Maddy

What could be hotter? One minute, you're sitting in front of your computer, abusing your "alone time" privileges, the next.. watching kitties get ground up into.. I dunno, kitty mulch or something.

My latest foster dog came to us with a yeast infection in both ears (he had literally scratched the backs of his ears bald in discomfort). Two weeks of Panalog ointment (once a day) and it cleared up with absolutely no problems and no changes to diet or supplements were needed.

Sadly, that was my first thought when I read her reply. Also, love how this thread has already gone from helping a family to being all about Squid. What a surprise :rolleyes: Did you read the mother's comments about the dog who killed her child? If she's able to feel something for the animal that did this to her family, I'm sure she's capable of processing the fact that maybe other dog owners aren't irresponsible morons and do want to help her and her family cope through this. Even if she doesn't, what the hell does that even matter? Donations should be to help her family, not push an agenda.

In my opinion, a forum like Dol is exactly the place for something like this to be posted. Dol is a huge, popular forum- in the past 15 minutes, 190 guests have been here- that's 190 people who may have been Googling puppies or considering "rescuing" a puppy from a pet shop.

My sister got two kittens from a pet shop under a variation of this theme "Oh, they're sick and the pet shop was going to have them put to sleep so I bought them to save their lives" She can't even blame a lack of education- I knew she'd been looking for a pet so I'd spent several hours (only a few weeks previously) discussing options with her and she'd agreed rescue was the way to go. And then she gets kittens from a pet shop anyway :rolleyes: Some people can adjust the realities of any situation to make themselves feel better about doing questionable things.

Buy child-sized t-shirt --> Apply to dog --> Find permanent marker --> Write "Yes, he's vaccinated" on t-shirt --> Problem solved.

:rolleyes: Probably for the best.

How do you know she's been trained to guard the baby, and that it's not her natural guarding instinct kicking in. Nothing in the video suggests to me she's been trained for this. Did you watch the second video? She has been taught a "guard it" command. The dog is told to guard something and so she guards it. What sane person would teach their dog to actually attack other people on command? It's the same thing (if not worse)

I think it was fake too I diddnt even bother with the 2nd video, the growls sent shivers down my spines though... The second video put the first clip into context more so it was certainly worth watching. It's just a dog who's been trained to "guard" and growl when her guarded object is threatened. Zipping up my flame suit here- it's just a demonstration of a dog doing what she has been trained to do- growl in certain situations. It certainly looks stupid and dangerous but then.. I believe there are people on this forum who compete in schutzhund, no?

i love working breed dogs. however this is my partners first dog and i dont want to force him into what i want haha. he really likes the greyhounds and whippets etc. i just thought if i got some suggestions i could also let him know what other people have said from experience etc so he has a good base to make a decision. Is your girl a rough or boistrous player? A full on GSD would probably intimidate a Whippet. I can't vouch for Greys. It'd definitely depend a lot on the individual dog. I've had some greys that prefer quiet, solo games (collecting up nice things and arranging them in bed) but a few who've really enjoyed boisterous play and needed a home with a more active breed of dog. One of our current fosters is absolutely nuts about play so we're hoping to find her a home with some kind of working breed (because I have no doubt she'd drive a more quiet dog bonkers :p )

I'd never really thought the costs much until very recently (when the dogs nommed through roughly a quarter of my tax refund and I finally noticed the spending).. Lamb meat- $180 Chicken- $45 Roo- free, otherwise we'd be paying roughly $40 a month Beef- $75 Other bits (bones, heart, etc)- $30 Supplements (Livamol, fish oil, etc)- $20ish Flea treatment- $60 (for four dogs) Wormer- (given every second month but worked out for monthly) $14 (I buy wormer in bulk :p ) So, $400ish for the basics, not too bad for four dogs (that's basically $25 each a week). The other stuff.. (this is where it starts getting messy) Beds/bedding (replacing covers on trampoline beds, new blankets)- $150 Toys and dog treats- $40 Grooming stuff (mostly Malaseb and Aloveen)- $30 Other random stuff (replacing other things used up/chewed/lost, buying particular things for foster dogs with special needs, vet bills, rego, coats, etc)- $250 This month (which we're only halfway through) is already up to $800+ (and we have one dog is who due for vaccs very soon [so add another $65], another half a month of food to buy [$175] and three new bed covers to get ($150+, which will hopefully mean I won't have to buy new blankets all the time). I do rescue though so that definitely bumps up the spending.

