Maddy

For us, it's mostly ugly, deformed "American bulldog" things- rarely walked by owners but sometimes seen wandering loose. And by wandering, I mean stiffly shuffling along with their horrid elbows and knees. Bonus points for your bogan dog-spotting tally if the dog is also "half pit bull and half mastiff" and is pregnant with its fifth litter of pups. You've scored bogan bingo if the father of the pups is a "purebread amstaff with a really blocky head who weighs 60kgs". As for purebreds.. can't say I've noticed any increase. The last purebred I saw was yesterday and it was a GSD. Said GSD was in a parked car outside Petstock with the windows wound down and judging from the furious, murderous barking every time another dog walked past, it was slightly dog reactive. Maybe parking right out the front of the store was not the best idea? I'd like to believe that anyone sensible enough to research breeds and go with a purebred would also be sensible enough not to park their rabid GSD right outside a pet shop but.. yeah, it seems not.

We had a similar problem so I tried a couple of different mats to contain spills. One was expensive and crap (and ugly) so I got a couple of these- https://www.mypetwarehouse.com.au/gummi-feeding-mat-black-lrg-p-8650 It's a bit hard to see in the picture but the lip is a raised rubber bit and it can contain a surprising volume of water. When it gets full of water, chuck a sponge in to soak up the bulk and then just wring it out into the sink. They wash up really nicely and we haven't had to replace either of them yet.

I noticed today that Troy made the avatar pictures square again. It made me so happy edit.. wtf is with the emojis though. That's not the little pink one

Have you tried Moorholme Park to see about transport? I've flown adult greyhounds from NSW to Tasmania and it was reasonably priced, compared to JetPets.

Not sure if you're still looking but.. https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/wilmot/dogs-puppies/irish-wolfhound-x-scottish-deerhound-pups/1136619301 These ones are probably too wolfy but parents aren't hunting dogs. https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/colebrook/dogs-puppies/staghounds/1137023699 No photos on this one but I'm assuming proper stag.

Rating intelligence on how willing a dog is to obey a command seems like a pretty average way of going about it. We certainly wouldn't attempt to rate a human's intelligence by how willing they are to learn silly tricks and to do them when ordered to. Many sighthounds do very badly on these tests but, as has been pointed out over and over again whenever this sort of "study" gets done, breed purpose impacts biddability and arguably, a dog that must direct its own activities and solve problems without a human is probably more intelligent than a dog that works under, and relies on, human command. I'd say about 95% of the greyhounds I've had would not obey commands to "earn" food rewards. They know they'll get fed dinner anyway so there's no need to waste valuable energy doing pointless tasks for tidbits. When it suits them, they can manage to do much more interesting things than just sitting on command and to be honest, I sometimes wish they were a bit dumber so that I wouldn't have to be constantly fixing and changing things to keep the dogs out of them.

Have you tried the Glad containers with the blue lids? They're sort of.. semi disposable. They last a lot longer than the takeaway containers (12 months+, the way we use them) but do cost a little more. Can't find them on either the Coles or Woolworths websites and the entire Glad website apparently doesn't work but they're clear with blue lids and come in packs of five.

They claim there are "no chemicals" used in their products. If they don't understand one of the most basic facts of chemistry, I sure as hell would not trust them with my health of my animals. As an aside, if someone every tries to sell you a product based on the claim that it contains "no chemicals", slap them upside the head. Vigorously.

Really? You're not familiar with the brand of food sold by Dr. Ian Billinghurst, one of the people responsible for making BARF and raw diets as mainstream and popular as they are now? Whether or not "homemade" raw is "healthier" than commercially produced raw is questionable, at best. Just because something has been produced in a factory, that doesn't mean it's somehow tainted with malevolent commercial-therefore-bad germs, you know. Personally, I stick with homemade because firstly, my dogs don't eat vegetables (and unfortunately, most prepared BARF meals are heavy on vegetables) and secondly, because I'm often feeding multiple dogs with different fat requirements so it's easier for me to adjust diet in response to their weight and how they're doing. To answer the OP, if your dog is doing well on those foods,I'd stick with them. I'm not sure on the availability of safe, inspected raw "pet" grade meats over there but I imagine it's probably not as easy as we have it here. Personally, I'd stick with imported commercial if I couldn't be sure that raw meat was coming from a processor who inspected for all the things we consider standard. The only thing I'd suggest is adding actual bones to chew because the barf/raw minces won't do anything for your dog's teeth. That said, bones or no, teeth still need to be cared for and brushed as needed.

