Perry's Mum Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 People may be interested in this petition which requires the RSPCA to be made accountable for their actions: https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/make-the-rspca-accountable-and-answerable-for-their-actions I believe this is associated with a campaign to get people writing letters to the editor of the local newspaper at Cessnock in NSW because of the RSPCA's kill rate their of 49%. http://www.causes.com/actions/1754988-rspca-in-the-hunter-region-of-nsw-australia-your-kill-rates-are-pathetic?recruiter_id=146166640&utm_campaign=activity_mailer%2Fnew_activity&utm_medium=email&utm_source=causes&token=19JJTcrYaxO8js9jAUrnENgW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mummamia Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) This is a difficult one Perry's Mum... Whilst I have my own concerns over the direction that the RSPCA have taken I do not feel at this point in time we should focus on kill rates in rescue. I do agree with due process... but what is 'Due process'... I don't agree with BSL... The issue is simply that there are too many dogs and the problem lies with people who just keep allowing them to breed for their own selfish reasons which include all Breeders, Back yard breeders and people who get a dog and do not have them desexed. And in my opinion... the worst offender "I just wanted my dog to have one litter, I love puppies'. I believe that if you don't understand and accept that your dog should be desexed or if you can't afford to desex then you should not have a dog. I believe that anyone who truly loves dogs and immerses themselves in the dog over population issue... could not continue to create more dogs... Volunteer at your local rescue and you start to understand... There is a train of thought out there that there are enough homes in Australia (eg) for every dog to have a home. However, if we remove the people who cannot have a dog for whatever reason, don't want a dog, and then remove all the people who should not have a dog we are left with so many dogs who won't get a home. How many dogs out there are in the wrong home??? A dog is a privilege and with that goes responsibility. One of the most aggravating things I find is people who say they love dogs, own them but never provide their most basic right. EXCERSISE. Animals are not ornaments. They have needs... So many suffering dogs purely because they are never receiving any stimulation. Owners wonder why they have issues with their dogs when a lot of the issues would be resolved by taking your dog out and giving it what it needs... Lazy people who own dogs give me the s###s!!! I don't always 'feel like' taking my dogs out... My 'feeling like it' has nothing to do with whether I take them'. In my experience, being involved with rescue I have come to understand that there are times when it is in the dogs best interest to be PTS... It breaks my heart and I have shed many tears for them... I could never be directly involved with that decision but have come to not accept that there will never an other solution but show some respect for those that have to make the hardest decisions. Sometimes there is no other choice. I will give you an example that will always break my heart. 15 year old dog. (very old for this breed) comes into rescue with 3 puppies in tow... Sight unseen I offer her a home. She was not very pretty, almost blind and had an attitude. I take her home and fully intend to give her, probably her first forever home. Knowing this can't be for very long. WELL! Here's me thinking I'll have a couch potato, take her for little daily walks around the block... NOT!!! Reality... Strong as… Dragged me round the neighbourhood… Banging into posts as we go… had to be cuddled to sleep… (thats ok with me). … Not cat aggressive but due to eyesight had to keep getting up so close it was ticking them off no end… Squealing when I left the house with my other dogs for their daily exercise.. Day 5, whilst walking my other dogs she jumps my 1.8 meter fences and sniffs her way to the dog park to find us… She had never been to the dog park… Fortunately doggy friends rallied and we got her home. I could not keep her safe so she went back to rescue… A week later I get a call that she has escaped from rescue and I go and find her in a field of cows… Long story short… She then starts to show her aggressive side with other dogs, due to confusion etc… For the next months, much time and attention was given to Mumma. Desperately trying to find her the right home… 15 year old dog needs forever home… Wont live too much longer… Not attractive… Aggressive with other dogs… Severe separation anxiety… Must be with you every moment of every day… Escape artist… So be prepared for this huge problem… Might cost you a fortune if you wish to prolong her life for a short while… There were no takers… I was so grateful that my offer to be with her when her time came was declined… I respect people who are able to make the hardest but the best choice for the dog… So whilst I do understand those who want every dog to live… Its just not reality… And it is NOT FAIR to the dogs… You have to love them this much… Focus on getting the desex message and responsible pet ownership message out there… Think about Mumma… It was because she was loved we could not allow her to suffer any longer… Edited June 18, 2013 by Mummamia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry's Mum Posted June 18, 2013 Author Share Posted June 18, 2013 I do not disagree that some animals may be better euthanased but a kill rate of 49% is out of all proportion. The RSPCA uses one temperament test which many dogs would fail (incuding my own) and that automatically makes them unrehomeable