Greytmate

I am having trouble understanding why you refused the option to have your dog treated at a vet hospital if he was so sick, and requested euthanasia instead of a second opinion. Vet hospitals are like people hospitals. They have their own pathology labs and so can do the testing that a normal vet cannot do on public holidays. How would taking your dog to a better equipped vet be about prolonging charges? You would be paying the charges to a different vet. I can understand that sometimes the best care might be unaffordable, and sometimes taking out insurance is a good option. Small dogs are really no different from big dogs in their behaviour. Some small dogs are prone to separation anxiety, and some large ones are as well. If you had this problem with your last dog, and suspect that your current dog has this problem too, you might want to get some advice from a trainer or behaviourist. Dogs are much happier if they can learn to cope with separation from their owners at times. Dogzonline is a great place to learn all about dog problems and behaviour because there are so many knowledgeable people here. We can all learn to be better dog owners by listening to advice from qualified and very experienced people. There wouldn't be a single person here who would be unsympathetic to what happened to Percy. But very few people here would agree with what you have said in this thread or give support for your unusual ideas about dog welfare. If you own a dog, you have legal obligations to provide for its welfare, as well as legal obligations to ensure it causes no harm to others. That is how it works in Australia. If you are uncomfortable with that, you are not ready to own a dog Dog owners have to be responsible. Vets have legal obligations and responsibilities as well.

Knowing about your dog's needs won't help your dog if he needs dental treatment, needs to be stitched up after an accident, needs antibiotics for an infection, needs an injection of anti-histamines for an allergic reaction, or anything else that a vet would normally do. It would be sensible to try to locate a good vet through word of mouth. Before you have an emergency and need to find a vet in a hurry. Vets train for at least six years, and have access to medicines that normal people can't buy. Sometimes visiting one is necessary for you to meet your legal obligation to provide for your animal's welfare.

That's really sad. I have noticed there is a huge difference between the standard of after-hours care at a vet hospital and a normal vet surgery. Sometimes you get what you pay for, and after hours care or the latest facilities are not cheap. There are usually only a few really well-equipped vet hospitals that are staffed 24 hours in each capital city, compared to the hundreds of ordinary clinics that are around. I don't think it is a good idea never to visit a vet, some illnesses require diagnosis and treatment. Pets require vaccination too. I would never want my pets to be in pain or discomfort when treatment is so easily available. The important thing is to find a good vet that you can trust, and know where the best vet hospitals are in case of emergencies. If your pet gets sick or injured and you fail to get vet treatment, you can be charged with neglecting the welfare of your pet.

Hugurpup, maybe you need to go back and edit the title of the kitten thread. Your daughter has not learned the hard way. She has learned nothing much at all. I agree with those that are saying to end the discussion immediately if she brings up the topic of her dog. No advice, no help, no sympathy. Not after the kitten thing. You have tried to help her in the past, and now she can deal with her bad decisions all by herself.

Was it an after hours consult??? No it was a standard consult. This woman is in her 90s and adores her dog and I think she is being ripped off. The $120+ was just the consulting fee - she paid extra for tests and medication. Centenary Vets at Middle Park are great vets, and should be cheaper than what she is paying now. Prices that vets charge do tend to be a bit higher in that inner west area, so she hopefully she can travel out to Middle Park, which is about ten or fifteen minutes away by car.

Whether the mistake was due to dishonesty or just stupidity, there is no defence. Nobody has been slandered (until you started posting names here). And I have no reason to believe that tdierdkx would be lying to us. We get that you are angry, but seriously, just learn from it. You seem to be underestimating the seriousness of breaking this law. That law is there to protect people like us. People that love their dogs.

Then stop defending their appalling behaviour.

Somebody allowed those 'girls' to post under the banner of your rescue. If you care about the reputation of your group you will control your group's communication properly in future and act with some professionalism. Your group, your reputation. Be responsible.

Yes. And that's not an opinion....it's evidence. Best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Kizzyneo, I'm sorry for the shocking experience you went thro' when the killing happened. I hope you'll be able to link up with another rescue that might advise and support you differently when you foster. Yes. Part of a proper assessment is to take down the history. If you are ignoring the history (or not documenting it) then you are not actually assessing the dog. It makes me feel sick to know this dog is on the market, and a well-meaning adoptor is highly likley to end up with a huge problem. Does anyone know if the group has authority to fundraise? Might be best if everyone reported them to facebook as a scam, just in case, because only scammers would intentionally sell dangerous dogs as pets.