Apparently it's just as risky to have your dog without a collar. I guess it's a case of weighing up the risks and your own circumstances and then doing what you feel is right (rathering than claiming that other people are doing it wrong, just because they happen to disagree). For my own dogs, they wear their collars at all times (and their council tags, as if the law here). I'm willing to take the risk of them choking (which over five years, two resident dogs and 20+ foster dogs has never happened) rather than risk them escaping and not being returned to me because they "look" unowned. Do you want to know what I recommend to adopters? Neither. I explain the risks of both choices and allow them to decide for themselves without ever trying to guilt them into my choice (the very thing I took issue with in your post- implying those who choose to keep collars on their dogs are knowingly putting their dogs at some terrible risk). Anyway, kind of off topic. Something about a cat or something

To be fair, it's one less thing to worry about. No more wondering if your dog has been coveting the neighbour's wife or anything like that. I know when I'm out shopping for a BYB dog, the first thing I look for in a puppy is good, old-fashioned, Christian morals. Typos

Greyhounds got missed again D: Added my own, put Harry back in. Edited to add in Juno and Zola

Definitely might be worth putting something in to make them stop running when they get to the ends of the wall, especially when they're going up the hill. Maybe a row of low hedging with one entrance at each end- that way, even if they do accidentally crash into it, they aren't going to get hurt. Although you'll still probably have bald patches at the entrances where there's more traffic, probably unavoidable unless you can find some type of really tough grass (or maybe just pave those bits).

One thing I noticed with our lawn (we don't have much of it and there's always at least three dogs here) is that raw feeding made a big difference to the health of the lawn. The poo from feeding packaged dry food was always very loose and would kill the grass underneath it really quickly- compared to the poo from feeding raw which is small, dry and solid (and doesn't seem to hurt the grass). Now that we feed raw, the grass looks really good (no big, dead patches) and it doesn't get as damaged when I'm cleaning up after the dogs. The other thing that certainly helped was dividing up the yard a bit- when the crazy hounds can't build up as much speed, they don't rip up as much grass. I actually bought myself some of those compost panals from Bunnings today to do a dividing fence right up the middle. The soil in our back yard seems softer and more easily pulled up than the soil in our front yard so zoomies will now be restricted to front yard only :p

You could also maybe try a stronger/different smelling meat. I've noticed Kiff gets bored with his lamb meals every couple of weeks and will just put it on his bed and stare sadly at it. I'd try chicken or roo. For our dogs, chicken is like crack- normally they take food nicely and don't gulp it but when it's chicken wings or frames, you literally do have to watch your fingers. The roo meat they aren't quite so keen on but it does tend to have a more meaty smell than lamb and I've found it useful in getting new foster dogs to start eating raw. It's very lean though so our dogs only get about 20% of their diet in roo (we get the tails from a friend who shoots roo for human food- the tails are quite meaty up the top and have lots of sinew to chew so they can't just gulp them down). Typo

That's ok, the group is for people who do support the use of prong collars, you don't have to join (or use them - the beauty of choice, unless you live in Victoria where you don't have any) I don't use prong collars on my dogs but I believe the choice to use them should be available. I'm not a fan of tools like head collars, but I don't believe ANY tool should be banned - it's a slippery slope IMO and we should be focusing not on banning a tool but proper education on how, why and when to use them. While I wouldn't use a prong collar on any of my dogs, I'd also never use head collars and seeing them on other greyhounds always makes me cringe. That said, I wouldn't support banning either just because I wouldn't use them. I have no doubt that they're valuable training aids for many people and to support the banning of one could (as you've pointed out) easily lead to the banning of things I do use (all our dogs wear martingale collars and we do have an e-stim collar for the rare occasion we get a problem barker- I'm sure the animal rights crowd would consider both to be torture devices). Anyways.. liked your page :D

