Maddy

My experience with the hagglers is that they end up being a nightmare to deal with and it's best to just tell them to look elsewhere, even if they do eventually agree to the adoption cost. My adoption fee is relatively low ($250 for a large breed, vet work alone usually leaves me in the red) and I've had people tell me that if I'm getting the dog for free, I should be giving them away. If someone has a problem with a rescue barely covering costs, they're free to get a giveaway dog from Gumtree and spend a heap of money on vet work and hope to christ the dog fits in well (because if it doesn't, they're s**t out of luck). As for meeting other pets in the family, this seems like a given to me. Even two otherwise lovely dogs can decide they just don't like each other, and wouldn't you rather know that before you brought the dog home? If someone refused a meet and greet or a homecheck, they wouldn't be getting a dog from me.

Until the OP said she she planned to buy the dogs (despite the advice given), I didn't see anyone being harsh or rude. It was when the OP made it plain that she had decided to buy the dogs anyway, that people got a lot blunter. Like I said, these threads never fail to go in one of two very clear directions- either the OP takes the advice on board and looks elsewhere, or they ignore advice and do what they planned to do all along. And then someone starts slinging insults, accusing others of being unkind, while ignoring the irony of their own behaviour

Same old, same old. People come here wanting to have their bad decisions validated by others, are shocked to discover that Dol isn't the sort of place where people will nod along just to be nice, and a flounce ensues. Usually at this point, a Doler or two will come along and say we shouldn't be mean to newer members, and that it's bullying, followed by a merry derailing of the entire thing into a debate about what constitutes bullying. OP, I'm sorry that you didn't like hearing the truth. I can understand that you want to feel like you're doing some wonderful thing by "rescuing" these dogs but that isn't the reality. Threads like these are a dime a dozen around here and they almost always end the same way- with the OP doing what they'd planned to do from the very beginning. And it seems you've fit exactly into the usual, so you'll forgive me if I don't feel the sugar-coat my thoughts.

I'm currently waiting for a maaaaaybe-maybe. I don't want to say too much in case it doesn't happen but it's a breed I've been trying to talk myself out of for years. After losing Bosley to cancer and being personally dogless (the OH has his whippets but they're very much his breed of choice, not mine), I decided I might as well sort of look. In a way that involved not much looking, and mostly just waiting. If it happens, I'll be really happy (I pity my FB friends already, it will be obnoxious puppy photo spam) but if it doesn't, I'll just go back to waiting. Part of me WANTS PUPPY NOW but I'm okay with waiting as long as it takes for it to happen. Months, years, it'll happen when it happens. I've thought about another grey but after Bosley, it feels like.. you know, I love the breed but I can't go there again. Pity, I still have mountains of coats and collars and other lovely things that would fit a grey, but I think that time has now passed. Maybe in ten years from now, when it doesn't hurt so much, who knows. Or if another monger baby comes along, who needs me.. but I can't see that happening.

Yeah, seems to be the case. And for them, probably just as well- if deleting an account was easy, I think their member numbers would drop very sharply.

Is there actually a button anywhere to allow members to delete their accounts? I've looked everywhere but the closest I can find is a mention of being able to put your account on hold, which requires emailing them. They've certainly made is easier for rescues to just leave inactive accounts sitting there, rather than delete them, haven't they..

And completely ignored sensible sun advice, to justify "needing" a blue dog. OP, you need to understand that while you see it as "saving" the mum, in reality, you are simply ridding the backyard breeder of unwanted ex breeding stock. In short, you are doing them a favour and that is supporting backyard breeding. Simple as that. If you absolutely must have these two dogs, I guess that's your business but do not forget for one moment that for your own wants, you have undoubtedly condemned other mums to the same miserable fate. I suspect, however, that you have already made up your mind and armored yourself with a hundred justifications for what you're doing. As a whippet owner, it's heartbreaking to hear about these gentle, people-oriented little creatures being kept in a way that must be hellish for them, treated like just stock to make money, with all of their social needs ignored. And it's even worse to hear another person to claims to love the breed, being willing to perpetuate that abuse

