such a perfect match for us."

I have been hard on them because I believe if they intend to speak for rescue they need to speak with an experienced, strategic and responsible voice and be open and accountable to their members, including explaining in what rights membership offers them. I sent them an email in response to their letter asking them some questions, including who was on their committee (a question I also asked on their Facebook page). I received no reply to my email and on their Facebook page I was told that committee members would be revealed "eventually". I don't think that's a good enough answer when they expect rescue groups to put their reputations in their hands. On their Facebook page they quoted a piece from PETA with figures suggesting that up to 88% of dogs in US pounds are "purebreds"; even the HSUS only quotes a (probably erroneous figure) of 25%. When I suggested that it was irresponsible of a group intending to speak on behalf of rescue to post inaccurate (as in, completely made-up statistics) without any discussion, I got a sniffy reply saying that they support the general proposition in the piece (that breeders are evil, money-grubbing animal abusers) and they didn't really care if the figures were wrong. While I'm just about willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe they have good intentions; I can't see anything in their available content to suggest they have the capacity, experience, strategic insight or understanding of rescue to do any of what they say they will do. Their heart system rating is a good example of their naivety. There seems to be no point to it, since it's self-rating and seems not to be managed in anyway ... but you can be a rescue member of NARGA by paying a fee anyway. So what is the point of the heart rating? If it's to help the public make choices, it's useless since it's self-rating and anyone can say anything. The survey itself is silly ... it asks rescue if they are "no-kill". In the generally accepted meaning of "no-kill (coming out of Nathan Winograd's work in the US) rescue groups can't be no-kill because the no-kill system is about what pounds do, and rescues are one of the strategies for pounds to use to meet the no-kill aim. So in the context of rescue groups their question about "are you no-kill" makes no sense at all. Whether or not you support the No-Kill movement, I'd expect a group who claim to speak for rescue to have a clear understanding of the important issues and discussions in the field.

My first foster failure was a 60kg Neapolitan Mastiff. :laugh: Missy is gorgeous and I can see why she arrived and never left. Congratulations.

We received our letter of invitation from NARGA. Does anyone have any idea of who the 18 committee members are? I honestly can't work out if they are well-meaning and incredibly naive or just blissfully ignorant. In any event, I really can't see why they believe rescue groups will give them money and the care of their reputation and futures on the grounds of one letter which tells us they know what is good for us.

I downloaded it and it's a lovely little book. The little stories are nice and the photos are lovely. The dogs are all so different and all so gorgeous in their own, unique, fashion.

Ilka's new family collected her on Saturday. They were all ready, had even booked a session with Underdog training for that afternoon so they could make a start on her settling and training. :-) Their teenage daughter had bought a clicker so that she and Ilka could learn together. Ilka loves her new people, they emailed me to say she follow them around and doesn't like to let them out of her sight. She slept happily in her new crate the first night (crate training fosters is such a useful thing to do!) and is loving having her very own people. Ilka will be their first dog and they were super-excited at taking her home. Although she's a big dog (quite a bit bigger, ahem, since she arrived with us), she's a mellow, kind dog and a good choice for first timers I think. This is Ilka on Saturday after three weeks with us. All her old coat fell out and her new coat is steel grey and really shiny.

Oh dear. I think I've fainted from too much cuteness. :-)

They should be able to email them surely? My vet has them digitally and she's emailed xrays for our rescue dogs before.

It's an issue for rescue. Most of the time we're just guessing, but if we list a dog as "mixed breed" pretty much the first question people ask is "what breed?", so even when we have no real idea we have to try and come up with a best guess. People always want to know. It also influences the popularity of a dog ... I could list a box of snakes as Poodle X or Cavvie X and get dozens of enquiries. LOL I'd love accurate tests for breed not because it would usefully tell us more about behaviour, but out of sheer curiosity.

As a rescuer, all our animals go out desexed, but as far as I'm concerned something as simple as whether or not you choose to have your pet desexed should be up to you. There are lots of valid reasons for leaving animals entire which are not to do with breeding them, and I really can't see how any government is going to be able to police such an activity. I was also a bit startled by this comment, "There had been a 47 per cent fall in dog attacks over three years in the ACT following desexing legislation." I've never seen any research which suggests some kind of causal link between desexing and a reduction in dog bite activity. I'm sure there are many factors at play in the reduction. It's funny (and tragic) to note that the ACT is one of the few places in Australia where Pits are legal and they're seeing a fall in dog bites!

Maddie's Fund did quite a big survey comparing DNA tests against visual identification of mixed breed dogs. The results are here: http://sheltermedici...ds/dna-results/ There's quite a good article about DNA testing for breed here: http://news.vin.com/...articleId=23206 And somewhere I know I read a study which compared dogs of known, if mixed parentage, with their DNA results, but I can't find it today. Edited to add: here - http://www.vin.com/news/slider.htm?id=5242975&said=-1

Sent you a PM Andrea but your mail box is full. ;-)

I notice they've updated their list of action items, so clearly they've been reading and or listening to someone. But this is the one which is kind of funny, "Open networking between rescue groups and organisations." Except of course, when it comes to their organisation who don't either consult or reveal who they are. I'm not a happy joiner at the best of times, but I'm really affronted that a group who don't really seem to know much about rescue and who aren't open about who they are or what their experience is, are telling other rescue groups that they can speak on their behalf and provide them with assistance to improve. The introductory letters should have come out before they set up the association, not months and months afterwards. I have read their site, and their associated sites, and there is nothing on any of them which suggests to me that they actually know much about rescue in a strategic sense. We won't be joining them or allowing them to speak on our behalf.

Kilmore in Victoria? Between Lancefield and Broadford?

And again. She's put on heaps of weight but doesn't have much muscle tone. When I took her out for a run in a big field she was like Scooby Do, legs going everywhere. I don't think she'd had much opportunity to run free in the past.