Maddy

I have ... maybe not an ungodly mountain - but too many. Agree with comments above. I prefer my purina coat to my weatherbeeta. My chilly dogs - As well as comments above. I've said this repeatedly here - Scottie pees on it. I hate it - need to sell it. I also have a dapper dogs - I really like it - it's good for light day wear and as a shower proof coat. I have some lovely custom made pure wool (Aussie merino) they're awesome. Worth the investment. They're able to be pee'd on too - but we only wear them inside - they're not out and about jumpers. (yep - we have cold houses ) My next one will be custom made too... I think I have two purina/wagwear coats- one was Idiot Dog's as a puppy, the other (in the same size) was bought for the Shitty Whippet as an adult- and they are surprisingly good little coats. A skivvy neck would've made them even better but everything else about them was pretty much spot on. I couldn't comment on any of the other styles but the fleece vests were great. Idiot Dog as a puppy, in the Purina coat..

Shipping is always a killer if it's from the US. Shipping from the UK, on the other hand, is often a lot less and there's still plenty of nice stuff to be found. I have a couple of MeggieMoo collars and she only charges ~$6 shipping, compared to $20 shipping for a similar size collar from the US.

Etsy. An never-ending money pit of beautiful things. The Eclectic Hound is a personal favourite, they make stuff so nice that it seems a shame to put it on the dog :laugh:

I have an ungodly mountain of coats and off the top of my head.. Weatherbeeta - tried a few, thought they were awful. Bulky, stiff and they look uncomfortable. Chilly Dogs - The fleece was a lot thinner than I expected. There's more fleece weight in a Dishlicker coat, and they're considered fairly budget. Definitely wouldn't recommend. (Bearing in mind I own skinny dogs so fleece weight/quality is something that matters a lot for us. Coated breeds probably don't need the really good fleece) Dishlicker - Depends on which style you're after. Imported styles are much better but also cost a bit more. Jackie's - Pretty average but also pretty cheap. Lil Cracka - The quality is great but the buckles are the worst kind of rage-inducing awful. The price/quality of these coats is very reasonable but I'd not recommend them because of how bad the buckles are. Fine for horses but not for dogs. Greyt Sweaters - Depending on the build of the dog/s, these might fit and the knit does have a lot of stretch anyway. Pricey but very nice. Baba Pooch - These are pajamas rather than coats but they're very nicely made and definitely good for keeping creaky legs warm. I'm currently saving up money to buy more Hurtta - They all look so nice but I've never had much luck with them. Got three different styles, none fit my tall skinnies. Wolf's Den - Was a bit disappointed but they do get a lot of good reviews so maybe it depends on preferences and what sort of dog you have. Fair Dinkum - Do not age well, in my opinion. If you're paying $100+ for a coat, I guess you'd expect it to look like it? Cool Champions (they make a winter coat) - Pretty expensive and you can get similar for a lot less. Ruffwear - Really expensive but quite nice. Personally, I'd go with something custom/handmade. You might pay a bit more (although often price is comparable) but you get something that fits the dog properly and that's what matters. Etsy is a good place to look for people making custom stuff.

I can completely understand a dog not wanting to go outside to toilet in the rain and frankly, I'm not especially keen on being out there myself (especailly not when the late winter/early spring rains come) so we just taught our dogs to use Conni pads when necessary. Besides the obvious benefit of not having to clean up puddles or stand on the back porch with a stubborn dog at 2am, training them to use the pads is also helpful in other situations, such as when they can't go outside for some reason or if we had to travel with them. There's more than one way to skin a cat

Shitty Whippet has had one bath in her 2.5 years of life, on the day we first brought her home. She's not needed once since and because her coat is so short/tight, there's no hair to brush and even plucking at it doesn't get any hair. She does, however, need her nails done every week or so because they grow at an absurd rate and she's only exercised on grass. Sleeping off her one and only bath as a baby shitty whippet Idiot Dog hasn't had a bath in over a year and when he does have one, it's mostly just to give his wee feet a good soaking and to spring clean his penis (don't ask). He gets a rub down with the Zoom Groom and Furminator every few weeks, he doesn't shed much hair but he also sleeps on my bed so.. yeah. Nails don't get done all at once, I just trim and tidy nails while we're watching tv in the evenings.

