Chocolatelover

You still miss the point. Instead of ranting about the RSPCA, why weren't people ranting about the callousness of society and our lack of compassion for our neighbours? Why weren't they flaming her friends and family for abandoning her in her time of need? Because they were too busy with the RSPCA. (Who are about animals not humans). The two scenarios are miles apart. One asked for help and tried to feed her animals anyway she could. One looked them in a cage to burn in their own urine and didn't even give them water. How can these two situations be compared? I say it again (and again) my argument is only with the fact that people are unable to see past their hatred for the RSPCA to have any kind of rational discussion. I am not putting them on a pedastal, not supporting everything they do but they simply cannot be blamed for every wrong the world.

Are you sure? OK I concede defeat. I'm well and truly outnumbered and not making many friends (RSPCA might give me a job though). Maybe I should have joined an extremist animal activist forum - I think I was accused of wanting to end pet ownership in another thread My OH is so embarrassed by me he threatened to disconnect our internet and said if I told one more person why buying certified organic free range eggs was so important he was leaving me I am honestly going to try harder to keep my mouth shut I honestly know the RSPCA do some crazy things. Just recently up here in North Qld they tried to take a horse off a lady who had fostered her and nursed her back to health, saying she owed them money or something. The media got hold of it and they backed off I think. But I think they do do the occasional good thing amidst it all and some shelters in particular are trying to make a difference. In all honesty, I think more qualifications should be required for the people that work there rather than just being an "animal lover". Then again, maybe they do - I just don't get that impression. Think I should get some sleep now :D

Oh dear .... the sky is not going to fall in CL, it really isnt. And the RSPCA is not going to destroy the world, it really isn't. And I fail to see what staff morale has to do with boredom???????? Morale is an intangible term used for the capacity of people to maintain belief in an institution or a goal, or even in oneself and others. You questioned what would happen to staff morale if there were no animals to PTS. I can only respond to what is written, not what you were actually thinking when you wrote it.

Are you saying that you don't think its sad that someone could be in this position ? Homeless and trying to keep hold of their animals? Are you saying it makes sense to take someone to court to punish them when you have already punished them more than many of us who love our animals could imagine when she got into this spot because she was destitute and poverty stricken - to fine her $5000 when she has nothing ? Well I think its sad and if I had been told about her plight I would have looked after her animals and helped her find someplace to live and supported her so her animals didn't suffer and if you call that standing up for her I guess I have to say I'm proud of the fact that these days in my daily life because of MDBA Pacers I get to see the results of what happens when you help someone to look after their animals rather than ruin their lives to go after a court appearance when they hit hard times. The job of the court is to make a judgement based on the evidence presented and to punish accordingly. Do you think the RSPCA should be allowed to say "she broke the law but she's had a hard time of late so lets overlook that she deprived her animals of the basic necessities of life"? What of a person who beats and tortures his dog BUT was abused as a child and now has serious issues? Should we not take him to court either? I am pretty sure that judges study for a long, long time to earn the right to decide the fate of people who break the law. Don't think I can say the same for everyone who works for the RSPCA. The court takes circumstances into account and hence some people get suspended sentences, community services and/or fines. She was lucky she didn't go to jail - I think they were lenient. Sorry, have gone off topic. MY ONLY POINT IS THAT NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE BLAMED SOLELY ON THE RSPCA.

I have now lost all faith in our legal system since they get so many judgements wrong

This is where you and I obviously differ Steve - I would count this as standing up for someone. "How truly sad - lets hope the poor woman was able to find a new home too. Why didnt they just help her so she can still be with her animals? If anyone ever sees anything like this please contact pacers before the RSPCA."

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=191824

Sorry, it was sarcasm Just thought I'd jump in and blame the RSPCA to save everyone else from doing it.

Yes because the original post said that they would be turning away "stray and unwanted animals". This means they would appear not to have thought up the devious plan of turning away people who intend to dump their pets on them and then getting donations for taking them in when they set them loose to become strays And of course, these irresponsible pet owners are in no way to blame. Only the RSPCA.