Because thick river mud is not quite the same thing as water. And if it is just water, chuck a towel on the back seat of the car, it's not a problem that requires a huge dog sack.

So.. you tell a greyhound to sit (assuming it can and assuming being zipped into a sack doesn't scare it) and then you "just" lift your 35kgs of dog it into a crate that you have in the back of your car for the purpose of containing your be-sacked dog? I really think that this is a perfect example of an overworked solution- it creates its own problems while really not being much quicker or more efficient than any of the other solutions on offer

I have a few of these too. The shape is pretty generous so most of the dog is covered and they're easy to put on. Also, it's not a dog sack, so there's that.

How do you keep your dog from trying to step forward, treading into the fabric and falling onto their faces? (and then freaking out, tearing their way out of the bag and fleeing for their lives) I can't imagine any of mine would sit still while I zipped them into a sack. This kind of reminds me of those bizarre poo harnesses- in theory it solves the problem but in reality, is it actually all that practical?

My epileptic dog was fed a raw diet and would have at least one seizure every day. Unless the dog has a hepatic shunt or an insulinoma, diet is incredibly unlikely to have any impact on seizure activity. You should know as well as anyone that correlation is not the same as causation and in the case of idiopathic epilepsy, seizures can come and go again. If the seizures are moderated by diet, then it was suggest one of the two possibilities above, both of which are incredibly serious and need a vet, not a meaty bone. If your dog has epilepsy, it needs to have liver function checked, several sets of BGLs (to catch abnormal extreme lows) and a full blood count to rule out infection, etc. This is going to sound snarky no matter how I word but Dave.. you have to understand that epilepsy is a terribly difficult condition to live with and that IF ONLY it was a simple as changing diet. It shits me when people make it sound like such an easy problem to fix, just give it some magical herbs, or some raw food and *poof* neurological disease fixed! This is utter, utter garbage.

You're free to do whatever you like, I just think it's unfair (or perhaps even dishonest) to tear down other groups with very vague statements, while ignoring or purposely not mentioning that some of your own decisions could be considered as bad, if not worse. I'm all for open discussion, as long as it's actually open, and not just open where it suits certain people. Let's get something straight here... the rescue I was with (that you are obviously referring to) closed down around 4 years ago, and I did not run it, nor make the decisions as to how it ran. I was a volunteer and foster carer is all. We took in our fair share of special needs (read abuse and neglect) cases over the years also, but people seem to conveniently "forget" that part of our rescue's work. Most had a good outcome, but some didn't, and hard decisions had to be made at times regarding animals we had grown to love, but were simply not able to have a decent quality of life afterwards, or to be safely adopted out. I learned a lot during my time with that rescue - and the main thing was that it's NOT all happy endings and feelgood moments... it can be hard work and emotionally draining actually. There is nothing vague in my statements regarding spending time and resources on animals that have little prospect of resonable quality of life after those resources have been allocated to them - nor my statements regarding allocation of same to those that CAN have a decent quality of life afterwards. Calling me dishonest and inferring that I am unethical because I chose to donate my time and energy to helping care for rescue animals - regardless whether YOU believe they should have been allowed to exist in the first place - is a bit rich. I made my choice to donate that time and energy to that rescue, just like you made the choice to do the same with the rescue you are with. I still stand by my statement that everyone in rescue is free to make the choices they do for their own reasons, and that the general public is also free to make the choice as to which rescues they will donate money or resources to. T. You made a decision to be involved in that rescue, that was your choice And to be clear, I didn't say you were dishonest because you chose to help animals. I said you were dishonest for attacking other rescues while not owning your own decisions (and even now, whitewashing some of the very questionable things that went down). None of us are perfect and rescue can be shit at the best of times, without people holding others up to standards that they, themselves, don't even come close to. Getting cut because you think someone is doing to you, as you were doing to others, now that is a bit rich.

And I'd be willing to be money that rescues whose choices you question probably feel the same way. And we are all free to question each other, and choose who we want to support and who we don't, yes? It's still about choices... *grin* T. You're free to do whatever you like, I just think it's unfair (or perhaps even dishonest) to tear down other groups with very vague statements, while ignoring or purposely not mentioning that some of your own decisions could be considered as bad, if not worse. I'm all for open discussion, as long as it's actually open, and not just open where it suits certain people.