It was definitely some really great work on PetRescue's part. From what I understand of it, the only books that won't feature rescued pets or rescue groups will be areas where they couldn't find anyone. It was a great idea to promote adoption and personally, I was really grateful for the opportunity to participate.

Unless you're working under a rock, everything is self promotion, and in this case it's a Pet Rescue initiative and happening all over the place with all different rescues on the cover. Interesting comment. Some people are into self demotion every time they open their mouths or walk down the street. There is an invisible line to be drawn between healthy ego and bragging and imo the article in the OP is about promoting this. https://www.facebook.com/bevspetservices/ Are you saying that all the phone books will feature a rescue organization? Yes. Greyhound Haven Tasmania featured for NE Tasmania books and the local paper also did a write-up. Press releases were sent out by PetRescue and Sensis (for all of Australia) to promote the initiative, it had nothing to do with ego or bragging. Anyways.. The dog on the left is the one and only Idiot Dog :D The houndy on the right is a girl I rescued a few years ago, beside her lovely adopted family.

Didn't you know dogs don't wear coats in the wild. You know, those artificially selected wild dogs who are designed to eat kibble (from the kibble tree) but not require any other human intervention.

The difference is that this is this vets ONLY service. She doesn't do anything else, no general check ups, no broken bones, she doesn't even have a clinic, she only does at home euthanasia. She found a niche market, the key to a successful business. Me, I liked that my dogs knew their vet. That Mini gave him a kiss and that he laughed when Grumpy tried, for one last time, to take his hand off. It was comforting. That, and it's a very cheap style of clinic to run. No building/rent, very little in the way of overheads or equipment. Just a plentiful supply of Lethabarb and needles/syringes. Personally, I'd rather my regular vet did it. They've cared for my dogs for years and even though it might cost a bit more, I value the connection between them and my dogs. When we had to let Kiff and Sally go, it was a really painful day but my vet knew what it meant for us because she'd been there beside us, not just through their decline but since they were young, healthy dogs. I couldn't imagine going through that final journey with a complete stranger.

If it helps, they are just as introduced as the starlings and blackbirds and are building up to plague numbers down here..... Yeah, but they're pretty and don't cause me any trouble, not voracious little feathered rats like the blackbirds and starlings. Funny you mention about plague numbers, I've been noticing huge flocks of starlings/blackbirds and thought it was just my imagination that there seemed to be about eleventybillion of them around at the moment.

One of my dogs has killed a rat and if I hadn't heard the pounce and squeak, I wouldn't have known what killed it- it looked in very good condition, besides being dead. The dog in question showed zero interest in eating it but I can't help but wonder if palatability of ratties is just not great? I've noticed similar trends with birds- the dogs will catch the odd starling or blackbird but show no interest in eating them. Spotted doves, on the other hand..

And this. I've found that writing little articles for my website and FB page is a much better use of my time and unlike FB arguments, the articles are easy to find and direct people to if they want the information. Perhaps that'd be a better outlet, Kirty? I find inspiration for articles from FB posts (and sometimes here) and go from there. I think it'd be especially useful for topics that the average person would have very limited knowledge of, like caring for native wildlife. After all, you can't lead the tinfoil hat-wearing horse to water but you can at least make sure the water is there, just in case it eventually gets thirsty enough :D (As an example, a lot of people seem unsure about when to rug their greys so I wrote and "illustrated" this- Hopefully link works. If not, look up Greyhound Haven Tasmania and it should be the most recent post. )

Um, Maddy that's really dreadful, stressful for you and bloody horrible for that poor dog, but that last bit did make me LOL No pity needed for me, I should have known better (I do know better, actually) but for whatever reason, felt that accurate information was warranted because people do need to understand their legal obligations as pet owners. The dog, on the other hand.. I can't get my head around the massive sense of entitlement it must take to stand by and watch an animal die because you think that if vets really do love animals, they should get out of bed at 11 at night to treat yours, and damned if you should have pay them money for it. I mean, if they care so much, they should be grateful for the chance, right? The original post was full of people complaining about having to pay for veterinary care. They can afford smartphones from which to complain but $55 for a consult for an animal they chose to acquire and take responsibility for? Crazy talk.