My goodness gracious me, this is the RSPCA doing this? Oh surely not, it must be a fake memo. Another nasty little rumour ... yes, that must be it. But how is all this going to affect the morale of their staff? They will have no strays to euthanase and put through their horrid "temperament tests". Oh no, wait a minute, they will be rounding up all the dog breeders instead. "There ya go, into that crate now!" Yes, that should be much more satisfying. No staff morale problem to worry about at all. Ah, the world is such a jolly old place to be. Souff Scouff - you clearly implied that the staff somehow take pleasure from putting animals to sleep. That is what I objected to and think is extremely unfair and disrespectful to the people that have to do this every day. I think that was a very low comment. And Anne - I totally agree with you about the rants from DOL and the RSPCA. Everyone talks about farmers, breeders, jockeys........ all the people that stand to have their businesses affected by any changes the RSPCA makes to animal welfare. People do not like change. I have nothing to gain or lose from the RSPCA. Do I agree with everything they do?? Of course not. Do I agree with every decision that the political party I support makes. Of course not. If no one dumped their dogs at the RSPCA there would be no PTS. You think if they turn away dogs then cruelty will increase. Well why aren't your energies directed at hefty penalties for people convicted of animal abuse - jail time and life time bans on owning animals. Why is it the RSPCAs job to "let" them dump their pet on them while they tell themselves that Rex is going to go to a great home. And I do not believe that the RSPCA is convicting all these wonderful people for not worming their dogs. It is such crap. People keep talking about these "stories" but please tell me where I can read about them so I can be enlightened. No one has given me any links to articles or cases. But then again, most people on this forum stood up for a breeder that treated her animals like crap and made them live in cages in her car without food, shelter or water. RSPCAs fault of course for taking her to court - heartless bastards. And why did they stop us chopping of little doggies tails - they look so much better that way and what do they need them for anyway. I am sure they are not perfect. Nor are many breeders. Nor are many farmers. Nor are most people. But the RSPCA do what they do for the animals and at the end of the day they are trying to prevent people being cruel to animals. They are not there for the human welfare to keep us happy- they are there for the animals. It is NOT their primary responsibility to rehome people's dogs when they get sick of them. Or to desex them for free. What next - please worm and feed my dog, and a walk would be good too. If you can't afford to desex then you shouldn't be getting the dog. They cost money. And I'm sure the money to be made in BYBing would outweigh the lure of free desexing for people so inclined? And it is not going to change the "I'm not chopping of his manhood" mentality becasue it's free. Why is the RSPCA blamed for the faults of others?? Typcial around here though I think. PS Thanks Anne - I know I shouldn't take it to heart but it just irks me so much to listen to this sometimes. Maybe I should just jump on the bandwagon - might be less stressful

And the courts allow them to do this without any evidence?? I genuinely do not understand how this can happen. As I understand it, the RSPCA cannot convict anyone of anything - they can only take people to court and the rest is left to the legal system.

And every single person who works for the RSPCA was a part of this court case? And the courts sided with the RSPCA but they were wrong too. Doesn't say much for our legal system that they are getting so many judgements wrong.

Fine to believe what you believe - everyone has that right. I am not in agreement with everything the RSPCA as an organisation does and says. But to make a mockery of the many decent people that work for the organisation and to imply that they in some way enjoy euthanasing the animals is wrong on so many levels. Every thread seems to end up with rants about the RSPCA. One person suggests she will warn people off them until they stop putting animals to sleep. I have absolutely no idea how they will stop PTS if no one rescues from there :D Fifi if you could let me know where I could read the many stories about how wonderful, ethical breeders have been victimised I would appreciate this. Obviously I am missing something here?????????

My goodness gracious me, this is the RSPCA doing this? Oh surely not, it must be a fake memo. Another nasty little rumour ... yes, that must be it. But how is all this going to affect the morale of their staff? They will have no strays to euthanase and put through their horrid "temperament tests". Oh no, wait a minute, they will be rounding up all the dog breeders instead. "There ya go, into that crate now!" Yes, that should be much more satisfying. No staff morale problem to worry about at all. Ah, the world is such a jolly old place to be. Souff I worry about this world. Everyone out for themselves

My beagle has eaten an entire (14 piece) pack of extra before - paper and all. He has also eaten three bags of sugar free lollies from the kids school bags that were for a school experiment He did get runny poops but nothing else. And the paper works it's way out pretty quickly It is the sorbitol (sugar substitute) in sugar-free gums and lollies that causes diarrhoea. So if it was not the sugar free stuff it shouldn't have that effect. You will probably have some very shiny poops before long!! I would keep an eye on him and make sure he eats, drinks and toilets as per usual.

