Maddy

I'm not a fan of either brand but of the two, I'd say the Ruffwear ones are definitely the better choice. Better quality, less of a dog tablecloth and much nicer in terms of cut and style. That said.. I have greyhounds in Tasmania so I own an absurd amount of dogs coats and I've become a bit of a coat snob

Pretty much the worst shelter in the state, as far as kill rate goes I noticed there's also a little 11 year old terrier cross. Seems like a lot more oldies around than usual.

Link- Hopefully that works.

I was tempted to package up some of the "composted" poo and send it back to them but.. eh. I think they have some bullsh*tty disclaimer on their website about clay based soils not providing the "best" of conditions for it to work. Now, we just use poo to fill in the holes that FF Jelly digs for us. For some reason, those filled in holes never smell

Doesn't have to be a Saturday Don post away for any oldie in need on any day. Gorgeous old sweetheart!! Hmmm from what I've heard Hobart RSPCA is not the best :/ I could be wrong...Maddy?? I think I've seen her posted around. Hobart is better than the Launceston shelter. From memory, Hobart is "no kill" and they'd be unlikely to PTS a small, easy to sell dog (especially if it looks like a purebred). Although the shelter itself is no place for a dog of that age, the poor old lady.

If you have sandy soil, they probably work well enough. If you have clay soil, you will end up with a hellacious pit of ungodly stench. I bought a similar one (and dropped the extra cash for a bottle of the enzyme tablets for it, which are supposed to make it work better) and yeeeeeeeeeah. There are no words to describe the depth and ferocity of the smell of poo that has sat in a wet hole in the ground for a few months, fermenting and growing more powerful, like some kind of subterranean monster that feeds on poo. Out of curiosity, I also tried with a bucket and more enzyme tablets (the instructions said it would turn poo into something you could just tip over your lawn or whatever) and that was possibly worse. My dogs are raw fed so their poo is pretty benign but in the bucket.. it was like.. raw human sewerage, if you added rotten eggs, a few dead animals and then seasoned it liberally with some old steamed cabbage. The sort of thing you'd need to file for government approval to dispose of because it smelled so toxic.

I absolutely agree with you but.. it's really not that simple. Changes have to be made in a number of areas, with the support of the participants and without angling those changes towards ending the industry (because participants will never support changes intended to put them out of business). The changes needed aren't things like limiting breeding in itself but instead, broadening the grading system (to include slower dogs- as I've pointed out before, a race between a bunch of slow dogs is still a race), changing qualifying requirements so that dogs aren't excluded before they've even had a chance to race and keeping dogs in work longer so that breeding restrictions aren't as necessary to start with. If the average greyhound could work up until the age of four (or even five), dogs would need "replacing" with less frequency (so less litters bred), which in turn would reduce pressure on rescue/rehoming groups- meaning that those dogs would have a better chance at being rehomed. For dogs who are injured and unable to continue racing at a younger age, the reduced number of dogs flowing into rescues would also benefit them, not just because of more space available but also more resources available for treatment and care. It'd be great to see a change that would bring about the closure of certain greyhound warehousing "rescues" where dogs are living within the bare minimums of welfare standards, while those groups continue to accept numbers beyond their capacity simply because the dogs are there for the taking. This is a good idea but it wouldn't have helped two of the babies I helped raise for a bit over 12mths, from one of the lets do a deal litters, whose lives ended a couple of days ago. Their first time owner with stars in his eyes and money to burn didn't want dogs that paid their way (they had both won races), he wanted dogs that won him substantial amounts of money, he wanted to play with the big boys. They weren't even two yrs old, both of those dogs would have made lovely pets. It was a very bitter pill for me to swallow even though I knew that it was inevitable that not all the dogs (who I knew much better than their owners did) were going to live their life out as they should. An example of this is, one of the owners came to check up on his dogs, I wasn't there and the boss who didn't know the dogs as well as I did accidently showed this owner the wrong dogs. There were dogs with colours in the litter he was shown that weren't in his litter and the owner was none the wiser. It's not the answer to all of the problems but no one thing would be- each issue within the industry needs to be dealt with through a series of changes aimed at reducing demand for breeding, reducing destruction of otherwise rehomable dogs and tighter management of welfare. In many ways, welfare of racing dogs is easier to control because unlike the general public, you can put rules in place that couldn't be passed as state law. If a person wants to participate, they have to abide by those rules (provided they don't conflict with state or federal law).

I had a look at the prices of the other dogs there and.. In somewhat related news.. Grace (our oldy from a few pages back) has gone on trial with a family. No adoption fee (or even request of a donation), I'm just happy for her to have her own home. Woo hoo greyt news for Grace Maddy! Fingers crossed her trial is successful So far, so good :D The new home already has a couple of greyhound girls and Grace does enjoy hanging out with other ladies so she's settled better than I could have hoped for.

