Maddy

How is anyone to know which rescue groups are ethical and which aren't? You can only go on what you're told over the phone. He assumed this group were genuine, they were quick off the mark to get the dog which was originally advertised as free to a good home.

I don't think it's necessarily any one thing that makes a rescue ethical, rather, it's a lot of the smaller things.

Just off the top of my head..

Does the group desex before rehoming? If not, that'd be a definite deal breaker.

What vet work is included? You'd want at least an up-to-date C3 and a microchip.

If the dog has come from a pound, has it had a C3 and done three weeks in quarantine to minimise the risk of transmitting infection?

Has the dog been temperament assessed? If not, another deal breaker.

How long are dogs in care for or are they just put in boarding until a home comes up?

What are their rehoming policies? Is it first come, first served or are dogs matched to homes?

Do they complete home checks before placing dogs?

If you are unable to keep the dog for some reason, what are their policies on returning the dog?

That's obviously not a complete list but the answers from those questions should give you some idea. Obviously people are not always honest so personally, I'd be doing a bit of checking around also. Google can turn up some pretty interesting stuff, even if the group doesn't have a web site.

On one hand you've had the dog in your home for at least the last two months and you know how it will react in almost every situation- the dog's behaviour has been assessed and you know exactly what sort of home would best suit that dog.

That's not always the case.

If you're talking about an ethical rescue group, that should always be the case, in my opinion.

The dog should have done a minimum of one month in a home (for me, it's a minimum of two months but I can see how that might not be possible for everyone), the dog must be temperament tested and tested for suitability in certain home situations (children is the one I'd consider to be most important) and based on all that you learn from assessing the dog's behaviour, a "best case" home should be fairly easy to determine.

If the dog in your son's situation had not even been there long enough to complete quarantine or was rehomed to the first person to show up (assuming your son's home was a better situation for the dog, we really can't know either way), I doubt very much that the group concerned was especially ethical so in reality, you probably dodged a bullet there anyway ;)

And for everyone who says rescues haven't responded I'll bet I can match you for enquirers that ask a whole lot of questions and never respond to even say thanks but no thanks, or to go as far as a home visit and then vanish off the planet. It's just a people thing, we have to accept it and move on.

Ah yes..

We actually had one family (who looked suitable on paper) not even bother to be home for their home check. The date was arranged to suit them, the person doing the check turned up and.. nothing, not even a note to say they'd had to cancel for some reason.

The person stayed a while, wandered around their front yard and looked at the animals there and after waiting a reasonable amount of time, she had to leave. We never heard from that family again, I can only guess.. they changed their minds?

Kiff had a kong. Filled it for him, he kind of.. licked at the end for a few seconds before walking away. The kong was left with him for the rest of the day to see if he'd show any interest and.. nothing. The kong now resides (last I saw it, anyway) in the grass in a dark corner of the yard. It got thrown for a foster dog, not retrieved and was basically given up on. I know a lot of people have greyhounds who love kongs, I'm just yet to meet such a greyhound myself.

The beef flavoured nylabone. Ah.. this one seemed like a great idea. Kiff loves beef, something that tastes like beef should be a hit... Should. His reaction to it was almost one of offense. The nylabone got nosed under his cupboard next to his bed (which is where he hides things that he doesn't want touching his precious toy bunny) and even after it was retrieved, rinsed off and offered to him again, he showed no interest. From memory, it just got binned after that.

There's been a few rope toys and admittedly, these have seen some use. Although that use was not chewing/play but Kiff carefully deconstructing them by gnawing off individual strands from the ends and leaving them littering his bed (or vomiting them up in the hallway, if we were extra lucky). None of the fosters have shown any interest in the rope toys. Probably a good thing, given how gross the strands are to clean up when vomited up with some raw meat.

We have tried the vinyl (or rubber or whatever they are) squeaky toys but again, one dusty survivor out in the yard that gets searched out to try with new fosters and none have ever shown any interest.

Maybe it's because they aren't raised with toys in the same way that pet dogs are, who knows- but from my experience, it's either just soft, squeaky toys (which get shredded quickly, Zanies is the only brand that survives around here) or smallish bones with enough meat on them to make them worth a greyhound's effort. A whole possum costs us $5 and if divided up for chewing/playing (there's not a huge amount of meat on them and it's very lean), one carcass can keep a greyhound entertained for a week or so.

The other thing they're a bit fruity about at the moment is kangaroo hide (with the fur still on). It takes them quite a while to get through a strip although that's definitely an outside treat/toy- they get very excited by the smell and tend to throw them around and do zoomies with them before settling down to chew on them.

I can understand both sides of this and really, it's quite a difficult issue.

