Maddy

Definitely agree with this. My last order didn't go through their system properly and the owner (I forget his name) took the time to call me up to apologise. Lovely man and excellent service

I adopted a dog from a well-known and very respected interstate rescue group. One of the few requirements I had was that the dog be good with children. It didn't have to love them, as long as it was okay. The dog arrived and not only was he not okay with kids, attempts by them at approaching him would be met with snarls and if they got close enough, air snaps (which I assume would progress to actual bites, if he was pushed too far). I didn't want to send him back, not with "seems very likely to bite children" hanging over his head so we kept him and yes, have kept him separated from our children ever since (more than six years). We have two other dogs who are fine with children so they have free access to all the house except kids' bedrooms. The dog who is not fine with kids has his own area where he is safe from children and they are safe from him. It works well and he's a happier dog for having his own safe place- we have actually seen small improvements over the years in his reactions towards kids. Hats off to you for keeping the dog and implementing a good management system for the dog and your children. I am not trying to bait here, this is an honest question - do you have public liability insurance in case the worst happens and he bites someone else's child? Or is he covered under his own pet insurance policy for public liability? Although he is covered under our house insurance, he isn't put in situations where he could bite someone else's child anyway. I am of the opinion that accidents aren't bad luck, they're more likely to be bad management so it is my responsibility to make sure he's managed safely and not put in the sorts of situations were he might not react well. He is no more of a liability risk than the young, silly dog who likes to jump on visitors (if anything, he's actually less of a risk).

I adopted a dog from a well-known and very respected interstate rescue group. One of the few requirements I had was that the dog be good with children. It didn't have to love them, as long as it was okay. The dog arrived and not only was he not okay with kids, attempts by them at approaching him would be met with snarls and if they got close enough, air snaps (which I assume would progress to actual bites, if he was pushed too far). I didn't want to send him back, not with "seems very likely to bite children" hanging over his head so we kept him and yes, have kept him separated from our children ever since (more than six years). We have two other dogs who are fine with children so they have free access to all the house except kids' bedrooms. The dog who is not fine with kids has his own area where he is safe from children and they are safe from him. It works well and he's a happier dog for having his own safe place- we have actually seen small improvements over the years in his reactions towards kids.

I agree. Whoever wrote that should have just stuck to the point that the RSPCA needs to be accountable. No need for all the other waffle. I have absolutely no idea what the last point about vets was. I read that bit and although I assume it's probably a valid point, I have no idea of what they're actually talking about because it's not been explained clearly. If you want public support, the public have to know what the problem actually is. Best I can figure out is that the RSPCA are somehow involved in the same government department that handles licensing for vets and there are concerns that.. vets who do not tow the line may lose their licenses through the RSPCA abusing their influence? I think half the problem is that each state has its own way of doing things and what applies in NSW may not apply in VIC and so on. Then there is the issue of how mind-blowingly convoluted some of the systems are. Trying to figure out who is involved where is like trying to argue with anti-vaccination nutters- it's just not possible because you end up chasing your own tail endlessly.