as far as the RSPCA is concerned. Older dogs and dogs with any disability are also considered unrehomeable and end up killed. The RSPCA will generally not work with breed rescues. They will often only regard working dogs as suitable for working homes whereas they can make fantastic pets for active owners who can meet their needs nd many who end up with the RSPCA are failed workers anyway. I have been involved with rescue for over 10 years and have two fosters with me now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphra Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I had a play around with the figures last year: http://www.headingforhome.asn.au/pet-over-population-doesnt-add-up/ I'm all for the RSPCA being made more accountable, but the petition is pretty vague and drifts from one thing to another and has no clear outcome. The RSPCA's kill rates are one issue, the RSPCA's role in prosecuting animal cruelty cases is another. I'd like to see each jurisdiction where the RSPCA has a prosecuting role to appoint an animal welfare ombudsman, like the telecommunications ombudsman role in Victoria. The role is to oversee complaints and issues which can be resolved before they hit the courts. Ideally I believe governments should take the policing and prosecution of animal welfare issues back under government control and not out-source to a charity. Since that's unlikely to happen, I think the legislation should clearly define the RSPCA's role, responsibility and level of authority and that part of their work which is conducted on behalf of the government should have clear legislative control by the relevant department and/or minister. I believe this is the case in QLD, but seems not to be the case in Victoria, NSW and SA. I'd also like to see the RSPCA be prevented from taking money from industries (such as pork producers) who are clearly in their ambit for potential investigation. The RSPCA's kill rates are another issue altogether, but I think responsibility for those has to fall back on the councils which contract with the RSPCA and the Lost Dogs Home etc, for pound services. Those contracts actively encourage high kill rates by not providing penalties for killing. It is clearly to the economic benefit of the RSPCA to turn over as many animals as quickly as they can and councils don't include penalties for high kill rates or benefits for rehoming or working with rescue. Councils and their communities need to take responsibility for animal management, which includes making live release rates (either return, rehome or release to rescue) a performance criteria for councils and animal management divisions and staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mummamia Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I do not disagree that some animals may be better euthanased but a kill rate of 49% is out of all proportion. The RSPCA uses one temperament test which many dogs would fail (incuding my own) and that automatically makes them unrehomeable as far as the RSPCA is concerned. Older dogs and dogs with any disability are also considered unrehomeable and end up killed. The RSPCA will generally not work with breed rescues. They will often only regard working dogs as suitable for working homes whereas they can make fantastic pets for active owners who can meet their needs nd many who end up with the RSPCA are failed workers anyway. I have been involved with rescue for over 10 years and have two fosters with me now. A kill rate of 49%... 0% would be ideal wouldn't it... It could be higher it could be lower... Not in a position to know the truth about that... I agree that their testing is flawed... a dog in rescue could fail but out of rescue could be perfectly rehomeable... I volunteered for RSPCA for a few years a little while ago... I now volunteer for a specific breed rescue... Many of our dogs come from the RSPCA because the person who runs the rescue has a good relationship with them... These are the ones who RSPCA will PTS if we don't take them... and give them a chance...I only know about the specific breed I'm involved in which isn't your average popular breed... I assume if a specific breed rescue approached RSPCA they would work with them... I don't know for sure... perhaps people on this site know more... My 7 year old dog was an RSPCA dog who should never have passed their temperament test... 'Slipped through the system' I say... When she ended up as my problem I took her on and she is in the right home... That's what counts... I adopted a 9 year old cat from RSPCA 4 years ago... So they do have older animals... A little while after my 'heart dog' past away I specifically went looking for an older dog with medical and temperament issues being ok with me... So we are out there but we are a small minority... Ended up with a psychologically and physically neglected young girl who ended up being 2 years old... She's fantastic and wonderful girl who I would adopt a hundred times over... More than a year later and always still progressing... Only recently started sleeping on the bed... yay!!! I just adopted my latest foster... I don't know why they call it a 'foster failure'. After being passed on for 6 months and me falling in love with her (actually everyone knows I fell in love from the moment she came into rescue)...Perfect with my other dogs and cats... What you ganna do? A failure she is... Totally agree with your comments re:working dogs... Too many end up in lazy people homes... As you are involved with rescue you know how many dogs are out there desperate to have the right place to call home... Sometimes it's just going to be the fact that there are too many dogs to place... And so the reasons become pathetic but there you go... Reality... This is why I