Maddy

Maybe not Nic... think PIAA and their "accredited" pet shops, kennels, etc... Policy looks great on paper only... T. If ethical rescues are directly involved in the drafting process, the results would be very different, I'd imagine. Comparing a group representing rescue and a group representing an unethical means of selling animals is like comparing apples and oranges- one is already working only in the interests of profit whereas the other is working with welfare in mind. Being accredited really shouldn't be as simple as paying a yearly membership fee. Most rescues are pretty transparent on the policies and if you know a group's policies and whether or not they conform to the accepted standard, selecting members really isn't that hard. Edited for typos

There's Confessions: Animal Hoarding, by Animal Planet, if memory serves me correctly. Also one other series that I forget the name of. Some of it is very interesting but there really should be a disclaimer here that a lot of it will be very distressing for dog lovers.

I've been of the opinion for a while now that perhaps rescue does need regulation. For example, there's a group down here (we'll omit the name for the time being) who are doing some very unethical things- things that will have an impact on what I do. I'd rather not have more paperwork to deal with but if it protects the reputation of my breed and rescue in general, sure, I'll cope with it- because at the end of the day, the dogs benefit. With groups like PR, I don't see anything changing. You can only educate those who are willing to listen and learn. When education fails and legally, they aren't really doing anything wrong (because blame can always be passed elsewhere), the options for dealing with the issue become very limited. If I was a rescuer up in NSW, I'd be pushing for a rescue org like DRAV and from there, lobbying for legislation of the industry. It's sad that it has to come to that but clearly, it's now needed.

Nope. They placed an unknown dog into a home with a cat not so long ago all the way down to VIC. Thankfully I tracked down the new owner and she has an idea of how Greyhounds can be and has taken steps very carefully with her cat (and appears to be cat safe). Shear luck IMO. It's times like this I really miss the rolly-eye guy. The answer was fairly obvious though, I suppose- judging from previous debacles involving that group. The way they're going, rescue is going to find itself trapped in very restrictive legislation in the usual poorly thought-out government effort to crack down on a problem when the horse has long since bolted and the issue makes it to some tacky current affair program.

If they're now rehoming greyhounds, I just really hope they're bothering to prey drive test before releasing to the public

In the case of a livestock guardian defending stock against predators, I'd say you'd be safe down here. On the other hand, your dog grabbing a rabbit in your house yard would be an entirely different thing.

Killing a possum or a cat would not be considered reasonable defence of person or property. Same with killing birds (and try keeping those out of your yard- we have a bird killing foster at the moment and there's really nothing we can do to stop it, short of draping a huge net over the entire property- which the council wouldn't allow anyway) Edited to add.. In Tasmania, as I've also previously mentioned in this thread, vermin are not excluded so a dog that kills a mouse or a feral rabbit or a starling could be declared dangerous, just as if it had killed someone's pet.

I agree completely. I can't remember if 'protection of persons or property' is in there. It certainly is already in NSW and I'm assuming other states, and would stay. This would only mean if the dog escaped and killed someone's cat out in public or on their property. I agree (having two indoor cats myself) but the law doesn't. Not here in NSW anyway. Cats are able and allowed to roam. And while I believe all cats should be contained I'm not convinced it would be law. If it was, Council officers would be spending all of our time seizing wandering cats and putting nuisance orders on the owners, taking them to the pound... there'd be no time left to implement this proposed legislation. You're missing the point that the 'Dangerous Dog' title in NSW and I think most states is not exclusively human aggression. It encompasses aggression towards other animals as well. If someone's dog killed your dog would you want them to be declared dangerous or would you say 'It's ok, don't declare them dangerous as they're not human aggressive so I wouldn't want to lump them in with dogs that harm humans'. A dog that has killed someone's cat after escaping is dangerous towards people's cats. A dog that has killed another dog is dangerous towards dogs. A dog that has killed a human is dangerous towards humans. A dog can have all three or just one, but either way - if they have done the deed they are 'dangerous' under the eyes of the law. This isn't a new proposal at all. Your profile says you're in Tasmania, the TAS dog control act says: *snip* I assume you didn't read my post above where I mentioned what the laws were in Tasmania :) I'm well aware of them as, by Tasmanian law, both of my GAP-assessed greyhounds are dangerous dogs, by the definition of the term in Tasmanian law. It's not just a matter of preventing escape (my dogs have never escaped and harmed anything), rather that it's virtually impossible to prevent other animals from coming into a suburban backyard, even with fencing built with the purpose of excluding other animals. We have had other animals come into our yard and our dogs have killed them- this is through no fault in management- to access the dogs from the street, a person or animal would have to go over or through three gates, one of which has child-proof latching (and two of which can be padlocked). The law as it currently stands means that my dogs (or any similar breeds of dogs) could be slapped with a DD declaration for doing something that the breed was bred for, on its own property, when the other animal had entered without the consent of the owner of the dog. The AVA recommending this policy to continue, of ignoring certain breed behaviours (when they should absolutely know better) makes no sense to me. It's exchanging BSL for legislation that will put certain breeds at a severe disadvantage through generalising behaviours- which is no better than BSL (generalising behaviours of a breed).