It seems PR have entirely stepped away from their original funding model- accessing corporate sponsorship for running costs (that small rescues wouldn't be able to access anyway) in favour of running on public donations. It's a shame because the previous model appeared to work just fine under Shel, and public donations went to where they actually needed to go: to rescues. I've had people asking me why I'm no longer actively rescuing and they have trouble with the idea that donations have almost entirely dried up for small rescues. I mean, yeah, they personally don't donate, but someone must be donating, right? Right?? Wrong. I can count on one hand the donations I've received in the last two years. Adoption fees are no longer even covering the basic vet work, let alone all the other expenses involved in running a rescue. And now there's PR, hoovering up the public donations for the purpose of harvesting even more public donations, taking from rescues who desperately need that $20 to buy wormers, or that $50 to microchip a dog or even just that $10 to stretch out the food for another week. But hey, we they now have a shiny, new donate button, so that's okay.

Yep. I've rehomed greys to people who have happily paid (and turned out to be massive dickbags) and I've rehomed a couple or greys for free, who were very loved by their sensible, responsible owners. Careful vetting isn't easy- a lot of people will lie or tell you what they think you want to hear- so I think it pays to ask questions that give you an indication of their attitudes towards their pets, rather than just the usual stuff. For example.. while doing a home check, asking if dogs are allowed inside, on furniture, in people beds, etc. If they say that dogs belong outside for whatever reason (they're "dirty", the owners can't be bothered to toilet train, someone in the house is massively allergic to dogs, whatever), you've got your first red flag there and can do further digging. It's incredible how many people want to get a dog but.. don't actually seem to want a dog

My last greyhound was free and he was absolutely treasured. He lived the sort of life many other pet dogs would never get to enjoy and despite being a difficult dog at times, I'd do anything to have those four years over again. In his final days, we emptied our bank accounts of thousands of dollars to try to save him. His purchase cost (or lack of) was no reflection on us as pet owners or how we cared for him and I know of plenty of other people who have done similar. On the other hand, I also know of plenty of pricey dogs who languish in back yards with their coats matted and their nails horribly overgrown. Being willing to fork over a lot of money does not make someone a good pet owner. It just makes them willing to spend money. If someone can't afford to pay a modest adoption fee/purchase price, it would of course raise the question of how they will cope with vet bills, but that's not really what you were arguing, were you? You slapped down a revolting judgement and frankly, if I wasn't trying very hard recently to not snap at garbage people on the internet, I'd probably have a few other things to add to this. Edited to add.. The memorial for our free, clearly unvalued dog. It sits in the room that we built onto our house, just for his use if we were going out for more than a few hours in case he needed to be able to get outside to the toilet. The memorial sits right next to one of his wardrobes, full of his pajamas and his sun vests and his bath robes and raincoats and t-shirts and skivvies and anything else I could buy that might make him a little more comfy in his wonky body. I spent more money keeping my dog warm, than many people would even consider spending on the purchase price of a dog. Free just means the dog didn't cost anything, unvalued can be any dog unlucky enough to be bought by someone who isn't 100% committed to their animal. Have you ever considered that maybe your uncle just didn't bother to properly vet potential owners? Do you know what that suggests to me? That maybe he didn't care where they wenr and that he just wanted them gone. See, judgements work both ways, how fun!

But he has purebred dogs and from memory, he was planning on breeding from the boxer with all the skin problems. Although maybe that was before his epiphany. Or perhaps his epiphany was the result of some harshly learned lessons involving that dog and breeding. Or purebred dogs are some CIA conspiracy to give us all cancer so that Big Pharma can sell us poisons to keep us sick. *Polishes tin foil hat* It makes a lot of sense, really. You have to have faith in his product, because otherwise, it will appear not to work.

In the owner's defence, she absolutely blames herself but it all happened so quickly, neither her nor I had time to react. But she's definitely learned from it and now the dog gets taken out the back when that customer comes in because he certainly didn't learn from it and still insists that everything was under control.