give respect to those who have to make the hard decisions... So happy to connect with someone else who is part of the solution... Good luck with your fosters... I just don't believe focusing on the kill rate is productive at this time... Focusing on reducing the unwanted dogs in the first place is the issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphra Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I absolutely disagree with this perspective. There is really good evidence from Australia and overseas, that making changes at the pound/shelter level will reduce the numbers of animals killed. It makes so much sense that if you concentrate your efforts on the pointy end of the problem you can make changes. If we intend to keep the killing going until those members of the public who are doing the wrong thing start to behave, we might as well just throw up our hands and give up. Public education campaigns are complex, expensive and slow. Look at how long we've been campaigning against smoking and people still do it. No government is going to throw money at a public campaign for responsible ownership (and I would argue that the vast majority of people are responsible owners), but it would cost relatively little to reform our pound management, and save many, many lives really quickly. If you want an easy example look at Broken Hill Pound. A few years ago they had a 90% kill rate. In the last two years they've started working with rescue, operating a foster care network and started a Broken Hill rescue group to rehome animals locally. Up to this point in 2013 their kill rate has reduced to 12%. I just don't believe focusing on the kill rate is productive at this time... Focusing on reducing the unwanted dogs in the first place is the issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I do not disagree that some animals may be better euthanased but a kill rate of 49% is out of all proportion. The RSPCA uses one temperament test which many dogs would fail (incuding my own) and that automatically makes them unrehomeable as far as the RSPCA is concerned. Older dogs and dogs with any disability are also considered unrehomeable and end up killed. The RSPCA will generally not work with breed rescues. They will often only regard working dogs as suitable for working homes whereas they can make fantastic pets for active owners who can meet their needs nd many who end up with the RSPCA are failed workers anyway. I have been involved with rescue for over 10 years and have two fosters with me now. A kill rate of 49%... 0% would be ideal wouldn't it... It could be higher it could be lower... Not in a position to know the truth about that... I agree that their testing is flawed... a dog in rescue could fail but out of rescue could be perfectly rehomeable... I volunteered for RSPCA for a few years a little while ago... I now volunteer for a specific breed rescue... Many of our dogs come from the RSPCA because the person who runs the rescue has a good relationship with them... These are the ones who RSPCA will PTS if we don't take them... and give them a chance...I only know about the specific breed I'm involved in which isn't your average popular breed... I assume if a specific breed rescue approached RSPCA they would work with them... I don't know for sure... perhaps people on this site know more... My 7 year old dog was an RSPCA dog who should never have passed their temperament test... 'Slipped through the system' I say... When she ended up as my problem I took her on and she is in the right home... That's what counts... I adopted a 9 year old cat from RSPCA 4 years ago... So they do have older animals... A little while after my 'heart dog' past away I specifically went looking for an older dog with medical and temperament issues being ok with me... So we are out there but we are a small minority... Ended up with a psychologically and physically neglected young girl who ended up being 2 years old... She's fantastic and wonderful girl who I would adopt a hundred times over... More than a year later and always still progressing... Only recently started sleeping on the bed... yay!!! I just adopted my latest foster... I don't know why they call it a 'foster failure'. After being passed on for 6 months and me falling in love with her (actually everyone knows I fell in love from the moment she came into rescue)...Perfect with my other dogs and cats... What you ganna do? A failure she is... Totally agree with your comments re:working dogs... Too many end up in lazy people homes... As you are involved with rescue you know how many dogs are out there desperate to have the right place to call home... Sometimes it's just going to be the fact that there are too many dogs to place... And so the reasons become pathetic but there you go... Reality... This is why I give respect to those who have to make the hard decisions... So happy to connect with someone else who is part of the solution... Good luck with your fosters... I just don't believe focusing on the kill rate is productive at this time... Focusing on reducing the unwanted dogs in the first place is the issue... No offense or anything but I think your post betrays a major lack of understanding when it comes to rescue issues. Yes, there will be dogs who are not safe or suitable for rehoming but overall, they make up a very small percentage of intakes. I'm a rescuer and I can tell you now, even with a breed with high prey drive (something that could potentially fail them), I'm not having to kill 30% of the dogs I take in and I'd bet that neither are any other rescues. The RSPCA kills because killing is easier than committing to finding homes for each and every rehomable animal. Killing allows them to place blame back on the public rather than