Fair enough if the dog jumps into the cat's garden and kills the cat. Not fair if the cat jumps into the dog's garden (after spending a couple of weeks annoying the dog from the top of the fence). Cat owner should have kept its cat indoors/in its property.... it works both ways. cats should not be out roaming the streets, just as much as dogs shouldnt. That still wouldn't "excuse" the dog though. The dog's owner becomes responsible for the safety of other peoples' pets which, in my opinion, is not fair. For greyhounds (and many other breeds) chasing small animals isn't an abnormal behaviour, it's what they were bred for. Lumping them in with dogs that harm humans is ridiculous.

You just can't compare the danger posed to cats with danger posed to humans, they're two entirely different things. If all dogs that would chase (and possibly injure a cat) if they got the chance were to be declared potentially dangerous dogs, the ramifications would be severe. In Tasmania, a dog that attacks any animal may be declared dangerous, this includes vermin- does this consider prey drive, breed or purpose? No, obviously it does not. Part of the problem with the proposal is the generalisation of definitions, without considering that a dog can kill something without there being any aggression present. Prey drive is prey drive, aggression is aggression, a dog that chases cats is not necessarily a dog likely to attack children.

And another issue that just came to mind.. For rescues who deal with dogs with higher prey drive, where does this leave them, legally? If I assess as greyhound as being not cat-safe, it would have to be rehomed as a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog. No adopter is going to want to own a dog that has to be kept in an enclosure and handled like a legitimately dangerous animal :/

Just finished reading this and while some of the proposed solutions are great, the proposed definition of dangerous dog had me really worried.. Where would this leave a lot of sighthounds and other breeds with higher prey drive? All of my own greyhounds would kill a cat if they got the chance but they're certainly not dangerous dogs so far as public safety goes. Prey drive and aggression aren't the same thing so lumping them together is very unfair.

We try to crate train all our fosters. When you're feeding 4+ large dogs in the smallish area, crates can make it a lot less stressful for everyone (and a lot safer). I wouldn't push a dog to accept a crate though, some adult dogs just don't feel comfortable with the confined space so if that's the case, we leave it at that. When it works though.. :p We had one dog that would rush to the crate if I walked too close to it and pose himself in front of the door, waiting to be let in- he was just trained with marrow bones and excluding him from it when there was nothing valuable (in terms of food) to go in there with him. We're currently crate training a greyhound puppy and so far, the only issue we've really had is getting him to come back out when we ask him to. I think the issue there may have been that we made the crate too appealing- it's a soft crate with a memory foam crate mat, a layer of vetbed and then a large cushion bed up the back- so for a greyhound, not much incentive to get up. We also don't shut the door unless we have to go out briefly (and can't take him) or when he needs some quiet time. The cruelty issue really depends on how you crate and why you crate. I'm sure there are people who misuse the tool but then, same goes for check chains, head halters and plenty of other training tools. If the dog is happy, I see no problem with it. PETA seem to be against it just because it involves a cage, of sorts, and a restriction of "freedom". Of course, coming from people who kill dogs to "free" them from oppression.. meh, even if they were making good points, they lost me at "PETA".

For the houndy people :D This little guy was surrendered to us at 14 weeks old, blind in one eye and so not suitable for racing. He's Cosmic Chief x Kyra Shiraz. First night at home. Most of that night was spent picking fleas off him. He also came with bonus hookworms

So sorry, Teebs I think it's human nature to go straight to the "what ifs", even when you've done everything right and given him the best chance he could have. He was a lucky dog to have such a great owner, just try to remember that.

No idea what a slinky is supposed to be but it's easy to pick out the sloughi anyway by the dry muscling. The other looks like a greyhound with heavy masking on the fawn.

I think ignorance of breed-specific laws would be a pretty common thing, unfortunately. In Tasmania, greyhounds have a couple of specific laws (not just for muzzles) and I doubt many people are aware of them, besides those who have to know (like trainers of racing dogs). It's possible that the pound employee was aware of the law but had read it incorrectly. In Tasmania (and I assume other states), a greyhound may be unmuzzled in a public place for the purpose of showing, trialing, etc, meaning that a showbred greyhound could be unmuzzled in public, if it is participating in a conformation trial.

I have found some of the worst offenders are the educated and well to do professionals. Wonder what their back yards look like. Probably pretty clean, if it's all out on the footpath.

