Greytmate

My previous post might explain that. Sorry for getting your name confused with somebody else.

Sorry, that last paragraph was directed at Plan B, not Padraic.

There are no formal qualifications, but I believe the MDBA has a basic training scheme. The main thing is that a rescue org should be acting on information from and deferring to qualified professionals from a range of areas. A system should be in place. Vets, veterinary behaviourists, lawyers, accountants and other experts provide parameters for rescues to act and develop their policies. You don't need to have all the qualifications yourself, but you need experience and access to a very wide range of knowledge. And by acting in this way a rescue can prove that they have been acting responsibly, should anyone try to take action against them. The rescues in most danger of coming under question are the ones that try to go it alone and do not have a network. Like any small business, the success of the rescue depends on good management. A big range of people skills and dog skills are required, and not everyone who ventures into the business of rescue has the management skills or experience to make their rescue a success. Not just in terms of numbers of dogs adopted, but satisfaction rate with the dogs that they do adopt out and retention of good volunteers. Help is out there, but if you run a rescue you need to take criticism and make the effort to get the information you need, make teh hard decisions, nobody is going to hold your hand and do it for you. Padraic, you have it back to front. Ethical rescue is responsible for making sure the dogs that they sell are of adoptable quality. They are not responsible for the dogs they do not have the resources to rehabilitate, the ones they send to be euthanised. The responsibility for that goes to the dogs' original owner or breeder, because these dogs were marked for euthansia before they were made available to rescue. With the numbers now, rescue cannot rehabilitate every dog they take in, as it will result in long-term kenneling for problem dogs, volunteer burn-out and take resources away from rehoming the highly adoptable dogs.

Find out in advance where at the airport you will collect the dog from. As far as I know there are two places to collect dogs at Brisbane depending on which airline, neither is really close to the domestic terminal.

A good model exists with Ipswich council. Free, annual "special permits" are granted to foster carers on application by the organisation they foster for. When I ran GAP and we applied on behalf of our carers, we were able to explain that if any of our foster dogs caused a problem within the community we could immediately remove the dog and place it somewhere more appropriate. Thus the council is able to support responsible rehoming/rescue, while maintaining community standards. You cannot expect free registration or permits, as there are costs involved in keeping a system running to pick up loose dogs before they cause damage in koala habitat, and inspect properties to determine whether they should get a permit. The community should not have to totally subsidise a service to dog owners. I would be happy to pay more if the facilities and service were better.

That's impressive. I had a look at the architects site , they have some more recent projects and have also designed some shelters that were not built. ARQArchitects. I would love to design a pound or shelter, there is so much that could be done to make it more comfortable and healthy for the dogs to be there. A modern shelter should be built to facilitate all the activities that other people have spoken about. Instead of being just places to store dogs in.

No, That is wrong. If you breed for specific temperament, you are more likely to get that temperament. Brain tumours are quite rare. While mistreatment will harm any dog, not all respond to that by becoming a menace. Some will, some won't, it depends on the basic temperament they inherited. Some breeds/lines have traits that others don't. That is what purebreeding is. Randomly cross breed dogs have an average chance of becoming a menace if mistreated. After all the effort put in to obtaining a certain temperament in a purebreed, if others are allowed to claim that 'brand' for their own cross breed dog, the good reputation of the breed can suffer. If you think mislabeling doesn't matter, you are saying that the differences between breeds don't matter and good breeding doesn't matter either. That is harsh on all breeders that strive to improve their breed in temperament and conformation. People buying dogs should be aware that breed does matter and that different breeds have different tendencies.

there is a big difference between importing and exporting True,But I could imagine it would still be quite pricey :) But if your heart is set on that certain dog then it should be all worth it in the end. NO that wasnt including purchase price, all done legitimately planned and scheduled it cost a fortune it freaked me out about ever moving countries lol The main expense is not the flight, but the quarantine in Australia. I have exported dogs to Hong Kong and Japan, for much less than half that figure, and the people could collect the dogs straight away. But I don't know about Singapore. Andrewang, contact a reputable travel company like Jetpets or Dogtainers, and they will work out the details and give you a quote. You can also look at the AQIS website to find out any legalities yourself. Also consider that it might be best if the dog comes on a flight a day or two later than you, so that you can prepare things at home. As far as I know the dogs are not allowed to be flown as part of your baggage, they are categorised as embargoed freight (or something like that) and travel on their own paperwork, not on your ticket. The above mentioned companies can be relied on to do all paperwork for you. You can do it cheaper on your own, but if you make an error on the paperwork the consequences can be terrible. I