There are currently different grades but once a dog grades out, unless it's a good breeding prospect (which it probably isn't if it graded out), that dog will either end up PTS or in rescue. As I've mentioned before, the majority of the dogs I've taken in have been 15-18 month old dogs who couldn't even qualify to start with. A small number of those dogs won't chase at all, the rest are just a couple of seconds too slow but otherwise fit, healthy dogs with a normal level of drive. Ownership shuffling already happens for suspended trainers so yeah, it'll happen if further breeding restrictions are put in place. Part of the problem is that greyhounds aren't suitable for every home. For 95% of greyhounds, homes with cats/poultry/caged birds/small critters are excluded. According to most stats, cat ownership is around 29% in Australia, which means approximately 6,707,700 homes are not going to be suitable. Add on poultry, caged birds and pocket pets and the number of those unsuitable homes goes up even further. Then you have to consider that however great we think greys are, not everyone is interested in a large sighthound. They can't be walked offlead, they are fairly tall dogs, the skinny/muscly look does not appeal to all, they have specific requirements that make them an unappealing pet to some. Everyone has their preferences and those preferences are not necessarily based on misunderstanding the breed, either. Personally, I'd never own a bull breed and that's not because I misunderstand them (I've known many and thought they were great dogs), it's because the breed traits don't appeal to me. On this topic.. Part of the problem in improving popularity is that inevitably, myths start to pop up from the other direction- instead of greyhounds being vicious muzzled monsters, the public come to believe (through hearing it so often) that greyhounds are INCREDIBLY gentle. Which is true so far as people are concerned but may lead some people to assume their greyhound is going to play nicely with their cat and when that doesn't happen, it can swing public opinion violently back in the other direction when incidents start to mount up. of course, dodgy rehoming practices from groups climbing on the greyhound rescue bandwagon do not help with issues of publicity and sooner or later, there will be a backlash there, too :/

I absolutely agree with you but.. it's really not that simple. Changes have to be made in a number of areas, with the support of the participants and without angling those changes towards ending the industry (because participants will never support changes intended to put them out of business). The changes needed aren't things like limiting breeding in itself but instead, broadening the grading system (to include slower dogs- as I've pointed out before, a race between a bunch of slow dogs is still a race), changing qualifying requirements so that dogs aren't excluded before they've even had a chance to race and keeping dogs in work longer so that breeding restrictions aren't as necessary to start with. If the average greyhound could work up until the age of four (or even five), dogs would need "replacing" with less frequency (so less litters bred), which in turn would reduce pressure on rescue/rehoming groups- meaning that those dogs would have a better chance at being rehomed. For dogs who are injured and unable to continue racing at a younger age, the reduced number of dogs flowing into rescues would also benefit them, not just because of more space available but also more resources available for treatment and care. It'd be great to see a change that would bring about the closure of certain greyhound warehousing "rescues" where dogs are living within the bare minimums of welfare standards, while those groups continue to accept numbers beyond their capacity simply because the dogs are there for the taking.

The obvious question here is.. if the majority of people care about dogs, why are pounds dealing with such numbers that they have to kill for "space"? Down here, pounds are packed with random "staffy" mixes but take a look at any of those FB pet sales groups and every day, someone is advertising yet another litter of them. The tip in Launceston is probably home to the remains of thousands of unwanted bull breed crosses (PTS by the RSPCA and disposed of up there) but no one seems bothered by that. I have to agree with Steve- the public are interested by scandals but how many of those horrified people will put a bet on or attend the Melbourne Cup? Probably most. Being outraged is trendy, but actually considering the welfare of dogs in a broader sense (without the hype and excitement of dead greyhound treasure hunts) seems beyond the majority. The fact that puppy farmers and backyard breeders continue to do a brisk trade confirms this. The number of backyard breed mutts that end up in pounds (and then dead) confirms this. You might have the loud minority who do care but their attitudes to welfare are not representative of the majority. For every person who adopts from a shelter, there are several others buying from pet shops or from sites like Gumtree. I also don't believe it's strictly an issue of education. Down here (with our cat laws), I've seen many people asking for undesexed kittens and mentioning in their ads that they do not welcome suggestions of adopting a desexed kitten from rescue. They know there is an ethical source of cats but would prefer to not only pay someone unethical enough to break cat laws by breeding but likely, they also intend to break those laws themselves. I'd love to believe otherwise but from what I see, it is what it is. Again with the judgements? None of us here have said we support the system or believe it is acceptable. What has been pointed out (again and again and again) is that for the welfare of the dogs currently in the system, whatever happens next must be done with a lot of care and thought to reduce the risks to those dogs as much as possible.

