Jump to content

Greytmate

  • Posts

    10,840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Greytmate

  1. That is a good thing. Shelters working with rescue in a responsible way. Fantastic news. Instead of all pitbulls being euthanised, up to 20% of abandoned pitbulls are now being put up for rehoming. If you break it down by breed, you will find that with a standard behaviour test like the Amy Marder Test, different breeds will tend to have different pass rates. So to get an average rate of 48% pass, you would get some breeds of dogs getting higher pass rates and some breeds getting lower pass rates. Has this fail rate of 80% in pitbulls been compared to the fail rate for other terrier breeds tested at the same shelter? Has it been compared with other breeds that have a similar owner demographic? Has an analysis been done on reasons for surrender at that shelter and whether that has an effect on the pass rate on behaviour tests? Sadly, no behaviour test is perfect, although there are people working on that. We found that we had to add breed specific components to our behaviour test in order to correctly assess our dogs. In an all-breed shelter you could say that using the same test for all dogs is the fairest thing to do. This means that the pass rates for different breeds will be different. Is the issue that other breeds are not being tested correctly? It is a fact of life that some breeds are more popular than others, and 'special needs' dogs of desirable breeds do tend to be more easily rehomable than good specimens of less desirable breeds. Kudos to those working to enhance the reputation of the pitbull, so that it can be more desirable too.
  2. It is really personally satisfying when the advice I am being asked for gives a dog the opportunity to stay in its home and enjoy life there, rather than be surrendered. So in those cases, the best advice I give is often NILIF.
  3. Where do you get the idea that most of them will be culled based on basic issues like pulling on a lead? Who are you acusing of doing this thing? You cannot make an outrageous claim like that without any evidence. It is a very nasty thing to say about people that are working hard to help a breed. Read the websites of the people actually running the program, and there is ample evidence of how the program does benefit the breed. But Nathan Winograd is the only one telling you this. And you seem to believe him. Have you actually checked out the true situation for yourself, or are you just swallowing the tripe dished out in the first post? If you have checked it out, and can find an example of where dogs have been put to sleep for not sitting on cue? If I am wrong, show me where I am wrong. Otherwise, have the courtesy to stop the nasty attacks on the Pitbull Ambassador Program, until you have some idea of what you are talking about.
  4. The pits are being singled out because a group of people love the breed and wanted to increase their adoption rate. By doing what they can to ensure that the dogs they adopt out are of the highest quality, they will attract more people to want to adopt their dogs. It is a strategy that works well to reduce the numbers of dogs being euthanised. Whatever test anyone is using on other breeds, it really has nothing to do with what pitbull rescuers are trying to achieve with the dogs that they adopt out. The article doesn't explain what tests are used for any breed. It doesn't explain much at all it's just opinion. Do you really think that the Pit bull Ambassador program was started as an excuse to kill pit bulls? Think about it. Why would people put so much time and effort into this program if they did not want to see more pit bulls adopted? They are operating in a country that sees thousands of pit bulls dumped each year, and not many being adopted out. Why not support a program that aims to ensure that people adopting these dogs get a well-balanced pet?
  5. That is true. If you look at the way that the Pitbull Ambassadors are marketed to potential adoptors, this point is made very clear. It is the point of difference that really makes owning one an attractive proposition for those that are having a few doubts. I almost wanted one they sound so good. Follow the links I posted, it does explain more about the criteria for Pitbull Ambassador. Our Greyhound Behaviour Test © is not made public either. Aussienot is right, this sort of thing is not made available for just anyone to use. It is important for the integrity of the test that we don't have untrained people claiming to have used it and then giving their opinion on it. The test results are only valid if the test is conducted in the right way, and to learn how to conduct the test, you would have to see tests being conducted. Our test is only legally valid if trained, authorised people conduct it anyway. It doesn't matter if our test is no more dangerous than all the training info posted all over the www. If people want to post potentially dangerous info, nobody is going to stop them. I choose to be responsible and not do that. If you want a copy of our test, you are quite welcome to come and watch our testing, and then maybe I will give you a copy of the test for your own interest. But first you would have to apologise to Aussienot for saying her excuse is bullshit.
  6. That is where you might be wrong. I can only speak for myself on this, but our program could be accused of doing the same. But we do look and we do cry and this motivates us to do more. We are working towards 'no kill' from a different angle. We concentrate on increasing the desire for our dogs, and making our dogs more adoptable. Given the finite number of dogs and the potential to take market share away from other types of pets and the ability to create new markets, we feel we can achieve 'no kill' in a way that does not put the public at risk from problem dogs. If that takes us longer than NW suggests, so be it. I don't see anyone else in Australia that is both "no kill" and "open to all surrenders", although some places do attempt to make that claim. We have to ensure our own survival by not taking risks that are outside the boundaries of wider community expectations. I think the pitbull ambassador people know that too.