Save yourself the stress and turn off group notifications so that you don't see the posts and feel tempted to reply. One of my own experiences.. A woman cross-posts a post about a woman in the north west of Tasmania whose dog has just died. The dog was convulsing in her back yard late at night so she called a vet. Vet said he/she wouldn't come into the clinic without a deposit of.. (here is where my memory gets shady) either $50 or $100 dollars for an after-hours emergency. Either way, not a huge amount of money for the life of her pet. She doesn't have the money and apparently has absolutely no way at all of raising it so the dog dies in her backyard, after two hours of convulsions. And, because of course, this is all the vet's fault and not only has she contacted the RSPCA, but also the police, to see about pressing charges of animal cruelty against the vet. You couldn't make this sh*t up. So anyway, I replied with some information from the Tasmanian AWA, which included the vet's obligations and the owners. To cut a long story short, the owner, as the person responsible for the dog, was actually the one who could be charged and I pointed out (as gently as I could) that this was why it's important to have a plan in place, especially if you're on a low income. The entire situation was unfortunately preventable. The collective reaction from the rest of the group.. "Omg, you're so cold" "OMG how about some sympathy for the owner" (for allowing her dog to die a slow, horrible death?) "OMG I hope your dog never gets sick" (I'd.. take it to the vet and pay for treatment? Like most people would?) "OMG Your [sic] a bitch" And so on and so forth. I was about to be upset by the responses (because I'd spent a lot of time writing a carefully considered response including references to each piece of the legislation) but then I remembered that it was people on FB, where collective intelligence decreases for every person involved in the discussion, until it has fully devolved into people calling each other names (see examples above), and at that point, can go no further. It mattered not one bit that I was correct, the people wanted to enjoy their internet outrage at the vet and when I tried to point out that the owner had to take some responsibility, that righteous fury got directed my way. At which point, I clicked the little [x] in the top right-hand corner and left it at that. As I've pointed out before, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make that horse not a complete moron. And FB is full of horses running around in tinfoil hats, calling each other names and licking the windows.

Part of the issue in the NW is that it's a lower socioeconomic area with a lot of backyard breeding going on. Lots of puppies are being sold completely unvaccinated to owners who don't understand why those vaccs matter, creating a pool of unprotected dogs. When we get parvo outbreaks in Launceston, they're never centred around East Launceston or Norwood or any of the nice suburbs, it's the North/east suburbs- Rocherlea, Mayfield, Waverly, etc. Less money, less education. Nothing to do with puppy farms.

I gave up trying to find a bed that fit all requirements and have started buying different bits and pieces and putting them together. Idiot Dog's bed is currently a Four Seasons Durabed in size XXL (115cm x 96cm) which has a gel/memory foam dog mat added to it under the cushion (just a 5cm thick one, to soften it up a bit for his joints) and the bed itself sits on four layers of vetbed. He's a very tall, leggy grey but it gives him plenty of room to stretch out and feels soft but not excessively so. The only issue is that it's a tripping hazard (I trip over the raised sides at least once a day) and it takes up a lot of floor space. And he still manages to sometimes roll out of bed when roaching :/

Just on this - I don't think it's a bad thing, I think it means less confusion, with so many rescues that pop up then disappear, at least the general public have something to go to, to adopt a rescue. Friends/colleagues who have adopted a rescue have said they found their dog via PR, they wouldn't have known where to look otherwise, short of going to the pound and taking pot luck at a dog when they don't know enough about choosing the right dog for them. Unless of course, I've got this totally wrong and you meant that the general public might be confused that PR is the rescue organisation themselves... I think this is what tdierikx means.