It all depends. To call yourself a qualified animal behaviorist, you must pass a degree in animal behaviour. Which has a small canine component, but includes all types of animals, and does not mean that a person knows how to modify dog behaviour at all. Then you have veterinary behaviourists, that have a veterinary degree and a behaviour degree. But that doesn't mean that they know how to train a dog either. Although after ten years study you would hope that they might. There is no qualification just in dog behaviour. Then you have people that are not qualified, but have spent time doing training and instructing in dog clubs. They may do some self-guided learning and may have mentors.They can also call themself a trainer or behaviourist. And you have people that have learned to train dogs in police or military or somewhere. Then you have courses like Delta, that teach only one particular style of training, but do offer a qualification as a dog trainer. And that is why you cannot easily define a behaviourist. Generally people call a behaviourist when they have a problem. The behaviourist will assess the dog by looking for its non-verbal reactions to certain situations and how its owner interacts with it. Whether a dog can be managed, rehabilitated, or is beyond help often depends on the resources and abilities of the owner and the temperament of the dog. Assessing and training dogs is fairly straightforward. Training people in how to manage their dog can be a lot harder. Usually if a dog has a behaviour fault, it cannot just be fixed. Instead the owner learns how to read their dog and manage it by keeping it out of those situations where trouble might happen. A behaviourist can also work out a plan aimed at increasing a dog's tolerance to things it might not like, as well as working out a customised training program. The result is a dog that stays out of trouble. A good behaviourist is fantastic, but a bad one is useless or maybe even dangerous.

Rescue organisations that have dogs in foster care may be able to find you a good match, and will suggest particular dogs so you don't have to look at ones that will not suit. So start with a wish-list and prioritise it. Child-friendly - non-negotiable Loves little kids? (more than just puts up with them, wants to be around them a lot) How much walking will you do each day? (be realistic) How much grooming each week/day? How much training each day? What other activities do you want to do with the dog? Alert/watch dog, or a dog that is very quiet? And more - make your own list and prioritise it. What else is non-negotiable? What could you live with or live without in a dog? Then you are set to call rescue orgs and find out if they have any dogs that have been assessed with children, and have lived with children (for at least a few weeks). Or, you could look at a site like Pet Rescue, if you are game to look at all the dogs, including the ones that won't suit you. Or you could come back here and discuss, and people here will recommend dogs that might suit. Don't worry about male/female or age just yet, much more important that the dog has the right temperament to match your family. Each rescue org will have their own policies about who and where they adopt to, but for now you just need to be very clear about what you are after and what you can offer a dog so that the right dog can be suggested for you. :)

Probably because your original statement is so commonly used by some people to defend some really appalling behaviour that goes on. As if rescuers are above all reproach because they rescue dogs. That is why I questioned you as well. Thanks for explaining that you meant having patience with people.

Woody and Coco.

Yes, I think it is important to be patient with rescue. Sometimes they don't update their websites, or might be a bit slow in their correspondence. You can't expect top level of customer service, because most rescue people are volunteers. But everyone placing dogs in other people's homes needs to have high standards of animal welfare and management and to be following current best practice. Breeder or rescuer.

Forgiving of what?

I don't think that it does educate people about the whole reality, and that is part of the problem. Instead it narrows the focus in a way to elicit a certain reaction. The bigger picture is revealed when you look at overall numbers and patterns of dogs needing rescue. When you look a the way that dogs are bred and then placed in homes in the first place (acknowledgement here to Haredown's responsible ANKC breeders who don't contribute to the problem), when you learn about what is involved in preparing a rescue dog for sale, and have an understanding of the limited resources available. By reading about rescue (rather than looking at lists of dogs), the stories people tell of their experiences, good and bad, you are in a much better position to help solve or to even prevent some of the problems. I guess the bottom line is that some of these dogs will not make good pets.It's really sad, but it is a fact of life. Instead they will bring considerable expense and heartache to their new owners. A rescue organisation's task is to make sure the dogs they are placing in people's homes are not going to cause any major problems. And to do that you need to take an emotional step back from individual dogs, and consider the longer-term needs of the communities that these dogs will be placed in.

