Maddy

As per title. I had an enquiry from a couple wanting to adopt a particular dog from us but as they're very far away and the dog in question has been rehomed anyway, I was hoping to find a closer group to refer them to. They live in Bali so ideally, NT (or northern QLD, if nothing closer).

We've had a grey with one on her back and removal was.. accidental Was grooming her with the ZoomGroom while washing her and the rubber nubs snagged it and pulled the top half of it off. For whatever reason, the top half had lost its blood supply and when it did come off, there was no bleeding and no sign of any discomfort. She was rehomed with the lower half of the tag still there and as far as I know, the new owners used the knot method to get rid of what was left. Skin tags are something I'd be careful with as they can really get big, really quickly.

I'd be keeping a close eye on it. We recently had our oldie at the vet for a similar issue- he'd caught the nail on something and damaged it slightly. Nail got infected, a few rounds of ABs and painkillers, still not right. Ended up having to have the tip of his toe amputated which showed the infection had spread to the bone. Through all of that the nail was kept clean and he spent 95% of his time upside-down in his bed so even with the best care, sometimes things will get worse without aggressive treatment.

Even things like mince can be pretty good for cleaning teeth if it's frozen first. I usually stuff mince into chicken frames and freeze them but rolling the mince into a tight ball and then freezing it also works well. I've watched my own dogs eating frozen mince and they gnaw with their incisors but also get at it with their molars to try to get bits of meat off so it seems to do a very decent job. Our oldest dog is ten years old and although there is some damage from his diet before we got him, he still has all his teeth and the condition of them is quite good. We also give them antlers and wallaby hides to chew on. The wallaby hides are gotten fresh, cut into pieces and then frozen for a week to kill anything on them. The fur is left on the hides and they're not processed in any way. We've had several dogs choke on rawhide so I don't feed that at all now, in any form.

I've noticed that a lot of the grain-free foods usually make up for the lack of grain by using heaps of vegetable which may work for some dogs but in others, it will result in huge poos, a very noticeable increase in gas and the dog being constantly hungry. ToTW seems to be like this, even though it looks really good in theory. I feed mostly raw anyway but if kibble is needed, I'd be sticking to something like Ziwipeak (grain-free) or Wellness (contains grains but was tolerated very well here, better than Royal Canin or Black Hawk). Couldn't find an ingredient list for the VIP products but I'd be reading that carefully to see how much meat you're actually getting there. VIP foods, in my experience, are pretty rubbish.

Since the new site launched, I haven't had a single enquiry. Just to check that emails were getting through, I sent myself one and also checked the message section on the PetRescue site. That seemed to be working fine so I can only assume that there actually haven't been any enquiries at all. Very disappointing Looks like it'll be necessary to go back to listing dogs on a variety of sites.

I'd disagree with you there. If general health were so poor, it would be reflected in life expectancy. How long they race for doesn't have much to do with their form but how young they're started and how quickly they grade out. We have dogs surrendered to us (many, many dogs) at less than eighteen months of age. Sixteen months of age is about usual for a majority of our dogs- these dogs haven't even finished devleoping (and they're already with us) before their bodies are placed under those massive amounts of strain. The obvious result of this is going to be injuries that might end the dog's career (most of them break hocks or do their shoulders in the training leading up to trials or actually at trials). Assuming they make it to physical maturity, keeping your dog in is still very hard. Nominations for each race are at least double the box numbers so if your dog can't perform against a highly competitive field, it gets graded down. And down. And then out. For the dogs that grade out, the majority are perfectly healthy, they just couldn't compete when there are so many other dogs (which means you have a higher likelihood of dogs who run faster than average). Of the dogs we get, they tend to fall neatly into two groups- Under 2s (injuries from starting too young) and the 3-4 year olds (healthy dogs, rarely any injuries or history, just not a Brett Lee so not worth bothering with when they have twenty other pups in their kennels to start on). We see the odd retained testicle (usually from dogs purchased from the mainland), we've had one overshot jaw (dog from QLD) but for the graded out surrenders, health is generally excellent or if there are issues, environmental rather than genetic. Even if we assumed those conditions you listed were common (which for the numbers being bred, they're actually not) - compare SLO with HD. SLO can't be tested for without removing the last bone of the toe and there is no evidence to suggest it is an inheritable disease. HD on the other hand.. easy to check for (doesn't require any amuptation, anyway) and usually genetic and easy to control if you're breeding from dogs with low scores.

