~Anne~

You might as well pick a figure from the air though. Whilst average lifespan is fine the variables such as accidental death and owner initiated euthanasia alone would mean a huge variance in numbers.

The ANKC stats show the number registered per year. Are you wanting to know how many registered in total? I'm not sure they'd have that. Keeping the details of deaths would be impossible I'd think so you would never have a true reflection of numbers.

I don't think apricot or silver are bullocks but close to it. I believe they are only variations of fawn. I'm yet to ever see a silver pug. I've seen older pics of 'silver' pugs but never in the flesh. The same with apricot. I actually rehomed a very, very light fawn bitch. She was almost white she was so light. Who knows if she was pedigree or not but I believe use was also a variation of the fawn.

I am so sorry. *cyber hugs* RIP Ares. He was obviously very much loved. Another gorgeous little dog at the bridge.

You could approach it by asking how much she paid for her pup. BBs are usually anywhere from $2500 upwards. I'd then make of comment about how cute they are but costly. Then explain why they're so expensive. Explain how they usually have small litters, require caesarians and generally rack up huge costs and so to try and break even breeders have to charge a premium figure. Let her know that she may also lose her bitch. Now whilst problems and costs with breeding is not the sole reason for their high cost, it is a good portion of the reason. Perhaps she'll begin to feel her back pocket. I'm sure she is a loving owner and cares or her dog. Let's hope that she can look forward enough to realise she probably has chosen the wrong breed to jump into breeding with. She possibly looked at the price tag of bb puppies and thought she could earn a few dollars to supplement her income.

Wow, Wilma the wonder pug. I'm sure she loved her reward too!

I would personally never place a collar on a pug. Westiemum, your post above makes me think I've made the right decision.

I think you missed the point of my post Allison. That's ok though. I don't always write things as clearly as I think them.

Sorry, I have to correct this. It's not rare. Due to the shape of the skull the eye sockets are much more shallow than your average dog. This means that they are at an increased risk of proptosis. A brief idea from my perspective of Pugs: Pugs are boisterous, poor at reading the body language of other dogs and they are often misunderstood by others dogs as their body language doesn't seem to be understood easily. They're friendly, have little prey drive, low aggression and will generally get along with all species. They appear to me to have a higher than average rate of food aggression however, although this aggression is rarely directed to humans. Food is their number one love in life, their owner the second. They are less motivated by praise and instead are highly food motivated. They are laid back and child friendly. I have re-homed more than 55 adults pugs over the years, from the young to the old, from the deaf to the blind to the deaf and blind and I only saw one in that time who fretted for their previous owner. They seem to easily switch their love and devotion of whomever feeds them and shows them attention.

I read bits and pieces of the other thread and lost interest when it became about chest beating. I think dog owners, just like parents, are prone to over analysation of everything their animals (or children do), including the reaction of others around them. I think people will always generalise and I think that generalisations, particularly common ones, all have an element of truth. In this case the generalisation seemed to be that little dogs are untrained and anti social and owners of little dogs are ignorant to the negatives of this.

I think he was perhaps trying to ignore it to show he wasnt encouraging the dog to jump all over him. He also hadn't been directed by judge Judy to do anything... Would you go against her! :laugh: It was obvious the dog recognised him when the other woman was walking in with it. It was just about jumping out of her arms to get to him.

Wow, I hope you let them know how their rudeness inconvenienced you! So it seems it is the marketing, for want of a better word, that isn't quite right. There are three levels to promoting a rescue dog. The intro to the marketplace "here is Deefa and he is a happy little crossbreed", the verbal descriptors during conversations, email and telephone responses, and the final product in the flesh. Im not sure of the exact stats but I'd think that it would possibly normally take around 12-15 enquires per dog to develop into 1-2 potential homes which develops into a single appropriate match. You have to get enquires up. But how? There's been some suggestions here already and it seems you're on track. The pics are particularly important. I have Ruthless photography in my FB and her pics make me want to adopt every dog even the big breeds and I normally like smaller breeds! A pic tells a thousand words as they say. Make sure your wording for his description is positive and inclusive "Deefa will enjoy sitting at your feet as you both watch the sun go down" instead of "Deefa will sit beside his new owner" or "Deefa will carry a ball in his mouth as you take long walks together" instead of "Deefa enjoys going for long walks". You also have to think about how you are talking about him. You must make it clear what his character is like but again, through the use of positive inclusive language.

