Maddy

There is a difference between unsustainable population growth caused by events outside of our control (such as weather) and the growth caused by deliberate activities, such as feeding wildlife. In the case of the roos I mentioned, they were all destroyed. None starved to death, but their deaths could have been prevented if people just kept their bread crusts to themselves. This isn't a whinging greenies thing, this is about the health and welfare of the animals. Anyway, could we not turn yet another thread into RSPCA/Greenies/Animal rights bashing? Big D wanted to know if his dog might be part dingo, not about swamp wallabies on RAAF bases and how it's all the greenies' faults.

Easiest way to get an idea of correct weight (for most breeds) is to just feel the back of your own hand. You'll be able to clearly feel bone, under a thin layer of skin. That's what the dog's ribs should feel like. If you have to poke through half an inch of fat to find ribs, it might be time to ease off the food a bit. As for body condition scores, the bits of the dog you're looking at really shouldn't vary too greatly between breeds, so the charts are generally a pretty good way of assessing body condition. Waist is a good place to start- it really doesn't matter how "stocky" a dog is, there is limited muscle around that loin area so there should be a waist. There is also very limited muscle over ribs, so again, these should be easy to find. On the other end of the scale, all dogs should have normal muscling over their eyes, and if this is absent (unless associated with advanced age), it's a good indication that inadequate nutrition has been an ongoing issue.

Pretty much this, but I would add that if they're having grand mal seizures, in my experience, their temperature can skyrocket from the exertion, and obviously, the longer the seizure, the hotter they get. For us, this wasn't a huge concern- he was a smooth-coated dog, living in a part of Australia that doesn't get all that hot, and he was always kept inside- but if your situation was different, like a seizure that happened outside on a hot day, the dog could get hot enough for it to be a problem.

Asal, habituation is a very real problem in native wildlife and it never ends well for them. Down here, a few years back, an entire mob of eastern greys had to be destroyed because they lived in a local reserve, had become very habituated to humans feeding them at the BBQ areas, and were starting to become aggressive in their begging for food. Even "cute" wild animals can be very dangerous, if they're coming into close contact with humans. The other issue is that supplemental feeding unbalances population. The animals become dependent on the extra food to sustain a population that could not naturally exist in that region. And then when the extra food is withdrawn, the excess animals starve. The solution is to make sure no one makes that mistake again.

There's an awful lot of money to be made out of pet owners, and even more people willing to exploit that fact. At the end of the day, you do what works best for you. Personally, I prefer reward-based training, raw feeding, keeping my dogs inside and I use Advocate. Those things work for me. I didn't arrive at that point without accruing a certain amount of understanding of each issue- because I feel that decisions should be made based on all available information- but I don't obsess over them. In saying that.. I raw feed, we only buy locally raised meat, slaughtered by a local producer to very high ethical standards, and yet.. I'm currently sharing Cheezels with Wallace You have to have some fun in life. (Or in this case, alarmingly orange cheese powder)

I know this is definitely in very poor taste (and I feel terrible already) but.. the first thing that came to my mind was.. "How does the dog like babies"?" If there is a hell, I'm quite possibly going there.

You're the one who felt the need to pick a fight because you disagreed with me? I find it a little rude that you picked the argument and now you're whining that I'm wasting your time.

Don't let anyone guilt you into making decisions for your boy. You know him best, he's under the care of a vet who has offered you good advice, and you seem very aware of his triggers and how to manage him. I know of a few epileptic dogs who have/had infrequent seizures and for those dogs, they remained infrequent. Other cases might be different but you're keeping good track of things and if the situation changes, you can always reassess. I absolutely understand about the guilt though. It's hard enough watching your dog going through a seizure (more so because they can't understand what's happening), it's even worse when other people decide to lay on the guilt about your management decisions. I had people tell me that epileptic animals should simply be put to sleep. And as someone with a human family member with epilepsy, that sort of thing is incredibly hurtful. Those sort of people probably mean well but.. it really doesn't help.

