~Anne~

A few years ago I was out walking my silky and a ridgeback came running over picked him up, shook him from side to side and dropped him and walked off. My dog didnt have a mark on him- but died in my arms on way to vet. The other dog broke his ribs and they punctured his internal organs and with in about 15 minutes he was gone. So just because there is not a mark, doesnt mean there isnt damage. I think you made the best of a horrific situation Jimmay, and to be honest after having a dog attacked I would do the same thing. Why make a situation worse by walking two dogs over to a couple of dogs which are obviously dog aggressive and attacking another? I dont see how that could be a logical decision to make. Am glad to hear the man and baby were ok, I just hope the little dog was ok later on. Sadly, I also carry a simialr memory. A beloved childhood Pug named Roscoe was attacked by the Labrador next door. My family were not able to afford a Vet and he had little external injuries. We thought he was just a bit shaken up. He died two days later after lying sick for two days. I believe though it was more the boot of the neighbour that killed him though...but I was only alittle girl and I could be wrong.

Can you provide the reference Anne? I heard this discussed on the radio the other day - and the police spokeman was saying that it is illegal to have them unrestrained on the back of utes, for them to interfer with a driver, or to travel on a driver's lap. But he was clear that it was not illegal to have them unrestrained in a car unless they were interfering with the driver. Not saying you're wrong, but I would like to get to the bottom of the legal position as I've heard it said a lot that they legally need to be restrained, and no police or other authority I have asked has ever agreed. I've checked the national road rules and couldn't find it in there - only the bit about interfering. Yes, it seems you are right. There is no direct reference to unrestrained dogs unless they are on the driver's lap or interfering with the driver. I think it is illegal to have them unrestrained on the back of utes though, just not in the back of a car. It is reports such as this that seems to have lead to the confusion; http://www.smh.com.au/national/police-get-...91024-he0j.html

I must admit to sometimes feeling nervous when I take my guys for a walk. It would be easier if I only had one dog, but with 3 it would be hard to keep comtrol of them and also ward off an attacking dog in this type of scenario. In NSW, it is now illegal not to have them restrained thankfully, although I would say that compliance of this law seems very low.

And chat she did. She is sooo cute!

Were you there Chewy!??!?!?! I missed you

Wooohooo Rach! Jack won.

And if the ANKC is what you consider to be the standard for registries, then I guess that might be an issue. If you don't think of that registry as the ultimate then....

I'm sorry, I find that statement offensive, Maybe those 'many breeders' might have put her down from an ethical, humane point of view, based on her expected quality of life, NOT because she wasn't potential ribbon winning or pumping out puppies as their motive. fifi edited for spelling and to bold the text because I'm peed off. Is that any more or any less offensive than implying or outrightly stating that a reputable rescuer wouldnt re-home such a dog I wonder?

I have a cat that will accept a Pug in my house, but runs and hides from all other dogs. I thought it was perhpas becuase Pugs are so complacent and non-threatening. Perhaps it isn't though? Perhpas it is more related to recognition. Pugs also obviously have a distinct look.

I think pikes was be facetious.

My point is that we don't know that these dogs are happy and we don't know they are not in pain. This means that it is necessary to be very careful not to think these dogs are ok based on how they look, ie looking happy. Ahh, ok. The converse of what I stated. Yes, true, they may not be happy and they may be happy. I guess we will never know.

I am not sure of the relevance of the point you are making Jaxx?? 'Any' dog could be in pain that is not picked up is essentially what you have stated. Dogs can be stoic. I know all this and I agree with those points.