One can only hope that these people will make their own unbiased and objective choices then.

I find it appalling that you would actually warn someone off going to check out the dogs at the RSPCA !! The ones up for adoption have been health checked and temp tested, for goodness sake !! Whatever your feelings about the organisation are, it's irresponsible to bad mouth them to someone who may have given one of the dogs a home. Better to have given her the OPTION of the other rescue groups to consider as well. There are a lot of very dedicated workers in the RSPCA who are working on the coal face as it were and it is a sad and sorry state of affairs when other dog lovers cannot support them in the work they do. Yes there are problems as in any large organisation but badmouthing and running down does nothing to address the issues. I have recently adopted a purebred dog of my favourite breed from the Sydney shelter. He had failed his temp test so could not be adopted out to Jo public. The staff there went to a great deal of trouble to find a home for him as there was no breed rescue in place and with a lot of phoning about they were told I might help out. I have nothing but admiration for what the staff are doing and my experience of dealing with them was totally positive from start to finish. I personally do not agree with some of the policies but publicly bashing them will not change anything .As with most big organisations I am thinking that the way things are done probably differ from shelter to shelter on many points depending on how well managed they are from the ground up. I can actually understand how the UK organisation is thinking, I imagine they are so overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of animals in need that it is necessary at some point to drawer a line in the sand. Cruelty cases must have an advocate and be a priority surely. Before you jump in and flame me about all the other animals being abandoned and needing help etc, I am well aware that it is a huge problem, I have no idea what the answer to it all is but bad mouthing the RSPCA will not help in any way. If you hate the policies so much here in Australia then get involved and start trying to do something from the inside or as an organised group to lobby for change. Totally agree - and lets not forget that humans create the need for this organisation in the first place. On one hand people are appalled because the RSPCA will turn people away when they decide they have "had enough" of their devoted canine companion. On the other some admit to warning people off rescuing from the RSPCA. So what is the RSPCA to do? If less people rescue a dog through them and people continue to dump unwanted pets on them then it isn't hard to work out what will happen. They either have to refuse them (and cop the backlash) or PTS (and cop the backlash). The hypocrisy so often revealed on this forum is amazing!! Direct your energies and anger at the pet dumpers and animal abusers - they are the cause of the problem. The RSPCA and rescue are only treating the symptoms.

Hi Alfie02, My OH wanted a choc lab right or wrong. Many good breeders steer clear of them from what I understand!!!! I did a bit of reading and decided that I didn't want one that came from a long line of chocolate to chocolate breedings. If you're heart is set on a chocolate (I wonder if they were called "brown labs" if they would be so popular :D ) make sure you do a bit of research. From what I read, it was good to have the black gene in the parentage????? I talked to breeders that didn't breed for chocolate to get their take on it too. If OH hadn't wanted a chocolate so badly then I probably would have been talked out of it. (His theory is he gets to choose the pup, I get to look after it ) As for a score of 8/8 - I guesss if the dog had done extremely well in the show ring and had an amazing temperament then maybe you could justify using him but otherwise seems high to me. Just a novice though - hopefully some breeders will point you in the right direction. And from what I have learnt since getting our pup is that if someone says something like "$1000 for the blacks/yellows, $1200 for the chocolates....." then run. I paid $1200 for mine (forgot to :D ). I think $1800 is a bit steep - although maybe you get some back when you desex or something like that??? There are so many to choose from it can be quite daunting when you start looking. I think I would have a much better understanding when purchasing a pup NOW and probably would have picked a different breeder. Don't get me wrong - we love him to bits and wouldn't change him for the world but hindsight is a wonderful thing!! So it is very wise to do your homework as you are :D Good luck with choosing your pup.

