Maddy

Dried is dried, not cooked so not too much different to feeding raw bone. Having said that.. much lower water content means that you do have to be sensible about the amount fed. We sometimes give our dogs dried ox or roo tails as treats and have never had a dog choke or even retch on them. Compare this to rawhide chews- choking seemed to happen so often that I developed a technique for pulling pieces of rawhide out of throats quickly and with pretty minimal fuss (although obviously don't feed them at all anymore).

I feed our hounds late in the evening, for a few reasons. Ours eat raw (and not everyone eats their dinner quickly) so we don't want food sitting out while it's warmer. During the day there's also flies and birds so it's just better for us to feed them after dark. They also seem more interested in food then anyway and tend to sleep better overnight if they have a full tummy. The pup gets two meals a day (and likely will for a while as he needs twice daily medication) but the adults do very well on just the one.

Except late at night, silently, when their bums are right near your head.. I'd be including things that are sort of.. anti-"facts", if you get what I mean. Like how people think greyhounds are "the oldest breed in the world" and "mentioned in the bible" when neither of those things are actually true (but very widely believed).

A decent disinfectant (Equinade smells fruity and good :D ) mixed with hot water, scrub it out thoroughly. Then, a bit of F10 or the like and leave it to dry. Personally, I'd also spray it out (after washing) with some permoxin just to be extra sure but that depends on whether or not you have cats (as permoxin can't be used around cats).

They sure can. On vet advice I gave my cat the recommended dose of serapax when she had a lull in labour in between kittens but was very unsettled,late at night. She went ballistic Attacked my legs & barred the door every time I moved, I couldn't get out of the room for ages. It was so scary. She was not having contractions or struggling but the drug sent her crazy. When I managed to get out using a pillow to guard myself I had to check her through the window. She gave birth to a big, dead kitten the next morning. I tried giving her the first 2 kittens back, which I had put with another nursing mum & she was aggressive with them too so I took them off her. This cat usually has the most beautiful, friendly & loving nature & has been a good mum before so I can only conclude it was the drug. They don't always have the expected or desired effect. Does the same thing in humans, too. Even alcohol can cause it (and very often does). We recently had a murder up here where the guy had taken 20+ diazepam, 5 temazepam and then washed that down with enough alcohol to drown a bull elephant. He kicked his girlfriend to death, doesn't recall much of it though (surprise). Personally, I'd avoid using depressants in dogs unless I really had to.

There's something wrong with this argument. Just a bit. Ebola virus was first seen in humans in 1976. HIV was first observed in 1981. And so on and so forth. When a disease first appears, the results usually are very severe as the host has not had a chance to develop any natural resistance. Rabbit calicivirus is a good example- when first introduced to Australia, it killed a lot of wild rabbits. However, enough survived to develop resistances and so rabbit populations recovered. Ditto myxomatosis. The difference with dogs is that their populations and breeding are controlled by humans so dogs are vaccinated, rather than simply being left to live or die with the disease. If we were willing to suffer massive loses for a few decades, dogs would probably develop some resistance but we'd risk losing entire breeds in the process and there's still no guarantee of resistance sufficient to protect dogs from the disease. So, vaccination is the best option until we come up with something else (which probably won't be any time soon).

If they weren't a registered business complying with the code, most of those charges were probably minor points- sizes of pens, manner of waste disposal, flooring used, etc. I'm sure if it were actual cruelty, my FB news feed would have been stuffed with people re-posting the graphic images (taken by AA or the like) of neglect for me to have to wade through for several days.

I was under the impression it just lowered inhibition, not actually caused aggression itself (if you get what I mean). We've got a pup on phenobarb at the moment and between long naps, he gets very hyperactive and does a lot of mouthing. Unlike his normal softer mouthing, it's very hard and if you try to withdraw yourself from the play, he gets upset and even more bitey (sometimes to the point of getting himself into a bit of a frenzy). Most sedatives are going to have that particular risk though.