Rescue was brought up in the OP, several times?

Because expecting everyone to agree to a set of guidelines when it's an entirely subjective question is absurd? I think allowing rescue dogs to have puppies is very wrong, but others (like you) would disagree on that point. Are the lives of unborn puppies worth the resources? Who knows, because that is a values question, not something rational that can be worked out with a calculator. Is it right to bag another rescue's use of resources when your own could legitimately be questioned? With regards to the bolded point.. when you're rescuing greyhounds (and possibly other working breeds), saying no to a surrender could (and very likely would) mean that dog's death. So yeah, you have the option to "just" say no. But it's not a simple issue. It comes back to (again) personal values. Having a profitable rescue would be great (I hear puppies are good sellers) but I'd rather have my morals intact Rescues and rescuers still have the choice what they take in and what they allocate resources to... your choices may be different to rescues that I've worked with in the past, but that doesn't mean that either of us are "wrong" in the choices made... I get the sense that you are having a bit of a dig at a rescue that I worked with previously - which shut down a few years ago and the owner is now retired. For the record, I'm not bagging your rescue or your choices... I'm simply stating that the public who make donations are within their rights to select who or what they choose to support based on their own values. T. And I'd be willing to be money that rescues whose choices you question probably feel the same way.

Registrant Name: Katrina Beard Registrant Organization: Heading for Home: Central Victorian Animal Rescue

Well.. no, not really? as I pointed out, some rescues take dogs from pounds so they can pick out the superficially healthy dogs (who may end up having hidden health problems anyway) but for rescues who take surrenders, you get what you get and sometimes, what you get is health issues. I had two dogs dropped off to me once with matching cases of raging kennel cough. As much as it annoyed me to have to deal with that, the only other option for the dogs was the trainer dropping them off at the vet to be put to sleep, on his way home. So you make the best of a shitty situation because that's all you can really do. Also, I feel it's worth pointing out that one person's waste of resources is not necessarily another's. Powerlegs rescues oldies and while many of us would agree that oldies definitely deserve that chance, some people would argue that rescuing old dogs is a waste of resources because they won't live as long and pounds are full of young animals. I took back a very eldely greyhound who could not be rehomed again and although it was a "waste" of my resources, I fed her and cared for her until she finally died. It was a "waste" of money but I'm not in rescue to look after the welfare of my bank account There's certainly a difference between rescuing a dog so elderly/poorly that it can barely walk and rescuing an older dog or a dog with treatable health problems but the thing is, none of us have crystal balls and even with really good vets and all the information, what seems like a sensible call can still end badly. I wholeheartedly disagree with silly shit like putting prosthetic legs on dogs (because I don't think it improves their quality of life) but most of us are just trying to get it right and don't need the added crap of people arguing over how much/little is right. You can't please all the people, all the time, especially not when the everyone has their own ideas about what is reasonable in terms of resource allocation. I think it could also be argued that pregnant bitches should be spayed, rather than allowing puppies to be born. The future desexing/vacination/microchipping of the puppies would far outweigh the cost of ending their lives in utero, so why are rescues creating more costs for themselves? Because they think it's right? Yeah.. There is still a choice made to take on any animal - be it from a pound or as a surrender. You still have the option to say no... or to allocate resources as you feel necessary to treat issues that are treatable. No-one is bagging rescues for unforseen issues arising with an animal they have taken in in good faith (well, I'm not anyways). It is also the choice of the general public to decide which rescues they wish to donate time and resources to... usually based on their own opinion of what is "right" or "wrong" with regards to how rescues allocate their funds. Not much we can do about that though... *grin* If rescue can't agree on what is "right" or "wrong" when it comes to what they do, then how are the general public supposed to work it out? T. Because expecting everyone to agree to a set of guidelines when it's an entirely subjective question is absurd? I think allowing rescue dogs to have puppies is very wrong, but others (like you) would disagree on that point. Are the lives of unborn puppies worth the resources? Who knows, because that is a values question, not something rational that can be worked out with a calculator. Is it right to bag another rescue's use of resources when your own could legitimately be questioned? With regards to the bolded point.. when you're rescuing greyhounds (and possibly other working breeds), saying no to a surrender could (and very likely would) mean that dog's death. So yeah, you have the option to "just" say no. But it's not a simple issue. It comes back to (again) personal values. Having a profitable rescue would be great (I hear puppies are good sellers) but I'd rather have my morals intact