It's certainly an interesting issue. In our case, was there already some underlying pancreatic issue, at only 6 months old? Seems unlikely, but I suppose not impossible. Or was it the outcome of his combined medication (PB + KBr), as it is known to predispose some dogs to pancreatitis, which may perhaps lead to malignant cell changes? Seem unlikely but again, not impossible. Was he just unlucky enough to have epilepsy, and on top of that, develop an uncommon cancer that also caused seizures from BGL drops? Seems unlikely but.. you get the idea. So far as our vets could tell, his blood tests had always come back good. His liver function was good, CBC and WBC were always as expected, glucose had never raised an eyebrow. But the trouble with insulinomas is that levels will be erratic, and so you have to get lucky to catch a major trough. For us, maybe it had been going on for a long time but we never caught a break with the blood tests. It's impossible to say where the epilepsy would have gone, if the cancer hadn't got him first, or even if it was definitely the cancer that caused the increase. The increase started at a very young age (well and truly by 18 months) and that just seems unlikely young for a dog to develop that sort of cancer but.. I don't know. Epilepsy can be a tricky thing to deal with. I have a human family member with epilepsy (from a brain injury) and hers were terribly controlled for a long time (getting so frequent and increasingly severe) and then a simple change of meds and.. not a single seizure in 10 years. Brains..

This. My limited understanding of it, is that it's a fairly recent find, and would require PCR to confirm. Also, that it hasn't been found in Australia. If you'd like something to worry over, tularemia type B was found in Tasmania in few years ago. First recorded case in the southern hemisphere.

Maybe it depends a lot on the sort of dogs you rehome? I can't say I've ever had any requests for holiday toys for the kids. I have rehomed dogs around the christmas period (one girl was only a few days before christmas) and all are still in their homes, and very loved. In fact, when it comes to families adopting, I can't say I've ever had a family tell me that the dog was for the kids. I've had parents turn down dogs that their kids were mad for, because the parents didn't feel the connection. Most sensible adults want a dog they're happy with, because it will be a family member that they have to live with. I honestly don't think we give the general public enough credit. The overwhelming majority of my adopters have been sensible, good people who want to help out a dog in need. And I suspect that they're probably about the average. That's not to say that idiots don't exist, but I don't think it's sensible to tar every potential adopter with the same brush, or to punish people in advance.

A couple of times a year is pretty infrequent so I wouldn't medicate at that point. In our case, we did start medication after only a couple of seizures but that was on account of his age (first seizure at only 6 months old) and the fact that he had known neurological issues already. Another option is phenobarb. Our vet is of the opinion that it's a lot safer than some people believe, and from my experience with Idiot Dog, side effects weren't too bad. You can start on tiny doses and if it needs to come up to keep threshold up, that's easy enough to do. (Should add that it's worth getting peaks/troughs done once everything is settled, to make sure levels are within therapeutic range) If you'd rather not go down the road of medication, I'd stick with keeping his threshold up. For Idiot Dog, being a very shy boy, the big stress was visitors, so we managed that more closely. We did end up losing him a couple of years ago, but that was to an insulinoma, which unfortunately had many of the same symptoms as his existing condition, so we didn't catch it until it was too late. His epilepsy got worse as he aged, even with significant medication (PB and KBr) and I think that if it's going to decline like that (he'd have at least one seizure a day), nothing much is really going to stop it.

