~Anne~

Where does it state she is in this category? Did I miss something?

The poor little dog. Why would someone deliberately do something like that? The story seems strange to me but that could be because there is very little info. As for comments on the young girl.... her facebook page lends itself to comment.. Further down the page she laments about what society is coming to. Kind of ironic when you read all of the comments over a period of time on her page. :laugh: even more interesting is that she apparently works in child care.

Given that it's mate was just killed I find this suggestion a tad superficial. The remaining cat is probably stressed at this point.

Alexandra Horowitz. She's a cognitive scientist from the USA.

Yes, in NSW you record the details in your name and then when the pup is sold you complete a transfer document with the new owners details. It is your responsibility to submit it too. Not the new owners. :)

Im not sure you could say the list was accurate. I think my rescue may still be listed on Pet Rescue and I closed my rescue about 4 years ago now.

I'd seek help from a breed rescue. Poor grandma, it would be very traumatic for her.

Agree. The whole perception pushed so easily and willingly by rescuers that all dogs are neglected, abused, unwanted and that all former owners are uncaring people who have no idea of responsibility is just plain illogical and false. There are many dogs that end up in pounds in Australia that are very much loved. They may have been lost, stolen and then lost, on sold and then dumped - anything could have happened that eventuated in that dog ending up in the situation it is in. Long haired dogs only need to be on the street for a short time wandering before they end up looking like a mess. Dogs lose condition very quickly when under stress and dogs that are wandering and lost would be stressed. The first assumption is though that the animal is uncared for or abused. When I ran my rescue I took in surrenders. No questions. No judgement. There were many legitimate reasons to surrender and many, many heartbroken owners who gave me their pug or pugs. There were often tears and always words of regret. I had no doubt that most loved their dogs. Where possible we looked for alternatives. When there wasn't any, we took them in. People should also consider the level of edcuation regarding dogs, ownership and who can help in times of need. Not everyone knows they can find help. Not everyone understands they can find help. Many know they will be judged and are wary of speaking to rescuers. You only have to read the judgements on this forum to see that.

I'm reading "Inside of a dog - what dogs see, smell and know"

I only ever rehomed one dog entire. He was purchased from a pet shop three days before Christmas at 9 weeks of age. He was surrendered to me 10 days after Christmas because the young owner, very responsibly and sensibly, realised she didn't have the knowledge, patience or time to cope with a puppy and live in a unit. He was a tiny, teeny little cross pug called Toby. My vets advised he was too small to be desexed. I re-homed him under a similar clause that you spoke of above. However, there is no legal clause that allows you to take the dog back. Most new owners don't understand this though so you can bluff them. I didn't transfer the chip until he was desexed which was also not on par with the Act, however I wanted to stress that he was to be desexed and then they would have total ownership. It worked for me on this occasion however I am sure there are many times when it doesn't work so well. I am in two minds on early desexing to be honest. I think if I started rescuing again I would not desex before 6 months with small breeds and about 10 months for larger breeds. I would certainly have to seriously consider tactics to ensure that the owners complied with desexing though.

Costs are variable. I didn't go broke and I was able to run sometimes with a very small profit margin. Pugs usually require expensive vet work however many of mine, like Iggy Rescue, were surrenders and came to me in good health so that made up for those who came in needing extensive surgery and health care. Also, being a small breed it costs less to feed and care for them. They also required less room to accommodate and keeping them isolated was easier. I never accepted cash donations. My vets worked with me as a team. Each dog's re-homing fee paid its individual vet bill. If there was money left over because that dog's vet fees were low then I would transfer that to another pug's vet fees. On the odd occasion I would have to make up the difference from my pocket. I'd imagine that the scenario is very, very different for large breeds and for rescues who do not take in surrenders. Still the concept of not relying on donations to run is incredibly important. Soon, and I hope it is very soon, legislation will be in place to finally control the way rescues run particularly when seeking donations. I've recently had a 'discussion' of sorts on a FB page where I think the line between the private dealings of a person who rescues is being combined with the rescue dealings. People need to understand that the two cannot mix. You have to separate the two worlds, just like a business does. Directors of companies who don't are usually the ones who end up in trouble financially and with the law.

Agree. I used goats meat for any elimination diets we put rescues on. You need to live in the right area though to get easy access to it. I was paying only about $8 a kilo from the butchers.