A kill rate of 49%... 0% would be ideal wouldn't it... It could be higher it could be lower... Not in a position to know the truth about that... I agree that their testing is flawed... a dog in rescue could fail but out of rescue could be perfectly rehomeable... I volunteered for RSPCA for a few years a little while ago... I now volunteer for a specific breed rescue... Many of our dogs come from the RSPCA because the person who runs the rescue has a good relationship with them... These are the ones who RSPCA will PTS if we don't take them... and give them a chance...I only know about the specific breed I'm involved in which isn't your average popular breed... I assume if a specific breed rescue approached RSPCA they would work with them... I don't know for sure... perhaps people on this site know more... My 7 year old dog was an RSPCA dog who should never have passed their temperament test... 'Slipped through the system' I say... When she ended up as my problem I took her on and she is in the right home... That's what counts... I adopted a 9 year old cat from RSPCA 4 years ago... So they do have older animals... A little while after my 'heart dog' past away I specifically went looking for an older dog with medical and temperament issues being ok with me... So we are out there but we are a small minority... Ended up with a psychologically and physically neglected young girl who ended up being 2 years old... She's fantastic and wonderful girl who I would adopt a hundred times over... More than a year later and always still progressing... Only recently started sleeping on the bed... yay!!! I just adopted my latest foster... I don't know why they call it a 'foster failure'. After being passed on for 6 months and me falling in love with her (actually everyone knows I fell in love from the moment she came into rescue)...Perfect with my other dogs and cats... What you ganna do? A failure she is... Totally agree with your comments re:working dogs... Too many end up in lazy people homes... As you are involved with rescue you know how many dogs are out there desperate to have the right place to call home... Sometimes it's just going to be the fact that there are too many dogs to place... And so the reasons become pathetic but there you go... Reality... This is why I give respect to those who have to make the hard decisions... So happy to connect with someone else who is part of the solution... Good luck with your fosters... I just don't believe focusing on the kill rate is productive at this time... Focusing on reducing the unwanted dogs in the first place is the issue... No offense or anything but I think your post betrays a major lack of understanding when it comes to rescue issues. Yes, there will be dogs who are not safe or suitable for rehoming but overall, they make up a very small percentage of intakes. I'm a rescuer and I can tell you now, even with a breed with high prey drive (something that could potentially fail them), I'm not having to kill 30% of the dogs I take in and I'd bet that neither are any other rescues. The RSPCA kills because killing is easier than committing to finding homes for each and every rehomable animal. Killing allows them to place blame back on the public rather than accept responsibility for the choices made by their own organisation.

We bought a whole trailer full of soil for the back lawn about 18 months ago. Where is that soil now.. damned if I can figure out where it all goes :p

Interestingly, neither of the Tasmanian organisations mentioned in that article will release dogs to rescue groups. I guess they can't be that hard up for space.

What do you do after you put poop on the holes? My backyard has also met exuberant fosters, and my partner sprained his ankle mowing last weekend. But the dirt seems to magically disappear when they dig! The (very deep) holes have a slight mound around the top of it, but not enough to grab a handful of. You mentioned it doesn't seem to smell, so there must be something on top of the poop. Would appreciate your help! As DD said, just soil. I fill in with as much poo as I can find and then use the poop scooper to scrape soil in from around the edges to cover it. A bit of a spray with the hose also seems to help hold the soil in place (and also seems to set it a bit and they don't seem inclined to try digging at it again). At one stage, Lamington had so many holes on the go, I couldn't find enough poo to go around so was also having to use clippings from the hedge out the front and whatever leaves I could mulch up with the leaf blower. Being sighthounds and liking to do crazy zoomies, my biggest fear is one of the dogs breaking a leg in a hole so they have to be filled in :/

If Bunter poos on the deck, I sometimes do that because I'm not feeling energetic enough to walk downstairs, get the poo pan and trowel and take it down the back to the compost heap. I do feel guilty when I do that because it is sheer laziness on my part. You wouldn't want to do that with dogs much bigger than mine though and if you had several dogs. Best dug into the soil. I have two pugs, and being fed raw they don't poop excessively. Plus being in a rental property means we can't go digging up the lawn (and the owners live across the road, and I suspect their top floor can see into our backyard, seeing as how I can see into their top floor :laugh: ) What if you have a diggy dog, I guess you just fence off the area you bury the poop in. Do you cover it just with a layer of soil, or have it like a compost where you put newspaper and other organic waste stuff with it? I guess what I mean is, what makes a poop compost different from a normal compost? Apart from the fact you probably wouldn't use poop compost on food plants etc I have a silly, young hound at the moment who loves to dig but once there's poo in a hole, she'll move elsewhere to excavate. Usually, I use poo to fill in all the holes we get from having foster dogs who've never gotten to experience the joys of digging (and so they dig 24/7 for weeks until the novelty wears off) and there's never enough soil to refill so poo seems to work well enough. If anything, I'd say it's possibly better- doesn't seem to sink back down as much as dirt so it doesn't have to be topped up for weeks afterwards. I was looking for a more permanent means of poo disposal because I was getting worried about the soil and the potential for smell. I can't smell anything outside but.. I'd be used to it so maybe it would smell?

