WoofnHoof

I think that a lot of people still like and appreciate purebred dogs, they just don't have the exposure to where to get one, and when they see one in a pet shop window they think that is what they are getting. I realized the other day that the magazine 'doggy deals' is no longer around which is a real shame it would have been a fantastic avenue for pure breeders to advertise, I recall seeing some lovely ads in it, I know there were plenty of oodles and randoms in there too but for me the really nice studs stood out and would have been a great way to direct peoples purchasing decisions.

I think that's the frustrating thing about animal shows these days they are built to get ratings and are often targeted at kids and they don't bother educating people anymore it's just about whatever makes 'great tv' whatever that is. I hate seeing little dogs riled up then people think the owners make them like that and it's not true most little dogs can't help but react aggressively when they are treated aggressively -ie a giant hand coming towards their face :D What are they supposed to think when they see that? Bigger, longer nosed dogs have different vision they see the world differently to smaller short nosed dogs, when they see a persons hand coming at them it takes up their whole field of vision they have no idea what they are in for, usually if someone is familiar with little dogs they won't put a whole hand over their head they will approach from the side, having learned that little dogs accept this better. Look up dog vision there are huge differences between the eyes and vision between little and big dogs combine that with the standard temperament of the breeds and you will see why some dogs react aggressively to that type of treatment and some don't.

Thank goodness. ETA: pity they're not also phasing in something like the Weribee pen systems or Ellipsoid crate system for farrowing to replace regular sow crates. Both provide better sow welfare & no more piglet crushings than regular sow crates. However, that would require people to pay more for their pork, since they allow the sow much more room (hence, fewer sows can be farmed per square meter of land - costs farmers more to produce each piglet). As a previous poster mentioned, many consumers would rather source cheaper offshore pork than more expensive humane locally produced pork. So, we can't just blame the famers - we as consumers determine what they produce by what we will pay for. :D Agree there are many options available to farmers to improve welfare but they all cost money, once consumers learn that good welfare costs more they will incorporate it into paying more for a premium product, which many consumers already do - how many of us buy brand name foods over no name because we associate the brand with better quality? The same needs to happen with welfare friendly foods. I don't see why we need labeling laws it is up to the retailers and processors to label effectively we need to start marketing better welfare products as a premium product there is currently nothing stopping brands from labeling their product in such a way as to draw attention to the improved welfare standards under which the product is produced. I also believe that live export should be avoided if possible but until we can convince the export countries to accept processed product I don't see how to improve it.

No not really. I was coming at it from this angle - If I have your child in the backseat of my car and I drive it for the first time after only learning to drive by looking at a text book, would you be happy? The same for me. No way in hell would I let a grad vet slice open my dog if they had only looked at pictures. Still a bad analogy given that there is more to a vet degree than 'looking at pictures', regardless of whether there were non-recovery ops done. I'll say again - no not really. You're not even a vet student so I dont know how you're prepared to slice open a dog, with or without a picture. I'm as capable of driving on the road without training as you are to operate on an animal just by looking at pictures in a text book Now you're not making any sense at all, since I'm not a vet student and have never claimed to be (although I've done a few of the same courses as part of my own studies) I definitely haven't claimed that I could operate on a dog just by looking at pictures (although I don't discount the possibility that some people would be able to do that) . My lack of practical experience certainly hasn't hindered my ability to treat various ailments in horses which brings me to wonder whether non recoveries are done as part of the equine specialization? I suspect not since they are more expensive to obtain but I could be wrong. I'm merely pointing out that a veterinary degree does not have to include non recovery surgeries in order to prepare a student well enough for the tasks ahead - whether that is the optimum or the ideal is debatable (and of course is the topic in the OP) but given that many vet courses do produce vets without the non recovery surgeries it's logical to assume that these are relatively successful given that they would soon develop a reputation for producing crap vets and no one would go there to study. This topic is about whether a university can produce a competent vet without the use of non recovery surgeries, I have no idea how you have extrapolated this out to mean that they just hand their students a textbook and send them on their way to operating on peoples pets?

