So Whats The Answer

[SpikesPuppy]

Actually Ive been yakking on about microchips being a big part of the answer too until someone contacted me a couple of weeks ago to chat as they are mounting a class action against a state government for making chipping compulsory as there is so much evidence it causes cancer. :D

Much evidence?

Heaps

Do you havea link, Steve?? I am very interested in any 'new' evidence regarding cancer and microchips- something that I've been concerned about for a while now but no-ones listened to me!!

[Steve]

Sorry I didnt save the links - but its pretty easy to find I only sort of gave it all a bit of a glance because of this conversation which was about a pretty big group of dog owners who feel they have whats needed to launch a class action because their dogs and cats have cancer which they say is due to a government giving them no choice on what they do with their property and the chip it has caused the disease.I saw a lot on research done with humans and the howl about them being put into disabled or alzheimers patients etc.

What I saw looked pretty shocking and convincing but I havent had the time to really study it all to really come to a sure opinion on the whole issue.

If you're going to go looking why not start a thread and share anything you find?

Edited to add the AVA has said that traditionally adverse reactions to chips have been referred to the companies and there is a fair potential for the possible issues to be hushed up so they now have their own adverse reaction microchip data base.

http://www.antichips.com/cancer/index.html..._Article_Tables

Edited November 16, 2010 by Steve

[SpikesPuppy]

Thanks, Steve! If I get some free time lol (at the moment all I can manage is browsing with my phone) will definitely look into it more, now that I know there is stuff to find (last time I really looked into it was about 2 or 3 years ago and couldn't find a whole lot). Having had a dog who ended up with a golf-ball sized lump on his shoulder due to the microchip, I have personal reasons for looking into it. Now I'm wishing I had taken a more proactive approach when he was alive and actually had it removed etc but really wasn't in a position to do so. Then when he died I should have had it removed but the whole event was too traumatic really to think about that at the time.

I do often wonder microchips are a necessary evil etc. But that is off topic sorry.

On topic, was thinking in the shower and remembered reading an article recently about the council seeking volunteers to walk and groom dogs for the elderly etc and I got to thinking if things like this were more widespread, it could help reduce the number of dogs dumped- I know it's not entirely uncommon for an older person to have their dog surrendered either by choice or family influence, because they can no longer walk them etc. It wouldn't make a huge difference in the grand scheme but it would matter to those few dogs and owners.

But I really feel that it's about the education for most folk and about them making the right decision from day dot.

[shortstep]

Microchip all pups

License all owners (including breeders) - with photographic 100pts id

Microchips only available (after a bedding in period) for pups and only to those who are licensed breeders - any others are reported.

Maintain a register of owners and transfer of ownership between breeder and owners (tracks ownership changes for council registration)

Any breaches of council dog control bylaws, dumping, surrendering without "trying" - results in loss of owners license - (can't buy any more dogs until certain conditions are met)

Any breeder registering large numbers of pups in a year comes under scrutiny (microchip records can do this)

Any vet treating an animal for a condition considered to be breeding related can have this noted on the register - when more than several problems arise from the same breeder they can be investigated and breeches can result in loss of license.

Just a thought.....

Microchip pups/dogs and owners. Link the chips ...

You want to make dog owners have to get microchip in themsleves...are you for real?

[shortstep]

Microchip all pups

License all owners (including breeders) - with photographic 100pts id

Microchips only available (after a bedding in period) for pups and only to those who are licensed breeders - any others are reported.

Maintain a register of owners and transfer of ownership between breeder and owners (tracks ownership changes for council registration)

Any breaches of council dog control bylaws, dumping, surrendering without "trying" - results in loss of owners license - (can't buy any more dogs until certain conditions are met)

Any breeder registering large numbers of pups in a year comes under scrutiny (microchip records can do this)

Any vet treating an animal for a condition considered to be breeding related can have this noted on the register - when more than several problems arise from the same breeder they can be investigated and breeches can result in loss of license.

Just a thought.....

Microchip pups/dogs and owners. Link the chips ...

Actually Ive been yakking on about microchips being a big part of the answer too until someone contacted me a couple of weeks ago to chat as they are mounting a class action against a state government for making chipping compulsory as there is so much evidence it causes cancer.

If there is or when there is any public information about this suit I would be very interested in learning more about it.

[~Anne~]

I don't believe the hysteria mounting about microchips anymore than I believe peanut butter causes cancer.

Internet hysteria again at its best in my view.

Microchipping is an answer to some of our problems if the logistsics are sorted suitably.