Not only is the assumption of abuse absurd, it's used to excuse problematic behaviour that should be addressed. And I think that's what peeves me the most. Dogs with serious socialisation issues are not having a good time. A family member of mine took on a terribly ill-socialised GSD and every time I saw it, that dog's body language screamed fear, anxiety and misery. It was so wound up and stressed by everything that went on around it, it simply couldn't cope with a life that wasn't an empty, quiet backyard. The dog couldn't handle men, the dog couldn't cope with children, the dog reacted to other dogs with considerable aggression, strangers were incredibly stressful, everything was scary and the dog lived in a 24/7 state of fight or flight. And against all sensible advice, that family member kept the dog and tried to pretend that the constant, stressy alarm barking was normal. Any aggression was excused as "previous abuse". Fortunately for that poor dog, it was euthanised less than a year later, for unrelated reasons. But it just goes to show that with all the educated, sensible advice available to that person (from someone who has dealt with so many socialisation issues, in many dogs), they still couldn't be made to understand. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make a horse a responsible dog owner. On a related note, spending more time at my meat lady's shop has opened my eyes to how incredibly poorly some people interpret a dog's body language. After watching a man almost get his head chomped off by a very stressed and cornered great dane (she's usually a lovely dog and if anything, actually a bit of a space invader herself), it amazes me that there aren't more dog bites. The dog was making her feelings very clear- dog tries to duck past (gets blocked), tries to look away (head gets grabbed), tries to back out of the hands (man follows, pushes his face down into hers), she throws appeasing signals at him, anything, everything: whale eyes, nose licking, head lowered, loins hunched, tail tucked, ears dropped. It all happened so quickly but I was quite sure I was about to watch someone die. Fortunately for the idiot, the dog in question air snapped very suddenly and that startled him enough for the dog's owner to step in. And it makes me wonder how many kids are not learning to listen when dogs are trying to tell them something important. Educating kids won't help in all cases (like this particular story, given it sounded more like prey drive) but it certainly couldn't hurt for children to be properly educated about dogs.

And that's either the result of very bad temperament or very bad socialisation. Or a bit of both. Just "in the house" is not the same as meeting lots of new, different people, in different environments. I get that you dislike the term "fur baby" and dislike the anthropomorphisation of dogs but the fact is, the silly dog in the fur-trimmed jacket who gets carted to the cafe, picks up the kids from school and goes everywhere with its family (even if that's in a pram), is learning about different sorts of people and (hopefully, if the owners understand socialisation) that new types of people are good. You have no idea how many pet greyhound owners tell me that their greyhound was obviously abused because they don't like children, people in hats, people with beards, people wearing red, people on bikes, people talking on the phone. Now, unless the dog actually was abused by some bearded child in a red hat who was talking on his phone while riding a bike, it's much more likely that the dog just hasn't been socialised adequately (something that seems more common in greyhounds, probably because they are a "working" breed) and responds to these perceived "threats" with aggression, if its other options are limited. These are preventable issues and go hand in hand with other owner education issues, such as breed traits.

Asal, I doubt people treating their dogs as "fur babies" has anything much to do with the number of dog attacks. If anything, dogs living inside, as family members, provides far better socialisation than dogs tethered out the back. Closer proximity to dogs means more opportunities for things to go wrong, as does higher density living. But these are unavoidable factors. My dogs are part of my family- they sleep on our beds, they eat our food, they even (god forbid) have jumpers and coats to wear when the weather gets cold- but we are aware of their breed traits and manage them appropriately. One does not exclude the other. Chucking the dog back outside and not referring to it as your fur kid, does not magically educate someone about the dog they own. If anything, it's likely to only make the problem worse.

The death of a child is a terrible, terrible thing but not once in the media coverage have I seen any sensible discussion of what motivated the attack (which sounds like prey drive) or any attempt at educating the general public about those sorts of behaviours. Instead, it gets called aggression, perpetrated by "vicious dogs" or "dangerous breeds". In a way, the gun analogy is apt- the media works everyone up over the issue until the public finally gets bored arguing with each other (always the "deed not breed" folk against the "waaah, anything that isn't a small/white/fluffy is a monster") and then it's onto the next big thing, and everyone forgets. And then it happens again, rinse, repeat. Interestingly, you never see anyone point out that traits make a dog more likely to behave in certain ways We can all agree that a greyhound trait is predatory drive directed towards small animals. We can all agree that border collies are more prone to trying to herd things. But christ on a bike, don't you dare suggest that a type developed for fighting (other dogs or other animals) might be more prone to those sorts of behaviours. If people were actually willing to acknowledge certain traits within certain breeds, maybe we could take a step towards educating people about how to live with and appropriately manage those dogs. Arguing "deed not breed" is the dog version of thoughts and prayers. Not just useless but also kind of counter-productive.

