Ruin Maniac

I am quite certain she means any dog. Breeding two parents or even one that is extremely and aggressively reactive is indeed a bad plan. Furthermore, I don't particularly understand breeding for a temperament or physical feature required for a specific kind of work if the dog and its progeny do not engage in said work. I've heard people say it's a disservice to the animals even if they aren't intended to fulfil that purpose. Can anyone explain to me why that is? I'm new to this.

You'd be surprised what people will leave laying around or abandon. Less surprised though, I'm sure, if you consider those people may have been stoned already and lacked forethought. I live near my campus. We found a stash worth thousands abandoned and handed it in to the police. I've seen joints littering the ground, bags under bushes and I've even watched two girls openly do heroin the old fashioned way in a park by the train station. :p I don't doubt that some dogs get into their owner's bad habit, but I also wouldn't automatically doubt someone who rushed their dog into a vet claiming it ate something unknown whilst out on a walk.

Mine does this. Our back fenceline it seems is a thin layer of dirt over about a meter deep of crushed concrete and rock. Tried to rake them all up and just encountered hundreds more beneath the surface. I supervise him in the yard and take the stones off him. I hope he grows out of it.

I think proof of ownership can include photographs and other forms of evidence that are not paperwork, however claiming ownership without paperwork could then involve hefty fines. But how do you prove the cats aren't microchipped? I'm sure there are situations in which the cats can be rehabilitated but I do not believe it is up to the OP to decide their fate, but the council or RSPCA.

Of course people here like cats and of course we don't like the fact that most animals in pounds and shelters face death. It's an extremely unfortunate situation. But giving advice to the OP that may be against the law (as it is, they have not yet changed and must be obeyed) is also unethical. I don't think she can just rehome the cats or give them to a rescue, unless the laws are different in her state and if so, great. Otherwise, if in the unlikely event the owner went looking for them I think the OP could be charged with theft. And by the sound of it, the reason the OP is posting is because she can't keep feeding the cats forever (and fair enough too), which means they indeed are facing the threat of starvation. Far worse than euthanasia (and the reason that is likely is, as said, it's hard enough to rehome healthy, adorable, people friendly cats).

Legally I believe they have to be given to a local pound or to the RSPCA. It is likely they will be PTS, but this may well be the best option for them (starving is no easy way to go), any local wildlife that may also become victims of their starvation and for the owner who does not deserve them by the sound of it.

Northern suburbs, but I am willing to travel if training can be done on weekends. Within 2 hours would be great :)

I don't disagree that dogs will behave that way at times. I don't disagree that no dog is immune to instinct. However, the dangerous dog laws are not there to punish the dog for its instincts. Rather, they are there to punish the owner for not keeping it fully supervised ("Blue") and/or secured ("Shep"). I'm not saying the laws are efficient at correcting this problem, but that's another discussion. It is incredibly unfortunate (and I personally find it somewhat sickening) that the fence was sabotaged. However, the owner of these dogs is said to be building more secure fences. It shouldn't have to be this way, but because we accept that there are terrible people out there who will set dogs loose, perhaps those reinforced fences/runs should have been built sooner. I personally supervise my dog in the yard, and he's otherwise behind locked doors inside the house. I trust some of the locals less than I trust the local wildlife, including our very territorial monster of a brushtail.

Hi everyone. Before bringing Suleiman home I investigated a number of training methods. My puppy school is recommending a method I'm not sure Sully is coping well with (he doesn't respond well to correction but I'm not entirely sure I'm doing positive reinforcement right - and I struggle to get my housemates to comply with it, one even said it's not possible for it to work :p). I'd love to have some guidance from a professional trainer in person who can evaluate Sully's personality and responses so as to devise a method that won't have a negative impact on him or our friendship. I want to do what's best for him as an individual and I'm not sure a blanket application of one method (at least without formal training on my part) will work for him.

double post

If I were in your shoes, I would consider talking to the pound with a letter from the vet describing the injury to the dog that has been caused by the botched desexing. I don't believe in the mandatory desexing of all male, even crossbreed, dogs. There are risks involved (that most vets and animal welfare advocates won't care to share with you) and a responsible dog owner shouldn't be phased by having to take extra precautions - it's just that there are so many irresponsible dog owners, as we all know too well. I can understand why they would desex a wandering dog (and it's a shame they were let out), but there is no excuse for bad surgery.

You and Buddy may well have saved many future lives, Cazstaff. You have been truly brave.

I've always said if you're concerned about the price that good breeders ask for puppies, you can't afford any dog.

I'm still ignorant about shows myself. The media will try and exaggerate the case, and the owner of the dogs will try to defend it. Without firsthand knowledge it's difficult to know where the truth lies between the two. This is nothing out of the ordinary. Charges have been laid, the animals destroyed, and more secure fencing is being built on the owner's property. I feel like this case has been handled well, though I hope the children involved are able to love good dogs in future.

