Greytmate

Training is something that doesn't happen and then you forget about it. Dogs need training until they are mature and many people choose to keep training for long after that. I agree with Espinay to take the pup to a puppy school. The shyness could be a problem, and you need a controlled environment if you want to overcome this. Not all dogs will play with other dogs, some just prefer not to, and socialisation won't change this. The realistic expectation should be to make your pup feel comfortable around other dogs and people, not to train it to play. If you take your dog to an uncontrolled environment for socialisation, the shyness may reinforced and you may also end up with aggression. Well-run puppy schools are the safest way to socialise, especially if the dog is already shy.

I would try to block the dog's access to that part of the yard and maybe even build a secure run. The problem is that once a dog has developed a habit of escaping, they often keep making attempts even if you increase the height of the gate. Dogs can be injured in this way if they get a paw or collar caught. Consider whether you might be better off leaving the dog inside when you are out, at least until you have a secure run built.

Yes, there are a few different ways, but not all methods will work with all dogs. It depends on the level of prey drive the dog has to begin with, or whether the barking is just a territorial defence against the cat. I would recommend that they get a behaviourist in who understands the different drives in dogs, before they bring the animals together. They will be able to assess the dog, and hopefully work out a management plan that will work for everyone. This type of training needs to be very controlled, as it relies on the dog staying below a psychological threshold. The wrong sort of training can make the problem worse, so they need help from somebody experienced to make sure that everything can be controlled.

Crikey, people actually spent time and money to come to these (startling obvious) conclusions?? The best way to prove something is with a rigorous academic study. The reason they would do a study is because something seems obvious and they need hard evidence to counter any arguments from people who would disagree. It is obvious to us dog people how important good puppy rearing is. We can define the factors that make up good puppy raising. If ever a puppy farmer tries to argue that it isn't important, or has a different version of what good puppy raising is, we can prove them wrong. We can also use the research to push for better dog legislation, because it is difficult for legislators to ignore hard evidence when it is presented in the right way.

If you adopt a dog from an ethical rescue organisation the price you pay will cover micro chipping, vaccination and desexing and you know that you are not supporting the backyard breeding industry. Adopting from rescue is much better value for money than buying a byb pup. No. People will love the dog that they get so it's much better they get it from a reputable source. If everyone was suddenly educated and decided not to buy these BYB puppies, they would end up being given away for free and the BYB might decide it's not worth breeding anymore. I would always recommend people buy puppies from registered ethical breeders, or adult dogs from ethical rescue organisation that assess the dogs properly. That way they have the best chance of the dog being what they want, and they haven't contributed any cash to BYB or encouraged them in any way.

By the time a dog is an adult it's temperament is already set. The critical age for socialisation is between 5 and 16 weeks of age, socialisation after that age can be much less effective. Training is important with older dogs, but it is a mistake to think that 'damage' can be undone. Often it cannot be undone despite people's best efforts. If a dog has anti-social behaviour as an adult, allowing that dog to interact with other random dogs can be very dangerous. It's something that should only happen with the advice of a trainer. Taking a dog that has problems out to 'socialise' it is pretty unwise when you consider the possible consequences. Aggression isn't an excuse, it's a very good reason to keep a dog away from other dogs, and the owner is being responsible. If people want to adopt a dog they should look for an ethical rescue organisation who will match them with the dog that they need. If they need a social dog they can adopt one, if they want a dog that's happy to be on it's own, they can adopt one like that. Dogs don't need to be social with strange dogs, although they would benefit from the exercise of being walked. I would agree that daily walking will benefit most dogs, but would advise anyone having problems with a rescue dog to ask the organisation they bought the dog from for assistance.

The average age of all dogs in Australia is 3 or 4 or some ridiculously low age. Old dogs are special and dog lovers notice when a dog looks old. When people see a person with an old dog, past its prime and needing more care, they may make assumptions about the type of dog owner you might be, and I would see any comment as complimentary.

They do. Especially if the dog has issues they feel could be overcome with 'socialisation' and exercise.

Make up a prefix that combines letters of your family's or your founding dog's names or maybe include a word referring to the place or area where you live. Make the prefix your own, the ones that include breed names are a bit overdone in my opinion.