(Edited to add - I agree that 90% of the time he is fine, but the comments and negative reactions I receive are also related to him beuing 'drugged up' as anti-convulsants tend to slow dogs down somewhat and there are numerous health risks associated with their use.) My dog was a rescue dog. I adopted him. He came into rescue after a discussion with a vet about euthanasing him more than 7 years ago in Victoria. I paid no money for him though, and in fact, I was given money that was raised to assist him! The rescuer that allowed me to adopt him is ethical, has high values and morals and I respect her a great deal. I did feel sorry for him and I actually was not actively looking to adopt a dog when I heard about him. I adopted him as I knew I had the knowledge and ability to deal with his condition. I am also well aware that there would also have been some motive there related to my feelings and how it made me feel good to help this dog. No-one is truly selfless, we all do things that make us feel good. We are all driven by ego. Adopting a poor little epileptic dog that was at risk of being euth'd appealed to me and, at the same time, I knew I was in the position to help deal with his future needs. I only had one Pug at the time, had only just started concentrating on rescuing Pugs myself, and the timing was right to add another dog. Had he been a normal healthy Pug, I would not have considered adopting him. Is that wrong? Is that bad? The dogs that I have re-homed with disabilities I have charged an adoption fee for. Cookie, whom some here will recall, is a prime example of a deformed dog, with a debilitating injury on top of the deformity, that I personally rescued and re-homed. As a rescuer, I wasn't looking to profit even though I did sometimes make a profit, and I don't think that the people in the subject story are looking to profit from the dogs in question. At least not financially at any rate. Cookie is still very happy to this day. I feel no qualms about rescuing her or re-homing her, and I am also quite sure that the Vet who sought me out to assist feels no issue with re-homing a deformed and injured dog. Cookie will, without any doubt, suffer some pain in the future and possibly does already. When and if this happens (if it hasn't already) her pain will be managed and when the time comes, I am sure her owners will euthanase her when the pain can not be managed. I don't believe I was exploiting any rescue I re-homed, although I can see how these little Chihuahuas are open to exploitation and appear to be exploited. From the clip they appear to be. The behaviour and the body language both suggest they are.

Possibly Greyhounds.

Overall, I agree with much that has been said. I feel strongly that I am able to clearly look at all sides of the argument. I believe the dogs should have been culled at birth, without question, and I do also acknowledge that the animal welfare org in this example is using the dogs as a ploy to the possible detriment of animal welfare. My difference of opinion seems to largely stem from the determination of 'suffering'. I have an epileptic dog, as I am sure the majority of people reading are possibly aware. His condition is obviously not in the same category as these Chihuahuas however, but I am hoping to illustrate a point. His routines and seizures, medication and health, rule my life and my family. I have been told on many occasions to euth him due to the severity of his condition. I have been told I am cruel keeping him alive. I have heard the silent recriminations from friends, family, colleagues and forum members. However, in my opinion he is not suffering. In my opinion he has a full and happy life. My opinion differs from others, I know this. I am aware that one day I may have to euth him. I am prepared for this. I will not let him suffer. The difference between me and many others on the issue, is as I said above, the determination and possibly the definition of 'suffering'. What one considers suffering may not be viewed the same as another. That is a point I would like to discuss. The very saddest thing about a person or an animal dying, is the grieving by the living who loved that person or animal. I believe the ones who have died do not suffer in death. Those who grieve do suffer, the more that one surrenders to love that person or animal, the deeper the grief. The time to put an animal to sleep is any time after it is known that suffering will soon be inevitable. We have quite a few experienced vet nurses posting here, and their professional opinion is that these pups will suffer. I know they will suffer, because I have a good basic knowledge of canine physiology and psychology. Experienced breeders that know a lot about dogs know the pups will suffer. But to the average dog owner, they just look like a happy, healthy pups with a bit missing. I disagree about the assumption or belief the dogs will suffer or even be made to suffer. I understand that people can become blinded by emotions when their dog is suffering and they choose to prolong the life of the animal. We do not know the strength or weaknesses of any future owners of these dogs though. Why is it assumed they would allow the dogs to suffer? We are also assuming that the dogs will experience physical pain that will cause them to suffer in the future because of their deformity. I am sure there will be instances of pain or discomfort, but I am not sure that this pain and discomfort would be too much greater than a dog with an atopic allergy, or fleas, or dry eye or any other health issue related to dogs. I believe the size of these deformed dogs is also relevant. If the dogs were a larger breed, it would be a different scenario. On the other hand, do we know they won't be? Do we? (re: bolded part). Do you? Does anyone? Unless you have experienced this exact thing, how could you know? You can project on what may occur if you have the knowledge and understanding of the skeletal system and by this, I would think that the knowledge would have to be detailed to be able to try to project, but no-one knows in all reality what will happen precisely. I find this statement somewhat disturbing and perhaps I am reading it wrongly. You are assuming that I perhaps unintentionally or intentionally overlook some issues, or that my re-homing practices may be somewhat altered because of demand? That the needs of the dog are not seen as acutely because of the demand? I look at re-homing any dog, be it a Pug or a Poodle, with the same eyes. The needs of the dog are foremost. The home I am looking for is one that caters to that dog. One that caters to the dog's emotional and physical needs both present and future, regardless of how demanding those needs are or are not. Yes, these little dogs that are the subject of this thread should have been culled at birth. But they're alive. They're happy. They're receiving professional care. As an endnote: The 'bleeding hearts' comments irk me no end steve. The comment is made purely in a derogatory sense and those that say it, know this. It is rude and it is wrong to use such terminology. It is no better than using the phrase 'tree hugger' to label someone who cares for the environment. It is derogatory and I would love for it not to be used because it creates a situation where people who defend their positions on keeping animals alive feel they are under attack. I realise it wasn't aimed at me in this instance though, and I truly doubt anyone could consider me a 'bleeding heart'.

