WoofnHoof

I'd say a kelpie.

Well at least as long as they are racing.

If they can do it, and actually follow through with it, they might survive. It is sad that it takes the threat of closure to force them to take the issue seriously, and this is the problem with a lot of animal industries and welfare issues associated with them, when they are backed into a corner they actually can enforce their own rules but often times the damage is done because it was obvious they lacked the will to do it, paying lip service to welfare in policy and print but not in practice. People know they are only doing it now because they have to, if they truly believed those actions were wrong they would have taken stronger measures to enforce standards well before now. This is why it's not good enough to just accept that a small minority will do the wrong thing and carry on business as usual, most organisations have animal welfare rules and guidelines, enforcing them before the shit hits the fan would be a good idea.

So I'm confused. Why is a seperate breed/registry needed for a dog that is essentially a German shepherd? Does the WSS breed contain anything BUT German shepherd in its ancestry? As far as I understand it it's just a colour variant and someone decided it needed to be a seperate breed because dog forbid the GSD standard accept whites as legit GSDs. Really if you have to have so many rules to say no German shepherds then it all gets a bit ridiculous, all that's left is going to be imports and inbreds. Just awesome.

I'm confused as to what your question actually is but I'm going to assume that you mean why are the two being compared? Because they both involve cruel (and illegal) practices which are abhorrent to the general public, the only difference is the proportion of animals being subjected to it, if actual raw numbers were available they would make an even more interesting comparison I'd say. If you hold with the premise that live baiting is impossible to stamp out of the industry, then all dog racing will comprise a percentage (however small) being baited with live animals as an inevitable fact. What percentage of the industry engaging in live baiting would be acceptable to the public do you think? The argument that it's too hard to stamp it out completely implies that if you are in favour of the sport continuing as is, then you are also willing to accept that a proportion of the industry will continue to engage in live baiting. You need to look from the outside in and see what others see: an industry which was largely complacent about acts of blatant cruelty being perpetrated by it's participants, paying lip service and not much else to animal welfare issues within it's ranks, who then scream blue murder about the unfairness of being shut down. Hence the question that I would ask is this: why is the tolerance for animal cruelty associated with dog fighting 0%, but the tolerance for animal cruelty associated with dog racing is >0%? Any number greater than zero needs to be justified and justifiable. And why has racing in the past not taken a zero tolerance stance on this issue? Why have their animal welfare standards and rules not been enforced? Why did it take exposure in the media and the whole industry threatened with closure before they got serious about it? People knew it went on well before it was brought to the public's attention. And that's not even looking at wastage issues, presently the majority of the general public think that retired greyhounds mostly find lovely forever homes once the industry is done with them, it will only take a graphic news story or two to lay waste to that fairy tale. You can shoot the messenger all you like but all I'm doing is pointing out the facts and drawing the inevitable conclusions.

That is the way it's going. The "measures" being put in place in dressage are half assed and not even remotely effective, and not only that are not being seen to be effective. So yes my sport will suffer and eventually be shut down because of the actions (and lack thereof) of the powers that be within the sport. Maybe all animal industries will be shut down eventually, maybe that's a good thing, maybe its a bad thing. I don't know. Personally I don't want it to happen, but I can see it happening because not enough is being done to stop it. To much arguing about how "it's only a minority" and "just give us more time to deal with it our way" or "outsiders just don't understand why we do x, y, z", none of these arguments have worked in the past I have no idea why anyone thinks they will now. Yes PK harness racing is pulling their collective finger out, whether it's too little too late remains to be seen, lots more to do yet if they want to survive.

It's not my logic. It's just simple reality. Greyhound racing is a recreational endeavour, it exists simply for entertainment purposes. Therefore the social license is far more precarious than it is for other animal production industries that are relied upon for food or fibre. Riddle me this: Why is dog fighting banned? It's only a small number of dogs in the grand scheme of things after all. A small minority. Why should anyone care enough to stamp it out? A line has to be drawn somewhere, and we as a society redraw those lines when and if we decide that the benefit is no longer outweighing the cost. So the question must be asked: why is greyhound racing so important that animals must suffer and die as par for the course? Why is it more important than dog fighting? Or cock fighting? So some gambling addicts can bet on it? So a small few of the human population can have a job or a hobby? In some cases it may be argued that the end justifies the means but this isn't one of those times. All sports and hobbies and even production industries involving animals have been put on notice: stamp it out from within or you'll be stamped out from without, end of story.