On one hand you've had the dog in your home for at least the last two months and you know how it will react in almost every situation- the dog's behaviour has been assessed and you know exactly what sort of home would best suit that dog. Then, along comes an adopter.. an unsuitable adopter who proceeds to tell you that they know the breed very well, thank you very much, and that their home is exactly what this dog must have and nothing else is going to suit it as well and if you knew how to rehome dogs properly, you wouldn't be questioning their sound judgement.

Even if you're not overly insulted by the assumption that the last two months with this dog has taught you nothing about it, you still have (potentially) an angry would-be adopter to deal with who'll likely go on to trash your rescue to anyone who'll listen because they were turned down, even though the dog simply wasn't right for their home.

It's frustrating, upsetting and there's often no way you can get out of a situation like that without getting burnt, one way or the other.

On the other hand.. I can understand that some people (and rescues) operate in a manner that could best be described as peculiar and that sometimes, the public have to deal with these people when they perhaps ought not to have to. Odd behaviour that borders on irrational seems to be a little more common that you'd want from people who are controlling the lives of dogs.

You only need to keep an eye on the rescue section of the forums here to see some of the dubious behaviour that goes on (for whatever reason- I've seen plenty of it but could never understand the motivations behind it) and in my opinion, it's all the more reason for rescue to be regulated to whatever extent is required to weed out the people who're giving rescue a bad reputation.

I don't see any shift of responsibility. If a person is avoiding apprehension and as a part of that they threaten to kill a police officer, they are at fault. If that person is avoiding apprehension by a police dog and threaten to kill it it again it's their fault. edit - sp

The difference is, the police office chooses to be in that line of work, the dog just does what it's trained to do, without understanding the risks or how to avoid them.

If someone on Dol was doing something with their dog that put it at regular risk of being shot, stabbed or beaten and kicked, people would be up in arms, I guess I can't understand why that becomes different when the handler becomes a cop- the dog is still at risk of getting needlessly injured and the handler may not be doing the best job of ensuring the dog is safe. "Cop" does not mean "infallible"

I don't have any sympathy for him either he doesn't interest me.

My issue, this time, and in all the other (many) occasions when something similar has happened, is the fact that the police train these dogs for attacking people, deploy the dogs to attack, and then blame the suspect if the dog gets hurt.

Firstly, dog is attacking, most people are going to defend themselves, myself included.

Second, the suspect has already (presumably) shown he is belligerent.

Third, they are sending the dog in because they judge the situation too dangerous for themselves.

So who has deliberately put the dog in danger ? The police. Who is responsible for the dog ? The police. Who is at fault when the dog obviously and inevitably gets hurt ? The police.

Agree with this 100%.

Mitchell, who suffered dog bite injuries to his legs and required hospital treatment..

Personally, I think his reaction is understandable (not right but understandable), given the injuries inflicted and it's something perhaps police dog trainers should take into account when deciding on what to train for. For example.. "If this dog mauls someone's legs, is it likely that the person is going to injure the dog in trying to stop the dog from attacking and if that's a yes, can the dog be trained to handle suspects in a way that minimises risks to the dogs while retaining effectiveness?"

Actually biting the man's legs enough that they required hospital treatment implies that the dog was doing just a bit more than bailing the guy up to stop him from running.

I'd like to think those people who have entered their dogs in this event would do so on that basis.

Same- but judging from the photos alone, it really doesn't look like it to me, unfortunately.

To be honest, I'm afraid I can't see how this would be especially enjoyable for dogs.

Seems more like the sort of thing that happens more for the enjoyment of the owner, especially given all the risks involved. Blatant cruelty always gets a huge response here but what about cases where, if something goes wrong in a "sport" designed to entertain people, a dog is drowned or suffers broken limbs if it comes off the board badly?

Just from glancing through those photos, some of those dogs look really distressed. Especially that boxer.

I know of a couple of greyhound trainers who use human combined oral contraceptives to stop their bitches from coming into season, none ever mentioned a risk of too many causing a dog to come into season. Although admittedly, I doubt any have ever risked feeding several at once to see what happens ;)

I'd be asking the vet to explain that, regardless. If a human takes more than the recommended dose, ovulation doesn't occur, usually just cramps and some bleeding (which if it happened in dogs I suppose that could look like oestrous?).

This is a standrad practice in Tasmania and I find it to be extremely valuable. At a glance a vet or animal worker knows the animal has been desexed and most likely "belongs " to someone somewhere.

In the event of the pet been in a shelter this may save it's life already desexed, or in on some occasion a vet operating to desex only to find it has already been done.

The tatoos do fade they are not obvious they do not alter the look of the animal, unlike of the tatoos you see on humans.

With the compulsory microchipping starting in July next year down here, there doesn't seem much point, in my opinion, to continue with desexing tattoos when a dog's desexing record can be stored in a way that does not fade and cannot be altered.