[Steve]

Im not ready to discount it yet and if the AVA are asking for independent data separate to the chip companies - that says something.

The research is credible and has been peer reviewed in the main

[Quickasyoucan]

Just FYI Erny has started a thread about this in Health. There are some good responses. The microchipping cancer thing I mean.

[Sheridan]

Microchip all pups

License all owners (including breeders) - with photographic 100pts id

Microchips only available (after a bedding in period) for pups and only to those who are licensed breeders - any others are reported.

Maintain a register of owners and transfer of ownership between breeder and owners (tracks ownership changes for council registration)

Any breaches of council dog control bylaws, dumping, surrendering without "trying" - results in loss of owners license - (can't buy any more dogs until certain conditions are met)

Any breeder registering large numbers of pups in a year comes under scrutiny (microchip records can do this)

Any vet treating an animal for a condition considered to be breeding related can have this noted on the register - when more than several problems arise from the same breeder they can be investigated and breeches can result in loss of license.

Just a thought.....

Microchip pups/dogs and owners. Link the chips ...

You want to make dog owners have to get microchip in themsleves...are you for real?

Joke, Joyce.

[Greytmate]

Can we get back on topic?

I think sometimes we (DOLers) encourage people to get dogs when they do not have an environment suitable for one.

Love for dogs might not be enough if the owner has an expectation that their new dog will live in harmony within a feral cat sanctuary.

That expectation is EXTREMELY HIGH, and if the dog can't meet it? The owner has been very clear on that, the dog will have to go.

So why are people that discourage that person from getting a dog seen as being negative? Surely it's all about wanting to prevent another dog being dumped? It isn't personal.

[megan_]

Greytmate - I think you have hit on something. I think that in today's environment, there are waaay to many people with dogs.

Let me clarify. I know many people who have dogs but don't like them at all. They spend all the time locked in the backyard. If they wanted to go on holiday and they couldn't get into a kennel or it cost to much, they wouldn't hesitate to dump it.

I don't understand why they got one in the first place. From asking around (and this is all anecdotal of course) many people get dogs "for the kids" or to protect their family. They grew up with a dog and have fond memories. But they don't want one now. They feel guilty that their kids are missing out on something and so get one. Both parents often work 45+ hours a week, have kids sports, struggle with work/life balance and the dog is last on a very long list.

These people should be told that they aren't depriving their kids of anything by not getting a dog. They shouldn't feel the social pressure to get one. In fact, they should feel the social pressure NOT to get one.

There is a lot of debate about whether we have an oversupply of dogs in Australia. Technically, we don't (more dogs sold than dogs in shelters etc). However, I do think we have an over demand of dogs - and they get dumped when they don't fit into today's lifestyle.

And we all need to stop suggesting our own breeds on the breed recommendation threads .

[Monah]

agree GM, I am 'politically incorrect' so try and steer clear of most of these.

I believe most problems are manageable and common sense

Owning a dog is taken far too lightly, and DOES mean some life changes. We are a 'live for today and dont worry about next year' type of society now and this has impacted on pet ownership too.

Still wondering how to prevent the dumping... local news here last night... about 50 baby birds thrown in a bin and died and another litter of 14 mastiff x pups floating around.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Monah

[Greytmate]

agree GM, I am 'politically incorrect' so try and steer clear of most of these.

I believe most problems are manageable and common sense

Still wondering how to prevent the dumping... local news here last night... about 50 baby birds thrown in a bin and died and another litter of 14 mastiff x pups floating around.

Monah, you should speak up, especially since you are so polite.

If the people that understand dogs do not speak up in this forum, when warnings are appropriate, what does that leave?

All the less-knowledgeable people that don't understand or see any potential problems, giving their encouragement.

Maybe the person will not listen and will get a dog anyway. But hopefully some other people reading this forum gain a little more understanding about dog behaviour and how problems can start.

[Gayle.]

Feral cat sanctuary? Sanctuary? When did feral cats get rights? As much as I love cats, feral ones should be humanely euthanized. They have no place here.

[Greytmate]

Feral cat sanctuary? Sanctuary? When did feral cats get rights? As much as I love cats, feral ones should be humanely euthanized. They have no place here.

My words to describe a situation where a property owner has a feral cat colony, and is prepared to permanently remove animals that threaten its existence. Even if those animals are the family pets.

[aussielover]

Can we get back on topic?

I think sometimes we (DOLers) encourage people to get dogs when they do not have an environment suitable for one.

Love for dogs might not be enough if the owner has an expectation that their new dog will live in harmony within a feral cat sanctuary.