Another good US site for Pug rescues and support is The Pug Village. I think the url is www.pugvillage.com

There are different flea species I believe, but they all use animals as hosts. Therefore, if your dogs has x type flea, your cat will too and vice versa. That is my understanding anyway.

From experience in both personally adopting a dog with serious issues and re-homing dogs with serious issues, I can assure you that your opinion that the 'novelty' will wear off or that a person who adopts such an animal is somehow mentally unbalanced and stupid or adopting for the 'wrong' reasons is incorrect. I don't believe I am any less intelligent, or unbalanced than the majority of the population and there never was any 'novelty' in adopting my dog, but a great deal of consideration instead on his future care needs.

They're terribly cute. Sadly, they should have been euth'd when born. However, they are alive, they are being assisted and trained to live with the deformity, and I am sure they will live long happy lives. The mindset of "euth at any opportunity" can be just as wrong as the "save everything" train of thought. There should be a balance.

I am at the stage where I would ratherpay someone to groom them fortnightly rathr than do it myself anymore. Any recommendations for groomers on the Sth Coast?

Wow, that is very reasonable. When a groomer grooms a short haired dog, do they brush them as well? The main idea of having them groomed is to try and cut down on the amount of hair in my house. I usually wash them every week or fortnight myself, but it is time consuming and then I have to brush them all to try and rid them of their loose hair. It drives me spare! They are very used to being bathed and are easy to bath. The brushing is not so easy though as they don't like to stand still. The brushing gets them all hyped up usually.

I know this is a bit like the 'how long is a piece of string' thing, but as a rough estimate, how much would it cost to have 3 Pugs groomed every fortnight, on an ongoing basis, by a mobile groomer or a groomer who picks up and delivers? I will also obviously ask a local groomer this question, but I thought I would ask here in the mean time. If it is way to expensive, then I won't bother the local with the question.

There are a billion and one Pug Rescues in the US who could offer advice and support. Go to www.pugs.com

Worms. I know personally of 2 pups (no cnnection to each other) that suffered recurrent seizures due to heavy worm burden. I think Trisvern on here also had a rescue pup in that suffered the same. Once wormed and cleared of the infestation, the dogs returned to normal.

Sorry, answering via phone and I can't figure out how to highlight just one point of your pst re: allergies causing hair loss. Yes, most definitely they cause hair loss. When I am back online at home I will show you a few pix of hair loss.