Certainly. But pointing out that people who breed for function sometimes neglect form isn't really a reason not to assess function as part of the standard. It's a whole other issue (but as I've pointed out, one that is less common down here now and becoming rarer as breeders gain access to reliable testing before breeding (because even if a test costs them $500, it could end up saving them much more- as I said, even someone with the most suspect ethics can be easily motivated by what's coming out of their wallet) and neither excuses the other or should be used as a defence for poor breeding practices.

Obvious faults are obvious faults though :p Things like the undershot jaws tend to lead to serious dental conditions anyway (because the exposed teeth are often dry) so if you were interested in preserving your breed for function, you'd neuter pups from that breeding and remove the parents from your program. Not all racing breeders are interested in doing the right thing by their breed, just the same as not all show breeders do the right thing by their breed. A lot of racing breeders I know are very careful with their breeding as a litter of puppies that aren't fit for racing can end up costing them literally thousands of dollars (money is a great motivator). Greyhound neuropathy is a good example of that- if such a disease appeared within dogs that are potentially worth so much money (which depends upon their form and ability to function), it would be removed quickly and very efficiently. Compare this to the show greyhound population where they had a rate of at least one in four dogs carrying the defective gene for neuropathy- which is disturbingly high for a disease of that sort. Where you have dogs being bred for function (especially function that is potentially incredibly valuable), it pays to get it right and so many of them do. I have my issues with the racing industry but I'll give them this much- they've not just preserved form* but also function and genetic health. *Have a look at photos of coursers pre 1900. It's not the exaggerated, overly slender/tall/frail-looking dog that some people consider "correct" for greyhounds. The dog below is fairly heavy-set, his chest is deep but it's not halfway down his forearm and he lacks the long, exaggerated neck. More importantly, the dog is a winning courser- his pedigree is here- http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?i=83947 Edited to add.. totally forgot where I was going with that. Anyway, there's virtually no difference between coursing greys and racing greys today. I've had plenty of dogs who looked just like Fullerton in shape so obviously, that form is the ideal (as it's still around after more than 100 years, rather than bred out)

This is so true, I met a working line BC the other day, a guy had bred the same lines for generations, I swear she looked more like a lab cross BC, she was tall floppy eared, short hair big square head with one black patch on her butt and the rest was white. He swears she's from his best lines and purebred...I was perplexed. I spoke to someone who's seen her work and he said she was amazing to watch. What works best for some things (in terms of shape shape, etc) probably isn't what we actually have- appearance is given a certain amount of priority and we end up with dogs that look the part but aren't really ideal in terms of ability to function. If a different shape works better than an accepted shape then it might be safe to assume.. you know, the different shape might be the better one to focus on. Also.. as a someone else already pointed out.. form follows function. So (as I said at the end of my previous post), if you lack the function, you eventually lose the form or it gets exaggerated into something that doesn't reflect heritage.

Dual registered greyhounds are all racebred dogs who are also registered to show. Show bred dogs can't be registered to race, I tried cause I wanted to course one of mine. If the Tassie dogs were all over the shop it might have had a bit more to do with incorrect training, plain lack of ability etc then the fact they were also registered to show. There are dual registered greyhounds that have shown and raced and won. I think you missed my point- it's not what they were bred for (that bit is really beside the point)- the dogs conformed to the physical standard but despite this, lacked the ability to function as intended. So even if they were physically "correct", they weren't actually good examples of the breed. Sort of like having a BC that is scared of sheep- it can look great but at the end of the day, if it can't do what it is bred for, continuing its lines isn't doing the breed any favours because you'd be losing your function (which dictates your form).

Funny you should say this because I've noticed the opposite to be true. Take muzzles, for example. I've only ever seen one "needle nose" in Tasmania (Panterka's hound) and if I recall correctly, he was actually from US lines. Every greyhound I've had here has had a faily broad muzzle and short head when compared to what seems to be the average in the US. Obviously breeding makes a difference there- if you're breeding for speed, your greyhounds are going to be broader but generally, in Tasmania at least, we don't really see those lean, light greyhounds much. As for which shape is correct, for the purpose of live coursing, I'd think the heavier dogs would be the correct form. From what I've seen of live coursing (with muzzles on), the hare is usually caught within a matter of seconds, handlers run in and pull the dogs away to let the hare go again and rinse/repeat. The dog would be relying heavily on that initial acceleration ability that comes from thick muscles, rather than the ability to move fast over longer distances. I think it's interesting that there's a real trend towards greyhounds with muscling that is almost dry when they were never intended to be a dog with great endurance. In other sighthound breeds, for their purpose, that ability to keep going was necessary but for chasing a hare in an enclosed paddock.. no.