This. We have a bomb-proof foster boy at the moment and he's been incredibly valuable in working with the new foster with dog issues. What would normally take us months to resolve has taken a couple of weeks with virtually no setbacks. Having said that.. I don't think I'd be doing that for a stranger's dog as it just wouldn't be worth the risk to my own dogs. We do it with fosters because we need them behaviourally sound for adoption and it's done carefully to ensure the bomb-proof dog is never stressed or upset (as I'd hate for him to develop problems, he's an amazing boy). I'd also agree with perhaps suggesting names of suitable trainers/behaviourists to the owner.

Almost entirely raw meat. We tried Barf and it didn't work for the greyhounds. We've also tried them on VAN and the look I got when I offered it.. "Why do you hate us?" was enough to convince me not to bother ruining their dinners with that again. I suppose we probably feed closest to prey model- meat, bones, green tripe, some offal and fresh wallaby skins. Why.. they do very well on it, they don't drop condition over winter, their coats looks awesome, teeth look good, they enjoy eating it and it's not full of rubbish. I don't think I could ever go back to feeding kibble now that I've seen the difference.

You went off on this tangent to start with To be blunt here, this thread is beginning to feel like a typical Dol "welcome" thread. The sort of welcome that involves people jumping in to pick at the the OP once they see others doing it (I'm looking at you, MUP) and the usual "guilty until proven innocent" attitude. This woman is looking to help and she's being treated like a pedophile applying for a job as a babysitter. Christ..

I'm looking at how these tough restrictions will be perceived by the public. I made no comment about the actual nature of the dog. I'm of the opinion that sugar-coating the potential risks a dog poses is not good for anyone. I'd also be very wary of adopting a dog out to someone who didn't fully understand what the breed was capable of. Public perception is important but then, allowing the public to believe the breed is generally safe with cats is not going to do the breed any favours when people take risks that they wouldn't take if they been made fully aware of possible outcomes. I have never heard of that level of restriction on adopters before and understand why it might be interpreted as the dog being unsafe. You are going way off topic now accusing others of sugar coating the truth because we find it unusual that so many harsh restrictions would be put on adopters. If a greyhound isn't cat safe, placing it in a home where there are cats living next door is placing those cats are considerable risk, it's as simple as that. The fact is, those dogs are probably potentially very unsafe for neighbouring small animals but despite this risk, such placement it is considered acceptable. Public perception should never trump actual safety of animals. As for the restriction being unusual.. it probably shouldn't be, given the risks we are taking with other peoples' animals.

I'm looking at how these tough restrictions will be perceived by the public. I made no comment about the actual nature of the dog. I'm of the opinion that sugar-coating the potential risks a dog poses is not good for anyone. I'd also be very wary of adopting a dog out to someone who didn't fully understand what the breed was capable of. Public perception is important but then, allowing the public to believe the breed is generally safe with cats is not going to do the breed any favours when people take risks that they wouldn't take if they been made fully aware of possible outcomes.

Oh wow somehow I missed this part. I have never placed an aggressive dog ever in my life I had them put down. This was a precaution we took above and beyond all the testing we did. I am not sure where you got that we were re homing aggro dogs. That level of restriction on new owners raises the question of how aggressive the dog would be to require such total separation. I think you're being a little unfair here. The OP has already stated the dogs were safe to rehome. The reasoning for such separation being reducing the risk of an accident that might negatively impact on the breed's reputation. As I've pointed out, most greyhound rescues wouldn't consider such a rehoming policy despite the fact that we're placing cats at risk.