Have you tried posting in general discussion for recommendations of trainers or behaviourists in that area?

Voluntary organisations are subject to Privacy Laws as much as any commercial organisation. My advice to rescue groups is to have the volunteers (and yourself) sign an agreement that they understand their privacy obligations, and put a section on your forms advising potential adopters of why their information is being collected and exactly what it will be used for. Potential adopters are should be concerned about privacy and these things you can do will help put them at ease and let them know that you are a responsible organisation.

If this was an inanimate product we were talking about, we wouldn't need to have this conversation. Quality control is a legislative requirement in many cases, and even where it isn't we have consumer protection in our country that forces business to take responsibility for quality and safety. And even if we didn't have that, it makes business sense to have a form of quality control. And even if we didn't care about growing the business of rescue, shouldn't we just care about the happiness of people who want to share their lives with a pet? Doesn't everyone deserve a nice dog? There is a pet overpopulation problem in Australia, and people selling pets that don't suit the requirements and expectations of the owner are a leading cause of this. So frustrating that the 'rescue' people that are contributing to the problem portray themselves as a solution. It isn't right. Some of the threads in the rescue forum leave me amazed that such dodgy dealings are going on and these people are receiving support from others who don't know any better.

What you describe sounds very simple, but the complex interactions between the rescue dog and your own show that the rescue dog has an underlying nature of resilience rather than anxiousness. It isn't just about what the foster dog learns about getting in other dogs faces, it's about being able to slot in to an existing social heirachy and feel comfortable. There is no guarantee that the rescue dog will never get in another dog's face after being adopted, or that there will never be terrible consequences. But there is good evidence to show that the dog is suitable to be re homed into a home with other well-adjusted dogs and an owner who is able to meet all their requirements. The predisposition is there. The behaviour has been learnt and cannot be unlearnt in a practical sense. A dog that doesn't like to be touched might be considered unsuitable to be sold as a pet, as pets are generally something that are meant to be touched frequently. Would you like to adopt a dog that didn't like you touching it?

Cosmolo, I know you can't discuss specifics, but have you ever had a client that you thought had grounds to take action against a rescuer for placing a faulty dog with them? People get attached to their dogs, invest time in working with them and don't want to admit failure. But surely the rescue should bear responsibility for putting a family in that situation. It seems to me that the rescues that do it really badly never really have to deal with the aftermath of what they do. The dog is either bounced or the new owner gets a whole lot of hard work and heartbreak.

When I was testing we would do a startle test. The test was not whether the dog was startled (we would give it a fright), but how long that dog took to recover. Lack of socialisation isn't a behaviour it's a cause. All we can test for is behaviour. I think you make some good points about how experience with dogs does not mean a person is equipped to deal with serious problem behaviour.

I define a fence jumper as a dog that has learned it can go over fences and it is rewarding to do so, and will attempt to climb fences over the standard height (for that breed, it can vary). So a large dog that has escaped from a yard with inadequate fencing wouldn't count. But a dog that makes serious attempts to climb high fences is in danger. If it makes it over it could be killed by a car. But many make it half over-and do really nasty damage to their bodies in the process. Neither is acceptable. There is a huge difference between the dogs that need obedience training , neutralisation, socialisation, NILIF, routine, boundaries or whatever to help them learn to be good canine citizens and the ones that have a temperament that is faulty. The first lot of dogs can be helped by quality foster care, and the right home. They are highly adoptable to people who like the qualities of a working breed. But dogs with serious faults can't simply be trained out of their behaviour, the need the canine equivalent of a mental health worker to work with them, and require a lot more control than is reasonable for the average pet owner to exert. They can never be trusted. They are not suitable to be placed as a pet. It is really sad that inadequate care, whether by an owner or a foster carer can actually damage a dog to the extent that it is no longer adoptable. It is also really sad that some dogs are born with temperament faults. Neither are the dog's 'fault', both are as a direct result of human action. The mistake some people make is to assume that the damage can or should be fixed. There is no 'fix'. So how do we know what can be fixed and what cannot? Expert behaviour testing and experience. And rescues need to be run in a way where their process cannot be overridden by other people that form an emotional attachment to the dog. In an foster program there will always be the occasional dog that gives us a surprise when it turns out to have a serious problem. But that is why we have foster care, to give us time to discover the dog. That's when rescue coordinators have to step up and act responsibly. If an experienced foster carer (who by then has an emotional attachment) cannot deal with that dog, that's a sign that can't be ignored. The dog isn't suitable to be placed as a pet.