While I'd generally agree here, I've seen plenty of fast greyhounds that had no real prey drive. If a dog is bred for the purpose of chasing and it lacks the drive to chase, it's not fit for function, even if it looks the part and can physically move as required. There's a couple of dual-registered greys down here that were the laughing stock of the racing people when their owner started entering them in races. They could run fast enough to qualify but last I saw, one had actually been stood down from all tracks in the state. They might have "looked" correct but a greyhound that meanders all over the show when chasing is not going to catch the hare (whether it's real or otherwise). Compare this to our current pup- he has a kink in his tail, he has cocked ears that don't look like they'll correct and generally speaking, he looks coarse. He'd likely do terribly in conformation which seems wrong to me, given his appearance (right down to his coat pattern) is identical to his father (out of Brett Lee- and a very successful racer). Personally, I think some breeds would be much better off if function was tested, at least to some degree.

Salt from the tears would save on seasoning, works out well really. Also, I wouldn't worry too much about cutting down the dog's regular meals, rabbit is really lean so your dog would have to be working hard to get fat on it (and if he's catching bunnies, he's probably getting a bit of exercise). I'd definitely worm though and also keep an eye out for fleas and ticks. Rabbit fleas are gross Personally, I'd discourage hunting of rabbits if you have other wildlife about as they dog may not see much difference between rabbit and possum or wallaby.

Your assumption is simply incorrect. I'm home most of the day- I let the eldest hound out in the morning to go to the toilet.. let him back in a few minutes later and then that's usually the last I see of him until he decides to emerge at around 10pm for his dinner. He knows I'm home, he knows other dogs are home, he doesn't care because he has better things to do (i.e sleep) At this point, I'm afraid I have to point back to my first post- you're not in this thread to learn, you're in it to assert your own moral superiority and to tell other dog owners that their dogs aren't happy or as well cared for as yours (which is incredibly rude and presumptuous).

My greyhounds aren't caged all day nor are the vast majority of greyhounds I know. However most racing greyhounds are. There are a lot of pet greyhounds around nowadays. I meant racing greyhounds, I've never met a pet greyhound, apart from a few used for hunting but they were also caged. EDIT: Actually I have met a couple of pet Greys but they were at the vet so I have no idea how they were kept at hoe but I imagine inside :) Thing is, even if a pet greyhound was "caged" all day, I doubt they'd suffer much for it. My eldest hound is "caged" (no crate but there's something blocking the entrance) in the front hallway for about 23 hours a day and he's very happy with that. When we first got him, he had a bed in the loungeroom and wasn't happy there- we tried moving his bed to different places and finally tried the hallway, he was immediately much happier. It's blocked off to give him privacy (and to keep HellPuppy out) and the only times he leaves voluntarily is for toilet or dinner. Out of the house he's quite outgoing and friendly so there's no concern that he's scared of wider spaces, he just appreciates having his own space that others can't intrude on. He's not really the exception either, from what I've noticed. One of our other hounds has to be moved to the front yard if I'm doing anything in the run as otherwise, she'll go in, hop into the bed there and not move (the run is usually kept closed as that way it's clean and ready if we need it). Had another dog who'd run to his crate and wait for the door to be opened and plenty of others who'd get into crates and then be impossible to get out again (until they felt like moving, which for a greyhound, tends not to be that often). I think tolerance of crating/penning probably depends a lot not just on the breed but also the individual dog. Some don't cope, others have to be pried out of their crates with treats or promises of walks. To say "it's cruel in every situation because no dog would choose that for themselves.." well.. tell that to all the dogs who do choose it for themselves.

Well, no- it wasn't just a question. Here's an example of a question.. "Why do some people crate/confine their dogs for extended periods of time?" and here's a bit of what you wrote.. "If this is all the time you have for a dog, don't have one" (admittedly edited so that I can read it without cringing). There may have been a question in there (except really, there wasn't- it was using the question as a vehicle for judging others) but the presence of a question does not excuse passing judgements and making assumptions about the way other people care for their animals.