  7. Mita, if the two groups should work together then it is the No Kill movement that should be supporting programs like the Pitbull Ambassadors. The pro-active group that is doing the work with the dogs and adopting them out should not be hindered by having to compromise with a group of extremist zealots. There will always be partnerships, alliances and loose affiliations between groups that can support each other. But you cannot expect reputable organisations to be networking with people that use emotional manipulation and lies. Discussing an article like this online is the definition of examining it critically, wouldn't you say You haven't examined the article critically. You are supporting it. You are arguing with the people that are examining it critically, and condescendingly saying we don't understand it. You didn't write it Shel, so my understanding of it is as valid as anyone else's. You posted it up under your own name with your choice of topic title. I stand by what I post, have the guts to do the same Shel and stop trying to weasel out of it and pretend you are encouraging and supporting change. You posted words that you describe as deliberately polarising. Some would calling that trolling, others would call that shit stirring. The article is rubbish, and really deserves no more examination. Who cares what obscure and implausible concepts you are now trying to accredit to it. It is an emotionally manipulative and venomous attack. The Pitbull Ambassador program however is worth examining. The concept of turning an unpopular breed into something very desirable is a great one. Maybe there should be a new topic just to look at the Pitbull Ambassador Program without all the NW rubbish. Are there any pitbull people here that are interested enough to do that?
  8. Nope - you've missed it. I'm saying that shelters subscribing to and enforcing BSL is wrong and should be challenged. You are the one that has missed it. The Pitbull Ambassador program is not BSL. They are literally poles apart. It would take a very warped mind to link them together and attempt to confuse the two for their own agenda. In the sheep-like way that you post up NW's "No Kill" drivel, you have missed everything good that the Pitbull Ambassador program might be, and have attempted to discredit it. For your own short-term satisfaction, you are willing to see other people's long-term initiatives fail. A refusal to understand that some breeds do need careful promotion and management for them to become more desirable by the public over time. NW does not provide any solutions to the BSL issue. So, the options are you could do more research and offer something that might be considered as an intelligent challenge to the advocates of BSL. Or you can keep defending your nasty article, because throwing out simplistic insults on a complex subject and trying to discredit the good work of others is about as challenging as you actually get.
  9. Which is why I said that something like this may only work in areas where pitbulls are restricted but not banned. Obviously there are differences in the breeds and the laws about them, but the concept of the Pitbull Ambassador is an opportunity to change community perceptions about the breed. The only way that BSL can be changed is for the community perceptions to be changed, and for the government to be given proof that the dogs in question will not cause any harm in the community. You would only assume that if you didn't look any further than what NW had to say. It seems to me that the dogs need to reach a certain standard to be adopted out of the program, not to get into the program. There are volunteers working with the dogs in foster care to bring them up to the behaviour standard required. Perhaps different groups run the program differently, and only the outcome is the same. We don't know what requirements have to be met for a dog to get into this scheme or how this differs from the temp tests used on other breeds in the same shelters. Labradors do not have the image problem that pitbulls do. Labradors with temperament or behaviour problems rarely make the evening news. Pitbulls with those problems sometimes do. If Lab people have a situation where labs with temp or behaviour problems are being adopted out, they can deal with the fallout. If Pitbull groups only want to see pitbulls with no behaviour or temperament problems being adopted out, why should anyone pressure them to lower their standards? Do you really think we need pitbulls in the community with less than solid temperament and good behaviour? Who would want to adopt a nasty pitbull instead of a nice one? So you feel that breed specific rescue initiatives are wrong. That is reflected in the way you run your site. Breed specific rescue is not responsible for dogs of other breeds dying. No group saving dogs is responsible for the dogs that they don't save. Councils are not on the hook. The pitbulls are on the hook. The article is very vague on the whole subject of adoption figures and the fate of the dogs failing the test. Which organisation that adopt dogs out under this program are you accusing of 'automatic killing' Shel? Be specific if you are going to make such a serious allegation.That way we can look at their overall pitbull adoption figures, before and after they started the scheme, and decide for ourselves if it is a good thing.