This. So much this. I'm personally not a huge fan of the RSPCA because I don't believe non-profits should be enforcing legislation (amongst other issues with the organisation, at both national and state levels) but equally, how the hell can you look at those pictures and think that the squalor shown was acceptable? I've said it before but I'm going to say it again: Asal, please seek some help. I'm not saying this to be mean to you, I'm saying it because if your grief and trauma are so severe that you'd defend horrendous, cruel living conditions for an animal that you love, simply to argue against the organisation that hurt you, I honestly think you need to deal with it. Like Thistle, I was absolutely.. speechless at your opinion that the dogs looked fine so it all must be okay. I mean, besides the fact (as Thistle points out) that body fat on a dog does not mean it's healthy and cared for, the photos clearly show dogs who have been living in filth for quite some time. What you are defending is animal cruelty, simple as that. And if this isn't because of your traumatic experience with the RSPCA, then it must be because you honestly believe those conditions to be suitable for housing dogs. And if that's the case, perhaps the RSPCA were justified in removing your dog from you. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but it's either one or the other, isn't it? Please get some help. I will not believe that you'd actually condone cruelty but as someone who has spent the last 11 years rescuing, your anti-welfare, anti-rescue comments are beginning to wear at me. I try to be civil with you because I can see that the trauma has deeply affected you, but I won't stand by while you continue to defend cruelty.

I feed raw so it's fortunately not a problem for us. Our local processor is a few minutes drive from us, and you can see the soon-to-be dog food, standing around in the paddocks. I have no particular fears with regards to feeding kibble, I just don't see the point when our dogs are happy and healthy on raw, and it's very convenient for us. That said, I wouldn't buy dried meat treats that have been processed in China (which is the vast majority) because of the previous issues with them. As for the demand for dogs, I'm quite sure it's not for a lack of purebred dogs. Nearby countries (such as Vietnam) certainly kill plenty of greyhounds, so mosey over there and offer some cash, it should be a pretty easy way to get a dog (even an Australian-bred greyhound). Which suggests it's about something else, and that's probably the perception of "cleaner" or "better". And that, for greyhounds anyway, is a bit of a sad joke.

As in, the RSPCA Queensland? Down here, they pulled out of offering pound services and as of January, will only really be dealing with welfare enforcement and pocket pets. As for the two dogs who died in transit, does anyone have any actual proof that it happened? It's already been established that the source Asal quoted, has already admitted to having some of her facts wrong. And those incorrect facts make a huge difference to the story. Which raises the question.. how could you "accidentally" get that info wrong?

Asal, for what it's worth, I believe animal welfare should absolutely begin with helping people to be the best carers they can be for their animals. Having said that, many involved in welfare become very burnt-out and cynical, to such an extent that they can only see the worst side of people. That's not to say the accused is an angel (from looking at the condition of some of the dogs, I'd say there were certainly some serious welfare concerns) but that demonising her also swings too far in the other direction. Perhaps things did just get out of hand, perhaps she did willingly sign some of the dogs over, but evidently (from the forum posts you quoted) she has also been dishonest about the circumstances that led to the seizing of the dogs. And any reasonable person would have to wonder what other "facts" of her story may be questionable. This doesn't make the breeder a monster but it also doesn't speak highly of her character. On the other side of things, the fact that the RSPCA elected to retain only the easily saleable dogs is not especially surprising. I'm of the opinion that the enforcement of legislation (in this case, animal welfare legislation) should never be placed in the hands of outside organisations. The general public wouldn't accept outsourced police, but we accept the RSPCA as an enforcement agency without any questioning, despite the fact that it raises questions of conflicting interests. And this case is a good example of how legitimate welfare enforcement could easily be seen as a money grab.

Guinea pigs have to be the worst sort of thing for triggering prey drive. They wheek loudly, their movements are fast and erratic and they are defenseless little blobs of noms. Having said that, you already know that your dog chases cats so the outcome was a bit.. inevitable. For the sake of your relationship, I'd be making sure that the dog never darkens your sister's doorstep again.

I'm not sure why there is demand for dogs to go over there but for me, it's just too much risk. If anything were to go wrong with the dog, getting the dog back in to Australia would be massively expensive and difficult. And on top of that, there is the illegal trade in dog meat to worry about, and the very real risk of the dog being stolen for that purpose, in certain countries. Perhaps it's something similar to the current boom in Australian health products? (Ours are seen as cleaner, safer, etc.) Who knows. And that aside, why contact a rescue that is about as close to Antarctica as you'd care to be? Why wouldn't you contact rescues in places like Queensland? I don't know, and if I don't know, I don't take risks.