No not really. I was coming at it from this angle - If I have your child in the backseat of my car and I drive it for the first time after only learning to drive by looking at a text book, would you be happy? The same for me. No way in hell would I let a grad vet slice open my dog if they had only looked at pictures. Still a bad analogy given that there is more to a vet degree than 'looking at pictures', regardless of whether there were non-recovery ops done.

It is impossible to know until you are in that situation, you can have a limit in your head but heaps of other things come in and affect it that you don't think of at the time. I've had heaps of people express horror at the amount it cost to fix my dog (>$7000) but when you have spent nearly $2k just getting a diagnosis it seems a bit pointless to then refuse surgery on the basis of cost alone. For me it was a progression, I had a late night callout fee when he got sick in the first place, on top of that there were x-rays then antibiotics then plasma when he crashed and I thought I was going to lose him. That one incident was $1500 without even knowing what was wrong, then blood tests and an ultrasound to diagnose and the predicted surgery cost was $3-6k depending on many factors. Then of course the trip to Sydney well if you are going to spend that much on an op you may as well go to the best surgeon in the country hey? So it all adds up and every extra cost just seems like a hurdle to jump to get to your end goal - a healthy happy dog. Even though the risks were high once I had a diagnosis it was an easy decision really, the most stressful part was waiting for the bank to approve the loan! Really when someone tells you that without surgery your dog will have poor quality of life and in all likelihood be dead before 2 years of age you just take the chance the surgery will work because the alternative is just too devastating.

Loads of basic principles can be learned from a book if you are that way inclined, personally I learn best watching others rather than doing it myself (visual learning), I learned to give IV injections to the horse that way, lucky for me (and the horse!) horse veins are really easy to find Staranais I know what you mean about the rabbit intestines thing being a bit unnecessary, we had one where they fed something to the rats to change their adrenal glands just so we could pull them out and extract something I can't remember the details now but it was all pretty pointless in hindsight. There are lots of different tools for learning and lots of different ways that people learn, Raz you must think in a totally different way to me as I see learning to use scalpels and needles as skills of dexterity and accuracy rather than the substance they are used on, I suspect in some people it may be psychological they need to feel as though they are working on something real in order to develop their skills whereas others can translate the same skills regardless of the material under the scalpel or needle. It really depends on your style of learning, obviously there are going to be differences between live and dead tissue but ultimately some people will benefit more than others from the use of live tissue.

Thanks for your input Rappie it's interesting to hear from someone whose been though the course without non recoveries, I remember when I did dissections at uni there wasn't that much difference between refrigerated cadavers that had been there for ages and live animals and as you say the skills are applicable across the board whether there is blood coming out or not. They had some dissected hooves at equitana which of course was very interesting but personally I don't see the difference between a real hoof and a picture of a dissected hoof, apart from the smell they have similar educational value. I suppose it depends on your learning style but personally I see no real need to have a smelly dead leg in front of me when a photo in a textbook will show me the same thing. I can and have treated plenty of leg and hoof injuries without having to have pulled apart a dead one.

I can see both aspects and am still on the fence, the biggest issue I have is with the desensitizing that goes on as a part of the training. Having spoken to UQ lecturers I'm of the impression that this kind of sensitivity is frowned on, and that's not something I believe is necessary for the training of veterinary students. Sensitivity to the subject and to the associated ethical issues does not mean you 'can't hack it' as a vet.

Lol I think educating the public is a far more difficult and challenging task than getting them to bully the government into taking on the role but hey go for your life

most charities also don't have policing powers and the powers to prosecute people. we will have to agree to disagree, i have worked in government and all i know is that new responsibilities take years to be put into place. the request in this petition wont take years. is it so bad to ask the rspca to be accountable for what they do and to give people the right to appeal their decisions. It's not bad, I just don't see it gaining wholesale support. There are already government departments which deal with animal welfare inspections and enforcement their role would need to be expanded but that's about it most of it is already in place, they just let the RSPCA do the legwork because it's been convenient.

