Maddy

If their policies concern you, find a place where they'll happily toss the bull breeds in with the SWFs

If they don't board specific breeds due to perceived aggression issues, I would be concerned they think the breeds they do board are all friendly and perhaps not be cautious at all about potential issues between dogs? Really? The kennel is obviously concerned with managing risk by entirely excluding certain breeds that are known to be prone to DA. Recognising that some breeds are higher risk does not mean they assume all other dogs are zero risk. If anything, the fact that they are aware that certain breeds are higher risk suggests to me that dog aggression and its management is something they're experienced in.

Are they water proof Maddy? I'm looking for a small kennel for the kitty litter in their outdoor enclosure.. Yeah, although after a few years outside, the waterproof coating does wear off. From memory, their website mentions a brand of proofer you can buy to keep it waterproof though. I've only ever replaced one hood and that was because a foster dog had damaged the base by digging at it. The actual upper part was a bit faded but otherwise, still in amazing condition.

If only I didn't already have several HoundHouses..

There is a difference between discussing the history of a breed and glorifying animal cruelty. You've made no secret of your respect for "real" dog fighters.

After posting that disgusting video glorifying dog fighting, I'm surprised (and a bit disappointed) that he's even still here

Silly Moosmum and her silly logic. It's not as if the animal rights people have their sights set on other dog issues, like conformation showing or dog sports. Oh wait..

This. if you're going to cook the meat and add piles of vegetables and grains, you might as well just feed tinned food.

How is my anger at your comments misplaced? The racing industry didn't say those things, you did.

There are no words for how incredibly angry and disgusted this comment makes me. Some of us here have put our lives in rescuing greyhounds and for someone like you to come along and suggest our concerns for their welfare are scaremongering to keep the industry going.. you really are clueless. I suppose at the end of the day, no skin off your nose if this shelter all goes to shit because you won't have to help clean up that mess Edited to add: I've said this god knows how many times before but some people still haven't got it so here it is again: I am not pro racing, I am not involved in the industry, I do not benefit (financially or otherwise) from greyhound racing.

Oh, I'd assume you'd need a lot more than two people to adequately care for that number of dogs, I was just being conservative :D Assuming each dog requires one hour of human interaction per dog (leash walking, grooming, play, health checks, etc), that's 200 man hours a day between two staff- not gunna work. Even assuming just 30 minutes of human interaction, that's still 100 hours per day. And because of the time already involved, that human interaction would probably also have to cover feeding and cleaning (which sort of counts- they see a person, at least).

Oh, I know. I make that mistake often enough, assuming people are actually interested in the welfare of the dogs. What shits me (well.. one of the many things that shits me) is that as soon as you ask these questions, people assume you must be some industry chump, out to shut it down for nefarious Industry reasons. A few people I know on FB have been all excited about this and I don't want to be the calculator-toting ants at a picnic but.. it's not what it seems.

If dogs that fail are going to be kept there indefinitely, I'd agree. I'll admit that I've kept two failed dogs (Sally and Idiot Dog) but they became my pets and lived pretty normal lives. For young dogs that come in around 18 months of age, if they live to the average lifespan, they could be spending up to ten years living in a shelter and even with the best systems in place to ensure optimal welfare, I still have my doubts about how humane that is.

Other thing is.. as far as I know, Brightside is already at Dysart? I can't help but think this was a carefully timed move to get the racing industry to cough up the funds for her to build shiny new kennels :/ Note the date. http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/brightside-farm-sanctuary-moving-to-bigger-property-at-dysart/story-fnj4f7k1-1227110111944