Trouble is an industry or hobby is not like a religion, particularly one in which animals are used for largely entertainment purposes. The public has increasing expectations that whatever group you belong to, you need to weed out the undesirables, even if they are a small minority. The problem with saying "it's just a small minority" is that it sounds like people within the industry think it's no big deal. Certainly the industry wasn't seen to be taking it seriously until they were forced to, and it's very hard to defend an industry in which the majority of the participants lack the will to enforce basic animal welfare standards. A religion has no authority to expel violent extremists beyond what is already being done (publicly denouncing them) but a sporting group has power over its participants, they can refuse registrations, refuse entries and essentially ban those who are doing the wrong thing from participating at all. We see that all the time in disciplinary action for football players etc (not super effective but at least they are doing something and are seen to be doing something). It is time sporting and hobby groups involving animals used this approach because the social license to continue is going to expire sooner rather than later, it is the wider community who are in charge of what is acceptable and it is clear that live baiting is not acceptable, no matter how small the minority participating in it. By refusing to take a hard line in enforcing standards, the industry is endorsing bad behaviour in the eyes of the wider community. Prior to the news report about live baiting how many trainers were subject to disciplinary action? How many received a life time ban? Was it tolerated because it was "only a minority"? Or because those involved were in positions of power within the organisation? I know how hard it is to try and change institutions and power structures that have been in place forever, but if it doesn't happen there is no long term survival for the sport. Apathy is what kills the sport, no point railing about the unfairness of it all, all who participate have a role to play.

Yep bullet dodged indeed! I've never heard anything good about body corporates when it comes to pets, they are either just barely tolerating them or outright nightmare. Let the dol brains trust find you a place

Roos are predominantly bipedal with different gaits so we can say they are sufficiently different as to not be able to be compared with dogs or horses

Where the basic gaits are the same, walk, trot, canter/gallop, the footfalls are the same and the basic biomechanics. Some animals and breeds have an extra gait the pace which is also a lateral movement (yes giraffes do pace - gold star for you for googling locomotion!). How they utilise those gaits depends on their particular specialisations, and is reflected in their morphology, much the same way morphology has changed in domesticated animals according to our use of them. The GSD is all purpose working/herding animal, the trot is certainly an important pace for moving in straight lines and circles, but it shouldn't be highlighted to the point that the other gaits suffer, and that is where in hand showing can be detrimental to any animal where the full range of motion cannot be adequately assessed.

Gait. Locomotion. Footfalls. All very similar since both species walk on their digits. But hey I'm no expert on biomechanics so feel free to expand on why you think the comparison is soooo ridiculous.

@ish GSDs are a popular breed, of course most people have an interest in their current state and their future. My next dog will be a shepherd (but I want a white one!) so I have more than a passing interest in which lines and types are available out there. Sure there are some differences in equine and canine conformation but the basic gaits and principles of locomotion are the same, and strength of both fore and hind quarters are critical factors in the soundness and workability of an animal at all gaits, not just the trot. @teekay the trot is a lateral gait, so the lowered hind provides more reach from the hindquarters and a longer stride. The trot is an efficient, ground covering pace. Canter/gallop utilises a different musculature, requiring more push from the hind rather than reach, and so selecting too much for one gait can be at the cost of others. The interpretation of the breed standard also contributes to the change in the slope of the loins over time, the degree to which slope is acceptable seems to vary a lot in the GSDs depending on the judge or breeder. Yes @The Spotted Devil even without the obvious morphological changes you can still see differences in the movement and musculature between working and show line animals, certainly some of the changes in dressage horses have been really interesting, in moving to a lighter more athletic frame we have achieved greater reach in the extended and lateral movements at the cost of collection and ability to carry weight in the hindquarters in piaffe and passage. I think differences in dogs seem even more pronounced in some ways than horses because from memory dogs mainly present at halt (stack) and trot, so not much walk shown either? It really is an interesting topic because it highlights the vast differences in what is required for show over what is required for work, in a pet or show dog it's probably neither here nor there whether it has a balanced canter/gallop gait, but I think much of the concern with GSDs also stems from a high prevalence of HD within the breed in the past, and so any perceived weakness in the hind is even harder to justify or look past, whether the two traits are related though is a whole other question.