accept responsibility for the choices made by their own organisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I'm all for the RSPCA being made more accountable, but the petition is pretty vague and drifts from one thing to another and has no clear outcome. I agree. Whoever wrote that should have just stuck to the point that the RSPCA needs to be accountable. No need for all the other waffle. I have absolutely no idea what the last point about vets was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I'm all for the RSPCA being made more accountable, but the petition is pretty vague and drifts from one thing to another and has no clear outcome. I agree. Whoever wrote that should have just stuck to the point that the RSPCA needs to be accountable. No need for all the other waffle. I have absolutely no idea what the last point about vets was. I read that bit and although I assume it's probably a valid point, I have no idea of what they're actually talking about because it's not been explained clearly. If you want public support, the public have to know what the problem actually is. Best I can figure out is that the RSPCA are somehow involved in the same government department that handles licensing for vets and there are concerns that.. vets who do not tow the line may lose their licenses through the RSPCA abusing their influence? I think half the problem is that each state has its own way of doing things and what applies in NSW may not apply in VIC and so on. Then there is the issue of how mind-blowingly convoluted some of the systems are. Trying to figure out who is involved where is like trying to argue with anti-vaccination nutters- it's just not possible because you end up chasing your own tail endlessly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) This is a difficult one Perry's Mum... Whilst I have my own concerns over the direction that the RSPCA have taken I do not feel at this point in time we should focus on kill rates in rescue. I do agree with due process... but what is 'Due process'... I don't agree with BSL... The issue is simply that there are too many dogs and the problem lies with people who just keep allowing them to breed for their own selfish reasons which include all Breeders, Back yard breeders and people who get a dog and do not have them desexed. And in my opinion... the worst offender "I just wanted my dog to have one litter, I love puppies'. I believe that if you don't understand and accept that your dog should be desexed or if you can't afford to desex then you should not have a dog. I believe that anyone who truly loves dogs and immerses themselves in the dog over population issue... could not continue to create more dogs... Volunteer at your local rescue and you start to understand... … I breed. Well one litter so far, but I intend more. I didn't just 'allow' my dog to breed. I tested her value to the breed in the show ring, undertook all recommended health tests, didn't make the final decision to go ahead until I had owners lined up, looked far and wide for a suitable stud, and eventually imported semen from the US for her. I feel every responsibility for her puppies and always will. I feel no responsibility at all for the dogs in the pound. I am sorry for them, but my being a breeder has nothing to do with them being there. Some of us are very specific in the dogs we want to live with. We are not a home waiting for just any dog. Take away our options and you take away that home, it is not going to filled by anything else. I really don't get why my breed should cease to be bred in this country because there are irresponsible owners who treat their dogs like disposable commodities and who are never held account for it, and irresponsible breeders who cater to them - it is that call for no breeding at all that has seen me drop all my donations to rescue organisations, which used to be significant. Back to the OP - I agree the RSPCA needs to be more accountable, and I will look at the petition in more depth, thank you for posting it. Edited June 18, 2013 by Diva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Well said Diva. I agree wholeheartedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) The issue is simply that there are too many dogs and the problem lies with people who just keep allowing them to breed for their own selfish reasons which include all Breeders, Back yard breeders and people who get a dog and do not have them desexed. And in my opinion... the worst offender "I just wanted my dog to have one litter, I love puppies'. I believe that if you don't understand and accept that your dog should be desexed or if you can't afford to desex then you should not have a dog. … Do some specific research & you'll find you've over-generalised. You need to match your good intentions about a petition re RSPCA NSW, with accurate information on the nature of the problem. It's not just a case of 'too many dogs'.... it's degree of risk factors around their being bred, raised & homed. At lower risk for developing behaviour problems & being dumped, are those puppies bred & raised, with much thought & planning, by breeders who socialise their dogs well (in a more home-style setting, where their efforts are not commercial). This tends to fit registered breeders.... as UQ research actually sussed out. That same research showed that these people also tended to have better control over number of litters. Diva posted an excellent example of this. It's for that reason that RSPCA Qld.... in one of their newsletters, urged people buying puppies/dogs to go to breeders who socialise their dogs well....or to their own shelters or to responsible rescue groups. Higher risk dogs.... that is, those more likely to develop behaviour problems (like timidity or