Maddy

I agree with this post. A friend of mine has a couple of GH and they were fed copious amounts of dry food and never managed to put on any weight. Their diet was changed to a raw diet which consists of raw (pet) chicken mince, chicken necks & chicken frames and they have since put on the weight and how. Most dry foods tend to go straight through some dogs due to its high grain content and given that we are talking 'dogs' and not cows, I guess I know which diet is most suitable, lol.

nope, didn't work here when my greys were on all raw. Chicken didn't agree with one, red meat didn't agree with another. So it was half and half for a while, with a lot of mucking around, now we are all dry, have been for a few weeks and one has put on weight and the others are getting there. The diet that is most suitable is the one the dogs do well on.

Agree

While I strongly believe that meat-based works best, this is based on my experiences, my dogs and ultimately, my opinion- Generally speaking, I think it's worthwhile to try a number of things and see what the dog/s responds best to.

Our greyhounds are fed mostly raw meat (the offcuts you can buy in bags from the supermarket for making soup or stock) and we have trouble keeping the weight off the dogs.

We've tried a lot of different foods for them but just plain beef, in my opinion, works out the best; there's noticably less to clean up outside (which is a big advantage), their teeth are actually better now than when we got them, their coats look good and even though one is a bit picky about food, they're both a healthy weight.

From my experience with greyhounds, they just don't seem to get much out of foods that contain large quantities of grain- at least when you feed them raw meat, you know what the meat content is (even dry foods that list meat or meat by-products as the first ingredient may not actually have that much meat overall) and what sort of meat and you can add other things to the diet yourself, adjusting to suit the individual dog's needs.

but because i didnt know how to handle his aggression is got worse then what it could have been.

That may be the situation in your case but in some breeds (for varying reasons or purposes) DA is more likely and where it is present, it often cannot be safely resolved, regardless of the handler's skill.

I could spend years learning to become a dog trainer but that knowledge simply can't outdo hundreds of years of breeding to chase (and kill) small, fluffy things or (in the case of livestock guardians) the instinct to harm strange dogs that come within range of its "flock".

The best you can do with these dogs is safely manage what you have, rather than trying to change a natural behaviour because the reality is, most of these dogs will never be 100% reliable, especially in unpredictable situations like dog parks.

it isnt the dogs fault either that they are dog aggressive its ours the handlers hands down.

Again, it isn't necessarily anyone's fault that DA occurs and certainly not "hands down" always the handler's fault either- unless you happen to be aware of some training method that completely eliminates instinctive behaviours that others could be using to make their dogs safe?

Please don't paint all owners of DA dogs as "not deserving". Touchy subject

This.

My dog is a victim of her own (predatory) instincts, not poor ownership.

If I could reliably train her to be safe with other dogs, I'd be out doing that right now but the fact is, in some cases, unless you can be 100% sure that the training could change an instinctual behaviour, you just can't risk it (and that doesn't make me a bad owner, it makes me a realistic owner who's accepted the responsibility of a DA dog and is doing the best by the dog to ensure safety of everyone concerned).

That said, I've had "friendly" dogs jumping all over Kiff at dog parks and the majority of that behaviour is not friendly at all- a lot of people see "aggressive" as only the overtly aggressive, not the small, malign behaviours that actually lead to fights.

I'd guess a vast majority of problems with dog parks would be resolved if owners were actually honest about their own dog's behaviour.

Edited to correct typo

Why the eye rolling? It was a genuine question. If people say you need to keep control of their environment etc there are places that you have no control over - the vet is just one example.

Obviously there are going to be times when you have to relinquish some control- but in situations like that, there are still ways to ensure minimal risks to yours or other dogs.

This is what I do with my DA dog and this leaves control of her environment entirely in my hands- which allows me to provide her with safe socialisation and exercise.

so she never leaves your property? She never goes to the vet? What should those of us with tiny yards do?