Sorry if this has already been said but can you clarify if you are receiving enquires about him at all? Is it that he is not getting enquires or are people enquiring, meeting him or hearing the details about him and then not adopting?

Write your number on the dog in permanent marker? The joy of light coloured coats! just kidding, obviously :laugh: Well maybe or maybe not.................. I know of someone with a Sphynx who wrote **No Ketamine** on her Sphynx in permanent marker when he had to go to the vets for a GA to make sure no-one got it wrong or forgot :) I once coloured in the top of Monte's head, in blue permanent marker pen, to make sure my pet sitters wouldn't mix up my three fawn pugs and medicate the wrong one. :laugh:

Oh no. What a devastating turn of events. I am so sorry Bindo.

Without doing a lot of research, both qualitative and quantitative, I'm not not sure any of us could make any accurate assumptions. We can only offer opinions.

A friend of mine has a pug with the same coat colour. Her pug is about 9 now. She never 'grew out of it'. As above, I think you'll find it's genetics. I'm sure it's annoyingg though. I know I'd much rather a black with a glossy dark coat! :laugh:

No, I didn't say it was about what is popular necessarily. Perhaps I didn't write it very clearly. I was saying that the numbers would also have been affected by their 'status' of vogue or not vogue with this breed particularly. I don't believe that there is any one single answer. I think it is a combination of things that is causing the numbers of this breed, and many others, to decline. I've pointed out the stats showing the rapid decline of purebred numbers in many threads over the years. I used to keep the stats on numbers but I don't think I have them anymore.

I see a lot of Shnauzers, Goldie's, Labs and Border Collies. We also have a small pocket of pugs, little fluffy types and a few poodles. In fact I've also seen a lot of Staffies now that I think about it. We do have cross breeds as well but overall, from my observations, we have a good number of what appears to be purebred dogs.

Docking may have stopped some breeders from breeding, not the public buying necessarily, but it would only have been a small part of the overall reduction in my opinion. Let's face it, the royal family themselves would have turned people off them as well and this would also be a factor. They're not hip and the public opinion of them dropped dramatically during the Diana years. As superficial as what it is, we all know that people will buy things according to what's in vogue. Dogs have long been an item that people choose for image.

Again though, there are many ways to minimise risk without preventing adoptions. To say that no large dog is suitable for a family, without actually assessing each individual dog, family, and situation, is mind blowing. "Minimising risk" is also why certain breeds are still maligned, deemed 'unsuitable' for adoption, and sometimes killed on the spot. I don't support nor condemn either way. I'm talking about a process. I'm talking about the big picture. A broad process in a local Government department.

It's called risk aversion. It's not the Council covering themselves because of litigation necessarily, it is the Council minimising risk to the purchaser, the dog and the council. The risk can take many forms - litigation, bad publicity, injury to a human, potential displacement or worse for the dog. It's sensible really. More rescuers should try analyse different risks and ways to minimise it.

Sometimes it's not the scanner but the person checking. They may only check a limited number of databases. I get your point though. I think it is the 'stupid of the century'. We are one country yet we operate under several different animal related laws which are governed at State level. You'd think that the relevant State government departments could collaborate so that their laws were all complementary. Surely it can't be that hard.

That's right, as a rescuer I do all my paperwork when dogs are adopted and send it off. I just asked for a list from the council of all the dogs registered in my name and guess what? Some of the dogs i have adopted out and completed Transfer of Ownerships on are still in my name ... Yes, I regularly got the same result. The database details are only as good as those who comply and those who enter the details.

So you judge everyone by your one experience? That's not very clever. You must be dumb. I guess I should judge you just as harshly and as loosely as you are judging this person? But I won't and I don't think you are dumb. I think you are limiting your argument on your one experience though which weakens your point. No one has said that it is the new adopted owners fault. Why does there have to be fault. Where the problem lies is in the fact that the woman won't return the dog or it's rightful owner. Yep, and I am sure that this will stop people from adopting dogs.....t will stop as many dogs from being adopted as it will people going on holidays and entrusting their dogs into someone else care.