I've tried it with the greyhounds and in my experience.. palatability was dreadful. I mean, nightmare-inducing. I was tempted to buy some gel capsules to fill, to make it easier to get into them. What stopped me was the second issue: it did nothing at all for any of the dogs I've tried it on. Not a damn thing. Obviously some people have great experiences with it (and I'm not saying that my experience invalidates their experience) but if I were you, I'd see if you can get a sample-sized amount to start with. Personally, I ended up with a very expensive jar of powder that went in the bin. Huge waste of money and effort.

Wut? Low carbs diets for humans have nothing to do with the issue of processed foods for dogs. And none of what is claimed on either of those sites makes any mention of cancer. As an aside, plenty of naturally occurring foods are full of carbs. I have a vegan friend who eats only unprocessed foods and one day, after she'd posted her usual breakfast photos, I sat down and worked out how much sugar was in her food. It equated to roughly a 1.25L bottle of Coke. Just for breakfast. No grains, nothing processed, just naturally stuffed full of fructose. My dogs eat raw because there is good reason to believe that raw meat is an appropriate diet for a carnivorous animal. But if someone else has trouble feeding raw and needs to feed some sort of processed food (barf patties don't come from the barf pattie tree) or kibble, I'm not going to make judgements about their ability to care for their pet. Or their ability to research. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that a link to one or two studies per topic is not sufficient evidence for your argument. I'm not arguing for Big Sugar, I'm arguing for objectiveness in research and in how the science is presented to the general public. Cherry-picking a few studies that support your claims, is not good science. Allllso.. at least one of those sites you linked has a product to sell. So yeah, vested interests, hey.

For people who get a lot of emails, there are still fairly easy ways to handle it: set up an email address for puppy enquiries, set up an automated reply (something along the lines of "Thanks for contacting us, we'll get back to you as soon as possible.", job done. From there, sort emails into those that can be answered quickly ("Do you currently have puppies for sale? Want puppy.") and those that need time to read and reply to more fully (like those where the person has clearly put time into it). For the latter, send off a second email, letting them know that you appreciate their enquiry and want to give it the time it deserves, but that may take a few days. The short enquiries can be answered with equally brief info ("Yeah, see info on litter here. Thank you for your enquiry") and that way, effort is not wasted on those who don't seem that interested, without actually writing them off completely. As a rescuer, I get a lot of similar stuff- everything from "Can I have a free dog? I need it delivered here by XX date. Thanks." to hefty essays on their breed research, family life, financial situation, feelings about children, feelings about life, dogs, whether onions should be on Bunnings sausages and how high their fences are- so I found it helpful to knock out the quick stuff first, reducing your perceived workload, before moving onto stuff that requires more thought. For common questions, maybe keep a notepad document with some quick copy/paste replies. For example, I get a lot of enquiries from parts of Asia (god knows why) and I have a generic copy/paste reply that thanks them for contacting us and explains that we do not adopt dogs overseas. Saves a lot of time. Edit: probably should have checked for new replies before finally remembering to hit enter

I think most people would be okay with slower replies, as long as they actually get a reply. It's frustrating and very disheartening to spend an hour writing an email, introducing yourself, your family, your situation, only to not hear back at all. As if the breeder read everything you had to say and then dismissed it so carelessly that they couldn't even be bothered with a reply. Threads like these are not all that uncommon. And when you consider that these threads are just the people who found the forums and decided to ask, there are probably plenty of people experiencing the same things. If buying a puppy from a registered breeder is so difficult and unenjoyable, people may end up looking elsewhere, and honestly, who could blame them? I can understand that sometimes life happens and things fall by the wayside, but if breeders expect puppy buyers to jump through endless hoops to get a puppy, there has to be some effort on the other end. (This isn't aimed at you, TSD, given you do actually reply.) I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that the transaction between breeder and buyer is very one-sided. No breeder wants to see it as simply a commercial transaction- money being exchanged for something- they see it as finding homes for members of their own family, and want the control of where puppies go, whether or not they'll be desexed, etc. But money is exchanged, and it's usually a considerable amount. So puppy buyers get the short end of the stick: they pay a lot of money for something they have to be judged "worthy" of getting. I'm sure plenty of breeders would consider that to be perfectly fair, but when they're getting the better end of the deal, of course they'd consider it fair. I'm not saying that breeders shouldn't vet potential puppy buyers for the basic stuff, or that they should charge less money; but that breeders should be aware of how one-sided it is, and work to make the experience as good as they can for their puppy buyers- the people who are paying upwards of $2,000 for the privilege of giving one of your babies a good home.