Unless you grow and then kill your own meat and grow your own veggies (if you feed them veggies), you don't actually know what they're ingesting. We get our meat from a local supplier and I know exactly what my dogs are ingesting That's one of the advantages of buying from someone who isn't just selling the food but also producing it- we can find out every product or chemical that goes into the sheep/cows/chickens we buy just by asking (the meat itself is entirely free of any additives) and we even know where the animals are living prior to slaughter (as well as where they're slaughtered). The meat is inspected by the DPIW and all things considered, probably safer and better quality than almost any meat you'd be able to get for human consumption. Suggesting that it's impossible to know what you're putting into your dogs unless you raise and slaughter it yourself is a lot of a stretch - besides also implying that perhaps many primary producers are putting things into meat that we would object to if we knew about them. That kind of paranoia isn't generally warranted- buy your meat from a decent local producer and you won't ever find your steak tainted with melamine or tinfoil hats or whatever. Bringing the topic up in a thread about the proposed use of plastics in kibble just makes no sense- the products used in the raising of livestock are thoroughly tested, have witholding periods where necessary and are used to keep animals healthy (rather than products shelf-stable for ungodly periods of time). A somewhat angry and over the top response. Besides, the use of antibiotics in food production animals and HGPs in cattle are well documented. Are you a denialist that they're used? Or are you just happy to have your dog filled up with them? See, two can play at this game and imply tin foil hattedness. Certainly, if you live next door to a farmer, etc. ABs are mostly used for prophylactic purposes in intensive farming situations but again, they're subject to a withholding period and their use in smaller holdings (where cattle aren't kept in confined quarters) is usually limited to individual treatments for specific conditions (as prophylactic use in those situations would simply be a waste of money- the potenital sources for infection are much fewer). Withholding periods on based on the amount of time it takes for AB residue in muscle tissue and blood to dissipate so that at slaughter, levels are negligible. Use of ABs is also controlled and treated cattle must be recorded (for the purposes of testing before slaughter, etc) Regarding HGPs, again, their use is highly regulated and in some states (such as Tasmania), their use is banned entirely in cattle. So no, I'm not a denialist, I'm just aware of my local laws regarding livestock production My initial response wasn't angry, by the way- perhaps your tinfoil hat is on the fritz? Typo You came across as pretty darned angry, totally offended in fact, given you felt you had to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist just because I said that people don't know what's in food unless they produce it. That emphasis on exactly . It's nice you trust your farmer but you getting hysterical over one minor comment just makes me think you're just having an unnecessary tanty. Whatever. Try adjusting the input regulators

Unless you grow and then kill your own meat and grow your own veggies (if you feed them veggies), you don't actually know what they're ingesting. We get our meat from a local supplier and I know exactly what my dogs are ingesting That's one of the advantages of buying from someone who isn't just selling the food but also producing it- we can find out every product or chemical that goes into the sheep/cows/chickens we buy just by asking (the meat itself is entirely free of any additives) and we even know where the animals are living prior to slaughter (as well as where they're slaughtered). The meat is inspected by the DPIW and all things considered, probably safer and better quality than almost any meat you'd be able to get for human consumption. Suggesting that it's impossible to know what you're putting into your dogs unless you raise and slaughter it yourself is a lot of a stretch - besides also implying that perhaps many primary producers are putting things into meat that we would object to if we knew about them. That kind of paranoia isn't generally warranted- buy your meat from a decent local producer and you won't ever find your steak tainted with melamine or tinfoil hats or whatever. Bringing the topic up in a thread about the proposed use of plastics in kibble just makes no sense- the products used in the raising of livestock are thoroughly tested, have witholding periods where necessary and are used to keep animals healthy (rather than products shelf-stable for ungodly periods of time). A somewhat angry and over the top response. Besides, the use of antibiotics in food production animals and HGPs in cattle are well documented. Are you a denialist that they're used? Or are you just happy to have your dog filled up with them? See, two can play at this game and imply tin foil hattedness. Certainly, if you live next door to a farmer, etc. ABs are mostly used for prophylactic purposes in intensive farming situations but again, they're subject to a withholding period and their use in smaller holdings (where cattle aren't kept in confined quarters) is usually limited to individual treatments for specific conditions (as prophylactic use in those situations would simply be a waste of money- the potenital sources for infection are much fewer). Withholding periods on based on the amount of time it takes for AB residue in muscle tissue and blood to dissipate so that at slaughter, levels are negligible. Use of ABs is also controlled and treated cattle must be recorded (for the purposes of testing before slaughter, etc) Regarding HGPs, again, their use is highly regulated and in some states (such as Tasmania), their use is banned entirely in cattle. So no, I'm not a denialist, I'm just aware of my local laws regarding livestock production My initial response wasn't angry, by the way- perhaps your tinfoil hat is on the fritz? Typo