That expectation is EXTREMELY HIGH, and if the dog can't meet it? The owner has been very clear on that, the dog will have to go.

So why are people that discourage that person from getting a dog seen as being negative? Surely it's all about wanting to prevent another dog being dumped? It isn't personal.

I agree with this, BUT unfortunately, you can't actually stop someone who has their heart set on getting a dog from getting one. The best thing we can do is encourage them to see that a dog may not be suitable at this time for them BUT if they still insist point them to the best sources of getting a dog- eg responsible breeder/ rescue group who will take back the dog if all goes wrong.

And to recommend a breed/adult rescue who will be most suitable for their lifestyle and most likely to fit their needs.

[Gayle.]

Feral cat sanctuary? Sanctuary? When did feral cats get rights? As much as I love cats, feral ones should be humanely euthanized. They have no place here.

My words to describe a situation where a property owner has a feral cat colony, and is prepared to permanently remove animals that threaten its existence. Even if those animals are the family pets.

That is wrong on a number of levels. Or am I missing something here. Family dogs are not less important than feral cats.

[Greytmate]

Feral cat sanctuary? Sanctuary? When did feral cats get rights? As much as I love cats, feral ones should be humanely euthanized. They have no place here.

My words to describe a situation where a property owner has a feral cat colony, and is prepared to permanently remove animals that threaten its existence. Even if those animals are the family pets.

That is wrong on a number of levels. Or am I missing something here. Family dogs are not less important than feral cats.

I have tried not to make a value judgement on that. Instead I have tried to explain in a non-judgemental way what is likely to happen to a dog living in that environment.

See the latest "What breed for me" thread.

[poodlefan]

Megan:

I don't understand why they got one in the first place. From asking around (and this is all anecdotal of course) many people get dogs "for the kids" or to protect their family. They grew up with a dog and have fond memories. But they don't want one now. They feel guilty that their kids are missing out on something and so get one. Both parents often work 45+ hours a week, have kids sports, struggle with work/life balance and the dog is last on a very long list.

Megan, you raise an issue I've been musing on. I've lost track of the number of times I've heard people suggest that growing up with dogs somehow prepares them for dog ownership. IMO it doesn't. Kids don't generally deal with the responsibilities of dog ownership on a day to day basis - that's down to parents (or good ones anyway). Kids (especially young ones) don't toilet train, exercise, feed, deal with health issues etc. Memories of the family dog tend to be fairly rosy.

I'd suggest that growing up with a dog no more fully prepares you to be a dog owner than growing up with a family car prepares you to be a driver. The perspective and responsiblities are quite different.

[Greytmate]

I agree with this, BUT unfortunately, you can't actually stop someone who has their heart set on getting a dog from getting one. The best thing we can do is encourage them to see that a dog may not be suitable at this time for them BUT if they still insist point them to the best sources of getting a dog- eg responsible breeder/ rescue group who will take back the dog if all goes wrong.

And to recommend a breed/adult rescue who will be most suitable for their lifestyle and most likely to fit their needs.

I want to comment on this, because it is increasingly being touted on this forum as being a good outcome if a dog is returned.

It is not always a good outcome, it is preferable to a dog living in terrible conditions, but that is as far as it goes.

A dog being returned has to be included in this topic of "dumped" dogs. While not technically dumped, but surrendered, it still means that there is one more dog in the statistics of those needing a home.

And having been homeless twice, that dog is more likely to exhibit behaviour problems than dogs that have never been upheaved or have only been rehomed once in their lives. It is very hard for some dog to settle in new homes, it can be tough on them.

The dog will also be older when returned, and so less appealing to potential new owners.

Then there is the issue of why the dog was returned. When a dog is returned from an excellent home because of bad fortune, the dog is likely to be a good one. But a dog returned from a home because of 'behaviour problems' it could have all sorts of unsolvable and ingrained issues. Rehoming such a dog for the second time could be a huge risk, and certainly riskier than rehoming a dog that had never had reported "behaviour problems".

So while ethical breeders and rescuers will always take back their dogs, it should never be used as back up plan so that unsuitable homes can give dog ownership a try. Because that approach will inevitably lead to an increased dumpage rate, as well as putting a burden on the more ethical breeders and rescuers.

We have to work at getting potential new owners changing their expectations of what a dog might do. Ideally (my personal value here) a feral cat colony should be culled before any new dog is brought into that environment. But if the potential dog owner values the feral cats, maybe they need to lower their expectation that dogs should not react to them, and think hard before getting another dog.