If you have a sewing machine, maybe have a go at making them yourself? Once you've learned where the hardware needs to go (which is easy to figure out, just looks at collars you already have), they're very easy to make and work out costing about $5 each to make. I'm definitely no Martha Stewart (I can make exactly two things with the sewing machine) but with a bit of practice, I can make one of these collars in about 30 minutes (the plastic hardware could be replaced with metal, these collars are just for tags so don't need to bear much weight). Paws by greytas, on Flickr The bits and pieces for making collars are actually very cheap and easy to get. I also managed to make myself a front-attaching harness by just drawing up a rough design and figuring it out as I went.

Perse, the daycare would also take the foster, I thought. I wouldn't leave the foster alone at home. I thought they'd both go, the trainers at daycare are experienced with foster dogs as they foster themselves. Then, if things were settling down and over time it did transpire that the dogs were happy at home together I could drop from two to one days daycare. Roo x 2 days = same as 2 dogs x 1 day in terms of cost. I am working at home one day most weeks now and I can work at home for a full week if I bought a new dog into the home. I don't know - maybe it's all too complicated and I'm too inexperienced and I'm clutching at straws? Sigh. It was a suggestion earlier in the thread, I did contact Golden Retriever Rescue, filled out their questionairre and emailed it, but was rejected immediately. I guess they are popular dogs. If the dog will be going to daycare, too, it's even more important to make sure you only take on dogs that have been (small dog) tested by people who know what they're doing. A dog with high drive in an environment with lots of small, unfamiliar dogs is a horrible accident waiting to happen. I think given the problems you've had with Roo, a stable, good tempered greyhound would be an absolute breeze to foster so although you do need to go slowly and keep your expectations realistic, you will probably find that they're not a challenge to care for. Currently, I have five greyhounds in my house and besides the "special" one who likes to stand next to my desk and just creepily touch things with his nose, they're kind of hard to notice- they spend most of their time moving between comfy sleeping spots. Temperament is going to be very important in any foster dog, regardless of breed.

I've tried two different methods of composting with.. mixed results. The first was a standard compost bin and a large box of worms. I spent six months carefully layering poo, newspaper and grass clippings and it was finally starting to work when.. the bin broke (it was one of those square ones from Bunnings). Because it broke while we were away, by the time I got back, the entire lot had dried out, the worms had packed up and left and it was basically back to square one. So, instead of getting a new compost bin, I got one of those dog composters that you dig into the ground and they come with the tablets. What they fail to mention in their marketing is that those tablets will not work with tap water because of the chlorine. Which is excellent. Fortunately, I had the foresight to test it first in a large plastic container so instead of having a horrific pit filled with poo-water, I now just have a 50 litre container filled with poo-water. I think I'd probably be inclined to go back to the first method, but with a much sturdier bin. Edited to add.. I think how well they work and how many dogs they suit would depend on a lot of factors, especially what you feed your dogs. Mine are all raw fed so their poo breaks down incredibly fast. For those who feed kibble (especially cheap kibble), I imagine it would take a lot longer.

This. There are several newer groups in Victoria and although I'm sure they have good intentions, they don't have the knowledge or experience (and I've seen some shocking stuff posted on FB by those groups- like dogs going straight from trainers to foster carers without any testing or vet work). The other issue, considering Roo's problems, will be making sure you get foster dogs that are stable enough in themselves not to cause you even more trouble. Some groups don't seem willing to accept input from foster carers about the sorts of dogs they can manage so you will need to be very clear about Roo's SA and what you can and can't handle. A good group should be willing to listen to make sure everyone is happy. Anoth thing I'd suggest is to start with boys. In my experience, mixed sex pairs seem to have a better chance of getting along.

