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.

11 hours ago, koalathebear said:

Of course I don't mind. I hope your dog is ok - it's always very, very upsetting.

I'm surprised the vet didn't give you a syringe along with the valium.  we also have some but were told that the valium is only needed for a longer seizure eg 15 min.  5 min (feels like forever) but isn't considered long - just try to keep them from hurting themselves.  Hoover's last one was a total mess though - he basically urinated, vomited, defecated and drooled heavily so the floor was a complete and utter mess all around him ... and we were a mess as we were trying to keep him from hurting himself.

Hope she's ok <3 <3

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.

8 hours ago, asal said:

The dingo who took Azaria was a pet, it brought her home and left her on the doorstop. the horrified owner killed it and buried both....obviously not together.

 

 

how do I know... my bil was the arid zone vet who was lumped with autopsying all the dingo's shot and knew what really happened. people tried to tell no one listened......but hey who listens to the locals who might actually know...how quickly everyone forgot the local tribeswomen tracked it from the tent..... only lost the tracks when they realised where it was heading, had only just been given ulauru back....nightmare all round, then a dipstick in Darwin decides he doesn't like the way Lindy dressed and it all went downhill even faster.

 

the dingo's on Fraser Island need food, but nope,.................. the half witted govt buffoons wont even let the scraps from the tourist camps be put out at a feeding station well away, so the dingo's dont come begging for food.....another disaster already happened how many times???? starving dogs is a recipe for disaster, regardless  of species, as has already happened on Fraser island.....The photos of the dingo's show they are so skinny the rspca would have taken them if they were your dog....that thin means there sure is not enough native food to be found.............. I heard, until they stopped the scrap's being put out no attacks, because they were not coming to the camps    but hey aborigines n locals dont know zilch about dingo's you have to be a greenie with a uni degree or of course a politician who bought the seat anyway with donations to get elected.  safe, wildlife management isn't on the agenda

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.

13 hours ago, westiemum said:

As usual you didn't read my post. I pointed out that Im not going to spend hours linking to all the studies but linked a couple.   True low carb diets are not full of fructose and in fact contain very little fruit - and citing one friends breakfast is not good science either. And yes low carb diets have a lot to do with avoiding highly processed foods.    So no Im not guilty of cherry picking.  Nor is Tim Noakes, Christine Cronau or a host of others. But Ancel Keyes is.  But Im not going to argue with you further -  you're welcome to believe what you believe and I don't have time and nor does my health or that of my dogs. 

 

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.

3 minutes ago, persephone said:

You've probably discussed this with a vet ..
perhaps, as he ages , his blood sugar levels are not keeping stable , and seizure activity is result of hypoglycaemia?
Maddy's mention of her dog's isulinoma   made me think of this ..as a friend's dog had a similar problem .

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..

1 hour ago, persephone said:

is your dog infected? 
yes, you need good info. perhaps change vets .

if, on the other hand , it is something you have found/heardof/read about ... perhaps you would be best served by contacting  a Uni or somewhere like that . If it is an uncommon/newly discovered little beastie , your vet may not yet have the information - they do have an awful lot to learn /keep up with .

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.

On 07/12/2018 at 9:00 PM, Thistle the Best Dog said:

Asal. I'm sorry in advance when I upset you because I know you are working through a lot, and I'm trying to respect that, but I'm truly poleaxed. It has taken me an hour to try and word my thoughts. How you can look at these videos and photos and think this is okay for the dogs? Please don't let your anger and frustration with the RSPCA blind you to the conditions these dogs are being kept in. Excuses shouldn't be made for it. This breeder and their situation isn't you.

 

 

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.

9 hours ago, CharbearsMa said:

Oh gosh, I didn’t even think of the meat issue!  and I know people who openly admit to it being a thing over there....good call.

Yeah it’s so hard to get Australian dog food, I spend ages quizzing staff on where product X came from and they’ve nearly got me sold when they slip in about how we had a shortage here of whatever....sorry, not buying now!!

Even human food isn’t necessarily safe  

I really wish we weren’t lumped in with Asia for everything! 

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. 

8 minutes ago, asal said:

I suspect you have no idea yet of the new operating conditions they have decided on, no more tendering to run council pounds, they will no longer renewing the leases and the council will have to run them themselves or find others to do so... BUT they will handpick the most saleable from the pounds and take them so that way those killed by the pounds wont be going on their books as having been put down by rspca.

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.

11 hours ago, CharbearsMa said:

Maddy, sorry to head off topic here, but do you know what the deal is with the Asia thing??

