Are You Serious Jo

Let's make them uglier so that people wouldn't be so inclined to buy them because they are so beautiful /sarcasm Well, Eurodog will be pretty plain I think, so maybe that is what they are aiming for.

Then seriously, if people can't even cope with normal dog behaviour they should just get a fricken stuffed toy. What is wrong with putting more time into educating people about choosing a suitable breed, rather than creating a generic dog. If you remove all the differences between breeds in terms of temperament to create a robotic dog that does nothing wrong, then how is this different to destroying breeds? I'll never own a JRT because I don't like their temperament, but some love that. You take the terrier out of a JRT and it isn't a JRT. For some breeds you may as well wipe them out if you are going to remove their characteristic temperament, same thing.

Environmental factors were discussed, yet they made the point that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog will still be a 'good' dog. Genetics are a factor that should not be ignored, To a point, but a bad owner can ruin ANY dog, no matter how good the temperament of the parents is.

What is their definition of a good dog though?

My partner is a huge fan of Hugh and has changed his life since following him. Nekhbet is right, Hugh has realistic alternatives on how we can improve animal welfare without resorting to violence or extinction of animals.

Why aren't they classed as a terrorist organisation, they have issued enough statements that support the notion. I bet if they were Arabic in appearance they'd be all thrown into Gitmo by now

This thread reminds me of sea kittens

Call the pound next time you find the dog, a few fines and he'll be a lot more careful about leaving doors open.

"• Defendants to be required to pay court bonds prior to any litigation appeals or appeals in relation to the forfeiture of animals. The bond amount should be based on the financial cost of caring for the dogs on a daily basis, acknowledging that during this period such this care is being provided by RSPCA or other rescue group and not by the defendant. Where a court bond is not paid, the owner would be required to surrender the animals for rehoming." This really is the scariest thing I have read so far. I know they have unprecedented powers, but surely this is unconstitutional and can't be allowed to go through? If they care so much about puppy farms why haven't they used their powers they already have, as everyone has said, they already have the tools and power to go after them. They really have it in for registered breeders.

Are you able to make a trip up there robbi, might help you see what everyone is facing.

I guess that would be similar to the sponsorship deals they have. If it prevents a dog going out undesexed then that is a good thing.

Ok - it may come as a shock seeing as i started the thread, but i completely disagree with this statment - firstly I dont think the rescue is trying to make money off the unsuspecting public, i think they are mis-informed or blatently telling fibs to find this dog a home. I don't think it's done with malice and to make big $$$$, and would'nt suggest they are anything like a petshop, though I do feel that they are somewhat supporting the DD trade and therefore petshops by proposing that a crossbreed dog is a "designer" purebreed. The point was that the public are being lied to to get the dog into a home, the dollar amount is immaterial. Whether it is being sold for profit or sold to cover the costs it is the same thing, the dog is being promoted as something it is not. What is wrong with honesty? If someone has to be told a lie to buy the dog are they the right home anyway?

I haven't directly been involved but have been talking to others who have and also those who gave up. Obviously donations could be used to help pay for desexing, but since previous donations have not lead to this it doesn't seem likely that more would either. We are talking about a major shift in philosophy of rehoming, that no animal goes out undesexed. If the belief in the importance of desexing is not getting through then I doubt giving more supplies will change this, otherwise it would already have occurred. Not saying people shouldn't try to make change here, obviously it is needed in a big way, just need to make sure people are informed. We do need a shelter in this area, so I hope things can be improved for the sake of the animals.

This is how I feel. Why do people jump up and down if a pet shop advertises that way to sell a puppy, but if a rescue does the same thing it is suddenly ok?

Don't get me wrong, I think it is great you guys want to help, I just think you'll be able to be more effective if you know the whole story. I don't know the solution though, it's hard to change the mind of someone who feels the need to keep everything alive no matter what. Keep brainstorming though, might be able to think of something.

The animals are desexed if someone else pays for it. It isn't sustainable to desex 100 animals and then only charge $50 for them. The only option I see is increase the adoption fees and have less available for adoption so they don't sit at the shelter forever. I feel so sorry for some of them it takes all my strength not to go get some out of there.

The local vets have tried to help, but they are still a business and are not obliged to lose money on someone elses decision to keep too many animals. Vets don't have to treat rescue animals at a reduced cost, rescue dogs aren't their responsibility. They also have to be careful professionally about what they support. The problem is deeper than just getting discount vet work in the Riverland, people here have given up after already trying to help and getting nowhere. If you guys can make a difference that is great, I really do hope you can, but you need to be aware of the situation you face. If you can convince them to keep the numbers to what they can handle that would be a start. Disease transmission from shelters is a big issue here.

If you keep things going the way they are then you are just enabling bad practice, and the reputation of the shelter in this area is not good. It will take a complete overhaul of the manager's philosophy for things to improve and I don't think that will happen. The current message on the home page is pleading for adoptions because the heat is unbearable for the dogs and cats at the shelter. So these dogs and cats are in a no kill situation, and at what cost? Some are sold without vaccination as well by the looks of it There was a full page colour ad in the pioneer yesterday as well. That is all well and good, but what happens when you get more food and bedding there, you just help them to keep more animals in poor conditions and then sold for little money undesexed. The current feeling in the Riverland with some animal people is that animals are better off dead than ending up there, things are that bad. It gives a really bad name to rescue. Sorry to be so negative, but you have to be fully aware of the reality, good intentions are all well and good, but not at the expense of the welfare of the poor dogs and cats there, and their litters of unwanted offspring if they do get sold. If you want to help then do your best to convince them that vet work is important, and if they can't provide that then they need to reconsider their keep everything alive at all costs management.

Is every dog and cat desexed now? I know she was only desexing those who had sponsors and the others were sold undesexed. This was as late as last week. I am in the position to promote the shelter, but will only do so if everything is desexed, I don't see the point of keeping everything alive if it is only going to go out and create more dogs for her to rescue.

Some people claim to be rescuers because they think it is a fast track to sainthood in others eyes, they don't actually give a shite about responsible rehoming. Just because someone says they do rescue they are not above scrutiny, and I hope this mob won't be able to advertise through pet rescue again.

I'd be more tolerant of his version of diversity if he wasn't trying to destroy the world of purebred breeding based on his personal beliefs. He thinks his crossbreds are better, good for him, why not just promote them without adding to the misconceptions people have about purebreds. His science is dodgy, but sadly jumped on by the media who don't know how to review a paper properly, so it becomes fact to the general public.

Feral Cheryl

Holy crap, we need to finish our list of things to do if they turn up at your door, have to get that done. Poor bastards, who ever they are.

Some scientists are practical as well, I am a sad panda now Some of us combine real life experience with scientific literature and do quite well, but I can understand why you think some scientists are as useful as tits on a bull when some topics come up. All the years of real life experience I had with animals actually made me a better scientist

Sandgrubber. I enjoy your posts. You will fit in well on DOL then!! I too have a range of publications in internationally peer reviewed journals as well as some published book chapters. Like Dr B none of them touch on canine genetics. We know not all PhDs are equal. The proof is in the publication record. Here is what an expert in genetics looks like.. Steve Jones Well if thats the case why are we being bombarded with the opinions of people LESS expert and LESS experienced than Dr B ? They have a better PR machine, it's as simple as that.