Maddy

Same. One of my greyhounds loves (fairly rough) slaps to his lower back and thighs and will keep coming back for more until he gets told to go away (and it'd certainly be rougher than the "kicks" Cesar Milan dishes out). Kind of like all the cat paddling videos on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FPghV3YFK8 Edited to add.. It's a lot about the context of the hit and where it's placed, I suppose. If I were to tap Kiff on the nose (even quite softly), he'd be very upset. Or.. if I were to raise my voice and then try to tap his back end- different context, totally different response to it. Re-edited to add.. The video linked up there is totally innocent but some of the "suggested videos", not so much. So.. possibly NSFW.

I wouldn't use an extendable leash at all for walking but for off-lead areas, I have a tracking lead. The tracking lead I use (bought it here) is actually slightly thicker and heavier than Kiff's regular lead (so there's no chance of it breaking) and it only gets used in the off-lead area so that he can sniff around away from me without actually being off-lead. It also means I can get him back near me quickly if someone comes in with other dogs. That said, even with the tracking lead, he only gets a few metres of it. His safety is my first priority on walks and this includes making sure he can't harm another dog accidentally or be harmed by another dog unless that dog happens to be right near me (in which case, there's not much more I can do to protect him, besides carrying a large stick).

Have to agree with this. Greyhounds can be annoyingly intelligent (our current foster figured out how to climb part-way up a tree to be able to look over the fence at the neighbour's dogs)) but as far as training goes.. the best we've ever managed was teaching a few how to sit (and even that was a struggle). Greyhounds learn things very quickly (especially when it relates to stealing food) but they just aren't interested in doing silly tricks to entertain someone else. If anything, I'd say this makes them even smarter

We got our dogs a Hound House and although it costs a bit more than just a flat trampoline bed, it's been well worth the money. The cover is made of canvas so it can be re-proofed to keep it waterproof and you can buy weather flaps to keep the rain out (although I don't think I've ever seen the inside of ours wet anyway). The base of the trampoline bit is a thick mesh so even if the mat got wet, it'd likely dry out very quickly. http://www.houndhouse.com.au/ They're $200+ from the manufacturer (if you get the larger ones) but if you check Ebay, you can sometimes get them there (new) for about $175.

One very sound reason (again, in my opinion) for not rehoming until the dog is out of the "cute puppy phase" is the issue of impulse buying based on looks. It's how pet shops sell dogs and from what I've seen, happens in rescue, too. An adult dog (or at least an older dog) is not an adorable bundle of fluff that someone "just can't say no to". An older dog is going to be closer to the adult size, closer to adult appearance and the reality is, it's the dog you're going to have in a few months time anyway, once the puppy grows out of cuteness. Puppies may well be easily to sell than adults but I don't think it's always for the best reasons. Also, the argument that (presumably) this is an recommendation from the AVA is ignoring the fact that (again, presumably) the AVA is also recommending dogs undergo weekly vet checks. Just because the AVA recommends it, doesn't mean it's necessarily in the best interests of the dog or the right thing for rescue. Up until 2009, the AVA were still recommending annual vaccinations for dogs and cats. By this argument, anyone who fosters could be considered just a "serial dog owner". Take on a new dog (a novel, exciting new thing in your home), enjoy the experience of having a new dog around for 6 to 8 weeks before passing it on to someone else and getting your next shiny, new toy. Personally, I could think of nothing worse than a home constantly managing puppies and puppy behaviour, I imagine it's something that'd take a lot of patience. Puppies aren't all cuddles and fun and even the most committed "serial dog owner" is eventually going to get sick of cleaning up puddles in their house (likely before they've even finished fostering their first dog- if someone isn't capable of the commitment involved in raising a dog and keeping it as an adult, how long are they going to put up with the more annoying puppy behaviours for? Not for long, would be my guess.

I had a look through the puppy pages and found what I assume was the listing mentioned. After looking at their website (and photos of puppies that were advertised as being "silver"), the colour looked to me like a blue merle that just had less patches of darker blue than the puppies that were marked as being blue merle. I then had a look at some of their adult dogs and.. there were a few dogs with the same mostly pale blue colour of the "silver" puppies. These were listed as being.. blue merle Safe to assume the silver is just blue merle. The breeder's motivation for advertising them as an unrecognised colour is anyones' guess.

The usual walk I do with Kiff is just under 8km but it takes us about 2 (sometimes 3) hours to do now. He's starting to get a little old and curmudgeonly and has taken to just stopping in random places for a rest (one of the least pleasant random places was the middle of a busy intersection ). Obviously I don't have time for it every day though so it's just a few times a week. He's also started to lose weight as he's gotten older so the walks are less frequent and slowly getting shorter. Give it another year or so and he'll probably just want to spend all his time sitting out in the front yard and yelling at the neighbour's children if they walk on his lawn.