How dodgy. That a foster carer was given a dog that was not compatible with her own dogs. Not much higher price to pay than what happened and it didn't have to happen. If a foster dog needs to be kept seperate, then it shouldn't be in a foster home with other dogs. It's such a sad story. Now, after finding out the hard way, this dog should not be rehomed at all. Disclosure is not good enough, because the dog is being sold as a pet and it isn't up to pet quality at all. Pet buyers cannot be expected to be able to have the knowledge to know if a dog can be rehabilitated and the rescue would be liable if the dog caused further harm. You can be sure of that if it gets to court. Disclosure is about letting a pet buyer know all that is known about the dog. Rescue should be about making sure the pets they sell are safe. How can we possibly advise people to buy a rescue dog if there is a chance they will end up with a killer? Disgusting and so, so wrong. The effort that many rescues go to to weed out bad dogs is immense. Anyone unprepared to do that should be shut down.

The public doesn't need to know that. People that want to rescue animals do.

We've had it up for less than a week, and don't worry, I'll let all future cats and dogs die at the hands of the pounds!! Happy?? So if somebody's dog got out one day, and it ended up being given to you instead of being handed in at the pound, how would the owner ever find it again? How would they know you had it? What were your plans for these dogs?

It reflects misunderstanding of the pigments that affect coat colour. I would hope that people reading this topic would now have a better understanding that the white areas of some breeds are lacking the pigments that provide health benefits to solid coloured dogs. Boxer puppies are not culled for cosmetic reasons, they are not culled for their colour, they are culled because of a lack of pigment. Whether that is right or wrong is very debatable, but people need to first have an understanding that the white is caused by an absence of pigment, and this is not replaced by any other properties.

Yes I know what was meant. But using the term is confusing or misleading in a discussion about colour and pigments. Confusing to who ? you ? To people that do not understand colour genetics. Not me. It is incorrect to say it, and using the name of a well-known pigment for what is a result of a lack of pigment is ignorant. We are trying to educate people on this site aren't we? What a storm in a teacup. It is a well known colloquial term and IMO nothing to get bent out of shape about.Nothing 'ignorant' about it! I don't see any storm. In a topic that discusses why a dog appears white it isn't helpful to use terms that are based in ignorance. The only people getting bent out of shape are those that can't handle having it pointed out. Get over it and try to use terms that are based in fact in future. Myths are not helpful to those that are genuinely trying to understand the topic. Again I strongly object to the term 'ignorance'. Using a colloquial is not 'ignorant' even if it is not technically correct, and yes I understand why some who have not heard the term may be confused (which is why I posted an explanation of the term - for those who did not understand its context). Calling those who know the term (many of those who may be used to hearing it used widely in the horse world) 'ignorant' though is very much uncalled for and rather rude. If dog breeders spent more time learning facts and less time listening to utter rubbish from 'horse people', the welfare of dogs might actually improve, and breeders might get less criticism than they are getting now. Your response and attitude and refusal to let go of a misleading colloquialism exemplifies why some dog breeders are not accorded much respect in our community. I urge you get over it, and think about improving your knowledge of dogs genetics, instead of defending your poor choice of terms and having a go at me or anyone else that makes the effort to provide factual information here. I make no apology, just because you are embarrassed at being corrected, doesn't make me rude. People are obviously really upset that a boxer would be euthanised for its coat colour. How disingenuous to be ascribing positive qualities to the colour that do not exist! It is really offensive to hear your arguments trying to justify the practice - because it is this sort of misleading and false information that causes welfare problems in the first place.

Yes I know what was meant. But using the term is confusing or misleading in a discussion about colour and pigments. Confusing to who ? you ? To people that do not understand colour genetics. Not me. It is incorrect to say it, and using the name of a well-known pigment for what is a result of a lack of pigment is ignorant. We are trying to educate people on this site aren't we? What a storm in a teacup. It is a well known colloquial term and IMO nothing to get bent out of shape about.Nothing 'ignorant' about it! I don't see any storm. In a topic that discusses why a dog appears white it isn't helpful to use terms that are based in ignorance. The only people getting bent out of shape are those that can't handle having it pointed out. Get over it and try to use terms that are based in fact in future. Myths are not helpful to those that are genuinely trying to understand the topic.