There was discussion on this somewhere on FB and below is a rough list of concerns/questions that will need to be addressed- 1. How will the dog be housed? Tasmania can get really cold, especially down in the southern midlands. Dogs will need access to proper indoor areas in winter. 2. How many dogs will this facility hold? If they plan to take every dog offered, space for at least 200 dogs will be needed, along with exercise/day yards to accommodate that number. 3. Will day/exercise yards be graded/maintained for the safety of the dogs? Many greys are a bit clumsy at the best of times, allowing dogs to gallop in rocky paddocks could be costly at the vet. 4. How will the dogs be monitored when out in day/exercise yards? This applies especially if left out in pairs or groups. Muzzles will not prevent squabbles. 5. Assuming this is going to be a kennel situation, how will dogs actually be prepared for life in a home? This applies to housetraining, socialisation, etc. 6. Are the dogs going to be properly temperament and prey drive assessed by an experienced person? I've heard some very worrying stories about greys coming out of Brightside, lack of testing is going to prove entirely unsustainable very quickly, once untested dogs are being put out to the public in large numbers (and the inevitable problems start to occur). 7. What will happen to dogs that fail prey drive or temperament assessment? Will they be housed indefinitely in a shelter situation? If so, the shelter will need to expand on a regular basis to account for the growing number of dogs. 8. Assuming it will be larger numbers of dogs, how will it be managed to ensure individual welfare requirements are met? This especially applies for failed dogs where minimum standards of welfare are not sufficient to maintain the actual welfare. In such dogs, will there be plans in place to ensure their receive adequate mental/physically/social stimulation? 9. Given Animals Australia and Brightside are animal rights organisations, what will the dogs be eating? Vegan kibble? Regular kibble? Fresh meat? Assuming even a low quality kibble ($1.50 per dog/day), feed bills could easily run into the tens of thousands per year, possibly much higher. 10. Where will funding for their care come from? From my experience, each dog costs at least $500 to rehome and this is without any wages being paid and assuming the dog is rehomed within a few weeks of becoming available. To provide adequate care for each dog, there must be staff available to feed, water, exercise and provide social contact for each dog. Volunteers are great but cannot be relied upon for the daily care of the dogs. Considering costs of staff, food, preventative vet care (wormers, flea treatment, etc). I did some very quick numbers and assuming only two staff (working 8 hour days) and the dogs being fed a very basic food and receiving basic preventative vet care, the yearly running cost would be $222,856. This does not include routine vet work for each dog or things like beds, coats, toys, collars, leads, muzzles, emergency vet expenses or anything else. That number also does not include building or maintaining the kennels, power, water. It'd be difficult to calculate an actual number per year but it would probably be in the millions, if it's done properly.

This. I'd elaborate on my support of this but.. I've been saying these things for years and no one listens anyway so.. I remember someone posting on the rescue forum that even the so-called No Kill rescue movement believed that around 10% of dogs would not be rehomeable for valid reasons. But the movement's label remains misleading, given they're actually talking about No Kill of Rehomeable dogs. There was a quote from Nathan Winograd, the guru of 'No Kill', pointing to the great success of a US Shelter that'd achieved a 90% rehoming rate. The guru was thrilled with that. How that particular percentage (10%) stacks up, would be open to discussion, as would what constitutes 'rehomeable'. But to say all dogs are rehomeable is out of touch with reality. I would guess that number to be slightly lower in greyhounds because true dog aggression or other serious issues are not common. But.. prey drive is something not necessarily tested for in other breeds and in greyhounds is potentially a very serious issue. For the sake of assessing drive, I found it easier to use three basic categories- high, moderate and low. High drive dogs would chase down and kill small/er dogs. Moderate drive was fine with all other dogs but not with cats or other small animals. Low was fine with one or more types of smaller animal. Moderate and low drive drive are generally safe to rehome, high drive are usually not. Within those broader groups, you have individual differences such as.. greys who were safe with cats but not chooks. Or greys who were safe with small dogs but would chase sheep or other livestock, etc. In my opinion, for the dog to be a safe companion, it needs to be able to interact with other dogs. It doesn't have to love other dogs, as long as it does not want to chase them down and hurt/kill them. Prey drive with everything else is negotiable (dogs are predators, after all- can't fault a dog for chasing cats or wallabies) but even just excluding the dogs who are not small dog safe will bump your fail rate up well over 10%. From glancing quickly through my own numbers, it'd be at least 25%. Bearing in mind two things there- I take dogs from a limited number of trainers and also, I occasionally look for low drive dogs for people who need them. Larissa would probably have more accurate numbers for a realistic percentage of how many could actually be rehomed.

This. I'd elaborate on my support of this but.. I've been saying these things for years and no one listens anyway so..

The way I see it, they are my responsibility until they die. I'd rather take a dog back than let it go to a pound and end up god only knows where (especially an oldie, they deserve better than that). Link to our FB page, anyone interested can get in contact through there.

This gorgeous girl is Grace, she's almost 10 years old and is being surrendered back to me after five years in a pet home because her owners had a baby. She's safe with small dogs and great with kids but not suited to a home with cats/poultry/small pets. It took me over a year to find her first home because she is black and a bit plain to look at but she's a lovely, sensible girl and very easy to have around. Grace is an older hound but she's incredibly tolerant and patient and could live happily with or without other dogs around.