When we've had really underweight dogs (or just dogs in poor condition), I've found a few things that really seem to help with the weight- I wouldn't feed vegetables or grains, for a start. I know a lot fo people like to feed their dogs rice/pasta with cooked vegetables and chicken but there's not much nutrition in that, especially not that a greyhound can get out of it. I don't really feed much kibble but if you do prefer to use it, be mindful of ingredients because they can lose condition on it and in my experience, it never makes for a pleasant-smelling grey. I do keep a bit of ToTW around in case of emergencies but even that makes them a bit gassy with just one meal of it. The only kibble that I've tried and loved was Ziwipeak but this is very expensive. With our last skinny dog, I used one scoop of Ziwipeak in with her other food to encourage her to eat. I've yet to have a hound turn down the Ziwipeak and would feed mostly that if I were made of money :p To get weight on, a mince of beef (including some fat), kangaroo and chicken frames (or whole chicken frames, if he can still chew) works well. Add a teaspoon of Livamol to that twice a week and it'll help bring his coat up, too. At his age, you might also want to add a joint powder, fish oil and vitamin E. Having him warm will also really help keeping the weight on him. A cold dog is burning energy just to stay warm and they also tend to get kennel coat anyway if left cold. I'm probably a tad over the top because it gets so cold down here but at the moment, most of my guys are wearing fleece pajamas with a lightweight fleece coat over that and then a small wool coat over the top of that. I use two ways of checking how warm they are- feel their ears, these should be roughly the same temp as your own hands when the dog is inside. The other way is to put your hand down the back of the neck, it should feel quite warm in there (warmer than your own hands). There are also behavioural ways of telling: a cold hound will curl up very tightly in the bed whereas a warm hound tends to roach a bit more.

Troy do a basic allwormer called Wormex. When you buy in bulk, the 10kg tablets work out to about $2 each (depending on where you buy from, of course).

Dogs don't have any morals so I think "mean" is probably a bad way of wording it. Are some dogs genetically predisposed to aggression or more likely to express aggression due to poor socialisation? Probably.

Growing dogs can be very hard to accurately judge- my 13 month old greyhound has covered pin bones, covered ribs but his scapulae have nothing much on them and you can see bone clearly from the front. He has beautiful muscling (especially in the loin) but his overall look now is scrawny and a little too lean. Having said that, given his ribs are covered and he eats well, feeding him more to satisfy the total strangers who give me filthy looks when we're out in public could end up doing him long-term damage. On the other side of the coin, Kiff is naturally a more rubenesque boy and has to be fed on raw. If he's on kibble, he drops a pile of weight but rather than looking lean, he just looks like a thickset dog that is being seriously underfed. A shot from about two months ago of the 13 month old. When this was taken, his ribs were still sticking out a fair bit (not so obvious in this photo) but as you can see, his back end looks covered and normal. Now, ribs are completely covered but front end looks like it just came back from a long holiday at a Jenny Craig camp. Interestingly, this guy gets lots of exercise (probably more than all the others) and the muscles around the front end get heaps of work, he should look tanky but instead.. well.. he can really rock a pink singlet. The Imitation Dalmatian by greytas, on Flickr

It seems sympathy for old poodles who meet traumatic ends is limited Questions about what role the owner's actions might have played in the attack does not have a thing to do with sympathy for the poodle. Comments like the ones above are counter-productive to any conversation that isn't "how sad, terrible bull breed and poor poodle" and to be blunt, trollish. Because I have SUCH a record for trolling behaviour. I"m sorry but describing such an incident as "very unfortunate" is one hell of an understatement from where I sit. And I never said a damn thing about the other dog or its breed. God forbid any of us have to go through something like that as owners.... let alone our dogs. 18 years old is a very senior dog. Limited vision, probably limited hearing.... wouldn't have known what hit it poor thing. Thank you so much for policing my opinion for me. Clearly, "very unfortunate" did not sufficiently convey how unfortunate I thought the incident. How does "extremely unfortunate" work for you?

