~Anne~

Mantis, to be honest, I think you're possibly just a little battle weary and jaded. It's making you more sensitive to things that are being posted. It happens to people who are passionate on certain subjects on here and many of those reader will have felt the same or similar at some point along the way. Take a rest and re-charge. I mean that in a caring way too in case it doesn't come across that way.

yes, whats gone so wrong. Although an awful lot died under car tyres too in those days if they didnt get street smart fast. But - if dogs didn't behave and or their owners weren't responsible the dogs copped a bullet . People still owned some dogs which were capable of biting and being a bit nasty but they were never given the chance - any sign that they might be a bit nasty ensured the owner made sure the dog never got out and never had the chance to bite or hurt someone or the neighbourhood would take action and the dog would be shot if the owner didn't do it themselves. All of those dogs we used to play with and accept as part of the community were judged safe - as kids we may not have understood how it came about that all of the dogs on the street were safe but behind the scenes our parents and other adults made sure that a growl or body language that wasnt quite right meant teh dog stayed home. Im older than you and I was one of the kids but also one of the parents. Maybe it was just our area but the aggressive ones weren't kept at home, we just avoided setting them off. We knew the triggers that made them snap and, like the law of the jungle intended, we heeded the warnings. As for dog fights, there were plenty. Dogs will be dogs. Of course they had battles. Things were less refined though. The battles sorted out pack order and territory between the neighbourhood dogs and every now and then one dog challenged another. No one had fences. The fights were unbelievable and I can recall pouring buckets of water on them and putting the hose on them to break them up. Otherwise a good hefty boot did the trick.

I know people get offended by generalisations of bull breed owners and it is no different to generalisations about volvo car drivers. In my opinion, generalisations are formed due to a repeated theme occurring and there is usually some truth to a generalisation overall. Certain types of families and people are attracted to particular dogs. It doesn't a mean that all bull breed owners are the same, but you cannot deny that the image of most bull breeds is of a powerful, strong dog and so those who choose to see their dog as an extension of their toughness or as an addition to help them achieve their desired status will prefer them over other breeds. In fact, the net is wider than bull breeds alone because the Rottweiler, GSD and others also come into this status.

I just saw this. Oh no Staffyluv, I hope ziggy is ok. I'm sending loads of good health vibes your way.

She looks like a nice little dog. Much smaller than I thought from the first pics.

Really? Not that I'm saying this isn't true but I've not heard of it before. I can understand why it would be so but I can't recall reading it in any legislation. Can you point me to where this is stated. Years ago, before rescue became as common as it is now and before pounds developed relationships with rescue services, bitches were sold pregnant, gave birth in the pound and were euthanased.

Temperament is a serious factor that is often overlooked while we blame upbringing. Yes, some dogs can be born more prone to aggression. It is nature, not nurture at this point. The nurturing can then add or subtract to it. People can argue you that till they're blue in the face but and all I can say is, look at the pug. A lack of socialisation will not make it aggressive. Abuse will not make it aggressive.

.

I also tend to prefer males. The majority of the female pugs I have had in are boisterous (as much as an adult pug can be), dominant, excitable and tend to gravitate to the naughty side. While the boys are laid back, relaxed and calm.

If you ring the local council they should be able to tell you. Some councils also have them listed on their websites.

Yes, this is also an issue for me.

Given that the RSPCA is responsible for the seizure of abused animals I think this would skew euth rates to be higher than average. To clarify, I am not a support or detractor of the RSPCA.

While desexing may wind down some behaviours, I have found that dominance is not one of them. A dogs level of dominance will also alter depending on the pack dynamics. Dominance is a trait though. How dominant depends on the pack I have found.

I can't see how you get a 50% euth rate in QLD. It says that more than 18,000 animals were taken in with 5242 euthanised. Overall, it seems that cat euth rates are the highest, which is what you would expect and the national euth rate for dogs is around 25%.

The RSPCA are doing what is necessary for a charitable organisation. You don't like that marketing message? Im not sure I think it's a good one either however, they're being proactive to ensure they maintain their income streams. And you know what, a good number of rescues could learn from their tactics instead of claiming how poor they are and how they run off the small of an oily rag like its a badge of honour.

You don't think they care for the animals they have in their care well enough?

Then divide that cost by how many dogs can be vacced and chipped in a day... T. More doesn't equate to less out. Lets say it takes 2 staff to chip. One to bring the dog up from the kennels or to do the paperwork, and one to actually physically insert the chip. Each person takes 15 minutes to perform their task. One is a vet on $40/hr, the other a clerk on $18/hr. Just in time alone you have approx $14 per chipped dog. Then you have super, insurance and wage taxes, facilities, utilities and everything else that is required to chip that dog. Comparing rescue organisations, regardless of how effectively they are run, with a major organisation such as the RSPCA is wrong. the RSPCA is a business. It is a major welfare organisation with operations across Australia. They employ professionals to manage and operate them. They're not run by your local animal lover who wants to save dogs from euthanasia and who volunteer their time to do so.

Whilst a chip might cost $5, and a vaccination only $60, the resources required to implant that chip would increase the cost per dog. By resources I mean employee costs (wages, insurance and super) and equipment and facilities. You cannot compare the RSPCA costs to that of your average rescue. Surely people recognise that.

To my knowledge, CPV2 was first discovered about 30 years ago so I have no idea why your vet is saying it is new? There are 3 strains of CPV2, a, b and c. C is the latest to spread world wide I think and that was some years ago too (at least 5 years ago). I believe the vaccines have covered all strains since c was first discovered in Australia. Hopefully someone with loads of knowledge can help clarify a little more. If no-one does, message Rappie as she is a vet.

Good idea. They look like a good match for the plastic beds.

I love my children equally. I love my pets equally. I relate better and in different ways to each of my children and each of my pets. It might appear that e love is stronger for one over another, but in many cases its not.

He looks like he is playing "what's the time Mr Wolf" :laugh:

Olivia does pug runs around the house when I come home and Boof whimpers and jumps all over me. Monte used to look at make woo woo sounds as he wobbled his bum and wriggled around my legs. Like Aussie, I like watching their excitement too so I let them do it. In fact, they usually always make me laugh and laughing is a good thing.

Good grief, how pathetic.

Phew, I came back to this thread expecting to see the OP slammed for considering re-homing. Glad to see some sensible support on the issue. I am so tired of hearing the 'responsible, loving owners don't re-home' argument. Katetk - I don't envy your position. I have never totally gelled with one of mine, who was a rescue initially, but she is very much loved. Interestingly, since the death of Monte, I feel closer to her. She seems to have settled a little more now that there is only 2 of them. Maybe that was part of her problem. I now see some of her naughtiness as being cute... or maybe she just isn't being as naughty as she used to be?