I'm not convinced puppy farms are actually breeding especially healthy dogs though. In terms of overall quality, BYBs and puppy farms are probably pretty close. The difference, as far as welfare is concerned, is that backyards are probably going to be healthier and more stimulating environments than concrete pens in a huge shed full of other dogs. On the topic of BYBers.. I'd guess more dogs come from that source than puppy farms/pet shops anyway so I doubt this legislation will change much.

That sounds about right. To give them credit where it is due.. after a long discussion I had with someone from DIER, retirement forms down here are now being checked. Of course, this is still limited because there are still too many loopholes and following up each one properly is basically impossible. And that's the problem- it's impossible to follow up things that leave indisputable evidence (like a dog no longer existing), so what hope do they have of following up more difficult matters, such as baiting? Exactly zero hope. I'm sure those involved are aware of that fact so promises to try are really all they can offer.

I guess my opinion of inquiries (with regards to animal welfare issues, anyway) is that they're set up so that people look busy "doing something" about the problem. Four Corners airs some horrible footage, the general public demand action, a inquiry is ordered, the general public assumes an inquiry will fix the problem and move on to more important issues, like whether or not that dress is white and gold or actually blue and black :/

That's exactly what we do...we take crates & roll up mats for them. If it's too hot for the crate then they sleep on their mats. Quite often if the room is a little cramped, the dogs are quite happy to sleep in the car. Most dogs love their cars :) So you are welcome too, DiscoDobe :laugh: Thank you everybody else who has been completely honest & open about the question. Just one question...for all those who have said that Pet Friendly means that the dogs can sleep wherever they like & do whatever they like, does that mean if a place is called Child Friendly, then children are allowed to do what they like too...like eat pizza while in bed or climb into the kitchen sink or leave the tap running till we run out of water, swing on the curtains or use the beds for trampolines. I think I am going to be much more fussier about the children than the dogs :) At the moment the whole project hangs on what it is going to cost us for a small Stand Alone Solar system You're assuming that people who allow their dogs onto furniture will happily allow their dogs to actually do damage and that just isn't the case so you can't compare it to children being allowed to run amok. Crates are all very good and well but for those of us with big dogs, hauling around 48 inch crates isn't really an option. Especially not when you also have to find room for the big dog. Just because some people here are all set up to travel with dogs, doesn't mean that's normal- if anything, I'd say it'd be pretty unusual amongst the general public. I think if you have issues with dogs being allowed to do certain things, it's your property and you can make whatever rules you want. But.. I think you have to be entirely upfront about those rules in advertising so that people with different needs aren't going to waste their time getting into the booking process only to discover that it isn't going to suit them.

Unfortunately, Cassy O'Connor sits in the back pocket of Emma Haswell and she's absolutely one of the last people I'd want advocating for my breed. This is the same clueless politician who wanted a levy added to all dog registrations to help cover the cost of impounding unregistered dogs. In other words, punishing those who do the right thing, to the benefit of those who do the wrong thing. Interestingly, this is the same state party who wanted a cat curfew and the destruction of any cat caught outside. God forbid we kill greyhounds but let's set up a system specifically aimed at killing cats. The Greens in this state are opportunistic and will jump on causes to buy community support. This inquiry will be a waste of time and money because I can tell you now what the outcomes will be: (and I'll even do it for free) Yes, there are a few allegations of live baiting but no, no one has hard evidence down here. Nothing can be done about it. Yes, a lot of dogs are drained at vets for blood but there is nothing illegal in that and we can't punish people retroactively for it anyway. The RSPCA in Tasmania probably destroys just as many dogs and not only are they not called to account, the public supports them. Yes, there are a few allegations of doping but again, no actual evidence. All in all, exactly the same issues that have always existed and that nobody gave a sh*t about because it never involved bunnies or piglets before. Recommendations: to carry on as usual, but say things that make it look as if things might be changed. A public smacking for the racing industry and a private word to them about not causing more trouble. The Greens like to call inquiries but what ever changes as a result? For the cost of one of those inquiries, they could rehome a hell of a lot of dogs and make an actual difference to some actual dogs.

This. Someone on a local FB dog group was asking this same question (for the same reason) and what SC said basically sums it up for me. Holidays should be fun, not spent worrying about where the dogs are every minute. If the place in question wasn't actually dog friendly (as opposed to allowing dogs to stay but with heaps of conditions), I'd just find somewhere we could actually be comfortable. And as I mentioned in that other group.. I'd be more worried about what other people had been doing in that bed. Dog germs don't bother me, bodily fluids from other people..