Yes I know what was meant. But using the term is confusing or misleading in a discussion about colour and pigments. Confusing to who ? you ? To people that do not understand colour genetics. Not me. It is incorrect to say it, and using the name of a well-known pigment for what is a result of a lack of pigment is ignorant. We are trying to educate people on this site aren't we?

Yes I know what was meant. But using the term is confusing or misleading in a discussion about colour and pigments.

I thought we had established that white boxers were more prone to problems, and that it takes a while to discover if the pups are deaf. Also that they cannot be registered and cannot be sold by registered breeders? We don't even know that there are boxer breeders in Australia that are breeding and culling puppies these days. Save your sympathy for the poor dogs that suffer for their lifetime as a result of careless and irresponsible breeding, not the ones that avoid suffering. .

I have a problem with the ethics of this attitude. If this is the only way that the perfect boxer can be produced breeders need to take a long hard look at what they are doing and why. Why should any purebred puppies have to be culled because they are the wrong colour? It's cold and heartless. Those poor little puppies. It breaks my heart. Let's get some perspective. How many breeders are breeding white boxers and culling them? We don't know. How many people are breeding white boxers and selling them? A few. An increasing number. And one of their sales tactics, to try to get the edge over their competitors, is to tell potential buyers that other breeders are killing puppies. Meanwhile other breeders may actually be avoiding white pups through careful breeding. Or perhaps these other breeders are deciding to painlessly cull white pups, at birth, to avoid the very real human heartbreak of falling in love with an animal, only to see it suffer from problems. That isn't cold and heartless at all. It is about wanting to avoid suffering. The 'poor little puppies' will not be aware and will die painlessly, so your sympathy is a little misplaced. Don't allow the irresponsible breeders to manipulate your emotions.

It isn't chrome. The white in boxers is due to areas of no pigment. Chrome pigment is yellow and is not found in dogs. I think some breeders are prepared to breed white pups because they can often sell them. There is a section of the market that is attracted to 'rare' colours, without any understanding of why certain colours might be less desirable health-wise than the standard colours of a breed. This doesn't just happen in boxers.

I agree with megan. Yes I agree too. As long as it had been in foster care with cats. Would fit all of the criteria pretty well.

I have already answered that. Here is the evidence. From - Small Animal Oncology Joanna Morris Formerly of Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge Veterinary School and Jane Dobson Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge Veterinary School There is probably more evidence, but you can google that yourself.

No, same genetics. If you had a whippet that was mostly white, you wouldn't want to breed it to another mostly white or extreme white. Some whippets may be unilaterally deaf and maybe you wouldn't know unless you had it tested.

There is evidence that animals and people with unpigmented areas are more prone to cancer or burning on those areas. That is because one of the purposes of pigment is to deal with ultraviolet rays. Pigments have multi-purposes some of which are yet to be understood. No evidence, but my personal expereince indicates that extreme white dogs are a little more conatct allergy prone as well. A bit itchy. Extreme white is a really artificial thing to breed for because nature rarely produces extreme white land animals. If the mutation was advantageous in any possible way, we would probably see more extreme white animals because nature is ruthlessly efficient and it is easier for a life-form to produce no pigment than to produce pigment..

It doesn't matter what is written on the invoice as long as there is one to prove the dog was sold. All hip displasia is genetic. Environment can only worsen it or bring it on earlier. Think about it. What sort of environment rips a dog's hip ball-joint out of its socket? It can only happen if the socket is faulty in the first place. I would expect the breeder to pay for the corrective surgery, at least up to the purchase price of the dog. Or to offer a full refund (without insisting on the dog's return). An ethical breeder would do that, as the dog they sold has a bad fault. In this situation I would go to the small claims court where you have a good chance of having the breeder ordered to pay the full cost of any surgery and aftercare as well. Send the breeder a written ultimatum. Money back in 7 days or see you in small claims court buddy. Don't accept them fobbing you off. You have nothing to lose except $50 and a few hours of your time.