The Australasian animal registry, for example....what IS that?? Are the dogs expected to stray and swim to Bali? Or are we allowed to import pets from Asian countries? (Which doesn’t make sense to me given that to the best of my knowledge even dogs coming from the USA have to sit in quarantine, so why we’d be open to dogs from Indonesia where there are random Rabies outbreaks is kinda beyond me...).

In your case at least, is it a matter of you don’t export dogs or can’t (legally)?

 

I know importation is a whole other topic but the Australasian thing really has me thrown....

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.

On 30/07/2018 at 2:43 PM, westiemum said:

Yeah I'm one of those 'crazies' - and I can cite the science but I'm not going to take a half day of time to do it. Its easily accessible if you look - start here for a summary of the science and here . 

 

I've looked incredibly closely and carefully at the science and the political and social determinants of human nutrition, current government dietary guidelines (and yes the food pyramid which we've all taken as gospel and is completely unsupported by the science) and its fads like all the variations on high carb/low fat diets over the last 40 -50 years. And I've concluded that these fads were driven by industry and vested interest and not by sound science.  And for me, the standard government and medical advice I'd been given over a lifetime and told to follow was sending me to an early grave.   

 

And I've started to wonder if despite the physiological differences it isn't the same or similar for our dogs?  Their diets have changed enormously since processed pet foods were introduced (who benefits?) - and so have their rates of doggy lifestyle diseases - heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer etc etc.  Is that connected or is it a coincidence?

 

I don't know the answer but I'm beginning to suspect its an incredibly important question to answer in a scientifically sound way despite what will be enormous opposition from vested interests.  And yet if those vested interests have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about the science proving their foods are healthy and safe, once and for all. 

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.

3 hours ago, Rebanne said:

I return emails pretty much as soon as I see them if only to say I'll get back to you, I'm in the middle of a run of night shifts But as I get so few enquiries for my breed it's hardly a strain. I can imagine having a popular breed and getting many emails or calls per day could be tiring, especially when so many of those would be the one liners. (got pups, how much type emails)

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 

10 hours ago, The Spotted Devil said:

So...my last 2 litters, pups have sold for $1750 each. First litter I just broke even on costs (not including my time and travel). The second litter I had 7 pups with 2 still born and 1 put to sleep at 5 weeks after x-rays. Surprise, surprise I didn’t break even with that litter either. 

 

An honest question - would puppy buyers prefer I doubled my prices so I could treat breeding like a business and answer emails within 7 days? Personally I’d like to breed affordable pups, raise them to the best of my ability and place them in the best homes possible. 

 

Truth be told no-one is privileged to have any idea what’s going on in someone’s life at any one time. Yes, I’ve slipped of late in terms of getting back to people but sometimes things happen that you can’t control. Trust me, if I could change my current circumstances I would. 

 

 

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 25/11/2018 at 10:13 AM, asal said:

I left Jodie in the house one day when I went shopping, came home to the tops of the two fish tanks caved in, the african violets and their soil all in the fish tanks, somehow the fish were still alive in all that mess, frantic catching and cleaning that took half a day.. one tank is six foot the other seven ,, so big tanks lots of water, but then there was lots of african violets... 

 

Jodie, glowing with pride at what a great view she discovered to be found on top of the tanks..sheesh

 

had nightmares for months, at least the tops didn't break, just the movable lids  fell in so she had not cuts anywhere. think she must have been part otter she was sopping wet and loving it, suppose she had tried catching the fish but failed fortunately.

 

Sold the frontosia for $2,500 rather that go through that again.. had ten of them worth $250 each..

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.

46 minutes ago, CharbearsMa said:

Speaking of, if y’all wouldn’t mind talking me down from a ledge when necessary, it would be much appreciated.

There just ain’t enough Valium in the world to ameliorate the whole THEIR POTENTIAL QUALITY OF LIFE  IS DETERMINED BY YOU, ONLY YOU, AND THE LIKELIHOOD IS THAT YOU SUCK AT LIFE SO LET US PRAY FOR YOUR PUPPY thing

 

thanks guys ❤️

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*)

46 minutes ago, CharbearsMa said:

Um...ok that’s not cool  

I’m so sorry  

and terrifed now. Just slightly. 

....why is this never on tv or anything??? Like an actual fatality count? 

 

How much is a typical dose of antivenin? 

Just ball park figure?

 

Holy s*** well...I am gonna have to at least read up on Jumabaar’s info. After I take up drinking as a full time occupation. 

I’ve taken a bee sting for bubba (scored a toxic reaction in return...was my first sting ever, guess who is allergic?), crushed red backs bare handed for my dearly departed AngelBoy, patted the cats that move into the neighbors yards to eat the mice that I don’t want getting near my babies...I can’t believe I missed snake prevention. S***.

 

I honestly had no idea that this was so common. I’m so sorry, guys, for your loss   

 

 

 

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