  10. One of the appealing things about the Pitbull program, is that it is designed and run by lovers of that breed. They could choose their temperament test based one the breed traits and more importantly, the needs of the people that are going to be living around these dogs when they are out in the community. I see similarities between that program, and the Greyhound Adoption Program. Our temp testing is specific to our breed, and takes into account both the expectations of our community, and the people that typically want to adopt a greyhound from us. So really any breed group that wanted to improve the profile of their breed could do the same thing. If the support is there, people will volunteer to help, and that is where you will find a work force of dedicated breed people fostering and training those dogs and ensuring that they are of the highest possible standard. It isn't just the temp testing, it is the training of the dogs and the support to the new owners.
  11. Tomato, tomatoe. You say diatribe - I say 'thought piece'. I don't believe there is any shame, nor should there be is examining the way different programs are run. He is examining the whole 'pitbull ambassador program' idea as it stands in the US - not attacking any particular group. This idea that because rescue are working with good hearts and therefore working without fault, or should be somehow immune from examination is not only unrealistic, its unhelpful. Only by discussions such as this thread can we examine our ideas and test their merit. Our strength will come not from always being right, but from constantly challenging our thinking. Don't bother telling me what you think the author is trying to say. I can read exactly what he said. The article wasn't about what the dogs deserve, it was an attack on people trying to rehome them. There is a polite way to challenge, and there is the Nathan Winograd way. A way that attacks other people and labels them killers. What a nasty thing to do. And you help him. Imagine the reaction if any of us on the rescue forum laid into another group like that? Even politely pointing out differences in rescue philosophy are interpreted as attacks in there. I cannot believe you are that naive to think that NW's attack on the pitbull program is merely an innocent 'thought piece' or that the intention of his article was merely to examine. Would you like it if I posted on the internet a little thought piece on a website called PetRescue? I could examine what it does, give a brief gloss over of how it operates with an emphasis on the negative and keep up the constant subtext that you (personally) are clearly KILLING ALL THE DOGS that miss out on a place on Pet Rescue, because YOU CHOOSE to leave them in the pound to DIE. Would this challenge to your thinking be helpful? Would it inspire you to go out and save all the dogs that you have so far failed to save? Or would you just think what a bitch I am, giving you a serve back of what you so regularly dish out to others? Shel, don't you feel any shame that you publish pieces like that, that call shelter volunteers killers that sell out their breed? No matter how many differences I have with the rescue people on this forum, I would not start a nasty topic like this merely to attack other rescue groups. What did you hope to achieve here? What makes that article's inclusion in the BSL forum so innappropriate is that programs like the pitbull ambassador one are actually opportunities for change to BSL. It would be more constructive to get people interested in looking at the pitbull program and thinking about it, not attempting to discredit it. Lastly, what you describe as 'the whole premise of anti-BSL advocacy, is possibly the exact reason why we have BSL. It is an ineffective and counter-productive premise, that would be almost laughable if it wasn't so serious. What a silly justification for posting your venom. I have had greyhound laws changed all over Queensland Shel, and it wasn't by spouting rubbish like 'all breeds are equal and non is more dangerous'.
  12. It sounds like a soft tissue sarcoma, but it could be one of many different types. Some are aggressive, some spread slowly. You are fortunate to have caught it early, good on you for being observant of these things. Get a referral to a canine oncologist if you can, cancer can be serious, but there is a lot they can do these days with some cancers.
  13. From what I have seen, there are volunteers that train the dogs to prepare them for adoption, and training organisations supporting the program. Midol, please research the program yourself before you form an opinion on it. From what I have read so far, it is an excellent initiative, that may be worth adapting for use in some places in Australia. If there are enough people prepared to make it work, there is a good chance it could be used to overturn BSL in areas where pitbulls are restricted but not banned. I would also be interested in helping anyone that was attempting to do it properly.
  14. The article doesn't say what type of temperament screening is done, or what training is done with the dogs so that they can go through the scheme. The article just attacks some people who love the breed and are working hard and saving the lives of pitbulls. The author of the article has an agenda, and regularly attacks organisations running in competition to his own. There is no explanation of the scheme or statistics on adoption figures for the breed either. It is yet another typically nasty and very vague attack on people working to save dogs. To accuse these people of having a 'paradigm of killing' is really offensive. There is a lot of info on the web about the program, it is well-supported and a huge amount of good work is being done. There is only Nathan Winograd, Shel, and now you that seem to be having problems with it, or more specifically, problems with the people that run it. So Rhapsopdical, what do you know about the rescue groups that run the Pitbull Ambassador scheme that that makes you agree with the article? You really think that groups like this one, or this group, or any other rescue groups deserve public condemnation? That they do not treat the dogs they save with compassion and justice? That they are selling out their breed? That they exist in order to kill pitbulls? That shows a pretty warped attitude towards the people that make a personal sacrifice to try to help dogs. If you are going to join in with the vitriolic attack on people in rescue, you had better be prepared to explain what it is exactly that you find so objectionable about the way that those groups rehome their dogs. You might even like to tell us what it is that you are doing instead.