what happened if they moved? Look at GAP and GSN closely. Might not be any need to reinvent the wheel. GAP are the only ones who can issue a green collar in Victoria. And what if neighbours changed, bought a new pet, had someone to stay with a small pet and so on? I would consider such aggressive dogs - no matter what breed - to be unrehomable. They would be euthanased in my rescue - that would be the responsible thing to do because no matter how hard you may have tried, you are putting a very aggressive dog back into the community which is placing everyone else and their pets at risk. I didn't see where Greylvr stated the dogs were actually aggressive though. If the dogs pass all testing but that requirement is still there just to be extra careful, I can see no issues with that. When we ("we" being greyhound rescuers in general) rehome non-cat safe greyhounds, we're taking a risk with cats that might belong to neighbours of the new owner and that is generally considered acceptable. Personally, it worries me and I advise aopters in that situation to supervise and muzzle for the first few days to give the cat a chance to learn of the new arrival in a way that is less likely to result in a dead cat. Getting back to something Greytmate said.. Taking from a single trainer is not something I'd consider doing. I have a trainer whose dogs I really like (because they're always cat-safe and in beautiful condition) but I'd never turn down a dog from somewhere else. In fact, if we got two applications to surrender at the same time, I'd probably take the other dog first because the responsible trainer is more likely to be willing to hold a dog. I'd prefer to reward the better trainer by taking his dogs first but the sad reality is, that would result in more dogs ending up dead (and I think he understands this). I can definitely understand prefering to source intakes from a trusted individual but as greytmate points out, there are definitely implications there so it's something to think about very carefully as essentially, you're turning yourself into a private rehoming service for one trainer (rather than a rescue).

We have a foster at the moment who occasionally eats small rocks but so far, everything has been passed. At one point we suspected a blockage and he was x-rayed but that came up all clear (ended up being a back problem- he looked like he was straining to toilet so we assumed blockage, turns out squatting was just uncomfortable because of his back). I'd definitely to blocking access to the area though and cleaning up poo as soon as it happens.

Legitimate question here, because I honestly don't understand this.. What is the difference between an adoption fee and an adoption "donation" (of a set amount) that you have to pay?

I would assume they do more. I cant speak for all but I wont just get a dog and place it. IMO you have to have some time with the dog especially since sometimes dogs into a new home can act very differently day one then day 12. A lot of times in my experience the behavioral probs don't come out until the dog feels comfortable in its new place this is why its important to me to have a dog in a home environment for a bit. I am not saying any rescue who doesnt is bad but just throwing my 2 cents in. Thanks Greylvr.... I'm interested in different people's opinions on this. I volunteered to foster a few months ago and the whole experience was awful It felt like I was just lumped with a dog (that no-one from the rescue had met) and had no support at all. I will never foster through that group again & may not foster again at all due to that experience (which sucks because I really wanted to help). It wasn't pound rounds but now that I look back not sure if maybe they are associated with them.... This is just my opinion but.. foster carers are a bit like adoptive homes. Not every foster carer will be suited for every dog and dogs should be placed so that carers get a little bit of experience with something different but without pushing their abilities or making it a negative experience. I think it's also incredibly important to provide support as foster carers aren't easy to come by. A group that mistreats foster carers is a group that shouldn't be in rescue at all. Down here, finding suitable foster carers is painfully hard, it seriously irks me when other groups don't realise how good they have it and take for granted the very people who support their entire rescue. Personally, I'd name, shame and then move on. There are some awesome groups around that would appreciate your help.

I'd like to believe that but I can't help but feel it's a bit of a cop-out, if you get what I mean. We probably can't know everything but we have a responsibility to try to. When we fail, the consequences can be terrible- not just for our own groups but for rescue as a whole. Still, I suppose failure can be a positive thing. As a result of that failed rehoming, adoption policies were looked at very carefully and they've been changed to ensure (as best we can, anyway) that it won't ever happen again. That's about the best I can do but I have to admit, it still doesn't satisfy me

It took plenty of mistakes to get to this point though- lots of them I could have avoided if I'd known what to watch out for. Also, if you're in Victoria, might be worth having a look here- http://www.drav.org.au/