On the other hand, I've left multiple (four) dogs unattended in the house during the day, and come home to a.. bunch of sleeping dogs. Sometimes the cushions were knocked off the couch by someone trying to snuggle, other times someone had dragged meat out of the bowl and onto the lounge room carpet, but generally, nothing that couldn't just be picked up. The occasional story of chaos doesn't mean that houses are unsafe places for dogs. It's about management. Our dogs don't have access to things they could easily get themselves into trouble with. Bins are out of reach, no potted plants, no potentially delicious other pets, no family heirlooms balanced precariously on mantles or accessible shelves. We've always had very tall dogs who could get their noses into a lot of places, but dog-proofing wasn't that hard, even with foster dogs in the house.

I wouldn't worry to much about it. Different people prioritise different risks. I'm sure some people would be aghast that I don't routinely use tick prevention (based on 12 years of living in this area and never had a single tick), whereas I would never dream of just walking my dogs off-leash down the street. Or anywhere not fully fenced, really. Then there's FB, full of warning and panics. Some of the warnings may be based on some amount of fact (and you should weigh up your personal risks), others are just copy/pasted rubbish and can be safely ignored. And again, on FB, there is endless shaming for your choices. Feed kibble to your dog? You're a stooge and your dog will get cancer and die because you're too lazy to research. Feed raw? You're probably a Karen Becker-loving crackpot and you're willing to risk your dog's health based on wacko conspiracy theories and Rodney Habib videos. Use Nexgard? Well, your dog is going to have a seizure and die, all because you're a shill for Big Pharma. Don't use Nexgard? See Karen Becker bit above^, but add 90% more capslock screeching. At the end of the day.. Do the best you can do, based on the information available to you. And if someone is telling you to do/buy something for the "good of your dog", maybe make sure they aren't ethically compromised before putting your dog's health in their hands (*cough* Jean Dodds *coughcough*)

It probably depends an awful lot on the climate of your area, the available food sources, the abundance of predators, the species that inhabit your area, and so on and so forth. I live on the outer edge of an outer suburb that backs onto bush that basically stretches all the way to the east coast of Tasmania. There are plenty of small streams and rivers to attract frogs and other small animals that a snake might eat. The climate is temperate (so snakes may go into torpor, depending on how cold the winter is), all three Tasmanian species can be found, but there are abundant birds of prey and large gulls (brown falcon, pacific gulls and kelp gulls, are the most frequent I see). I've lived in the same house for the last 12 years and have never seen a single snake in our yard. Or at the lake we occasionally visit. Or down near the river. Nada. Maybe exceptionally good luck, maybe local predators apply enough pressure that the joe blake populations never get high enough to increase the odds of us seeing any. Pers's situation is different. And yours will likely be different from both of ours. It's a matter of assessing your personal risk and managing from there. Personally, given my dogs are sighthounds and prefer to spend their days lolling on the couch in my absence anyway, I believe it's safer for them to be inside. Snakes are not our concern so much, but if my dogs are safely stowed in my house, I know there's no chance of a gate being "accidentally" opened or a straying dog getting into my yard, or my dogs chasing down and scoring themselves a neighbour's cat or inclement weather causing them discomfort or even harm. In 12 years of keeping my dogs inside, the following accidents/catastrophes have happened: a few wee stains on the carpet. The millions of inside hours clocked up by unattended pets, wherein absolutely nothing of note happens, do not make interesting news stories