aggression)... tend to come from unregistered breeders like backyarders & the puppy factories. US research, not surprisingly, found that puppies homed from petshops are more likely to develop such problems. Because their source is not those that tend to socialise well.... but like backyarders & puppy factories. With a next possible pit-stop being dumped in pounds/shelters.... like the RSPCA run. So the dogs they finish up with, are slanted towards those who were born/bred/homed to be at higher risk. Which means that behavioral testing & rehabilitation are critical. As Aphra posted, some pounds respond by being innovative. So numbers, alone, do not tell the whole story. Edited June 18, 2013 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Really, Mita? I was not aware risk for developing behavioural problems had been quantified and linked to unregistered breeders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) Really, Mita? I was not aware risk for developing behavioural problems had been quantified and linked to unregistered breeders. Yes, the research I mentioned. The UQ work which found the link with lesser socialisation... which the researchers pointed out, is linked with the development of later behavioral problems. So it constitutes a risk factor. You will notice I carefully used the term risk factors. As is done when applying research to real life. It doesn't predict for every case but indicates risk. And aggregation of risk factors counts. Why have you only now asked that question. Since that research appeared a few years back, I've mentioned it many times on DOL... & quoted a summary statement from the source. Why haven't you said something before? Has something happened? Edited June 18, 2013 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Sorry, I don't follow all threads on DOL and have been especially caught up lately. I wasn't sure if you were talking about the same study, because I feel like it's a bit of a long bow to draw based on the data presented. There were some forms of socialisation that unregistered breeders did significantly more of than registered breeders, for example. And in a lot of cases there were no significant differences. I think it is very complicated as there is no doubt a lot of human psychology involved as well. We don't know whether people who buy from registered breeders are more likely to address behavioural problems if they arise, for example. I have met plenty of ex-pound dogs with behavioural problems that may have got them dumped once, but apparently not twice. Then again, there are some poor souls that bounce in and out until someone like the military or detection dogs find them, or somebody finally makes a really tough decision. My family put a dog from the pound down once because the behavioural problems were serious and it was considered irresponsible to palm the dog off on anyone else and cruel to send her back to the shelter. I think that there is a division in society between people who wouldn't dump an animal unless the circumstances were extreme and rare, and those that just think it's socially acceptable. At the other end there is certainly merit in making dogs more rehomable, but as a QLD RSPCA staff member said to me a few months ago, what's the point? They train the dogs they have so they are reasonably well behaved in the shelter so someone is more likely to take them home, but as soon as they get home the training unravels and the new owner has a dog they can't handle. It may or may not come back, but those that don't aren't necessarily better off. They may cause trouble with neighbours and their family and end up banished to the yard or on a chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphra Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 What a really peculiar perspective. Were they talking about dogs with serious behaviour issues such as severe aggression or obsessive behaviours? Because while some of the dogs we rehome could be said to have behavioural issues, they are mostly related to things such as lack of basic obedience. Teaching a dog to walk reasonably well on a leash, sit quietly, stop jumping and take treats gently are easy enough behaviours to create and tend to stay with the dog once they've got the idea. I'm always bewildered by the idea that pound dogs constitute some "other" category of unmanageable dogs, when the population of a pound pretty much reflects the population of dogs outside the pound. The majority of dogs we rehome could easily go straight from pound to home and manage pretty well. At the other end there is certainly merit in making dogs more rehomable, but as a QLD RSPCA staff member said to me a few months ago, what's the point? They train the dogs they have so they are reasonably well behaved in the shelter so someone is more likely to take them home, but as soon as they get home the training unravels and the new owner has a dog they can't handle. It may or may not come back, but those that don't aren't necessarily better off. They may cause trouble with neighbours and their family and end up banished to the yard or on a chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) Sorry, I don't follow all threads on DOL and have been especially caught up lately. I wasn't sure if you were talking about the same study, because I feel like it's a bit of a long bow to draw based on the data presented. There were some forms of socialisation that unregistered breeders did significantly more of than registered breeders, for example. And in a lot of cases there were no significant differences. I think it is very complicated as there is no doubt a lot of human psychology involved as well. We don't know whether people who buy from registered breeders are more likely to address