Obviously she leaves to go to the vet but our vet (and I'm sure most others) have a rear entrance you can use if you call ahead of time and let them know you have a DA dog.

As far as yard size goes.. Our yard isn't huge (it's fenced awkwardly because of all the gates) but we still find ways to get her moving. She's a very large girl (for a greyhound) but there's more to exercise than just running.

Edited to add-

This may not have been your intention but it sounds as if you're implying my dog is being improperly cared for because I choose to put her safety (and the safety of other dogs in the community) above any enjoyment she'd recieve from running in an offleash park (where she could still cause a smaller dog considerable damage, even while muzzled).

Edited to add more..

I think the mere presence of a muzzle would mean that people wouldn't let their "super friendly" untrained boof jump all over your dog!

I have found the opposite to be true. When your dog is securely muzzled, people allow their dogs to jump all over it, assuming it can't bite and their dog is therefore safe.

This happens when I'm walking my (muzzled) boy almost every time.

Unfortunately PLP, you can do everything 100% right, but some moron lets their offleash dog run up to yours and then it is all over. If everyone - even those with "perfect" dogs just obeyed the relevants laws then DA dogs wouldn't be such a liability.

Which is why I mentioned..

simply not putting the dog in those sort of situations to start with.

This is what I do with my DA dog and this leaves control of her environment entirely in my hands- which allows me to provide her with safe socialisation and exercise.

One of my dogs has very high prey drive (to the point she's keen on anything that moves, even large dogs and cattle) and we cope just fine without being able to walk her in public or take her to offlead areas.

She gets exercised out in our front yard (which is fully fenced) and gets socialisation with other greyhounds from a friend who has a few. She's been with us for a few years now and she's fit (in better shape than our other dog who can be walked in public), great with other greyhounds and very happy.

That said, I think when you take on (or find out you have) a DA dog, you have to be willing to commit to putting in the extra effort to ensure the dog doesn't develope other behaviours due to confinement or boredom. Not only that, but you have to ensure your dog doesn't cause injury to any other animal while out in public and that means maintaining 100% control or simply not putting the dog in those sort of situations to start with.

Sorry but I actually think 500-800 dollars is a lot of money.A dog at that price I don't think is cheap. *snip*

Most DDs go for this amount or more, $500 for a purebreed dog sounds very cheap to me.

Guess my purebred dogs have been 'cheap' then with whatever that infers.

What was implied was that $500 for a purebreed dog is inexpensive, please don't try to put words in my mouth; if I thought you were miserly or cheap, I'd have said just that.

Sorry but I actually think 500-800 dollars is a lot of money.A dog at that price I don't think is cheap. *snip*

Most DDs go for this amount or more, $500 for a purebreed dog sounds very cheap to me.

Greyhounds... :D

Both of ours whine almost constantly (although the older one likes to whine in increasing volume to make himself harder to ignore). On the bright side, they almost never bark.

I thought mine might've been a bit broken but.. Panterka's are even worse

This seems kind of simple to me

Ethical rescue requires obeying council, state and federal laws regarding the animals and to actively break laws or encourage others to do so (even if you disagree with those laws, happen to think the animal will be better off or assume that you know best in the situation) is simply not ethical.

Laws are in place for a reason.

nothing worse then a fat greyhound, they look horrible. Mine are always ribby. Wish I could say the same about me

One of mine has some winter booty at the moment and it looks awful, he is getting on a bit (almost 9 years old) but the last thing I want is for him to end up looking like a long-legged labrador*, fat greyhounds just look.. kind of sad.

I respect your opinion but we dont know exactly what happened at that test. It is most likely I will be the one to hold that dog as it dies (as I work for a clinic in the area) and as someone that works with greyhounds and has had to hold so many of them as they die I would like to see one less get put to sleep!

If the dog was tested by a GAP group and failed, I wouldn't rehome.