A dog that is considered not suitable for desexing could still be provided the socialisation needed (outisde the home) without placing their health at any risk. In my opinion, locking away a puppy during its critical socialisation period (for human socialisation) has greater long-term risks for the animal and will only decrease the chances it will pass temperament assessment and be suitable for rehoming. In regards to puppies, I'm of the opinion they're far better off developing in a foster environment with proper socialisation and training in place than being rehomed as adorable 8 week old puppies to the average home where they (so often) end up with issues that become increasingly difficult to manage (before the issues finally become too much to handle and the dog is dumped as a young adult- ending right back in rescue's lap). Personally, I wouldn't rehome a dog until it was 6 months of age. I understand that in larger rescue it's not always possible to keep dogs that long but the longer, the better. Rescue shouldn't be just about rehoming as many dogs as quickly as possible but ensuring dogs that are rehomed stay rehomed. Edited for typo

I think the thing is that unless caught (ie, shot) in the act, there is no proof that this dog was the one murdering livestock. It could have been some other neighbour's dog who's killing the animals. Shooting a dog while protecting your stock is one thing, shooting a dog that's tied up and THEN not even putting it out of its misery is cruelty. From what I understood of the OP, he fired once at the dog, wounded it and then fired again, killing it. His intention was not to hurt the dog but to kill. If everyone who ever had to use a second bullet on an animal was hauled into court, the RSPCA's lawyers would be very wealthy people. That aside, I doubt that the farmer would've shot the dog in the manner he did if he hadn't been entirely sure it was responsible for the attacks on his stock. For all we know, he may have been unfortunate enough to witness those attacks.

Exactly. I know of two dogs who were shot for mauling sheep when they'd escape the yard at night. By day, these dogs lived with cats and a small baby and were lovely, gentle dogs (I used to see these dogs most weekends and both had lovely natures). By night, these dogs were slowly killing about ten sheep a visit before they were finally caught in the act and shot. The owner of the dogs was furious and demanded compensation as she did not believe her dogs were capable of harming stock The shooter in this case could've probably gone about this thing a little better but.. the fact of the matter is, the dog had obviously been allowed onto the neighbouring property at some point. If the farmer had shot the dog while it was busy mauling his livelihood, would people still have so little sympathy for him? Why is a sheep's life worth less than a dog's?

I've read it very thoroughly and I still disagree. Their definition of a juvenile (as far as I could find) was simply "puppy". At the very least, this needs to be elaborated on. Even assuming they mean fairly young puppies, I still don't think it's appropriate. Providing the dog has been vaccinated, I don't think there's much benefit to the dog in keeping it locked in someone's backyard for weeks, if not months. I'm not suggesting that foster carers should be encouraged to toss the puppy in a dog park but there's benefit to be had from positive experiences of the outside world. Puppies go through several important development stages before six months of age and to miss out on important socialisation periods when there are a variety of safe ways to make the most of them just doesn't make any sense to me.

I guess it's in their best interest to paint themselves as being a lesser contributor while putting all other sources into one group (despite the huge difference between a puppy farm and a breeder) and saying, "There you go, it's their fault, not ours." Edited to add.. What should be included (but never will be) is that virtually all of their dogs come from puppy farms or BYBs and so if a group is going to be lumped with another, it should be them with their suppliers. So.. Puppies bred/sold through registered breeders.. 66,000 (according to Austerra) Puppies bred/sold in puppy farms and BYBs (through pet shops and private sale) .. 384,000 Their number looks considerably less innocuous now. The fact of it is though, regardless of what we think of them, is that they are selling limited numbers and that the greater majority of dogs are not being sold by them (and as we know, not by registered breeders either) and yet the focus and money is spent on battling pet shops. Wouldn't it be more logical to focus on where the damage is being done? Pet shops have sold animals for as long as I can remember and we haven't always had the issues we have now. We have unwanted dogs in the numbers we have because of society attitudes and because of unlimited and unrestricted breeding of dogs. I'm not suggesting they do sell more than they've admitted to, just pointing out that when you lump groups of suppliers together, you can make any party look guilty. Fact of the matter is, pet shops are supporting puppy farms by buying their "products". If pet shops weren't buying, puppy farmers and BYBers would lose a considerable amount of business (and a very easy way to offload product without the public ever having to see how the dogs are raised and cared for).