Of course, my opinion is perhaps a little coloured by the breed I work with- greyhounds generally have ear brands already and often, these take up a fair amount of space in each ear. I've seen several ear brands that have been partially obscured by desexing tattoos, effectively destroying one means of identification.

Our vet has an opt-in approach (you actually have to ask for it to be done) to desexing tattoos and that's the way I prefer it to be.

Staffygirl was just expressing how she feels about the situation... does it really matter? We all have different way of expressing our disgust/anger.

Staffygirl was expressing how she felt about the situation and I was expressing how I felt about people suggesting violence. Both sides are entitled to their opinion, no?

Cat fleas and dog fleas are the same- it's called the common flea.

No, there are many different species of flea. From what I recall (although damned if I can find the source) almost every type of mammal has its own species of flea (over 2000 species of flea).

Cat fleas are the most common though.

To add for Tasmania-

Northern Pet Meat Suppliers

115 Vermont Rd, Mowbray (Launceston)

(03) 6326 5895

They sell pet minces, bones, dried meat products (roo tails, lamb tendons and the like), cuts of pet meat, stripped frames and mostly whole possums. (Warning for horse lovers.. they do also sell horse meat).

Lenah Game Meats

315 Georgetown Rd, Rocherlea (Launceston)

(03) 6326 7696

They sell professionally packaged pet mince (kangaroo) which is currently $2/kg from the warehouse (also sold in some IGA supermarkets although you'd be paying much more) and if you ask nicely, they'll also sell dried roo pelts ($10 for a whole roo hide) and rabbit pelts if they have any

C'mon guys, it's the World Wide Web!

Aren't you scared someone you know will accidentally read your posts??

You'd think so but.. seems not

If anything, if you disagree with the calls for violence in reciprocation (or question the immediate tag of "monster"), you get accused of being on your high horse or siding with "animal abusers".

Maybe he should have the same done to him? I don't think he'd ever do it again after that

Normally I'd write a fairly long post pointing out the hypocrisy of posts like this but.. it's Sunday so you'll have to settle for this -->

Added to the Dol Lynch mob list of potential punishments.. (all real suggestions taken from posts in this section of the forum)

• Drown as babies to prevent them from growing up into little monsters
  
• Burn penises off.
  
• Violently murder and then sexually mutilate the body.
  
• Secure a condom on the criminal, leaving it in place until a lethal infection is caused.
  

Ho hum, here we go again, Hardy getting on his/her high horse - suggestions are all they are, motivated by disgust at the actions of some low life. These things were actually done by someone to animals and other people at some stage. How about directing your righteous indignation toward the real perpetrators? :D

I can be disgusted without calling for a child to be drowned or a woman to be violently murdered. But cheers for the suggestion, even if it was just a snide swipe at me :D

That would look really cute on my new puppy! She's blue with white markings, I could put some little pink bows on her ears And then when she's 'all grown up' I'll just get really cute doggie jumpers and make sure she wears them all the time, no one would possibly think she was vicious if she looked that cute

Invest in some staffy pajamas. I'm fairly sure there's someone on here who makes them still

I have a "vicious, dangerous animal" (according to a charming woman at the area I walk Kiff) but as soon as you put the jammies on them, people stop crossing the road to avoid you (instead you get to listen to them point out to you that your dog is wearing pajamas- as if somehow, you had not noticed the very large male greyhound wearing bright blue pajamas, standing right next to you).

Annoying at times but very effective. I suppose people figure.. if it wears pajamas, it's more or less people. Or something. Maybe it just looks absurd enough that it distracts the more stupid ones, who knows.

useless for breading without expensive antibiotics.

Dogs are much easier to bread if you dip them in some egg whites or milk first.

Amusing typos aside.. there are shelters in the US that still gas dogs and cats as a means of euthanasia and even when it's done "properly", from videos I've seen of it, it looked slow and very distressing for the animals involved. Perhaps if shelters weren't destroying animals this way, it'd seem less acceptable as a DIY project

To be honest, I know bugger all about the Gunns Pulp Mill

Depends who you ask

People who live in the area in expensive houses hate the idea (because of the risk of it lowering their property values). Lower income families in the same area tend to be more open to it (because of the jobs it will bring). And I guess political leaning also effects opinion- you can't be a Green and agree with the pulp mill, the other Greens would murderize you

Getting back on topic.. I don't believe the article is especially well written. I forget the source (it's been a while since I've bothered with the BSL debate) but from what I can recall, the most frequently surrendered breed (to pounds) for biting humans is the maltese terrier, followed by the cattle dog.

The huge difference is, the average SWF owner is probably more likely to blame themselves or excuse the behaviour than to report to bite, unless treatment was needed and a report had to be made (whereas when a bull breed is involved, publicity tends to follow swiftly and be quite damning).