It seems sympathy for old poodles who meet traumatic ends is limited Questions about what role the owner's actions might have played in the attack does not have a thing to do with sympathy for the poodle. Comments like the ones above are counter-productive to any conversation that isn't "how sad, terrible bull breed and poor poodle" and to be blunt, trollish.

This report says the little poodle did not put his nose through the fence but that there was a hole. That's interesting. This is why I just think fences should have no holes, whether someone sticks something through in stupidity (which we know they do) or whether your dog sticks its head out and bites someone on the footpath, why risk it? The owner claimed her dog was just sniffing the grass. I imagine there would be considerable difference legally between a dog (or a part of a dog) leaving its property to attack another dog and a dog that is defending its own property against a dog (or a part of a dog) that is intruding. The cynic in me can't help but think the woman let her dog stick its head through the gap in the fence and when the dog was attacked, claimed it was unprovoked* and that her dog was outside out the offending dog's yard. *In my opinion, allowing your dog to wander onto the property of another dog is provoking an attack. And therein lies the problem. There's always two sides to every story and it's always easier to blame someone else for your own mistakes. That's human nature. If (and I stress *if*) the poodle's owner was at fault, I seriously doubt she'd own up to letting her dog poke its head through the hole. On the other hand, I'm wondering how the council can claim it happened on private property. If she's walking on the COUNCIL STRIP doesn't that imply it's not privately own land? I'd definitely agree with that. The fact that she said she had to run over to the fence suggests to me that perhaps the poodle was not actually on lead. Either way, it's certainly very unfortunate. I'd be interested to know why the vet could/would not sedate the poodle or if the injuries were as severe as they sound, PTS immediately- it certainly sounds as if it warranted emergency care.

that's what I was hoping too From the article..

This report says the little poodle did not put his nose through the fence but that there was a hole. That's interesting. This is why I just think fences should have no holes, whether someone sticks something through in stupidity (which we know they do) or whether your dog sticks its head out and bites someone on the footpath, why risk it? The owner claimed her dog was just sniffing the grass. I imagine there would be considerable difference legally between a dog (or a part of a dog) leaving its property to attack another dog and a dog that is defending its own property against a dog (or a part of a dog) that is intruding. The cynic in me can't help but think the woman let her dog stick its head through the gap in the fence and when the dog was attacked, claimed it was unprovoked* and that her dog was outside out the offending dog's yard. *In my opinion, allowing your dog to wander onto the property of another dog is provoking an attack.

Have you tried Haughty McNaughty? Erica makes everything custom so if you wanted unlined, you could have unlined.

Fences are there to keep the resident dog in and if the bars and wire are sufficient to do so, then that is all that is required. A dog sticking it's head, paw or leg through or under someone else's fence, is likely to suffer an injury if the resident dog doesn't tolerate other dogs. That's how I feel about it. My fences are all suitable for greyhounds but in the back corner of the yard, there's a narrow gap from the odd angle of the corner. A greyhound can't fit any part of themselves through it but the neighbour's small, yappy dog certainly could. In the end, we had to fence off a chunk of our yard to keep their dog fully on their property because if one of my dogs had bitten the rude, yappy little monster, one of my dogs could have ended up the subject of a story like the one in the OP

In the Launceston city council area, it's the base fines (dog at large, no collar, no rego tags, etc) and then a daily fee. For many people on lower incomes, this prices them out of reclaiming their dog, unfortunately. The council doesn't seem interested in working with owners to help address the problems- the dog escapes, it gets impounded, the owner can't afford release fees, the council kill the dog, the owner gets a new puppy, rinse, repeat. In Launceston, unidentified dogs get three days before ownership is transferred to the RSPCA (where less than half will make it out alive). You'd think, if councils were serious about dog management that they'd be doing more to prevent the problem of straying dogs, rather than just collecting the unfairly high fines once it happens.