~Anne~

It seems very well written and very objective. It explained a few things for me and put the debate firmly in its place. I think sometimes we all lose sight of the points of discussion because of the emotions involved. I feel sad that this Vet is bearing the brunt of all this. Thanks for posting!

They arn't going for ANKC recognition? That quote from their website is complete rubbish, the real reason they aren't going for ANKC recognition is because they have no hope of getting it. Yep, neither does the Mini Foxie. Absurd isn't it.

Many breeds don't have ANKC recognition. The MDBA is a legitimate registry, just like the many other registries that exist in Australia. I wonder how many of you fit the Mini Foxie in your logic. What of the Australian Koolie? White Sheps? From my knowledge none of these are ANKC recognised either but they don't seem to come under the same ridicule. Perhaps it is because they aren't as new in their development? Maybe its because the word 'poodle' was never featured in their development? I must confess that I am not a fan of the name either. It does have a particular comical ring to it but it is a name that I will in time get used to I think, just like I have with others. I can see the humour in the video but I agree with Megan's initial statements.

Gee gosh, I haven't seen my old name used for some time. :laugh: Now, when you want to mention my name and claim things I have said, please be careful to actually state fact and not a deviated version to satisfy a poor memory or worse. I have evidence, facts and proof of the issues I have seen in the purebred Pug. There are also many Pug breeders who acknowledge those same issues. The difference is I am not hog tied by my peers for stating what the problems are. The most I risk is being abused by the clueless, ignorant or judgemental or those who simply disagree with my views, on dog forums. I am free to say as I please and I wish those breeders could as well. Sadly though, the purebred world isn't open to discussion, and certainly not to any real change at the best of times and those who speak up are labelled unkindly and unfairly. The best feature, and the single most redeeming feature of the Pug breed is its character. The essence of the Pug is its character. This is one of the rare characteristic that has remained true it seems for hundreds of years. Ive come to a point where I think the Pug will change. The change will be forced. I'd rather see a proactive approach instead being taken so that the change is controlled by knowledge but I feel this will not be the way it rolls.

. Well said. I'm still awaiting widespread evidence of breed clubs in Australia taking initiative to correct the issues seen in specific breeds. Enough of the softly softly too. This needs substantive action in some breeds.

My three (all Pugs) all inhale their food within seconds. Big Foot could be standing in front of them and the only thing they would be focussed on is their dinner. People think that I am dedicated when I say I watch them eat to ensure Monte (my epileptic) gets his meds.... but in reality it is all over and done with in seconds. :laugh:

The Pug certainly lives up to being a companion dog. In fact, I would wager it would score a perfect result if such a test was done (re: earlier comments regarding the nature of a companion dog).

I still don't understand the point. If you buy a cross bred from a pet shop or out of the classifieds you also have a dog that you know nothing about and is not desexed and you pay far more particularly from a pet shop. Is your point because it is a pound dog it has a lower value? A dog is a commodity that costs. One reason why I believe dogs end up in shelters is because they have such a low value and your argument supports that. What am I missing? It is a dog in a pound. It has value. $200 odd dollars isn't a lot of money for an animal that will potentially give you up to 15 years of companionship. The only effect it has on its chances is through people believing the dog doesn't equate to that value and THAT is why it ended up in the situation in the first place.

Sorry Dogmad. I think I need more coffee. I know we're on the same page but the text is jumping all over the place for me this morning! :laugh:

Why does it have to be interesting? Sorry, but I thought we were discussing a subject. The subject was the cost of purchasing a dog from the pound. If you don't find it interesting, why post?

And no offence, but reading the constant reminder of how hard it is to rescue and how costly it is rescue and how unnappreciated it makes one feel is as frustrating as listening to the very same cry from breeders in my view.

Dogmad, I know all this. You're preaching to the converted as they say. The dog is a 6 month old entire cross breed i believe. In this instance we are talking about the cost to buy it from the pound. We're not talking about how hard rescue allegedly is or how much it costs to rescue a dog. We're talking about how much it costs to BUYa dog, in this instance, from a pound.

I know Shmoo. Sorry, when I re-read my comments they appear blunt and grumpy almost. :laugh:

No-one is stating that rescues make money and the thread isn't about rescues. It is about the cost of purchasing a dog from an impound facility which some posters think is unfair. To be fair, as a former rescuer, I have my own views on costs but I'm not sure this is the place for my experiences and thoughts on the subject.

Ok, here is the quote from the OP; The price for an undesexed but microchipped and vaccinated dog was $268.

Huh? Where?! The pound quoted $298 (or something within that range) for a vaccinated, microchipped and registered dog. The OP then said it would cost them x amount to desex and vaccinate. I think you need to read the posts again, carefully! All this quoted above iis now invalid as you will see.

I think you are wrong. I don't consider it a high cost either. Is it expected that shelter and pound dogs should be free? If so, why? Why do you consider a dog from the pound as not of any value? The average rescues sells a dog for between $250 - $350. If Muttrus purchased the dog, desexed, it would have been within this range and it would have also been registered. A lot of rescues do not rehome rescues registered and the cost is borne by the adopter..

Which is what I said. :)

Muttrus foster cares for a "legitimate" rescue, but due to where they are and the dogs they save there is no need for a 16d rescue clause, as none of the dogs come from the pound. They all fly in from Outback NT from the communites. They are all camp dogs. I know that. :) This doesn't prevent her from fostering a dog for another org. The ultimate goal is to save the dog after all. Using logic, you do this by the most sensible means (well I would anyway).

The lower the fee on animals that aren't desexed, the higher the incentive for people to purchase them to breed from. Sorry, but your logic is skewed.

Better still, ask the pound to desex him first. Then you'll have a dog that is chipped, desexed, registered and vacc for around $300. You'll then have a $100 profit to put towards his feeding and care if you rehome him for $400. Or, as I said in our earlier conversation, offer to foster him for a legitimate rescue and then it won't cost you personally anything except for time, love, care and food.

Sorry, but I think you are being unreasonable Muttrus.

In this case, it is not an official rescuer buying the dog. I know that Muttrus isn't intending on breeding him however she could be anybody seeking to buy him undesexed. Either way, it is LAW that a registration fee of $150 is paid at the time of release. Rescues have clause 16d exemptions for this purpose and that is so they don't have to pay the $150 registration fee on entire animals.

I think you might have the cost confused. It is only $90 to purchase from the AHF. Then you have fees for desexing, registration etc. For you to be quoted $268, that was possibly because you opted to take him undesexed which means you must by law pay $150 registration. If you ask for him to be desexed it will cost you far less overall.

They're not very good at 'spellink'.... I understand the message but the pics on some are chosen to skew the result.