I hate to break this to you but your dog is made of chemicals. The water it drinks? Chemical. The raw meat it eats? Chemicals. The nutrients it requires to continue to exist? Chemicals. Snake oil salesmen like Phivo Christodoulou prey on people with a very poor understanding of science. Any reasonably educated person would be horrified by some of the claims he makes.

To be fair, in this particular case, the OP didn't actually want input into that decision. she'd already decided to backyard breed her dogs. She just needs papers so that she can ask more money for them. You know, because "parents have papers". OP, if you're so good at listening to animals, maybe take a listen at your nearest pound. You hear that terrified screeching? That's a dog being dragged into the prep room for euthanasia. His breeders probably also had some justification for why it was okay for them to breed their "special" dogs, too. If you're not doing anything to improve the breed, you're just making puppies to sell

I have two whippets- one is perfectly behaved around small animals and can be recalled easily. The other one has prey drive than borders on the obsessive (mostly with stalking insects) and I definitely wouldn't trust him around a cat. The trouble with prey drive is that it's not always possible to predict it based on pedigree, and how the dog is raised won't necessarily make much difference. So it could be 50:50 or anywhere in between, considering that prey drive exists on a spectrum. Personally, I wouldn't put a sighthound into a home with cats and other smalls, unless that dog was absolutely bombproof, as far as prey drive goes. This would limit options to adult rescues that have been properly tested by a reputable rescue group, which may not be easy to find.

Or the OP would have been viciously flamed for daring to suggest that there are problems. I can actually remember a few threads about GSDs that got pretty heated, because some uneducated peons refused to believe that a shepherding dog is supposed to have a wobbly, staggering gait and horrendous hips. Said uneducated peons couldn't understand that "correct" doesn't necessarily mean correct for the dog to lead a normal, healthy life. It's a bit like the pug people who say that people who own other breeds can't appreciate the pug's unique conformation, as if whether or not a dog can breathe normally is just a matter of personal taste. I just honestly can't understand why anyone would choose to breed dogs with health problems caused by extreme conformation, or with abnormally short lifespans. I can't see how it's any better than backyard breeding- it can't be for the good of the breed or the individual dogs (unless they are very actively breeding away from extreme traits) so that really only leaves one other motivation, so far as I can see. Registered breeders have every right to fear animal lib and groups like the RSPCA because some of what is going on could really only be described as animal cruelty

Actually, I think we've finally gained a very clear insight into why asal says, what asal says. The RSPCA took a dog from her- whether that seizure was warranted or not, we'll never know, but clearly, asal felt it was not. The deflection is not from purebred dogs or the issue of unhealthy standards, but from herself, as a breeder and a dog owner. Asal didn't breed breed dogs with hernias, luxating patellas or entropion. Asal didn't breed greyhounds that went on to die before two years of age, by the vet's needle. Asal wasn't breeding dogs with skulls so small that their eyeballs pop out of their heads if their blood pressure rises too much. Asal was breeding sensible dogs and the RSPCA took one of them anyway. That is what all of this is about and now that I understand that, I feel sorry for asal because whatever happened, it must have been deeply distressing. That still doesn't make the issues with backyard bred dogs or DDs relevant to this discussion but at least we can see that she's not derailing on purpose. Asal, I feel it's worth pointing out that while we all get it wrong sometimes, a mistake on the part of the RSPCA does not negate the facts of many things we've argued over. You believe you were treated unfairly and that the "average" person is also at similar risk if we do not aggressively defend ourselves from the extremes, and the people who would push their ethics onto us. But the thing about welfare standards is that they'd remove any subjective judgements entirely. In greyhound racing, in dog breeding, in any matter involving animals. Clear standards, clear expectations, clear definitions of what constitutes reasonable conformation for an acceptable quality of life. We could take opinions and ethics right out of the argument. Unfortunately, the ANKC suffers a similar paranoia as you do, and in their efforts to deflect from themselves and to protect themselves from further harm, they have actually made things significantly worse for their members and unspeakably worse for the dogs. Instead of deflecting and getting defensive, they should have acknowledged issues with certain breed standards, set up reviews (in consultation with suitably qualified veterinarians) and just fixed the problems. Instead, they pointed fingers elsewhere, smeared anyone who disagreed with them and did nothing to help the dogs that they make money from.

