Greytmate

The owner admits on the video that the dog's eyes were red, but blamed the fact that the dog had been in a hot room for a few hours. So it seems that there is an issue there about whether inflamed eyes after heavy activity is normal or whether it is a health issue. I don't have high expectations of breed standards. Many of them have not caught up with genetic science and it seems that this type of vet testing is going to highlight any inconsistencies between breed standards and veterinary science. I can see how genuine the clumber spaniel owner is, but I disagree that inflamed eyes should be disregarded. Perhaps she could have used a cooling eye-pack on her dog during the day if she thought being walked around a hot room would cause her dog any discomfort.

No, because all entrants are already aware of the requirement of the dog to be healthy and sound, and the risk of being disqualified if the dog is found to be unhealthy. It is like drug testing in sport. The winners are all tested instead of every competitor, but the rules about not using drugs apply to all competitors. All people entering dogs in shows are free to consult a vet before entering the show. If they don't do that themselves they have no grounds to question the vet if they are disqualified later.

Saffonaire you don't know where this dog came from. Why mention a particular organisation? It is up to the OP if they want to tell us who they are, not you to make guesses as to who rehomed this dog. Especially since the ethics of the shelter have been questioned.

The dog is not behaving like a pet. You are a breeder, you are supposed to have some idea. There is a benchmark where we can say that a dog is not of pet quality. New pet owners deserve a dog that is going to add joy to their lives, not add nightmares. They deserve a quality healthy pet. If you want to breed ethically you need to keep that in mind.

What about the owner's needs? Why do you think people buy pets? There is an expectation that when a person buys a dog sold as a pet that it will be able to live happily as a pet in a normal home. Temperament does have a genetic component, so if you are breeding with nervy dogs you are going to be breeding pups that are not up to the quality that pup buyers and the community expects. Why should the buyer be expected to turn a faulty dog into a good pet? Getting a new dog already involves a lot of work and training, it doesn't need to have an extra level of hardship added.

I wouldn't have a dog on any of those drugs unless they were prescribed by a vet working in conjunction with a behaviourist with a long term management plan. The reason why nobody has suggested it is because the dog needs to be assessed first before anything like that would be considered. If a dog is that bad that it needs that sort of medication it isn't really good enough to be called pet quality, and shouldn't have been sold as a pet.

I would contact the shelter immediately and ask for their help. This dog is showing signs that it has a nervous temperament. If the shelter is an ethical organisation it will have access to professionals who can assess the dog properly. There is a possibility that I am quite wrong and the dog simply needs more exercise and stimulation. But that is going to be very hard to do given the dogs age. Large breeds under 18 months shouldn't be given lots of lead walking, it's bad for their joints. If this is the case and the dog needs a lot more work, returning the dog is best so the dog gets the right home with somebody that wants a really active dog. But if this dog has a nervy nature, the best you can hope for is years of managing the dog carefully so that it isn't in fear or a danger to itself or others. But if that can't be achieved then you will have a dog that isn't having a happy life. This dog may have ended up homeless in the first place because it had problems. You need help right now, before you invest too much time and the dog's behaviour worsens. The longer you leave it the harder it will get, this dog needs to be assessed as soon as possible.

and one of those contributors would be an association that promotes the sale and impulse buying of undesexed kittens in petshops ... Exactly. There is a feral cat problem. It is caused by undesexed cats. PIAA members sell a lot of undesexed cats. They sell them on impulse, and therefore do nothing to ensure that cat will be looked after properly. The cats get pregnant and have kittens, and there are people that think that the way to get rid of an unwanted cat is to take it out to the bush where it can look after itself. They wouldn't even consider taking it to a shelter. Best agricultural practice now is not to keep farm cats and many farmers got rid of them years ago. The feral problem is partly caused by uncommitted cat owners that didn't think when buying the cat and don't want to spend money having the cat desexed. If PIAA started tackling the feral cat problem with a prevention strategy, it wouldn't be so offensive seeing them enjoying the sporty-fun side of feral cat eradication.

Doesn''t anyone see the irony of the head of an organisation that floods the market with undesexed cats by marketing them to impulse buyers, having fun hunting feral cats? Put him on a rope and drag his sorry carcass around.

Maybe. I apologise for being harsh earlier, but I think the reason given is a poor one. It's a lame excuse, as if the dog is to blame. Perhaps the OP can help them get to the bottom of why they don't like the dog. Whether they want the dog to do something that this one won't do, or whether this one does something that they don't like. They are not going to be able to decide whether the new home will be suitable for the dog if they cannot explain why it doesn't suit their home. They might be lucky and get a good home for this dog, or they might put it in a worse situation than it is in now.

I have to agree. What was the point of this thread? Take that as 70% posturing. Pretty much what I would do in real life asking what was your point - my tone is actually quite pleasant but my body language is probably quite belligerent. *Unfolds arms, wags finger, raises one eyebrow, stamps foot, flicks hair and flounces out of the thread.*

So I looked this up and found it was a conclusion reached after some studies done over 40 years ago. But the studies were not about conversation, they were about whether a single spoken word could convey a sense of like or dislike. The word gives the meaning, but that meaning may be disbelieved if the facial expression or tone is incongruous. The studies did not involve body language. The conclusion is not about conversation, and is only about how a person would determine a meaning of either 'like' or 'dislike' based on words, tone and facial expression. Unless people here are lying, they probably mean what they say. And there is nothing that suggests that without tone or facial expression that we would have a problem finding meaning. The studies were more about finding meaning in the non-verbal than they were about a lack of meaning in words communicated in writing. The figures just don't apply to Internet forums or anything else that people read. They don't even apply to normal conversations. Why did you start this topic? In saying that only 7% of meaning is given, are you claiming that 93% percent of what we write here on DOL is useless rubbish? :laugh:

Whatever the real issue is, I hope they can describe it to the person they pass the dog onto. Because 'not bonding' tells us nothing at all about what the dog does that is so objectionable to them, and will not help that dog get a better home. A person isn't a lesser owner if they admit there are things they don't want in a dog, but they are a very poor owner if they cannot articulate that or refuse to admit the real problem.