The other thing is.. I guess it's quite a bit harder to make a monster out of a dog that's small, white, fluffy and often adorned with bows or carried around in a handbag.

Edited for typo

My mum has a Maltese Terrier cross Shitzu. Bloody furball lol it jumps on my son and bites his hands, if I try to correct it my mum goes off because "he's only little".

If a Bull breed bites anyone or anything else at all no matter what the reason behind it, the media jump on it quicker than you can say "Crikey!"

The answer is quite obvious when you think about it..

Dye your bull breed pink (purple works for boys, maybe with blue points) and decorate with ribbons, bows and maybe a little knitted coat. Things that wear coats can't be monsters, right?

Perhaps you could also add a feedback rating for the online stores? I know a lot of people have had issues dealing with Petitude (I've bought from them once and it was an awful experience) and I'm sure enough people have purchased from most of those stores to establish some basic numbers or an idea of what kind of experience you can expect.

It'll be a bit of work but.. we know you love it

To be honest, I know bugger all about the Gunns Pulp Mill

Depends who you ask

People who live in the area in expensive houses hate the idea (because of the risk of it lowering their property values). Lower income families in the same area tend to be more open to it (because of the jobs it will bring). And I guess political leaning also effects opinion- you can't be a Green and agree with the pulp mill, the other Greens would murderize you

Getting back on topic.. I don't believe the article is especially well written. I forget the source (it's been a while since I've bothered with the BSL debate) but from what I can recall, the most frequently surrendered breed (to pounds) for biting humans is the maltese terrier, followed by the cattle dog.

The huge difference is, the average SWF owner is probably more likely to blame themselves or excuse the behaviour than to report to bite, unless treatment was needed and a report had to be made (whereas when a bull breed is involved, publicity tends to follow swiftly and be quite damning).

The other thing is.. I guess it's quite a bit harder to make a monster out of a dog that's small, white, fluffy and often adorned with bows or carried around in a handbag.

Edited for typo

Ummm...I think the OP linked and copied and pasted from the Courier Mail...

Ohhh woops

Why would a newspaper report someone's opinion when it's only an opinion not actual fact?

Terry Sweetman is a CM Journo who has a weekly column (his opinion on topical items) in the Sunday Mail. He can be quite controversial.

Mainland newspapers are different to Tassie papers lol *snip*

They are? I see dog related rants in the Examiner all the time (usually either about people not cleaning up after their dogs or dogs not being on leads).

I get the Mercury *moar snip*

Mm.. might have been a good idea not to make sweeping generalisations then. Hobart and the areas around it are not all of Tasmania and attitudes are obviously going to vary very widely. You only have to look at the Gunns pulp mill issue to see how location and local government policy can effect public attitude to an issue (and how vocal people feel the need to be).

Maybe he should have the same done to him? I don't think he'd ever do it again after that

Normally I'd write a fairly long post pointing out the hypocrisy of posts like this but.. it's Sunday so you'll have to settle for this -->

Added to the Dol Lynch mob list of potential punishments.. (all real suggestions taken from posts in this section of the forum)

• Drown as babies to prevent them from growing up into little monsters
  
• Burn penises off.
  
• Violently murder and then sexually mutilate the body.
  
• Secure a condom on the criminal, leaving it in place until a lethal infection is caused.
  

Ummm...I think the OP linked and copied and pasted from the Courier Mail...

Ohhh woops

Why would a newspaper report someone's opinion when it's only an opinion not actual fact?

Terry Sweetman is a CM Journo who has a weekly column (his opinion on topical items) in the Sunday Mail. He can be quite controversial.

Mainland newspapers are different to Tassie papers lol *snip*

They are? I see dog related rants in the Examiner all the time (usually either about people not cleaning up after their dogs or dogs not being on leads).

A soul is the light in your eyes, the love in your heart, your energy, your personality. Look into someones/dogs eyes and you will see their soul. For when they pass on, look into their eyes and you see emptiness, the soul has gone to live on.

Ahh, ok.

I don't believe in anything going to live on, but can accept that many do. I think more of the physical changes that occur and that is why they look different. I also believe that the only thing that lives on is memories of those who knew the living person or animal. I guess that is why I can't see the significance, perosnally, of dog's having souls.

I feel very sad for you Anne :D

Why would you feel sad for her? I really don't want to assume you feel sad for her just because she doesn't happen to believe the same thing as you do but honestly, that's how it sounds.

I believe that the "special bonds" people experience with their pets are something that happens really only for the human and there's an awful lot we project on our animals but if you believe differently, I'm not going to suggest that your beliefs are something to be pitied. That's.. really quite disrespectful (unless you did, in fact, mean something else and I've missed it entirely?).