Let me guess.. none of your dogs is a serious resource guarder? I too can take things from my dogs - but we're not talking about my dogs or yours. Weasels is correct. I'm saying that approaching a growling dog who is warning you off to take something from its mouth is nuts. Better to manage the issue and work on a fix that doesn't involve an aggression incident than be a microsurgery patient... and it does happen. *Eye twitch* Just lost my whole post.. The short version.. Yes, one of my dogs was a serious resource guarder. No, I wasn't suggesting the OP just stick her hand in the dog's mouth and hope for the best- it takes a lot of training to get to that point but that is, in my opinion, the point you want to be able to get to.

In Tasmania, the bodies are disposed of in landfill (although as far as I know, in an area set aside for that purpose, not just tossed in with household rubbish).

Unless people step forward and willingly allow themselves to be test subjects for new drugs then animals are needed. If you have ever taken anything prescribed by a doctor or bought painkillers etc then you have taken something tested on animals. I'm not a supported of inhumane research, but unless we give up modern medicine or people agree to be tested then we need animals in medical research. The funny thing is, you'd get "Oh noes, I couldn't possibly take some untested drug, I might get sick. Maybe first we can test it on.. oh.. wait.." People are happy to protest animal testing but you never see them turning down their insulin, their penicilin or a surgery to save their own lives. Some of them even have excuses for why they can use them (but no one else can). Quoth some idiot who works for PETA.. (and requires daily insulin) "I need my life to fight for the lives of animals." That would be Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA. Even though there is synthetic insulin available, she CHOOSES to use insulin derived from pigs... who are intensively farmed, housed permanently inside and killed for there pancreas'. She's a hypocrite of the highest order. From what I recall, it was one of her minions, although I forget the woman's name. And.. found it.. Mary Beth Sweetland. From here- http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/11/peta-hypocrisy.html

These might be the same as Warley's but anyway.. http://greyhoundtom.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=34

I'd have to disagree with this one. I can take things straight out of my dogs' mouths with no trouble- they know they'll get it back (unless it's a bit of bone that I know they'll have too much trouble with, in which case it gets swapped for a new one, so no loss for them) and no one tries to swallow or growls at me. Teaching a dog to accept having things removed from its mouth, in my opinion, makes them safer; if they're eating something dangerous, you can get it back without a fight. If they've stolen someone else's dinner, you can get it back. If they're choking or having trouble with something in their mouth, no issues with sticking your hand in there (I've had to do this once before and I'm very grateful my dogs are used to this sort of thing). Obviously this requires training but given the ability to tolerate that sort of handling could literally save your dog's life, worth doing. Experiences are only negative if you make them negative for your dog- remove bone, insert treat, praise, give back bone- positive experience for the dog.

Unless people step forward and willingly allow themselves to be test subjects for new drugs then animals are needed. If you have ever taken anything prescribed by a doctor or bought painkillers etc then you have taken something tested on animals. I'm not a supported of inhumane research, but unless we give up modern medicine or people agree to be tested then we need animals in medical research. The funny thing is, you'd get "Oh noes, I couldn't possibly take some untested drug, I might get sick. Maybe first we can test it on.. oh.. wait.." People are happy to protest animal testing but you never see them turning down their insulin, their penicilin or a surgery to save their own lives. Some of them even have excuses for why they can use them (but no one else can). Quoth some idiot who works for PETA.. (and requires daily insulin) "I need my life to fight for the lives of animals."

Who puts a dive belt on their dog when they're bathing it in the pool.. (and who would think anyone else would actually believe the dog drowned in a bath..) If he wanted the dog "out of its misery", surely he could've just taken it back to the vet.. Clearly the killing of the dog was premeditated so it should've been judged accordingly.