maybe the company is kind to them ? Possibly, but many local companies would be too, if asked. But even if it's free or cheap, you'd think good nutrition should still come first. It actually reminds me of what happened with our local RSPCA- they used to accept all food donations and our local pet meat lady would donate literally trailer-loads of meaty bones and other goodies to them. Then, Hills started sponsoring that branch, all other food donations were refused and now the dogs live on a diet of plain kibble. RSPCA benefits financially, dogs lose lots of mental stimulation and access to an interesting, varied and nutritious diet.

There was a sarp x for sale down here not that long ago. I wouldn't have thought they'd be common enough to really even see on the pet BSS pages, let alone crosses of them, but there it was

Personally, I wouldn't even consider feeding it to greyhounds, from looking at the ingredients. With so many better options available, even in Tasmania, I don't know why GAP would, either.

Well.. no, not really? as I pointed out, some rescues take dogs from pounds so they can pick out the superficially healthy dogs (who may end up having hidden health problems anyway) but for rescues who take surrenders, you get what you get and sometimes, what you get is health issues. I had two dogs dropped off to me once with matching cases of raging kennel cough. As much as it annoyed me to have to deal with that, the only other option for the dogs was the trainer dropping them off at the vet to be put to sleep, on his way home. So you make the best of a shitty situation because that's all you can really do. Also, I feel it's worth pointing out that one person's waste of resources is not necessarily another's. Powerlegs rescues oldies and while many of us would agree that oldies definitely deserve that chance, some people would argue that rescuing old dogs is a waste of resources because they won't live as long and pounds are full of young animals. I took back a very eldely greyhound who could not be rehomed again and although it was a "waste" of my resources, I fed her and cared for her until she finally died. It was a "waste" of money but I'm not in rescue to look after the welfare of my bank account There's certainly a difference between rescuing a dog so elderly/poorly that it can barely walk and rescuing an older dog or a dog with treatable health problems but the thing is, none of us have crystal balls and even with really good vets and all the information, what seems like a sensible call can still end badly. I wholeheartedly disagree with silly shit like putting prosthetic legs on dogs (because I don't think it improves their quality of life) but most of us are just trying to get it right and don't need the added crap of people arguing over how much/little is right. You can't please all the people, all the time, especially not when the everyone has their own ideas about what is reasonable in terms of resource allocation. I think it could also be argued that pregnant bitches should be spayed, rather than allowing puppies to be born. The future desexing/vacination/microchipping of the puppies would far outweigh the cost of ending their lives in utero, so why are rescues creating more costs for themselves? Because they think it's right? Yeah..

Maybe both the clinics I use are unusual but when Bosley was going downhill, one vet suggested that I consider "whether or not it was time to pull the pin" and the other, from a different clinic, told me very clearly that euthanasing Bosley while he was still under GA would be what he would choose, when I asked his opinion. In fact, thinking back, euthanasia within a particular time frame was suggested by my vets for the last four dogs I've lost. Their opinion of my dogs' quality of life influences my decisions greatly and I would be reluctant to go back to a vet who wasn't speaking up in the best interests of my animals. The trouble with the "ugly" dogs is that they can end up sitting in rescue for extended periods of time, taking up space that may have held several "prettier", more adoptable dogs in that time. For greyhounds, in my experience, it tends to be black dogs who are a bit plain or aren't very outgoing. The two longest foster periods I've had were both black dogs and both were with me for over 12 months each. Now, it's true that they eventually got homes but equally, how many fawns or blue could I have rehomed in that time? Do we also euthanase the ugly dogs, considering they can end up a significant drain on resources? If it's strictly about sensible use of resources, the answer to that question must surely be "yes". Personally, I think that you have to do the best you can by the dogs who come into your care. This doesn't mean seeking out every old, black, crippled dog you can find but giving a reasonable chance to the young, the old, the pretty and the ugly, equally. Some rescues take dogs from pounds so they have some control over what they get. Many others take surrenders and won't turn dogs away for welfare reasons. Rescue can be a really difficult balancing act of resources at the best of times and to be blunt about it, these sorts of threads that quickly turn into rescue-bashing garbage, annoy me. If you don't like the way other people run their rescues, feel free to get out of your armchair and do it yourself.