I guess it's in their best interest to paint themselves as being a lesser contributor while putting all other sources into one group (despite the huge difference between a puppy farm and a breeder) and saying, "There you go, it's their fault, not ours." Edited to add.. What should be included (but never will be) is that virtually all of their dogs come from puppy farms or BYBs and so if a group is going to be lumped with another, it should be them with their suppliers. So.. Puppies bred/sold through registered breeders.. 66,000 (according to Austerra) Puppies bred/sold in puppy farms and BYBs (through pet shops and private sale) .. 384,000 Their number looks considerably less innocuous now.

Selling puppy farm puppies has finally had a negative impact on their image now that the public knows pet shop puppies don't come from some magical puppy box of loveliness? My heart bleeds for the PIAA

No. At this point, I'm going to assume you're just trolling. Welcome to Ignore, please enjoy your stay.

Again. This does not mean "The point below no longer applies if a vet says otherwise". It's perfectly clear. If exceptions were to be made, they'd be clearly included in the code, exceptions are not implied. For example..

We were originally looking for a dobe but we wanted it to be both a rescue and a purebred (which just wasn't possible to find down here). While looking for dobe rescue groups, I came across GAP and even though it wasn't quite the temperament I was after (I wanted something with a fair bit of work drive), they're great dogs and a lot of fun to have around. Next time around, it'll probably be a Belgian Tervueren. They have the long nose (something I was never keen on before getting a greyhound- now everything with a shorter nose looks wrong to me), the drive I want and the energy to actually train.

How does it read that? And then it lists points.. one of those points is.. So, you can remove the animal from the foster carer's premises, but only to either return the dog to the organisation or to take the dog to a vet. It does not say "A foster carer can walk the dog in public, after the vet has given the dog the okay." If you're referring to this.. And Table 2, it relates to animals kept on the premises of the organisation, not to foster carers.

Quoting the entire proposal doesn't change what's being suggested any more than taking out bits to use as examples. The last thing I quoted from that document means foster carers would be unable to exercise their foster dogs outside of their own yard or take them to promotional events. I can see the reasoning behind that (public safety) however.. it's not addressing the actual problems.

Assuming this goes ahead, rescuing dogs in Victoria is going to become a very expensive job. Not cheap. Also not cheap. And all the other stuff I can't be bothered picking out- operating a rescue is going to be almost impossible for smaller groups without much in the way of income. I'm assuming this one means exactly as it sounds- and if that's the case, wtf.

If you want support, it might be a good idea to (calmly- no one here is having a go at you) explain what is being proposed and how you would like to see it implemented (for example, the context- are you talking shelter dogs, existing pets, breeders?). I know I'm not alone in feeling that to sign something without being fully aware of the actual details or implications of signing is very unwise. So.. if you could answer these questions, I'm sure others here would really appreciate the information. What is the target group of this campaign? Is this going to be (as suggested by a few others) an initiative where pet owners can bring their animals in voluntarily for free desexing? Or are you suggesting all animals that go through the pound system are desexed? It's not made clear, from what I've read. Assuming it's pet owners, would this desexing be voluntary? Anything else would involve legislation and I think we can all agree that the RSPCA should never be left to things like that. I'm all for encouraging the RSPCA to actually use some of the money it collects to benefit animals but you really need to be clear about what you're asking for people to sign, especially when it involves that group and desexing.

I'm a little bit confused here.. Is the point of this petition to give the RSPCA the power to enforce the desexing of pets? I'm not sure about other states but down here, nothing gets released from their shelters entire (unless it's being claimed back by owners) so.. this would have zero effect on anything. It's not that I don't trust the RSPCA (*cough*), I can just see huge potential for problems when deciding what can remain entire and what can't (as far as existing pets and what-have-you). Edited to clarify something Re-edited to clarify a bit more.

Although it probably sounds like a stupid law, it's there for a good reason and helps keep the state provisionally free of Hydatids. Our laws relating to seizure of dogs are fairly similar in that the council can enter your property (and your house, if they apply for a warrant) and seize any dog on the property with nothing more than "reasonable belief" (not evidence, just belief :p ) that the owner has committed an offence required.

I wouldn't allow a child the responsibility of managing my doddery, elderly greyhound, let alone a large (and growing) dog with a far harder temperament and much greater physical strength. I'm all for encouraging children to learn how to safely interact with dogs (and "safely" involves parental supervision, at all times) but a child that young simply isn't going to have the skills required to correctly train a dog. If I were the parent of a child who wanted a dog, I'd be making them do a few years worth of homework relating to dog ownership, training and behaviour first. At least that way, if you then choose to buy them a pet once they're old enough for the responsibility, they already know what's involved in caring for the animal.