Raz how many charities are answerable to complaints? Serious question regardless of where they source their money from is there normally an accountability process? The most I've heard from people complaining about charities eg money not going where they say it will the governments line is the equivalent of 'tough titties' and are the vast majority really going to get fired up about the 2% of government money that goes to them? I doubt it. JB I don't believe the general public is going to give a crap because they perceive the RSPCA to be the authority on all things animal, changing attitudes just isn't going to happen it takes years and years. The petition does not have to say the RSPCA is corrupt but it still gives that impression. Sure there is cost cutting in government but they will spend money where they have to and if the petition doesn't get a huge amount of support they aren't going to do anything at all, it would be easier and more effective overall to lobby for increased government responsibility.

i dont believe that it is possible to get government to take on this responsibility as it is not in their interests to do so. however, if the rspca has an external appeals process then they will be more accountable and at least people would be able to appeal against any rspca processes which cannot effectively be done at the moment. goodness even the police have an external appeals process and they need a signed warrant before they can enter your premises Why would then government impose accountability on the RSPCA? What's in it for them? Why would the majority of the general public support a petition to make them accountable when they don't perceive a problem? Far easier to gain support for an expanded role of government (not a new role they already do have a certain amount of responsibility already). A petition relies on numbers and you are going to have a hard time convincing the vast majority that the RSPCA isn't gods gift to animals. I just do not see the point of this as it will be viewed as an attack on the RSPCA, a plea for government to take more responsibility however will appeal to most people including RSPCA sympathizers since the poor RSPCA is taxed beyond it's limits and it's a charity after all trying to do the job that should be filled by government. I think some people are allowing their view of the RSPCA to cloud their view of the issue at hand, animal welfare enforcement should be a government responsibility end of story. Try to look at it from the point of view of someone whose only experience and knowledge of the RSPCA is the tv show and their pound puppy, they aren't going to look favorably to some purebred dog breeding association telling them the RSPCA is corrupt and needs to be held accountable, think about it there are far more people who view the RSPCA in a favorable light than not and you want as much support as you can get so the logical choice is to go for the option that is most likely to gain large enough support to enact a meaningful result. ETA the police are part of a government agency, accountability is a matter of course for every government agency, it would be more impressive if you could name a private regulatory body that has an external accountability system, I can't think of any so without a precedent the goal is even more out of reach.

Why not just petition for animal welfare policing to become government responsibility like every other type of policing? I don't see the point of this petition given the general public are fairly benevolent towards the RSPCA, they aren't going to perceive the inherent problems but they will understand and sympathize with the government shirking it's responsibilities. Far more effective to bypass the whole RSPCA issue altogether IMO.

My boy would go on and off his food, he had a liver shunt so he must have known that eating would sometimes make him sick. If you haven't had full bloods done I would put that on the to do list even though there are other symptoms associated with shunt the digestive issues and poor weight gain are part of it.

I have the same problem with taking my chi out in public kids just have this urge to run up to him and pick him up! The parents can't understand that my poor little dog really doesn't want to be picked up by a strange child though no doubt if he takes off one of the kids fingers I'd never hear the end of it! Ironically enough the wolfy looking husky sends the parents into terrified shrieks of 'don't go near the big dog!!!!' which is a shame because my husky absolutely LOVES kids

I don't agree with running dogs down in a vehicle, basic welfare principles shouldn't go out the window just because someone is desperate to remove the perceived threat. I've seen many animal chases where the pursuants are clearly making things worse as they know nothing about their subject nor the best way to approach and contain it. If police are to be relied upon in these situations they obviously need further training in this area. It's obvious that the current laws are not enforced adequately to get the message across to the people who own these dogs but there also exists an onus on the authorities to conduct their jobs in a humane fashion.