This. I also spend my life doing dog laundry. .. between towels, bkankies & rugs. A Waterproof collar was one of the best investments I've made I've managed to break my washing machine a few times with dog stuff Coats are usually okay, as are blankets, provided something else equally heavy goes in on the other side. The bane of my washing machine's existence.. dog beds. Beds for 30+kg dogs do horrible things to the washing machine and I've yet to figure out a more efficient and hygienic way of getting them clean and then also enough water spun out so that they don't break the clothesline under their weight. Current method is to bypass the spin cycles (because that's where sh*t starts getting hairy) and then drag the water-logged bed up to rest it on the centre bit (whatever it's called) until enough water has dripped out to make it light enough to carry outside and chuck onto the top of the clothesline. In winter, they then take at least a couple of days to get dry enough to bring inside to finish drying. And that's the best method I've figured out over 10 years of washing the damn things

For me, it's not just one particular temperature or anything. If I'm cold in a short-sleeved top, they get coats/jammies on. If their ears feel cold, they get coats/jammies on. If they're sleeping curled up in a tight ball, coats/jammies. We keep the heat pump on 24/7 in winter, set at 21 or 22oc but even then, they're usually rugged from April through until October/November, depending on how cold the year is. To help keep their hair in good condition, I also switch to a slightly fattier meat mix and that, combined with rugging, means they come into Spring without kennel coat and without having lost any weight. I wash a lot of coats over winter but I'd rather be doing that than stripping out kennel coat and combing out the scurf it causes.

I've never had a potential adopter back out because they didn't want a home check I'd like to believe that 99.99% of people who want to adopt are honest on their applications and I've only ever turned down one adoption based on a home check. But in that case.. had I failed to do that check, I would've been sending the dog to a situation involving hoarding, undesexed cats and dogs everywhere (and the resultant kittens/puppies) and worrying neglect. Obviously that family had not noted on their application that they were being dishonest with me about their situation because of course not? So yeah, I home check. I make it clear to potential adopters that the purpose of the visit (with the dog) is for everyone, including other pets, to have a chance to meet the dog, for the family to talk over any issues/concerns they have have and to do a check of fences to make sure they're suitable for the dog in question. I'm not there to judge the cleanliness of their house (unless it's the dangerous sort of uncleanliness- like things that would be considered a substantial risk to safety) or whether or not their kids are still in their pajamas at 2pm (because honestly, I'd be in my pajamas at 2pm if I could :p ) and before the home check, I discuss the purpose of the check so they know what to expect- and not to panic about vacuuming or washing up. I take dogs out of danger so that they can have a better life, not so they can be thrown straight out of the frying pan and into the fire. Their futures are my responsibility. Also, I guess I don't see how Maneki Neko Cat Rescue's approach is at all progressive. They have a blanket policy of refusal to anyone who does have an issue with a home check so.. same as most other rescues? Whether or not they follow up on the "threat" of home check seems beside the point, to me. They've already weeded out a portion of adopters without any real dialogue (none that is mentioned, anyway).

Yes because intensively raised chickens and kibble are so natural. You do mean to say that wild pet dogs don't hunt kibbles in the wild?

Yeh. I get that. I just think it's really terribly sad that they can get away with the contents of the can/package differing to what is on the label. *assuming it's more than negligible. There'd be bloody hell to pay if it was baby food. I've put my faith in labels before (and it wasn't for weight management) and it just makes me sad. Yes - I'm more educated now - but we're all on a very long learning spectrum . Without knowing what sort of percentages are involved, it's hard to say really how serious it actually is. I think the press release for the study was pretty misleading though, and more than just a bit scaremongering (no food causes diabetes or obesity, it's excessive consumption paired with a variety of other factors). And when you weigh it up against the perfectly legal bullshittery that is pet food labeling, it sort of pales in comparison In my opinion, pet food labels should be required to have cal per 100g, same as human food, to allow consumers to be able to actually see what is behind the claims on the front of the packet. That, and actually list actual ingredients, not "may contain meats such as.." or.. "meats including..".