No one is saying DDs aren't a problem. This is exactly the sort of derailing of arguments that people are talking about. Crossbreeding of dogs for money is bad, no one here is arguing otherwise. But they have nothing to do with breed standards that lead to seriously compromised dogs. Nothing. End of story.

All of this. Deflecting criticism with "But those BYB dogs over there aren't even health tested" is not an argument. I've seen plenty of wonky crossbreds but equally, I've seen registered, purebred dogs that looked like they have no earthly purpose continuing to exist; with legs like a komodo dragon, a muzzle so short that it is almost concave, sucking in gasped lungfuls of air in their painful efforts to continue existing. Who could argue that any of that is good for the dog? If your dog must suffer for its breed to exist, perhaps that's nature's way of saying.. maybe don't? Maybe I notice this more keenly because I have dogs designed to run- dogs that have huge, open nostrils and long muzzles to enjoy all that air with- but watching the average brachy dog run.. it's sad. Sometimes, it's distressing. No dog should be gasping for breath, just from walking. I'm absolutely not against purebred dogs (I own them and I'd be reluctant to own a crossbred), but I can't agree with people breeding dogs that will suffer as a result of their own horrible conformation.

Fido's White and Bright is awesome on blonde hair, and it smells nicer than most human shampoos. Same with the Fido's Herbal Rinse. Dogs don't appreciate pretty smells, yet all of the Fido's stuff I've tried has smelled really nice. It's not fair

My favourite nail clippers actually came from Kmart, about 10 years ago. I have a pair of Wahl nail clippers, several other pet shop brands but the Kmart ones are just better. They're still as sharp as the day I got them and they don't have any of the annoying rubberised bits that cause blisters. Only things I did, was remove the back guard (it's useless and just gets in the way) and sticky-taped the toggle that holds them closed because it was a bit loose and it was annoying me. With the shaving part.. not all the way through to the inner nail tissue, no. The very outer layer is the hardest and this is what you're aiming to thin out. The overall aim is to speed up how the nail wears and this needs to be adjusted depending on how the nail is looking. Some nails, like the outer outside toes (if that makes sense? On the left foot, the extreme left toe, on the right foot, the extreme right toe) tend to wear much slower because of how those toes sit, relative to the ground. For them, I'm pretty generous with the trimming. For the middle two toes on each foot, you can usually get away with less. This isn't the best photo (was actually a thumb nail injury from rip-arsing around the house) but if you have a look at the ends of the visible nails, you can see how far back I was shaving on Bosley- basically just a few mm on him, because that was all that was needed. He didn't mind nail trims at all so they were regular and easy to do. I'd usually just shave a bit around the tip, take the tip off and give the undersides a bit of a scrape out. If I forgot to do his nails for a few weeks (it happens), I'd just go a bit higher for the next few trims. If Thistle's nails are really thick (as a lot of sighthound nails are), don't be afraid to shape them. I've had a couple of flat-footed greyhounds who grew toe pegs instead of nails because of lack of pressure from the ground, and shaping at least makes nail maintenance easier. Basically, same deal as above. Use the clippers to shave away outer growth, always cutting towards the tip. (Sometimes, if I'm trimming a particularly horrendous toe peg, I just snip straight off the top of the nail to get a good chunk of it gone. This is something I'd only do on a clear or horn coloured nail because quicks can be all over the place- some follow the curve of the nail really sharply, others are higher up, especially in toe pegs. Important thing to remember is to try to keep the shape. Last thing you want to do is damage the strength of the nail. Probably also worth mentioning that for sighthounds or sighthound crosses, you're never going to get the perfect little toe nubs that you see on most other breeds, and really, they're not ideal for the sighthound foot anyway. As long as nails aren't touching the ground when standing, just keep plugging away. Having said that.. nails on sighthounds are a bit like hooves on a horse: when things go wrong at the end of the line, it can have huge impacts further up. I had a greyhound returned to me after roughly five years of not having her nails trimmed. Because she was walking back on the pad (forced to, by the length of her nails), the impact of this abnormal gait was considerable. She had arthritis in her shoulders and was very painful- something that was disturbing to see because for most older greys, it's the lower back that causes trouble in old age. In this dog's case, even though I pared those nails back to the stumpiest of stumps (to force her toes to curl down more), the damage was done and irreversible. We got a bit of improvement over several months but she was never completely comfortable after that. "For want of a shoe, the horse was lost" and all that.