Lol already happening in many breeds, look at Standardbreds and quarter horses, even some Warmbloods are all front end and no back end. It comes from mainly assessing one gait - the trot. So the movement at the trot is considered more important than walk, canter, gallop, and the trot is selectively bred for so that the other gaits suffer. It is rare to find a standardbred with a comfortable rideable canter, and forget trying to canter a halter bred quarter horse. It is predominantly a by product of in hand showing classes which by necessity mainly focus on trot since us mere humans can rarely keep up with a galloping animal on a lead without hindering its movement. By contrast a working animal needs to be sound and functional at all gaits. I believe some form of performance testing needs to be integrated into showing and breeding to prevent these systemic issues persisting. Some warmblood breeds when being assessed are run loose around an arena at all gaits so that walk, trot and canter can be assessed and given individual marks, this helps to prevent a focus on one gait as each gait is given the same weighting. This is in addition to the ridden testing which is undertaken for most breeding stock.

I really want a WSS I'm a bit crowded here at the moment but let me know if you don't have any luck with rescue.

That is beautiful

Great to hear he is safe I can't foster any dogs at the moment but I love the lgds they are beautiful

I know a lot of rescues that when I hear them being criticised it is for "keeping animals alive" when people feel that they should be put down. I know one rescue in particular which is often criticised for this. But my take on it is that those animals are under veterinary care, and therefore some of the responsibility also lies on the treating vet in terms of their advice to the client and their treatment of the animal. Most decent vets I know are not going to happily keep an animal suffering if they don't think a good long term outcome is a likely result. And at the end of the day the vet is the only one in a position to really assess the animal properly and evaluate its prospects of recovery. So in other words if the treating vet is happy to treat the animal then I don't really see why anyone should have an issue with it. Again IMO it's no different to a private individual making a decision with their vet about the treatment of an animal. In my many years of dealing with vets I've only come across one who did not recommend euthanasia when it was warranted, thankfully she was suspended for one of many offences and I hope she is no longer practicing.

I only just found this thread so I'm a bit late to the party but I also have a liver shunt dog. His was intrahepatic and he had surgery at ten months of age, performed by Dr Geraldine Hunt back when she used to work at Sydney Uni, she's been poached overseas for a while now I believe. Anyway my boys surgery was successful and he's been pretty normal ever since, he will be 11 years old in September.

It is difficult to know sometimes, my little Lulu is getting older, sleeping more etc so I know I will likely have to make a decision at some point, but she is a very full on little dog who doesn't let anything stop her, so even though her eyesight is going and she runs into things she just gets back up and keeps going, so yeah going to be hard to really know when it's too much for her since nothing seems to phase her. I have a shunt dog, not a rescue but if surgery is successful there is no reason the dog can't live a full life, I certainly couldn't make a judgement that one life is more important or worthy than another. I also think that people confuse private rescue organisations with some sort of public service, donated funds are not "public" money, they are funds transferred from one private entity or individual to another, therefore there is no accountability or requirement for a private organisation to spend the money on anything other than what they choose to, it's no different to an individual making a decision about their own animal. If people who donate their own money don't agree with how it is spent they are under no obligation to donate again. No point getting self righteous about the decision a "rescue" makes without also being judgemental about a decision any private individual makes. The outcome is the same after all, a dog that needs expensive surgery to live a healthy life is no different to one that doesn't in the long run, so what people are really carrying on about is money, and how other people are spending it.

Thanks Sheridan.

Just saw this guy on FB, it says he's fear agressive and only to be rehomed to his owner, maybe someone here knows who owns him?

Not sure if these have been shared before but these are a couple of facebook pages which often share interesting info and research. https://www.facebook.com/theinstituteofcaninebiology/?fref=ts https://www.facebook.com/anthrozoologyresearchgroup/?fref=ts

Give me a yell when you get back we need to catch up! :)

No worries :)