Thanks, that's a good idea. I've been meaning to write to someone about it, I just wasn't sure who would be the best person. It would be interesting to also see a study on pugs and deafness. Early onset deafness is incredibly common in pugs. Alyosha, can I suggest looking to see if you can find any papers written by Alexandra Horowitz. She is a cognitive scientist and she touches on genetics and genomes in a book I am reading of hers. There may be more she has written.

I don't feed pet quality meat of any description. Even the chicken mince smells and looks off to me. I only feed human grade meats. I'm confused as to the description of it being an elimination diet though if your dog has already been fed roo in the past? The elimination principle is to feed a protein source the dog has never had before and therefore is unlikely it have developed a reaction to it. Human meats also sometimes have sulphur dioxide added. I believe it keeps the meat looking fresh and pink/red.

Funny you mention that, I was only thinking this over the weekend. I myself keep away from processed foods as much as possible and try to shop only in the first part of the supermarket (deli/fruit and veg) because in the end humans aren't meant to eat proceed rubbish food either and I would say 98% of people still do. Absolutely. I try to eat as natural as I can but I do not live in a world where that is easily achievable for me or my dogs. I'm also reading a very interesting book that I picked up recently. It puts up arguments against the 'feed dogs like wolves' concept (ie feeding raw meat and bones). It isn't the focus of the book and I didn't realise it went into this theory but I find myself nodding at so much that is written. The book, for anyone interested, is called "Inside of a Dog - what dogs see, smell and know" by Alexandra Horowitz. Alexandra is a cognitive scientist.

Freezing food doesn't help me though. Firstly, my guys aren't great with neck or bones for that matter that can be swallowed and also I can't feed Boof raw meat. Not that I am making excuses either as I see nothing wrong with some commercial foods that are fed as part of a good overall diet. Preservatives are one thing that I believe are an issue for humans and animals in this day and age however and commercial equals preservatives regardless. . Still, I'll bet my tooshie that everyone advocating only raw or natural for dogs still eats commercial foods themselves and feeds it to their families, even if its only butter or bread. It's a strange world we live in. :laugh:

Is Tranter involved in NARGA?

How have you not heard of NARGA, they speak on behalf of, and represent ALL resuce groups in Australia! (sarcasm, sorry. doesn't come across very well in text :laugh: ) :laugh: Yes, I read a little about them when they were first starting out but I never really looked at them in too much detail. I have a couple of friends on FB who regularly post on a different NARGA page to what Jo has posted above but I skim over them. On a more serious note, I actually find there are a lot of rescue threads on FB that I have to ignore. Many have become so blinkered in their thinking or maybe I've just lost patience with the crazy world of rescue. Either way, I find myself distancing myself more and more away from it all and so I am losing touch with the emerging groups and the changing ethos.

I hope your girl will be ok Lilpily.

No sorry, I mean the NARGA posts. I can find a Narga discussion forum but I don't think it is the same one that you posted the first pic from re breeding.

It seems they're replicating themselves on PACERS and the MDBA. They have an emergency care sub section of the group like pacers and they offer a foster care course like the MDBA. I note a few familiar people linked to the foster care group. I cannot find the group you have copied the post form though Jo. Can you provide a link.

Wow, well that's pretty powerful and conclusive. Thanks.

Alyosha, I agree. There is a need o re-think the messages they are pushing. Still, rescuers (and breeders for that matter) are generally not marketing savvy so they may apply their messaging without understanding the implications. Ive seen many, many ineffective, confusing or just plain wrong messages coming from both breeders and rescuers alike.

I also can not see anything to do with Oscars Law or anything against breeding dogs overall except for mass production and puppy farms. It's just as bad as tarring all rescuers or all breeders with the same brush. If they state they are against breeders somewhere I am, as always, happy or be corrected though Jo. Sub registered implies to me that it is a level under registration. Perhaps they are referring to the Australian Labradoodle Ass which uses registered Poodles and Labs?

Clarification if you will. Are you saying that everyone: - who believes in Oscars Law is against breeding of purebred dogs? - that this particular group support Oscars Law and are against purebred breeding? I know several people who support this group, Oscars Law and they also support purebred dog breeding. Therefore from a logical stand point, your post is either missing vital information or sits in the same boat.