Salukifan

You have been given a warning. Your older dog is prepared to take issue with access to food. Resource guarding like this isn’t uncommon in the breed. She wasn’t scared. She was possessive. Adjust your management accordingly. Feed separately. Ensure the dogs cannot get to each other’s food. I’d be feeding in crates. And yes, be very careful with treats. Resource guarding is perfectly normal canine behaviour. Your job is now to manage it. Can I suggest a home visit from a decent trainer to help you take their relationship forward?

Talk to her breeder. Is the top left incisor behind the bottom one?

A more comprehensive literature search would have informed these researchers that this has been known since 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24975239/ There is a big difference in amylase levels between dogs that have evolved in agrarian societies and those that evolved elsewhere. Unsurprisingly, as an ancient breed that evolved in the Fertile Crescent, the Saluki’s amalyse levels are the highest measured. Basenjis and Sibes are among the lowest.

The ANKC considers each of the recognized sizes of poodle to be separate breeds. Interbreeding is not permitted. To do so would be a breach of the Code of Ethics. The pups from such a mating would be considered crossbred.

Know the feeling Yep, been there got the t-shirt too. Thanks for the bullying guys. No value add to the thread but plenty of boots stuck in. Oh the irony - it seems some are safe targets but others are fair game. I apologised for causing offence. Seems that the DOL police have decided that they must serve up their version of justice. You win. I am leaving. There is clearly no place for people expressing concern about dogs anymore lest they be singled out for passive aggressive bullying. What a shadow of a forum this place now is. 12 years of membership and hounded out by a few people who want to say it it all goes down here. Forget it indeed.

Deleted.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place. It's a slippery slope. No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope. Tell that to the AR campaigners already talking it up. "Animal Rights activists said so" is not a valid inductive argument. No but since valid inductive arguments seem to have little role in what is shaping the political agenda for animals here in NSW, I'll stay focussed on what is. As a student of political science it concerns the hell out of me that based on what everyone admits is a deeply flawed report, people who have done no wrong will have their livelihoods destroyed and be offered not compensation. Frankly it should be concerning a lot of people but most, poorly if at all informed and reacting emotively on an issue that has no blow back on them, are crowing about the win for greyhounds. It won't be for those dogs in NSW from where I sit.

Really? Lots of steps are being made to achieve just that. Mandatory desexing is another step.

That was never my intention and for that I truly do apologise.

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place. It's a slippery slope. No it's not. It's a logical fallacy. Unless you can provide a valid inductive argument or a mechanism by which the banning of greyhound racing on apparently welfare grounds will probably lead to the banning of pet ownership on welfare grounds, then it is a fallacious slippery slope. Tell that to the AR campaigners already talking it up.

Deleted

Deleted

Hardly. People are allowed to do a lot of things even when a minority abuse that right or privilege and cause harm to others. Smoke, own guns and knives, drive cars, drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery, parachute, gamble, have children, etc. etc. We have laws so that people can have freedom while not endangering or harming others. When a group is identified as having broken the law repeatedly and it is having a serious impact on others, they may be targeted with additional legislation. Typically it seems to be a knee jerk reaction that victimises a lot of people that weren't breaking the law, and it's questionable if it does any good. I imagine it depends. However, I doubt the greyhound industry is a victim of such targeting. It's a convenient excuse, and one that's only available because the greyhound industry is far from squeaky clean in the first place. It's a slippery slope.

Deleted

As far as I know, the industry in Tasmania is not being shut down. No industry is being shut down 'based on such iffy stats and figures'. The NSW greyhound racing industry is being shut down due entirely to its own failings. In the decades during which it has been operating, it has failed utterly in its responsibilities in relation to animal welfare. There have been plenty of opportunities for the industry to reform, but it has failed to do so. The opportunity to clean up the industry has now long since slipped away. So now we ban pet ownership because some people abuse their pets? That's where that logic takes you.