Leema

This puppy is drinking well. She likes water and playing in it, and drinks it occassionally. I don't know what the diarrhoea has come from. She hasn't been wormed recently and her food has stayed the same. There have been no stressful incidents. The only thing is that I have started to let them free range around the yard a bit, so it's possible she ate something inappropriate that she found around the yard (maybe some plant or bird poo or something). This diarrhoea seems extreme if this is all that caused it, but that's the only thing I can think of. She is still very happy and very much herself, so I'm not terribly worried. I think I'll fast her... May be good for her waistline!

I have a 7 week old puppy that developed diarrhoea yesterday. Normally, I would fast a dog for a day if they had diarrhoea and then feed them dry only the next day. Would it be okay to do this with a puppy this age? Puppy is happy, energetic, and her normal self. This puppy is quite fat, too.

Thank-you for those who have responded to this thread. It's certainly not a pleasant topic and I am grateful that you were willing to share, and I think it's important that we acknowledge that some puppies AREN'T rehomable - it's just difficult to get to that decision.

This is a hypothetical question only. (I.e. all my puppies in my current litter have homes and are fine.) I was wondering if any breeders on here have decided to not rehome a puppy based on temperament or behavioural issues alone. This is partly in response to Suzanne Clothier's article on "Perfectly Normal", where she talks about PTS a puppy that she was not comfortable rehoming for temperament/behavioural issues. http://www.suzanneclothier.com/blog/perfectly-normal To me, this sounds like a very brave thing and I certainly hope I am willing to commit to PTS if I am ever am unfortunate enough to breed something with a questionable temperament.

I don't know why the community thinks that adult dogs require a booster. There is no reason, physiologically, that a 'booster' is required for an adult dog or cat that is vaccinated. When puppies/kittens nurse prior to 48 hours, they acquire through the colostrum antibodies from their mother. These antibodies take from 6-16 weeks to wear off. The antibodies make vaccination ineffective. The vaccination cannot work if the antibodies are still in the animal's system. For a puppy, for example, it will get vaccinated at 6 weeks. It is unlikely that the vaccination worked, and that's why it needs a 'booster' at 12 weeks. But the 'booster' is not 'boosting' immunity - it's a brand new vaccination, which will either work or not work, just like the 6 week one. By 16 weeks, the antibodies should all be gone so any vaccination after 16 weeks will provide immunity (if that animal produces immunity from a vaccine). So, in conclusion, a 'booster' for an adult cat would not be necessary. A vaccination at 15 months will 'work', so a booster is unnecessary.

Ag shows normally have slightly-crappy facilities, but I don't really mind them. Just have to be aware to get there early to try to get a good possie, or get a possie at all.

It's okay. It's amusing enough. If it works, all is good.

Awww! Love the photos.

Regarding my statistics of '70-something%' of dogs and '93% of owned cats' are desexed, this comes from the Australian Veterinary Association - but which document, I'm having trouble finding. It was used to make claim that mandatory desexing is not useful as voluntary desexing is already so common.

Perhaps the undesexed animals entering your facility are the ones that are in undesirable or irresponsible homes to begin with. I would suggest that the 70-something-% who do desex their pets are also the kind that keep their pets safe and secure, and do not surrender their animals at a 'drop of the hat'.

Thanks for the link, mita. On a different note, I found this blog post today of someone's experience at a shelter: http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/one-visitors-experience-at-the-new-mas/ It makes you think: Rescues and shelters really need better customer service skills, too, to make it easier for people to adopt dogs.

Regarding release fees, I have similar emotions to both sides. On one hand, I am so angry at individuals for letting their animals roam at large, I want them to pay through the nose to release their animal. On the other hand, I know that is not in that animal's best interest. I rather the animal go back home than spend days in a pound to then be PTS. Perhaps the one solution is to have a pay-back-over-time scheme. Owners who are on a concession card could perhaps pay back so much per week, instead of being expected to pay one big fine. I think it's easy for us 'dog people' to be quite judgemental about people who wouldn't pay for vet fees unless their dog couldn't stand up, and doesn't notice their dog is gone until 2 days later, but it's still a home. Embracing an animal's current home is one way to reduce euthanasia rates. I agree so much with this statement, and the suggestion that puppy farms existence quantify the argument that there aren't too many dogs.