Royal Canin and Science Diet are sold in pet shops. Black Hawk is also sold in pet shops and many people consider it to be a quality food. I think the only thing that can be safely assumed from this study is that quality control for many brands seems to be pretty crap. most people aren't sitting down and working out approximate caloric content of their pet's food based on nutritional analysis anyway. No - probably not. But there was a time not so long ago that I was advised to feed a low fat dog food and I spent a fair whack of time checking all the options to find the options for us which were low fat. Our family vet (who I adore & I know is pretty good on her continued professional development) still advises this or to check for xxx kcal/cup on label. I personally believe that there is a huge number of people out there who do simply follow vets instructions and if they're told to check the labels and find a low fat item they will and I think that's OK to a certain extent. I was certainly one of them until I adopted a dog with food allergies and was forced to really look at labels for more than a crude fat content. When I really started reading and thinking about it I was mortified. The majority of cheap supermarket dry out there is just general cereal. Noted on the brand thing - have edited title of post. Certainly firms up my suspicions that one of the sponsors brands was implicated in the study. Weight management is about more than just fat though. When a vet tells a client to avoid high fat foods, they're not necessarily directing the client to a better food or even a lower calorie food. Dogs and cats need a certain amount of fat in their diets and their bodies are built to digest it. Carbohydrates, on the other hand, not so much. And if a supermarket food is lower in fat, you can safely bet that nine times out of ten, the difference will be made up by carbs. If your cat or dog has an issue with digesting fat (rather than it being just a weight management issue), odds are, you're not going to be looking to supermarket crap like My Dog anyway, you'd be feeding a prescription diet*. *I've no idea if prescription diets were included in the study but I'd suspect not. Just an example of the issue with assuming "light" pet foods are going to be healthier.. (moisture isn't actually listed so I've assumed 9% each, which is average. Also, crude ash is not listed for either so I've assumed 6%. Those values could actually be quite different which could totally change this comparison but we can only work with the information we have.) Calorie content of fibre depends on type of fibre, which isn't noted, so we'll assume soluble. The NA of Pedigree Beef dry food- Crude Protein 22.0% = 88 Crude Fat 10.0% = 90 Fibre Crude 2.0% = 8 Moisture 9% = 0 Ash 6% = 0 Carbohydrate ~51% = 204 per 100 = 390 The NA of their Light Lamb dry food Crude Protein 20.0% = 80 Crude Fat 8.0% = 72 Fibre Crude 2.2% = 8.8 Moisture 9% = 0 Ash 6% = 0 Carbohydrate ~54.8% = 219.2 per 100 = 380 Curiously, only one of those foods had an actual cal per 100g listed and that was the Beef, which was claimed to provide 335 per 100g. But here's where things get interesting.. if we look closer at the label, to the feeding guides for a 20kg dog on a dry only diet.. (for weight maintainence, not reduction) Real Beef - 270g per day Light with Lean Lamb - 220g per day. So.. feeding the dog 18% less food. And that food has roughly only 2.56% less calories. So as far as weight loss goes, it would seem quantity is doing the heavy lifting, not caloric content. And what all the above means is that even if we assume labels are correct, they're still misleading to the average consumer, who probably doesn't visit the supermarket with a calculator and a spare 20 minutes to crunch all the numbers. As for vets, rather than recommending low fat foods, perhaps better advice would be "feed less food to start with and budget for additional sources such as treats, table scraps, etc.".

That's one of the disturbing things about the report. Basically - what was on the label (at least in the bag/can they tested) did not align with what they found. So you're a diligent pet owner and you've spent hours reading labels... well fat lot of good that'll do you. That could be a difference of single digits in percentage though. It could certainly make a difference for a cat prone to weight issues but, in my opinion, most people aren't sitting down and working out approximate caloric content of their pet's food based on nutritional analysis anyway. They buy it, take it home and pour until the bowl is full. On the other side of the issue.. things like lower fat listed in the NA may lead people to believe the food is healthier, even though the difference may be made up by carbs. The owner may be more generous with feeding because they think low fat must mean low calories and once again, you end up with a fat cat. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that the study was not just testing supermarket brands like Chum or Pal.. Royal Canin and Science Diet are sold in pet shops. Black Hawk is also sold in pet shops and many people consider it to be a quality food. I think the only thing that can be safely assumed from this study is that quality control for many brands seems to be pretty crap.