I had figured as much, Mita, I was just pointing out that the article hadn't made an error. Don't blame the officer at all :)

I saw a man with the friendliest blue girl downtown the other night. Sully has been making tonnes of stafford friends lately. But yes, the owner did mention the colour wasn't rare (though it was the first I've seen), and from what I've gathered from this forum the blue colour is potentially gene-linked with some hereditary issues?

Actually, the picture of the note says "Good boy Peach", which I guess means it was the police that were wrong, not the news for once. Personally, I find it adorable.

The point I was making was that there are more legal and ethical issues involved in testing people than dogs. I am one of those people that would like to see a license introduced for the keeping of any animal, especially dogs which are considered a risk to the general public when they are not properly trained. Conducting the research, creating the proposals and then making new laws while it would be fantastic, would be extremely difficult until there's a change in the whacked attitude that the general public has that dogs are disposable toys that a person is entitled to. This is a change I do desperately want to see, but until then (if there ever is a then, one can only hope) a bandaid measure such as this may spare some lives and provide a little more insight into the variance of dog temperaments within a population, which may also lead to further research into the development of those temperaments and the needs of the dogs that share them.

That would be "danger", Terope, and I think Diana has made it quite clear that this research project has been designed with the benefit of dogs in mind. Of course people shouldn't aim to breed only one "type" (MacDog) of dog. The researcher has stated that she believes that dogs of many types should be bred, as long as they end up with owners that are informed and capable of caring for them. Sadly, 90% of dog owners in this country are not capable of handling any dog other than a "boring" one, if you like (and that statement is quoted often here). One might argue that we should reduce the number of dog owners due to suitability/responsibility/general stupidity being such a pressing issue, however (fairly or unfairly) there are many more ethical issues to consider when you are running human beings through tests and depriving them of "rights", even if those "rights" should be privileges (possessing an animal). Furthermore, limiting the pool of adoptees will consequently mean that good dogs will continue to be euthanized until the supply dwindles to meet lower demand (though I imagine a determined fool who fails a suitability test would probably find other sources for their pets). After all, those that can handle the responsibility of non-MacDog would probably also be aware of their own limits and probably couldn't care for all of those that need homes. I don't agree with much of the legislation around dogs in this country, but I can appreciate that it's easier from a legal standpoint to regulate the dogs than the people, though I do not think it is good or fair. Until general attitudes towards companion animals change and are reflected by the law, I don't think things will be done differently any time soon. Therefore, it is important to make an effort to determine if a dog will meet the expectations of those that apply for them, lest they end up recycled again and again into shelters. A temperament test, I agree, is not like crystal gazing and will not determine a dog's nature in its entirety, but it might give those caring for them a general idea (especially when a transition into a new home with strangers can also be a daunting experience and these behaviours may linger even if only temporarily) and any improvement on the current model, I believe, would be a blessing to shelter staff and to animals that face an uncertain future. As for euthanasia rates and more crazy, nanny state laws... any published research that in any way promotes a person's agenda will be cited if that person stumbles across it, whether you're a student writing an essay, a politician making a proposal, a scientist applying for a grant or a neo-nazi trying to argue that you know what's best for the world. I don't doubt this research will be used by some for very questionable purposes, but that doesn't mean that the intent of the research was to support these people, or that it won't also be used to do good. I might also add here that La Trobe has issued incredibly harsh penalties for academic misconduct and is not unwilling to involve the law or the media. To deceive research participants would be committing academic suicide. Ultimately it's up to the individual to decide whether the risks outweigh the benefits and vice versa. As has been stated, though, a greater sample size is more likely to offer more detailed and accurate results regardless of whether or not those results support the hypothesis upon which the test was based.

Actually, if I adopted a mixed breed of indeterminate heritage, I'd find the test fun! A friend of mine recently adopted a year old rescue and we haven't the faintest clue what dogs contributed to his makeup beyond a stab at "pug" because his face is unusual, but that could be anything from a boxer to a pekingese. She doesn't care at all what his lineage really is, since what he is first and foremost is a gorgeous dog and a real testament to the fact that not all rescues are damaged goods. But the test could be a lot of fun and I'm going to suggest it to her. :)

I feel disappointed in myself, that I find it hard to associate the name "pitbull" with the gorgeous Staffy bitch who passes my house every day with her owner and says hello to Sully. She's the softest girl. The stigma around the name is suffocating. I understand the significance of a working vs. show pedigree, but if pitbulls are staffodshires then I don't at all see why there's such a hype about them when they've been bred for the ring over a few generations and not for something awful like fighting.

From what I've heard from my breeder and others about some vets, $100 for anal glands doesn't actually surprise me. Extortionate, yes indeed, but I've heard things that shock me more sadly

How unconfident in your own sexuality do you need to be to feel threatened by a dog dominating another dog of the same gender?

It's a whitening. :)

I guess since I'm new to the whole shebang I can't contribute much, but I know that full biscuit samoyeds are recognised in the USA but not here. Shame, I actually really like them. But I do wonder what, if any, genetic faults may be related to the colouration. Hmm.