7th September 2011 - Mornington - staffy x attacks dog. 4th October 2011 - Glenroy - 'large white dog' attacks dog and man. 14th October 2011 - Werribee - Malamute attacks girl. 19th October 2011 - Resevoir - APBT attacks dog and man. 18th November 2011 - Burnside - bull terrier cross attacks child in pram. 24th November 2011 - Attwood - no breed/description mentioned - dog attacks dogs. 3/6 of the breeds are bully breeds. The large white dog was 'believed to be a bull mastiff' (later in the article), but obviously, bull mastiffs don't come in white, so who knows. Possible 4/6. The government changes to legislation only makes owners of 'dangerous dogs' (pit bulls and pit bull types) more accountable. There were no legislation changes for owners of joe-blow dog. Sadly. The only reason I asked for these links is so I had some links for my blog. I make the statement "And, amongst this, dog bites are still happening in Victoria." with several words linked to reports on these attacks. I don't make a big deal about it, certainly not enough to warrant the discussion in the thread. For my blog post, see: http://leemakennels.com/blog/dogs-and-politics/south-australia-dont-copy-victorias-bsl/

The story goes: if a vet did declare a dog as 'not a pit bull', and the dog bit someone, then the vet may be liable.

Also, re: Trap, neuter, release programs. 'Unowned' cats are often semi-owned by a number of people who put food out and 'keep an eye on' the cats, in a casual sense.

I am not going to respond to individual points anymore, because this thread has 'taken off' and is fuelling discussion on it's own. However, if there's something in particular that you'd like my response/opinion about, I'd be happy to (just point me to it). In the meantime, I'll sit back and read. I am really enjoying some of the policy suggestions, and everything else. Thank-you to those who are taking the time to comment.

I think you make some excellent points. Who would subsidise desexing, and why should they have to? Is subsidised desexing cheaper than lethabarb and pound administration? And with many cats unowned, who is going to be willing to collect them and put them in a desexing clinic for a subsidised rate? How do we make sure only people who can afford a pet get one? If they aren't broken, then why aren't they getting homes? Are homes truly not available for unbroken dogs? I've rehomed some pretty broken dogs through rescue in my time - homes do exist, they're just harder to find. We've already talked about education to prevent pets being seen as disposable. Do you like this idea? Do you have better ideas? What do you think we should do to make owners and breeders more accountable? Legislation on ownership? On breeding? Fines for shelter admission? I agree with you, Trisven. Kennelling dogs (long term) should be done on a case-by-case basis and, in some instances, euthanising a dog may be kinder than having it wait for adoption. (This should be noted on shelter records: That the euth was made because of stress and not due to any other reason.) However, I also think shelters should engage with rescue groups and get involved in fostering out dogs to rescues, either on a short term or long term basis, or shelters surrendering to private rescues (big idea, I know). But if a private rescue is more adept at caring for that particular animal, then surely this is a better option than euthanasia. There are many shelters across the country who chose to PTS animals rather than engage with local rescue groups. I am guessing this facility had limited room to hold cats? And that the facility had trouble rehoming cats that were even healthy and friendly? Do you think anything could've been done to stop the dirty, unfriendly, old cats from being euthed? It sounds awful that these animals weren't given any free time out of their kennels, and that there were no enrichment programs in place. It sounds like this is a shelter truly lacking resources for adequately care for dogs surrendered to them. Perhaps these premises should not take on dogs when they have such poor facilities and so few resources at hand. I think dogs that are human aggressive should not be rehomed. However, I don't think being ugly or a working breed is an adequate reason for being put to sleep. In country settings (such as Albury) it's likely that, indeed, there weren't enough homes available in the immediate area. However, in metropolitan environments, dogs seem to be more highly valued and desirable. In the case of active and ugly dogs, I think the pound would've been best to engage with private rescues in the area, and or send the dogs to rescues in other parts of the country. For example, RSPCA SA receive kittens from QLD as the QLD kitten season goes longer and there are homes available down here. This solves the euthanasia problem for QLD, and allows RSPCA SA to continue selling kittens (and making profits) for an extended period. A win-win scenario. However, if education is the key (and not the pound's actions, in this situation) - how do we get people not to breed working mixes? Or not to buy working mixes? Or to socialise their dogs? Or not breed ugly dogs? So many hurdles, particularly in a rural area.

Again' date=' something that sounds good in theory, but concerning in technicalities. What would be determined to be a health or a behavioural problem? What dogs out there are 'perfect' in all ways? (Probably not enough to maintain genetic diversity.) I agree with you. Again, problematic to enforce, but in principle, good. In some USA states, dogs caught roaming at large a certain number of times, must be desexed before release. I wouldn't be adverse for a system like this coming into place in Australia. I am not trying to answer questions' date=' but gather opinions. I doubt a poll on DOL will ever answer any complex problems - I have much more faith in academic research. ;) That is interesting, Greyt, because what I read have suggested that Europe is a lot more relaxed with desexing than other countries. Could you please let me know what country it is an link me to some papers? Though this kind of scheme raises questions regarding what is a breeder/not a breeder, it is still interesting to see the competitive process needed to get a dog having a positive impact on dog welfare.