I think that there is now more harm than benefit of people posting photos of dogs in pounds requiring urgent rescue on the internet for the public to see. These are dogs of unknown quantity and it is pretty risky for a member of the public to take one of these dogs on as a pet. Instead I would like to see rescue orgs promoting the dogs that have been through a foster system and are ready to be placed in a home. Educating the public about the scale of the problem and possible solutions is also important to help with fundraising, but it can be done without the emotional manipulation of publishing pictures of individual dogs that are in trouble. The harm comes with people feeling total despair for the dogs that they are unable to help, and in the dodgy operations that have started up recently that have been collecting all the dogs they see advertised and placing them with people that are not equipped to deal with serious problem behaviors. To the OP, please consider doing things like fostering a dog, or doing some fundraising for a rescue organisation that is grateful for what you can do, and doesn't expect or encourage you to go beyond the limits of what you can provide for a dog. The general rescue forum is really informative and supportive of people rescuing dogs responsibly. I stick to reading and talking in that forum, rather than torture myself with pictures of the dogs that I cannot help. It isn't as cliquey as it appears, but you do find that people with similar views will support each other. I have never met or even spoken to Dogmad, yet I find I have a very similar philosophy to her and find I agree with most of her posts. Others with slightly different philosophies will also agree with each other.

That's not being snobby. It's doing what you can to reduce the chances of a dog you sell being amongst the thousands of dogs dumped every year in Australia. It is risk management. Studies have been done as to why people dump dogs, and so those reasons are analysed and taken into account by many breeders/rescuers when they decide who to sell to. When breeders/rescuers are discerning about where they place dogs, it isn't really about superiority, it is about dog welfare. Being rigid about it means that a breeder is at least being consistent, and is considering the dog instead of being swayed by personality of potential owner. If they are choosing new owners purely based on personality and appearances instead of having a criteria, then they could be accused of snobbiness. But what you describe is a technique used to avoid problems, and not used to judge people.

There are many bad situations a dog can end up in, some through unfortunate circumstances. FIFO is a deliberate choice, one that puts work above being around to properly raise a pup. The thread has only been derailed by people like you who have no clue when it comes to determining if a home is going to suit a dog, but like to make smart comments about other people posting here.

No one said this - the FIFO worker in the post is single and will kennel the pup50% of the timep Then you haven't read the posts where it's stated FIFO workers wouldn't get a pup (Greytmate's posts, for example) nor any other thread on the same type of topic. Megan interpreted my post correctly. FIFO workers wouldn't get a pup, I didn't say anything about not supplying a pup to anyone else in their household. Is there a purpose to you being here other than to make snide comments and attempt to twist the meaning of what other people have said?

No, I don't have time to do the research, but plenty of recent stuff has been done. The common factor that all FIFO workers have is that they fly away from their home and their pets for weeks at a time. The OP has indicated that the puppy would be living in boarding kennels for weeks at a time. I have placed many dogs in homes, and would not place a dog in a home where the owner has decided to work away from home for weeks at a time. This is a no-brainer for people that place dogs responsibly. This isn't a thread judging FIFO workers, it is a thread about whether a home is suitable and withholding information from a breeder when buying a pup.

This thread isn't about the ramifications for FIFO's families or the ethics of choosing FIFO. It is about the ramifications for a dog of being owned by a single person that will not be around during crucial stages of the pup's development. I wouldn't place a pup with somebody who wasn't going to be around to spend time with it daily. No matter what they did for a living.

WOW! What a narrow minded and un-informed reply that was! You obviously haven't kept up on the sociological research about FIFO workers in Australia. Do you have an opinion yourself or did you just come in to have a go at people?

That has to be the biggest loud of rubbish i have ever heard I would expect to hear that from somebody who makes money catering to the FIFO lifestyle. Why else would somebody spend weeks working away from the place they choose to live, if not for the cash? Their priority is very clear, and that is quite ok, but it is not compatible with responsible dog ownership.

No. FIFOs demonstrate an ethic where cash is valued much more highly than community or home life. No puppy for them. :)

Supervision and assessment are fine, but those most qualified to supervise or assess would probably be the most likely also to think it's not a good idea to mix strange dogs at kennels. Some people's idea of supervision is to watch, with no clue what they are watching for, or to assess with no understanding of what they are assessing. The terms are almost meaningless when used in a general way. It is those that are less educated about dogs and maybe a little anthropomorphic that see the most value in having their dog 'socialise' with strange dogs. You just have to look at many of the people that spend time in dogs parks. If you were opening a kennel and providing that 'service' you would have to weigh up how much business that would draw in compared to the amount of business lost due to mishaps. Maybe you wouldn't weigh up the costs, you would just keep the dogs as safely as possible, separated from strange dogs.