That's great to hear! And kudos to your breeder for getting it checked out for you!

Maybe it is inevitable, for every breeder who does the 'right thing' (assuming we can ever agree what the 'right thing' entails) there are ten or a hundred doing the 'wrong' thing to varying degrees. Since the dog world hasn't been able to effectively weed out the dodgys in however many aeons then it's not surprising that someone else is stepping in to do it. ETA and since those stepping in to 'fix' it don't understand the issues well enough they will bugger it up and chaos ensues.

The poor little mite how awful and chis are so devoted to their owners this one must be so scared to be with strangers

Or maybe French Bulldogs attract high prices due to the high rate of caesarian births and the relatively low sizes of litters. There are *high profile poodle cross* breeders charging those prices for first cross dogs Woof. The type in the "multigen" (this must be the new black for oodle breeders) litters is all over the place still. Have a look at the websites. I'm surprised that they are charging that for first crosses and even more surprised that people would pay it, must be a geographical difference, in my area for that kind of money you'd want a dog that is not only hypoallergenic but poops golden nuggets as well! :D

I find it odd that one of the reasons these multiple-gen LBs are so terrible is because they are overpriced however I find it depends on the breed, my friend wants a French Bulldog and the cheapest she can find is $3k. Is that because FB breeders are unscrupulous and money grubbing or is it because she would be paying for what is a rare breed and a quality animal. Perhaps those highly priced LDs are such because they are true to type (which is a rarity in a relatively young breed) and because they might actually be a quality animal and the result of generations of hard work? I don't know I haven't met any (that I know of) but I find the whole thing very interesting, particularly the perception that development of a new breed is only ok if it's for a working purpose as opposed to a pet.

That happens with heaps of breeds though, I'm always getting asked if my husky is a malamute and my parents vallhund is often mistaken for a corgi cross, not surprising since both breeds have similar backgrounds and origins. There was a whole thread a while back about mistaken identities.

WoofnHoof, I just had to ask, how many Labs have you met? You cant generalise like that. The more Labs I meet (and yes I have owned a few myself), the more I realise they are not the "perfect family pet". People believe too much of what they read. Don't get me wrong, I love the breed but they are definately NOT for everyone nor would I label them "laid back". And i'm not even going to comment on the Labrador x Poodle part of this thread as it makes my blood boil!!! If you read on I did actually revise my laid back comment, it's more that the lab has an all round temp which appears to be popular, yes there are plenty of labs in pound but compared to the vast amounts being bred it seems that their popularity isn't just because they are cute pups. The other popular breed the staffy far outnumbers labs in pounds. When I was very young we had a couple of labs and yes they were very laid back I've also known a few boisterous ones too but overall it's been a popular breed for a very long time so obviously the breed has a lot to offer the average owner.

Where are all these laid back labs? All the ones I know (bar one guide dog, that is) are pretty full on. I know a few laid back ones and a few full on ones, either way they are one of the most popular breeds so they must be pretty suitable for the vast majority of homes. Maybe the reason the poodle isn't as popular is more about perception than anything else but that is a challenge for poodle breeders and clubs to change if they so desire. Sure, but that's for another thread. You were saying, I got the impression so correct me if I'm wrong, that the reason that people want labradoodles is because of the lab temp but wanted them not to shed. But, as you've said above, not all labs are laid back. They may be a perfect family dog but they're certainly not all laid back. Perhaps they're only considered a perfect family dog because people see perfectly behaved guide dogs and expect to get one of those out of the box. Actually you're right laid back is not really descriptive of the temperament I'm thinking of it's more that they are an 'all rounder' type of dog, again it could just be perception but they aren't overly represented in the pounds yet the numbers of pups selling are huge suggesting that the people who get them are on the whole quite happy with them, or at least happy enough that they don't get dumped in huge numbers. From what I can tell from the pound listings here staffys are more highly represented in the pounds which suggests that they are less suitable for the 'average' owner?