I agree. Bigger shelters are tokenistic. I would love to have any studies you'd like to link me' date=' or email me privately if you had pdfs. I am, in part, interested in community attitudes, so that is why I wanted this poll to be more opinion based. I am interested in attitudes, not facts. (In this instance only.) I read a lot of posts on SavingPets.com.au, and they firmly believe that the reason for euthanasia rates in shelters are because shelters are committed to a model of killing and not a model of saving. I do not find anything problematic in using SavingPets ideas in my poll - I was interested to see how widely recognised this idea was. However, in a sense, this final paragraph suggests that you, too, think shelters have a role in marketing and promoting the animals they have available for adoption. Currently, shelters almost always say "adopt or we'll kill it". What we would prefer is marketing which is like, "come and find a dog that's perfect for your needs, and unique as well" or "adopt a senior dog with lovely manners". I really feel that shelters need to market their animals a lot better, and not just guilt people into purchases. Sorry' date=' I don't understand what you are saying here. How would you discourage the breeding of animals whose offspring weren't 'highly desirable'? How would you determine which offspring were desirable and which were not? While I agree with this in principle, I don't know how it could be put into force.

I think we are in agreement with this' date=' considering the first few responses all cover it. The solution being education regarding commitment, but also education regarding expectations and training of their animal. Sorry if my language has confused anyone. I do use the term 'pound' and 'shelter' interchangably' date=' and perhaps I shouldn't. In South Australia, our councils (in the metropolitian area) use the shelter as the pound, so there is no disconnect in my personal experience. However, I ask people just tolerate my language use and I'll try to be more conscious of it in the future. I agree with you. There is a huge genetic component to aggression. Perhaps we need tougher restrictions on breeders, to make sure they're breeding from non-aggressive animals? However, undoubtedly, training has a role, so extra education of people on how to raise an animal is not a bad idea. Particularly with food aggression or simply 'intolerance aggression' (e.g. aggressive with touching feet, etc). These are all highly trainable behaviours - both to make a dog aggressive, and to 'fix' these forms of aggression. What kind of dog control laws do you think would have an impact on those individuals who want to own breeds with an aggressive reputation and want to raise an aggressive dog?

Thank-you to those who have replied to this. Of course, when we start to monitor a) where animals come from, b) why their admitted to shelters, and c) why they are euthanised (on a nationally consistent basis), then we can only really guess about shelter euthanasia, and so only guess how we can change it. I have replied to many of you individually. I am very interested in your thoughts and impressions, and I do not mean to attack or criticise you personally at all, but sometimes I do want to get to the heart of your ideas. Hence, I have asked many questions in my responses. Your continued involvement is appreciated. I should've put that option on the poll' date=' but it's too late now without making it look messy. However, I'm not sure if it's the case, especially for dogs. Many dogs that come into shelters have a home. Though shelters to admit some strays, many are reunited. It is undoubted that many of these strays had homes (i.e. they weren't 'roaming the streets' for long periods). Furthermore, dogs surrendered to shelters also have a home. In this case, there are simply not enough homes [i']interested in keeping their dog[/i]. Or, there are simply not enough homes for dogs who have behavioural or health problems (maybe). If there are too many poorly behaved and unhealthy dogs in pounds, then pounds need more resources to retrain better behave, and breeders need more policing to ensure they are breathing healthy animals. With cats, I'd probably say, yes, there are too many cats for the number of homes available. From what I've read, about 93% of the owned cat population is desexed. This suggests to me that unowned cats are bigger contributers to the cat population problem, in which case this would mean a need of trap, neuter, and desex programs. Dory, I think you're right. I spoke about this in more detail in reply to Pretty Miss Emma. I also agree with education.

An opinion poll... Don't think too hard. Opinions over facts.

Not all of the attacks I linked are bully breeds. My point is, despite changing legislation, attacks are still happening. It proves lack of reinforcement and the uselessness of BSL.

Thank-you for your help, sumosmum. I just added those links to my most recent blog post. http://leemakennels.com/blog/dogs-and-politics/south-australia-dont-copy-victorias-bsl/ I can't find the Cranbourne one, but I still have more than enough. For your interest, we have: 7th September 2011 - Mornington 4th October 2011 - Glenroy 14th October 2011 - Werribee 19th October 2011 - Resevoir 18th November 2011 - Burnside 24th November 2011 - Attwood

Please share and cross post. Letter received from Brendan O'Connor suggest that BSL may become national! Please visit this link to see pro-forma letters you may wish to use to express your displeasure: http://leemakennels.com/blog/dogs-and-politics/south-australia-dont-copy-victorias-bsl/ Entire page copy and pasted below - but if you visit the link, it looks prettier.