Unless you grow and then kill your own meat and grow your own veggies (if you feed them veggies), you don't actually know what they're ingesting. We get our meat from a local supplier and I know exactly what my dogs are ingesting That's one of the advantages of buying from someone who isn't just selling the food but also producing it- we can find out every product or chemical that goes into the sheep/cows/chickens we buy just by asking (the meat itself is entirely free of any additives) and we even know where the animals are living prior to slaughter (as well as where they're slaughtered). The meat is inspected by the DPIW and all things considered, probably safer and better quality than almost any meat you'd be able to get for human consumption. Suggesting that it's impossible to know what you're putting into your dogs unless you raise and slaughter it yourself is a lot of a stretch - besides also implying that perhaps many primary producers are putting things into meat that we would object to if we knew about them. That kind of paranoia isn't generally warranted- buy your meat from a decent local producer and you won't ever find your steak tainted with melamine or tinfoil hats or whatever. Bringing the topic up in a thread about the proposed use of plastics in kibble just makes no sense- the products used in the raising of livestock are thoroughly tested, have witholding periods where necessary and are used to keep animals healthy (rather than products shelf-stable for ungodly periods of time).

Update.. Test results came back yesterday, nothing there that indicated SLO so we're in the clear :D What he did have was osteomyelitis in the first bone, presumably caused by an injury to the claw (bacterial and fungal swabs came up negative) so.. it looks like the old man just injured the nail somehow. He had his stitches out yesterday and everything has healed nicely.

What I cannot gather, other than some kind of call for group outrage, is the point of some of these threads AT ALL. Hence my (I thought polite but apparently uncaring and unwelcoming) suggestion that perhaps we've had enough of these theads IF they serve no purpose other than to call for gasps of outrage from members. It's like all the gasping in horror and outpourings of outrage that goes on with FB folk who insist on sharing shocking photos of abused animals. Yes, we all know it happens but you "sharing" a photo doesn't make you a warrior for animal welfare. What it does is distress people. This I will actually agree with. I avoid Gumtree because the piles of BYB litters are just depressing- I know this, everyone else knows this- we don't need to be told something is depressing when it's been said and done a thousand times before. Posting ads for the purpose of alerting rescues is fine by me (as I said earlier) and can help dogs. Posting ads just so people can gawk and indulge their inner keyboard warrior is even more depressing to me than the ads, themselves.

Nearly every greyhound I've fostered has done it. Both of my own hounds do it and our grey pup is already starting to do it, too (which is not great because he's going to be a huge boy when he's older and visitors are already a favourite target)

I'm of the opinion that posted in the right place, those ads can be a good thing. For example, I rarely look at Gumtree (because it irritates the hell out of me) so I would likely not see greyhounds being listed. Potentially, one of those dogs could be one I have adopted out. So far as I know, every dog I have rehomed is still with the family who adopted it but.. sooner or later, the law of averages suggests one will fall through the cracks and if that happened, I'd want a chance at getting the dog back. That reason aside, we've also contacted trainers before who've advertised on Gumtree and let them know about us. In every case, they either weren't aware of us or didn't think to contact us because they didn't think they could afford a surrender fee (which we don't actually charge). Because of someone checking, we've saved three dogs- and likely many more to follow from trainers who'll now know they have other options than PTS when they can't find the dog a home themselves. I agree that the random "Look at this person who breeds chipugorky-shitpoos omg how horrible" is annoying and serves no point but not every thread is like that.

I get mine from Greyhound Products Direct. The price is pretty good ($16.95 for 2kg so at least $10 cheaper than many other places) and they have a lot of other good products (not just for greyhounds) that are also cheaper than you'd find elsewhere. Service is fast and very good- last time I ordered from them, they gave me a call to let me know my order was confirmed and when I should expect it.