You can't compare the Australian industry to the US industry because they were set up in entirely different ways and in closing them down, there are completely different issues to address. You have to provide some evidence for your numbers. Plucking numbers from sites that have themselves taken numbers from "estimates" provided by anti racing groups doesn't cut it. That aside, there are far worse things than being put to sleep by a vet (as the majority of destroyed greys are). There is slow starvation, being shot by an unskilled shooter or clubbed to death. There is being left with serious, untreated injuries or let loose in the bush to die slowly from thirst, hunger or cold. Those are things that have to be considered, especially when you're talking about taking away peoples' livelihoods. But anyway, no offense Greyt, but after my experience of trying to discuss the issue with you in the previous thread, I'm afraid I won't be answering you again. You complain when people don't address specific points of yours while pointedly ignoring replies from others that rebut your claims.

People here have tried to explain things to you but you continue to ignore them. As has already been said, it's a complicated issue with a lot of different things to consider. Any mistake in handling it could cost the lives the thousands of dogs and impact the welfare of god knows how many others. Groups like Animals Australia like to pretend it's a simple issue because they could give exactly zero shits about the actual animals. They want to ban the sport because it is an activity that involves animals, which they are against on principal.

100% agree and people would still bet on the outcome and dogs would still be disposed of if they didn't win and people would still breed trying to find "the one" So just to be clear, you think that the breed is sustainable beyond the current racing industry? Beyond the sustainability of the breed, there is is nothing to suggest (is there?) that if their was an amateur sport, about 16000 dogs would be bred per year, upwards of 12000 would be killed per year. Breeders would not be able to command anywhere near the money for a good dog that they can now, mating fees would decline tremendously, there wouldn't be firms specialising in greyhound transport, supplements, vet care, er, disposal etc, etc. And their wouldn't be syndicates either. Not as we currently know it, no. I don't think dogs would be bred in the same numbers but I think the welfare of the dogs (and bait animals) would be far worse. The idea that money is a only incentive for people is absurd and only makes it harder to have sensible conversations about likely outcomes for any particular course of action. Typo Money is a powerful incentive - that much is obvious. There simply will not be 16000 dogs whelped every year if there are very few buyers. Live baiting is said to be widespread now. and More than 12000 are killed every year in the prime of their lives. The condition that some dogs are found in and subsequently rescued in large numbers is atrocious. If the numbers whelped every year fall to sub 1000 year, I am not sure how you think the welfare of Greyhounds overall could be worse than it is now. There is no evidence from overseas where the greyhound industry has already been banned to support a view that greyhounds (or bait animals) become worse off after the industry is banned. Once again, money is not the answer. You can take money away and people will still breed them and compete with them. Without the oversight that the money brings, the welfare of those dogs would almost certainly be compromised. You can't compare Australia to other countries because Australia isn't those countries and our culture is different. There are already people who use sighthounds here to illegally course and if you created a huge stream of people who could no longer take part in a sport they enjoyed legally, some would undoubtedly drift into the illegal version of it. As for this.. You really have no idea, do you?

I had a look at the prices of the other dogs there and.. In somewhat related news.. Grace (our oldy from a few pages back) has gone on trial with a family. No adoption fee (or even request of a donation), I'm just happy for her to have her own home.

100% agree and people would still bet on the outcome and dogs would still be disposed of if they didn't win and people would still breed trying to find "the one" So just to be clear, you think that the breed is sustainable beyond the current racing industry? Beyond the sustainability of the breed, there is is nothing to suggest (is there?) that if their was an amateur sport, about 16000 dogs would be bred per year, upwards of 12000 would be killed per year. Breeders would not be able to command anywhere near the money for a good dog that they can now, mating fees would decline tremendously, there wouldn't be firms specialising in greyhound transport, supplements, vet care, er, disposal etc, etc. And their wouldn't be syndicates either. Not as we currently know it, no. I don't think dogs would be bred in the same numbers but I think the welfare of the dogs (and bait animals) would be far worse. The idea that money is a only incentive for people is absurd and only makes it harder to have sensible conversations about likely outcomes for any particular course of action. Typo

I think part of the problem is the assumption that winners breed winners. Brett Lee (the dog) happened to end up with just the right combination of genes from his parents to be a really successful dog so everyone wanted to breed with him, even though it's obvious that you can't expect that same combination to come up again, especially when breeding outside of those lines. Idiot Dog's litter was a good example of impressive pedigree producing nothing of interest. On one side of his lines, there's Brett Lee (grandsire), on the other side, Elite State and Black Shiraz. Of the six pups named (from a litter of nine), the most impressive achieved six wins from 25 starts (most down in Hoabrt, so not exactly high quality competition)- making him a fairly average dog. I'd guess it probably comes down to very minor variations in the body that aren't necessarily things a breeder would notice. It was Aloysha (from memory) who posted a link to a really interesting article about borzoi and the relationship between minor anatomical differences and speed. And.. now I can't find the link :/

I don't think I'd be willing to try to guess either way :p I had the litter sister of a Launceston Cup winner here- she and her brother were raised in the same place, given all the same things and he went on to win the cup while she was cat safe and the only thing she'd win would be a cat cuddling contest. I think there's definitely a relationship between high quality care and success but beyond that, it just seems to be the luck of the draw (excluding, of course, the dogs that are badly bred).