A list of behaviours where if the foster carer is super-dedicated, manages the dog carefully, and expert behavioural advice is taken, the dog is likely to behave without incident in foster care. If the dog is then adopted out to the average pet owner, it is likely to revert to form. So I would consider a dog with a history of any of those things as unfit for adoption. Those that are experienced and knowledgeable about problem dogs wouldn't normally choose to own a pet like that. So with those capable of managing such a dog removed from the pool of potential adopters, that only leaves people who don't have an understanding with how to deal with serious behaviour problems. All of those behaviours can lead to a cruel death either for the dog concerned, to people or to other dogs. It just is not acceptable to be selling those dogs as pets, and a really horrible way to burn people wanting to adopt a rescue dog. Most dogs are unwanted because they have annoying behaviours that can be trained out of them. They are just unruly and ill-mannered and the foster carer can do some standard obedience training with them to get them to an adoptable standard. But the dogs with the behaviours you have listed are different. On a practical level, you can't reliably change the temperament behind those serious behaviours.

Nobody should ever be afraid of asking questions. But coming in here informing us that you don't want to build a proper fence or keep your dog on the lead and you will get what you deserve. And if you have your dog put down as a 'result' without even bothering to question why a dog would attack a lamb, you should be thoroughly ashamed. Questions are good because this entire story of fools could have been avoided if people sought knowledge instead of acting in ignorance.

Vets don't do this themselves. They will pass on the cost of having another company do this, the cost will vary, and some vets might mark up the cost. I have heard of vets charging $75-$150, depending on their costs. Many people here organise their own private cremation, which can be upwards of $200, not including euthanasia. The important thing is how good the vet is, if you are happy with this vet stay with him.

Yes there are landfills. But there is a fee for that as well that will vary depending on the council. Unless you take away the dog yourself, there will be some fee involved with storage, transport and disposal. The price of the drug isn't high, but you are paying for a vet to administer it with care and expertise. I don't think you were screwed over on price.

So many things done wrong by this dog. And adult male dog put straight into a confined space with another adult male who is not particularly social towards other dogs. Two strange dogs being fed near each other. A known fence jumper being rehomed to a place with low rural fencing And an owner who would rather have his dog put down than follow local laws to keep a dog on lead or behind a fence. I would have been surprised to see this succeed. And it makes me feel sick, just like the other Ned thread. Sorry if anyone is offended by this but it needs to be pointed out so that others reading here will hopefully avoid the same mistakes.

All pet shops are inherently bad. A glass enclosure is an inappropriate environment for healthy mental and physical development of pups. The pups should be given space to exercise and learn clean habits, socialised with care and given the opportunity for quiet undisturbed sleep. These things cannot happen in a retail environment which was designed for the purpose of displaying and selling inanimate goods to crowds of strangers during retail trading hours. If a person make a decision to keep a pup in a shop instead of an appropriate environment, they are sacrificing the pup's welfare for profit. The people that run them are either evil or they are ignorant about dog welfare. It's isn't just about the puppy farms and nasty breeding practices, it is about making sure a pup has appropriate opportunity to develop normally.

I've seen purebred greyhounds that look less like a greyhound than Slinky does. :)

I travel across town to see my vet. She is a good person who does a lot of community work. She is a great vet who is always happy to refer when a specialised service might be better done somewhere else. She loves animals and her own pets are all rescues. She gets that sometimes the best treatment is the less intensive and expensive treatment. She gets how you would shave an area on a dog that is going to be shown in a few weeks. She attracts and retains good staff who stay for many years. She explains things well and gives clients choices rather than making assumptions. She listens. And her work is quality, the dogs are in really good, safe hands. I met her when I first started working for GAP, and she approached us wanting to help. Her name is Dr Susan Dawson of Anvet Kedron QLD, just in case anyone else is looking for a good vet.

Hardwood floor will withstand dog nails but pine will not. You have to be careful with polished floors that the dog is not allowed to run and slide around the house as it can injure their tendons and ligaments.