While I'd agree with you on most of those points, it does depend on whether or not the rescue plans to do anything different to existing groups. There's another greyhound rescue group down here but we operate very differently and with different goals. I could have just fostered for them but I have vastly different ideas as to what makes an ethical group and there would have been conflict (to put it nicely :p ). Obviously this might not apply to Greylvr's case but it's something to bear in mind. I know there are a few groups who keep dogs mostly kenneled but some adopters might prefer dogs who have actually lived in a home environment- I know I certainly would. Yep - totally agree. And I also agree on the home environment thing, I would definitely rather a dog that had lived in one, particularly since I have a small dog. I don't know that much about GSN - basically I have read their website.. but if I were to foster Greys again, I would go straight to them. If you were situated on the other side of Melbourne, it might even be a different story, but GSN is based in Mornington anyway. One of the things that would prevent me from starting a rescue is establishing what happens when it all goes pear shaped. What if you rehomed a dog and it killed the family's other pet? Or bit someone? What happens if they destroy a foster carer's couch? Or if a foster carer (or 2, or 3) change their mind, have to go away, have a family crisis? Who is going to do the temp testing? What kind of behavioural issues are you prepared to deal with? And what kind of support (physical, financial, emotional, etc) are you prepared to offer the foster carers? What if something happens and a bunch of re-homed dogs come back on to your door stop. What if you find out 6 months down the track that it was a terrible idea, you're in over your head and are responsible for a bunch of dogs? How much money do you have as a back up? I'm playing the devil's advocate, I know, but the worst-case scenarios really have to be one of the first things you work out, I think. Issue like the ones mentioned are a good reason for starting small and really focusing on details. A rescuer can't handle these things without some experience but the only way to learn is to actually be involved in a meaningful way, making decisions on placement, etc. I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think it's an easy path to take. I was thrown in the deep end- very literally had a rescue handed to me by the previous (and very inexperienced) "coordinator" and left to fend for myself so it can be done, it just takes a lot of research and time and care. Set out plans for every possible situation and get all your basics down before you actually start taking dogs, that'd be the best advice I could offer.

Not necessarily, HA. Dogs display different behaviours in different environments (and it doesn't have to be a bad environment, just a different one). It's not always something we can see or predict until it presents. The idea of thorough testing and an extended stay in foster care though is to expose the dog to as much as possible to make sure things like that don't slip through. In the case of the dog concerned, it was a situation I wouldn't voluntarily put a dog in because it would be very stressful for the dog and a very negative experience but it could have been tested for (and I regret not pushing that dog further, I might have seen some sort of reaction in a controlled version of that situation that could have hinted at a lower than normal tolerance). There was undoubtedly handler error involved but we do have to account for things like that and try to ensure dogs are as bomb-proof as possible (and if they're not, we need to know exactly how far they can be pushed and what their triggers are).

While I'd agree with you on most of those points, it does depend on whether or not the rescue plans to do anything different to existing groups. There's another greyhound rescue group down here but we operate very differently and with different goals. I could have just fostered for them but I have vastly different ideas as to what makes an ethical group and there would have been conflict (to put it nicely :p ). Obviously this might not apply to Greylvr's case but it's something to bear in mind. I know there are a few groups who keep dogs mostly kenneled but some adopters might prefer dogs who have actually lived in a home environment- I know I certainly would.

It does depend a bit on your situation and goals. For us, we intended to keep it small and didn't expect donations to be much so we decided to become an incorporated association. I can't speak for Victoria but in Tasmania, it's not legal to solicit donations without at least one of them.

I keep my own list of people I wouldn't adopt a dog out to, it's not the perfect solution but it does (hopefully) prevent my dogs becoming some other rescue's problem. The list of compiled from home checks, interviews, etc. Very disturbingly, someone from my list was actually hired to head another rescue group down here. Presumably, they didn't do even a simple interview with the person concerned. I was horrified but sadly, as tdierikx pointed out, not surprised.