They aren't chosen as pups. Most are reared, sold and over 12 months of age before anyone can really guess at how well they're going to do. Most of the dogs I took in were between 15 and 18 months old- dogs who were trialed and for whatever reaosn, not cleared to race (not keen enough or not fast enough, usually). There's this idea out there and dogs are picked out as young pups and the rest killed but generally speaking, that's not the case (and doesn't even make any sense). One of the few exceptions to that is severe injury (like injuries accidentally caused by the dam) or a condition that would exclude the dog. I got my youngest greyhound as a 13 week old pup because he was obviously blind in one eye but I have to keep explaining to people that this is unusual. Greyhound puppies don't often show up in rescue because a healthy greyhound puppy of a decent breeding is potential money. No breeder is just going to make a guess and kill the rest of that potential money because why would they?

You're forgetting that the racing was based on something else to start with. Do I think people would set up elaborate underground race tracks? No. I think people would turn back to live coursing. It was a "truer" test of the dogs to start with and there are already people who do it with their sighthounds in Australia.

There are not many chemical ways to bulk up a dog without the risk of being caught. Down here, race winners are swabbed, random dogs at race meets are swabbed and on kennel inspections, even dogs that aren't racing or breeding can be swabbed at random. If you dog tests positive for even a tiny amount of something most people would consider not too serious (like caffeine), you will win yourself a holiday from competing. A lot of trainers use treadmills or swimming to improve muscles and because of the type of muscling they have, you can turn a flabby, unfit greyhound into muscles on legs with fairly minimal effort so there's not even much benefit to be had from trying to artificially bulk them up. Most of the drugs that people do try to get away with using are things like vasodilators and stimulants (caffeine being the most common down here).

Believe it or not, some of us actually like the look of a fit, strong dog and take offense to them being called ugly. Big muscles don't mean the dog is being pumped full of drugs (and in racing, dogs are swabbed at random so you'd be stupid to do it), big muscles come from a combination of good genes and quality exercise. Sleeping all day is what they want to do. There's a greyhound near my desk right now and what is he doing? He's sleeping. He could be outside, chasing butterflies, enjoying the sun, being free.. but nope, he's tucked up in one of the many beds scattered around the house. Greyhounds sleep a lot because they like sleeping.

yes that's just lovely. Keep the killing of excess dogs out of the publics eye, problem solved. Are you serious!. People want to stop the dogs being bred to huge excess in the first place. A society that thinks breeding all these dogs to justify a few golden ones on the track, and killing the rest, is not what we should be striving for in the 21st century. Dog forbid things evolve as time goes by, and animal sports racing & betting belongs in a bygone era. I'm not sure if you noticed it but Steve bolded the part about it being the best solution for the industry itself and I'd agree with her- for the industry, that would be the easiest and best plan to make all of this go away. The trouble with attitudes of management is that they have been geared towards minimising bad press by sweeping things under the carpet and making grand announcements of punishments (of the people caught doing the wrong thing) and of plans for the future. Previously, this has always worked very well for them as a means of stuffing the problems back into their box but long term, it was never going to work. Now, they need a total change of attitudes and to start looking to actually really improving the industry. They are perfectly capable of it, it just won't be popular with many of their members.

I don't know, to be honest. I've spent tens of thousands of dollars taking in and rehoming other peoples' dogs and although it's not much fun to be constantly scratching for money to do it, other rescue groups actually made it harder by targeting me for my stance on the industry and on testing of the dogs. I've found that many trainers (if they understand that you aren't out to get them) will actually donate money or goods (food, coats, muzzles, vet work, etc) when they surrender a dog because they do actually want to help. Of course, if you accept those donations, those other groups will accuse you of accepting bribes from the industry so you really can't win there.

GAP are industry funded and have fairly strict testing procedures in place therefore loathed by the "save em all" groups. According to a lot (not all) of the "rescue" groups every single greyhound should be rehomed. This is not only stupid but dangerous, as it is with any breed. When you work hard at promoting a breed that is still not a popular choice for a family pet by any stretch rehoming every grey does the breed no favours at all. They don't see it that way though and god forbid you say otherwise. Oh yes. There seems to be a very clear divide in greyhound rescue- those who are sensible, test the dogs and rehome appropriately and on the other side, those who email death threats to trainers, rehome greyhounds that would kill small dogs and generally damage the reputation of the breed by rehoming anything that moves. I've been viciously targeted by the latter and I'm a rescuer. I'd hate to think how they treat trainers or breeders.