Dame Aussie

Yes, if the dogs have sufficient attention and stimulation/enrichment, I don't necessarily have a problem but didn't they admit they had barely any staff members/volunteers? That was what concerned me.

She's a little cracker Jules, growing beautifully :) in glad she's such a happy confident girl

I didn't say it was well deserved. I said I know nothing about this shelter, I just have issues with no kill.

Let's look closely at what it means to care for dogs correctly in a shelter. Dogs living in a shelter are a bit like humans living in an institution. Both dogs and humans thrive in a domestic environment, this is how we like to live, and how we do best. In an institution, there are factors that can contribute to a less than healthy environment that have to be dealt with. Living in close confines with a changing series of new dogs means that the environment has to be constructed in a way that doesn't harbour bacteria, viruses or parasites. The surfaces need to be very easy to clean and need to be robust as well. This applies to human institutions and to kennels, and there are codes of practice that can be followed to achieve this aim as closely as possible. If this isn't done, then there is a risk of a sudden serious disease outbreak or parasite infestation going through the whole place. It isn't about how it looks (especially not in kennels), but how the place is constructed. The resources have to be there to do this, it is not good enough to use sub-quality salvaged materials. It's a huge risk of sudden catastrophe, and therefore a welfare concern. Living in a kennel is like living in an institution in other ways. Enough mental stimulation must be provided for well-being, and this is known as 'enrichment'. Without enrichment in a person or a dog's life, their psychological health will deteriorate, and the effects can be permanent. So if somebody is managing a shelter or kennel, and has enough money to maintain the physical environment and also to sufficiently enrich the lives of their kennel dogs, they are running the place correctly. The dogs will be healthy and happy. Same as people can be healthy and happy if they are living in a very well run institution. Much easier to run a dog kennel though I think. This forum is full of breeders and others who keep dogs in kennels and who devote the time to enriching the lives of those dogs so that they are well-adjusted and happy dogs. So, another part of running a kennel or a shelter or an institution for people is having the ability to control how many are admitted in the first place. Knowing what resources are available and matching that to the numbers taken in. But the problem with dogs is that we are not able to control the numbers of irresponsible people who dump their animals. So it requires shelter people to make hard decisions about which dogs are allowed in or which ones can continue to stay there. They need to make a rational decision based on the resources available to them, because if they don't do that they cannot provide for the needs of each dog they take in. This is where the label "No Kill" can be a big problem. Nobody in any rehoming shelter wants dogs killed. But well-run shelters ensure that they never have more dogs than they do resources to care for them and that involves either turning some dogs away and/or euthanising those that have little prospect of being rehomed successfully. Lola didn't turn dogs away and didn't euthanise dogs who could not be rehomed and did not have enough resources to sustain the number of animals she was accepting. This would indicate that she was failing to manage her shelter. Be very wary of organisations that claim to be No Kill. Either they are turning many dogs away, which is fine, or they are hoarding them. If they are turning dogs away at the door, they are using the term No Kill to give themselves a marketing advantage over shelters that have a council contract to take all surrenders. This marketing advantage is based purely on manipulating emotions and disparaging other shelters, and so I regard it as an unethical management practice. A good shelter should be able to describe what they do without having a go at what other shelters do. There is never a good reason for using the term No Kill. I don't know anything about this organisation but having worked in a large shelter myself, what GM has said above is spot on. It is not acceptable to have dogs kenneled in such an environment for that length of time, especially when they don't have enough volunteers as it is. I've seen dogs in kennels for months on end and it's not good for them. If that's the life they have, PTS is, sadly, the better option. No kill p*sses me off. A lot can only call themsves no kill because they refuse to accept certain animals, meaning someone else has the hard job of PTS, and the reputation to go with it. Others just take everything, and even with the best of intentions, don't know when to ask for help and can't make those hard decisions. It's a no win situation as far as I'm concerned. Until people start taking responsibility for the animals they own nothing will change, and as long as some shelters/rescues aim for no kill, no matter the cost, the more the animals suffer.

Lili is a toy sucker too. She alternates between shaking the toy to death to suckling and kneading it with her paws. She goes to sleep doing this and has done it since she was a baby. She's lying on the floor sucking on her "Sharky" right now :)

Ive never had to report anything thankfully, but I would not be surprised by anything when it comes to this organisation. If I noticed there was no change in the horses condition I'd just keep reporting it over and over until something changed.

I don't know if it's illegal but it should be, and anyone who does it is risking their dogs life.

Wow. How amazing

I remember when I was working in a pound we had a ginger cat come in whose name was The Ginger Ninja. Awesome.

Who knows who is telling the truth, the whole thing is a mess and the dogs are the ones that suffer

Lili was my grandmothers name and Mosley was named after the boxer "Sugar Shane Mosley" by my OH :)

:laugh: good work Stan

Oh this had me in tears I've said so in the other thread already but he was an amazing little man and had an amazing, caring family. Thinking of you all.

They just cook up the leaf (which is otherwise worthless) in butter. THC is oil-soluble and requires heat to activate (which is why eating a plant would have little effect on it's own). Marijuana has been used medically in dogs, they seem to tolerate it quite well unless it gets to a toxic level. The problem with hash cookies these days is that people are making them using more potent strains, and sometimes even with the very potent (and valuable) buds. A very small amount ingested can be toxic in that case. Back in my day (many moons ago) hash was black and usually came in a block commonly known as a block of Johnny Cash. You could also melt it back to resin and smear it inside a tally and smoke it that way or through a pipe. Cooking poo(leaf) and making cookies or cakes was a whole nother thing. Hash stoned is completely different to choof stoned. That's how it still comes over in the UK, you don't really see hash in Oz, probably cause it's such a good climate for growing so no need to turn into hash to transport :laugh:

:laugh: I'd still choose Stan over another Grey, if only for the hilarity!

My Aussie would be my emotional support :laugh: and my Anatolian would guard us and act as an alert and probably catch some food if he was hungry enough. Oh and the Aussie has caught birds before so she could also help me with food. My Anatolian is really big and furry so would keep me warm at night too. They would both keep me entertained. If I could take one other type of dog it would be a Greyhound to chase and catch more food...and for the laughs :)

One of our Chi's used to do that. He'd take a chunk and go to his favourite spot, put it down, then eat it.:laugh:

My Aussie caught a pigeon mid flight and killed it when she was 4 months old. Didn't change my opinion of her,she's a dog, if I was a dog I'd probably eat birds too.

Yeah I guess it could be dropped to avoid being caught with it. Nuts!

Yep totally agree. The stuff costs money no-one would leave it lying on the ground would they?! Dog probably got into something accidentally left lying around and the owner is too scared to own up, or as you say, did it on purpose for a laugh. Who knows though, people do strange things!

Mosley is like this, he's had to wear an E collar quite a few times *rolleyes* OP if she will be supervised I'd just wait and see if she needs one.

I prefer coconut water to sports drinks, I can't stand the salty sweet taste of them, they make me gag

A bit off topic but just remembered....friend said to me the other day that she could never own an animal, we were talking specifically about dogs, that had killed another animal. She has cats!!! :laugh: If you don't want an animal that might kill things don't get a cat! Hating a cat for doing what comes naturally is illogical.

Yeah I'd go with a pup if your dog is still healthy and active. If he is an old 7 and you think he might be grumpy with a pup I'd go for dinething around 3-4.

Thanks guys :) , I have some capstar and I'll change the flea treatment too.