I've noticed a very definite trend when it comes to people picking up after their dogs- I live in a very blue collar area and I don't think I've ever seen dog poo on the footpaths around here when out walking my dogs (and dog ownership in this area is VERY high, in our street, almost every house has at least one dog). Compare that to the area my mother lives in, a very desirable white collar area, and the footpaths are a minefield of poo- despite one of the streets having several (upmarket) outdoor cafes on it. Never fails to amaze me- they have enough money to buy a chorkie-maltipoovalier but not enough money to buy poo bags..

Interesting to look at the rest of the life of a bloke who'd behave like that. Callous brutality towards animals tends to go along with callousness to humans. While that's probably often true, I think for some people, it's easier emotionally to harden themselves and not see the dogs as living creatures. Much easier to dispatch a "thing" than it is to kill a dog. That said.. I don't think that long-term, it really does much to help people cope with the job in a healthy way and the end result emotionally is probably far worse once the defences wear thin. I have a lot of sympathy for people who have to do such a job on a daily basis- I agree, HA, that suppression of strong feelings is what lies behind the mental strain & even post-traumatic stress syndrome which eventually comes through. Apparently, it can also be manifested in physical health problems. You took my comment about the relationship with callousness towards people out of context. I was specifically talking about a person who'd be observed to be overtly brutal and callous....as in the example given. That demonstrated likely lack of empathy, not just temporary suppression of empathy. And there has been relationship found between lack of empathy for animals with lack of empathy with humans. That would not be true of the majority of people involved in the task of PTS of healthy dogs....who'd have to develop all sorts of ways of coping with what UQ calls 'a heartbreaking task', as you rightly pointed out. I think it's still arguable that what appears to us as callousness could well be someone else's way of coping with a job that emotionally, would be extremely damaging, regardless of support received. If I had to guess, I'd say a fair few of those sorts of people originally got into the job because they liked dogs and over time, the working conditions have forced them to emotionally remove themselves entirely. Either way, it's not a good situation and ACOs who get to that point really need to replaced before their handling of the dogs becomes a welfare issue. I see a fair bit of callousness and rough handling with the breed I rescue and it's not even seen as a bad thing, generally. It's just the accepted way of doing things. Which is something else to consider. What us crazy dog ladies see as brutal, unnecessary handling, people with a more utilitarian view of dogs see as being an acceptable way of managing/handling.

Interesting to look at the rest of the life of a bloke who'd behave like that. Callous brutality towards animals tends to go along with callousness to humans. While that's probably often true, I think for some people, it's easier emotionally to harden themselves and not see the dogs as living creatures. Much easier to dispatch a "thing" than it is to kill a dog. That said.. I don't think that long-term, it really does much to help people cope with the job in a healthy way and the end result emotionally is probably far worse once the defences wear thin. I have a lot of sympathy for people who have to do such a job on a daily basis- I've had to hold a few foster dogs as they were put to sleep and even when it's done as a last resort and with much love and respect for the animal, it still hurts. I don't believe that humans have souls but each time you have to hold an animal as it passes, something dies a little more inside. For those sorts of roles, councils should be funding support for their pound employees. It'd help with staff retention and probably improve the pound environment considerably.

Let me just find my surprised face.. Damn it- totally need the rolley eyes guy. But yeah.. I'm not at all surprised by this. If PETA put as much time into rehoming the animals in their "care" as they did into these campaigns, maybe their kill rate wouldn't be at 97%.

Our adoption fee is $200 but with costs going up, it's likely we'll have to increase it as we're already running in the red (which isn't ideal). I think adoption fees are something that's also decided a bit by breed. Popular breeds can support a higher fee and the same seems to apply for puppies.

Seems like a very rich meal for any dog, any time of the day. Those were my thoughts, too. Heart is a rich meat, combined with all of those other things, the recipe sounds overly complicated but not especially good. Also, I wouldn't be feeding pork mince or bothering with the cottage cheese if she's already getting yoghurt, the extra protein source really isn't needed there.

We use a bacterial spray like this one- http://www.vetnpetdirect.com.au/BACELIM?sc=9&category=162637 Clean the area of any solids very thoroughly (but without using any cleaning products, just paper towel and then chux cloths) and then soak the area with the spray. Give it a few hours, go back and resoak the area, using a scrubbing brush to lift the pile of the carpet to make sure you get it all. Leave it to dry overnight and then go back and clean with a regular disinfectant, using paper towel to dry it so that the carpet doesn't get marked by the water. We had a hound vomit up half a kilo of chicken necks onto our cream-coloured carpet and this method of cleaning got the area spotless, no smell at all left behind (besides the smell of the disinfectant, not much to be done about that). We also use the spray on dog bedding- our dogs like to eat in their beds (rollie eyes guy goes here) and on coats before washing them. It's also actually safe for use on animals.