  15. Given the bad reputation this breed has now, I think these people are helping their breed, not selling it out. If people want to put their effort into careful assessment and training of a particular breed, to make it more rehomeable and to improve the reputation of the breed, that is a really good thing. Good luck to them. This will be sure to increase the number of pitbulls they rehome long-term. A few figures given to us is not 'basic reality'. They are statistics from very small samples. What is Temperament Testing, and why the capital letters? There are many temperament tests around, some good, some of dubious value, and none perfectly reliable. Why shouldn't this group assess and make decisions on their dogs according to their own criteria? Shame on you Shel for posting this sort of diatribe, knocking people doing good work.
  16. Cryptorchid is retained testicle. Monorchid is one testicle. Unilateral or bilateral cryptorchidism is a lot more common in dogs than monorchidism. If the testicle is retained but outside the inguinal canal, the removal is a simple operation. If it is retained up higher (and it could be up as high as the kidneys), then you have a choice. Go to a normal vet, who will open up the dog and keep cutting until he finds it. Or get an ultrasound done to locate the testicle, and removal via laparoscopy.
  17. The problem with that statement is that there are hundreds of greyhound breeders in Australia, most of which would not be aware that a standard even exists, and yet the dogs that they are producing look exactly like the dogs being produced over a hundred years ago, and act exactly like the dogs being produced over a hundred years ago. It seems that ignoring a 'standard' can sometimes preserve a breed better than following it can. Following breed standards is what has led to some of the more grotesque exaggerations we commonly see in some breeds. The idea that a one page document can describe the entire physiology of a dog is a bit ludicrous. All it can ever do is to provide a very basic outline of the dog's outward appearance. Instead of exact proportions being described in the standard, often they are very subjective descriptions, like 'wide', 'deep' or 'short'. In some breeds, each generation seems to get deeper or wider or shorter, with no regard to the original proportions that the standard was attempting to describe. There is no way that some breeds would be capable of performing the job they were originally bred for, because the way that standard has been written has allowed for too much individual interpretation, and the breed has slowly evolved into something else.
  18. That's so upsetting that an old dog can't even be safe in its own yard. :rolleyes: Poor thing.
  19. That is basically how we got greyhound legislation changed. It's not a green card, it's a green collar. And the dog undergoes a behaviour assessment too. Industry? :rofl: I don't think so.
  20. One of our vets put a dog we adopted out onto the human pill. It worked pretty well. My old girl is a little incontinent at night, but it is due to cystitis, it's not hormonal. We use a plastic cloth with fleece on the back to protect the floor, and on top of that I use two foam kennel mats that I throw in the washing machine each morning. I have about 8 of them that I rotate. They soak up most of the urine, so it doesn't run everywhere.
  21. Don't be confused. Ignore silly rating systems that do not actually talk about what ratio of nutrients are in the food. Different dog breeds, and different individual dogs require slightly different balances of nutrients depending on how they use them, and the source of the nutrients is not really important to the dog, only the quality and availability. Many dogs belonging to people that care about quality food are actually overnourished. Even cheap food that contains a lot of cereal has enough nutrients for some dogs. Add too many nutrients, and your dog will just be fat, and all the extra nutrients end up in the dog's poo. I am interested in reading articles from people that have studied nutrition, and can explain how the dog actually uses the nutrition available to it. The more we learn about this, the better position we will be in to decide what to feed our dogs. I am not interested in reading articles that are just opinions, and or that rate food to unimportant or nonsense standards. It is psuedo science, and insulting to the people that do understand canine nutrition.
  22. So what if they didn't bag anyone? I am not going to agree with dietary recommendations that would harm healthy dogs. A diet of mainly roo and offal is not a healthy diet for some breeds. People can feed their own dogs whatever they like, but it if they are going to be making recommendations about what other people should feed, they have to be very careful about what they say.
  23. That is great that you found it interesting, but if you post things like that on the internet, people might take it seriously and follow the advice. In this case, you are recommending people do something that may be very harmful to their dog. If you are going to post things on a discussion forum, you have to be prepared for replies from people that do not agree with what you write. There are plenty of people here that know a lot about canine nutrition, and if you spend more time here you will learn a lot. And you probably should credit the author of the piece you posted. You wouldn't want people to think you wrote it.
×
×
  • Create New...