behavioural problems if they arise, for example. I have met plenty of ex-pound dogs with behavioural problems that may have got them dumped once, but apparently not twice. Then again, there are some poor souls that bounce in and out until someone like the military or detection dogs find them, or somebody finally makes a really tough decision. My family put a dog from the pound down once because the behavioural problems were serious and it was considered irresponsible to palm the dog off on anyone else and cruel to send her back to the shelter. I think that there is a division in society between people who wouldn't dump an animal unless the circumstances were extreme and rare, and those that just think it's socially acceptable. At the other end there is certainly merit in making dogs more rehomable, but as a QLD RSPCA staff member said to me a few months ago, what's the point? They train the dogs they have so they are reasonably well behaved in the shelter so someone is more likely to take them home, but as soon as they get home the training unravels and the new owner has a dog they can't handle. It may or may not come back, but those that don't aren't necessarily better off. They may cause trouble with neighbours and their family and end up banished to the yard or on a chain. It's not a long bow.... it's simply one risk factor in a repertoire of risk factors. It's not a prediction of what will happen in every individual case. In real life, it's the aggregation of risk factors which counts. Which is why I continually put bred/raised/homed as the fuller context where the full range of factors kick in. Either putting the dog at risk or providing protective benefits. The caveat cases you've brought up above are all related to aspects of those. And pick up on either further risk factors or bring in protective factors. So we may, at base, be saying much the same. The way we approach the realities of human problems by drawing on research findings, does just that. Say, for something like drug addiction. Risk Factors which up the likelihood of such a problem developing are listed.... as are Protective Factors which tend to decrease the likelihood. Then each individual case can be charted according to what's ticked. Actually, that could be a good way of approaching problems in dogs. Like, dumping. Could be done. Like, your examples would neatly fit. And the RSPCA is quite correct that a dog can have & be trained in, reasonable behaviour in one setting... that is, the shelter. But when taken into the new environment with a new owner, things can unravel for a number of reasons. Change in environment can present risks... or can offer protective benefits.... for all dogs BTW. And they could be listed. Could be a good research study for someone ... to produce a Risk Factors/Protective Factors charting to connect with dogs' real lives. As how human behaviour influences how dogs behave & what decisions are made about them.... then owner behaviours/attitudes would be strongly represented. (The breeder being the first owner & shelter/pound staff are temporary owners). Edited June 18, 2013 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 What a really peculiar perspective. Were they talking about dogs with serious behaviour issues such as severe aggression or obsessive behaviours? No. Their frustration was that most of the dogs they got in were failed working dogs from livestock properties. If I understood correctly, the shelter was trying to get the adoption rate up for all the right reasons, but at the end of the day had dogs that weren't really suited to the homes available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) What a really peculiar perspective. Were they talking about dogs with serious behaviour issues such as severe aggression or obsessive behaviours? No. Their frustration was that most of the dogs they got in were failed working dogs from livestock properties. If I understood correctly, the shelter was trying to get the adoption rate up for all the right reasons, but at the end of the day had dogs that weren't really suited to the homes available. Corvus, would this be bearing out, at least in part, the UQ (& other) work on the importance of early socialisation? Dogs from 'livestock properties' would not be socialised early , in a more domestic setting. Given they were deemed not suitable for working in such places, then the potential new homes would be those with a domestic lifestyle. Individual dogs with individual owners could well adjust. But there'd be some risk overall. All the RSPCA could do, would be to base rehoming on training success within the shelter & test the dog in a real home. With reference to new owner skills/attitudes, of course. Edited June 18, 2013 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 I have no idea, Mita. I was under the impression that the problem with the working dogs was mostly that they were smart and active, but I could be wrong. IMO, early socialisation is not that big a deal in the scheme of things. Assuming you get a puppy at around 8 weeks, you usually still have a month or so of socialisation window left. Personally, I consider the entire first year to be heavily about socialisation. The breeder can only do so much before it's all up to the new owner. I would certainly prefer a puppy from a home where pup was exposed to lots of different things, but it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me if they weren't. I can probably catch up provided the dog has a half-decent temperament. So, I dunno. I guess in considering risk it would be a small component in my mind. Unless it seems likely the puppy and/or mother were under stress. That would be a deal breaker to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now