Glad it worked out a bit cheaper for you - still think you're very generous (wish my breeder had of thought like you) They sound like nice owners though :D

I chose not to have bloods done when desexing - but only cause I work in a path lab that does some dogs/horses and I know that the prices they charge are a bit hefty! Having said that, if my dog had displayed any signs of unwellness prior to desexing then I would have paid the money to make sure I wasn't putting them at risk with the anaesthetic before I booked them in. My vet asked if I wanted IV fluids and I inquired whether this would make him feel better when he woke up. She said no and that she really only recommended it for older dogs who were unwell and undergoing surgery. The price could have potentially been over $300 but without all the extras it was $205 for a 20kg male dog. I wasn't worried about the money but it just didn't seem necessary. He was bouncing around when I picked him up so all was good You are very generous centitout with your desexing policy - world would be a better place with more breeders like you who encourage desexing of pets. I guess without a cap on it though some people will always take advantage of your generosity. I guess it's a bit like how people will order whatever they want from the menu if someone else is paying I would definitely be requesting an itemised account - just in case they threw in a few extras!!!

All ready did - they smelt like the bone they had for dinner. Gross!!

+1

Hi Jess, Humans can get something called interstitial cystitis where the bladder is inflammed but urine tests are usually negative for infection. The inflammation causes bladder hypercontractability - the bladder gets a bit excited and contracts when it shouldn't. It results in urge incontinence which means when you have to go you just have to and you can't always help it if it's not in the right place They diagnose it with a camera in the bladder where the inflammation will be seen (in humans). I am not sure how they diagnose or treat the inflammation in dogs though but I am pretty sure they can suffer something similar. In humans they inject steroids or botox into the bladder to give them some relief. Desexed female dogs are susceptible to developing incontinence because of the lack of oestrogen (as are menopausal women). Oestrogen "plumps" up the urethra and helps with muscle tone to stop urine leaking. But I am prettty sure this usually happens when the dog is asleep or relaxed????? (Going from memory here). Specialist is definitely your best bet. Would be good to rule out all possibilities of nasties - I think tumours can cause overflow incontinence too. I hope you can get to the bottom of it - at least to know that everything is OK with her

Hi Sticks1977, I have a choccy boy too and he is on Artemis. We have no complaints - nice shiney coat and nice firm poos and HEAPS of energy (maybe too much ). He gets one cup in the morning and one in the evening. We do supplement a bit with yoghurt, sardines and K9 Natural and bones. If Henry had a fever when you took him to the vet (I think that was the case?) then it was likely that he had something going on to cause the runs - especially if the vet gave him antibiotics. I would probably try the Artemis again and see how he goes, as it may have just been a coincidence.. What did you feed Fraser - he looked so lovely and shiney and healthy??

Not really, but that's a whole other thread. and yep you guessed it, im too tired to go into it. got pups to feed around the clock and not going to delve into dog psyche today. That's OK. I prefer to spend time with my dogs to work out what makes them tick and I think I know them better than you do. I could read all the literature out there and would get different opinions - and these opinions will change over time, as undoubtedly happens with science. We can't even work out what goes on in the head of our own species, so how the hell can we be an expert on what goes on in a dogs head. Huski - training is great. But going for a walk and sniffing new smells and seeing new things is also mental stimulation. Why can't a dog have both? We know that humans should exercise for overall health and well being so why not a dog? And I am not talking about a ten minute walk around the block but a decent one to two hour walk on top of playtime in the back yard. Consistent, adequate exercise and training solves many behavioural problems in dogs (from my limited experience of course). So why aren't owners required to provide both of these to the dog? Steve - identical twins have the same genetic material. But there are studies showing that when they are raised in different environments that although they have some similar traits, that nurture does have an impact on their personality. It is the great 'nature vs nurture' debate and I think to condemn a dog from birth is unfair. A dog with a perfect genetic backgound can still be PTS as a result of temperament issues if raised in the wrong environment. Therefore, the law needs to focus on both breeding practices and resposible pet ownership. I am against puppy mills and irresponsible BYBers, I am not against ethical registered breeders. I would like to see the former come to an end and the later flourish (with the emphasis on ethical). But until that happens, the quality of all dogs lives matters to me - not just purebreds.