This is an internet forum, it isn't face to face. It's one person at a time addressing a larger audience. All of the information doesn't have to come from the words chosen, as you are able to post images, videos or other visualisations to help make a point. We can also gain meaning from emoticons and even the signature and avatar of the writer. The words that are chosen will never provide 100% of meaning, because everyone interprets meaning of words and phrases differently according to cultural context and experience. Writing normally doesn't have body language or tone. If you take those away, you are not left with 7%, because when you take those things away, a lot more attention is paid to the words used. But even if you don't take them away, people can learn better listening skills and get much more than 7%. Where did you get the figures from and by what logic do you only end up with 7%? I don't understand your maths. I think you would be in serious trouble if you could only comprehend 7% of what you read, and should probably avoid internet forums altogther.

I think they should attempt to do more to bond with the dog. Isn't there even one family member who feels close to the animal? Not bonding isn't really a reason to get rid of the dog, it's a reason to spend more time with it. Maybe there is another reason they haven't mentioned. I feel sorry for the kids, learning that if an animal isn't perfect, it can be shoved out the door. Learning that a commitment lasts only as long until an excuse can be made that keeps everyone satisfied. I wonder if their motivation is just to get a different dog. If they do, I hope it bites them.

Righto - so it's okay for you to express your thoughts and personal opinion on the topic and not others! You did give us your opinion. The topic isn't about "why we dislike people that dislike children" or "why we dislike people that are rude to children", but I guess you got confused. I think maybe you're the one who's confused - perhaps I didn't spell it out clearly enough for some ;) Hopefully this is easy enough to understand - I don't understand why it's anyone elses business who likes/dislikes children - does it really matter? Yes I did state my personal opinion but then so did you when you insulted those who defended thier children as being that way due to "raging hormones" :) If it isn't anyone's business, why are you coming in here to see what people think? You obviously do care that people would dislike children, or you wouldn't keep coming back in giving us your opinion on people that dislike children. If it really doesn't matter to you, maybe you could prove it by refraining from quoting me, questioning me, spelling things out, or telling me what you don't like about my opinion.

Righto - so it's okay for you to express your thoughts and personal opinion on the topic and not others! You did give us your opinion. You don't give a flying fruit tingle if people dislike children. Thanks for that contribution. The topic isn't about "why we dislike people that dislike children" or "why we dislike people that are rude to children", but I guess you got confused. Tess, whatever insult you choose to throw at people that dislike children, it is still an insult. My opinions are no more shallow than your own. Are you so insulting every time somebody has a like or dislike that you do not share? Or is there some fear you have of people that dislike children that causes you to have a go at them? Could you try to control it?

Huh? I don't give a flying fruit tingle if other people like kids or dislike them so long as it doesn't affect my life who cares. I do have a problem with those who are openly rude to innocent children. This thread isn't all about you or what things you have a problem with.

This thread is a good example of how hormones affect some mothers. Instead of being able to accept that some people don't like babies, they fly into a rage and start the insults. But perhaps that was the reason for the thread?

I would question why a person would enter a thread and express their opinions of other posters yet choose not to express anything that contributes to the discussion. How they express that is not important.

I used the word shallow in response to the post I was replying to. It was suggested that I was being shallow. Maybe I mean that it is just as shallow to have a love for babies than it is to avoid wanting to be near one. I'm not saying it isn't a serious and deeply felt thing, or that emotions are not important.

Because it requires no thought or critical analysis. Its an emotional reaction that can even over-ride logical thought in some people at times.

My experience of babies holds more weight than yours in a thread asking why some animal lovers would dislike children. We already know that most people like children. We already know why they do. I thought this thread was to explore why some people don't. You are right that I have never had the good experiences with babies necessary to form a positive opinion of them. And I don't seem to be biologically driven to desire one like most people do. But don't tell me that I am shallow or that my opinion doesn't hold weight. Am I wrong about this thread and it is actually just here to have a go at people who don't want kids? If so, I'm sorry I bothered to post here for the benefit of trolls.

Ok, I would describe that as temperament, which I agree can be largely pre-determined. By personality, I mean a much richer expression that babies are capable of. I've never been charmed by a charismatic baby, they all seem a bit on the self-absorbed side to me. At least until they start talking more than crying.

The advantage of understanding canine non-verbal communication is that attacks can be prevented by analysing the dog's intent. We can make a decision to remove the dog before an attack occurs. That happened in this video. You would have to watch a video of an actual dog attack to see exactly how the behaviour escalates to its natural conclusion. I don't think every single person needs to watch dogs being attacked to get the gist of this. I think people should take advantage of the collected knowledge we already have about the subject and learn from this rather than having to live the experience themselves. That's why the charts and videos on analysing dog behaviour are so helpful.