It's sad that a greyhound has to die but the reality is, if that greyhound was rehomed and went on to attack a small dog, you're negatively effecting the public's response to greyhounds and removing potential homes- which in turns means.. more greyhounds die. Just not worth it to save one dog that obviously shouldn't be rehomed.

Edit-

*No offense to the lab people, it's just a breed that (down here) often seem to be kept very overweight by pet owners.

2) greys who've never known anything other than living in a racing kennel have to learn a lot to transition to a family home i.e. house training etc.

We've never had any issues with adjusting the greys to life in a house. They're less work (in terms of getting into things and "accidents") than puppies and even the more nervous dogs seem to adjust well to the change.

We've had one dog who'd been through five different homes and as soon as he moved himself into Panterka's house, it was as if he'd always been there.

Edited to add..

racing greys are usually kept on the lean side, once they become pets most can be fattened up

I'd be very wary of "fattening" up any dog, much less a greyhound.

They have long, thin bones that aren't designed to carry the terrible sort of weight you see on a lot of pet dogs. The two rear ribs showing is a good indicator of healthy weight; some people may not like skinnier dogs but it's kinder on the animal not to allow them to become overweight.

PokeyLittlePuppy - tell me more

I have always wanted a BC, and my 2 are relatively tolerant

We didn't see the BC so your best bet would be calling Caroline and asking her.

I've found DHT to be very easy to deal with and they keep dogs there as long as it takes to rehome them. Caroline and one of the shelter staff actually drove all the way from Devonport to us (in Launceston) on a Sunday morning to bring us a greyhound boy so from our experience, they've been very accomodating and wonderful to deal with.

Theres at least three at Devonport I'm in love with - including a dally who just might get picked up in the next week or two - if my two get along with her......

Panterka and I were up there last Saturday and she's just as pretty in real life

The problem is that the dog was rehomed by the breeder, the new owner can do as they like with it. Reporting the dog as missing with the microchip is not accurate as the breeder acknowledges giving the dog away.

This.

Feeling as if you've been scammed is not going to hold up if the police got involved and the public admission that the dog was given away came up.

It's an unfortunate situation and I do feel for the breeder but she did rehome the dog entire (presumably) so you have to be willing to accept the risks that go along with that.

what about the sight houds? I have heard when they are drive they don't get along. Do they live together well in a pet/house situation?

We've had up to seven greyhounds here at a time and we've only ever had one fight that resulted in a trip to the vet.

And, interestingly, that fight occured when we only had three dogs and after the instigator was removed, there were no further issues between the other two greys (despite both having been involved). The instigator was DA and one of the few truly DA greys we'd come across.

At the moment, we have two here and they've been allowed to run with Panterka's two hounds with no issues (although muzzled anyway, to be safe).

Edited to add..

As far as other breeds go, some greys seem to be dog snobs. Kiff will tolerate being sniffed by other dogs but he won't play with them and he'll ignore most attempts at interaction whereas with other greyhounds, he'll join in as long as it doesn't involve running or effort.

but once they are in it, they are real 'joiners in' of whatever the pack is doing.

This was basically what happened in the fight we had. The DA pounced on his victim and the third grey joined in, not really biting anyone in particular, just trying to get in there. At the vet, she (the third grey) appeared to be badly injured (holding one leg up and being difficult to move) but as it turned out, she was the only one without any actual injuries. I guess joining in includes joining in on being injured

We bought the toilet training drops (the stuff you sprinkle over grass or wherever) to see if'd encourage the dogs to go in the sanded part of the yard we wanted them to use (as opposed to, you know, just everywhere) and it had no noticable effect on any of the dogs.

Absolutely none at all.

There may well be a difference between brands but I'm guessing you'd save yourself a bit of money if you just continued with training.

I'd love the opinions on others on here - especially as we have so many people directly involved in GAP or other greyhound adoption associations - what do you think of this article? Is it fair, or excessive?

The only thing that really stood out for me was the issue of poisonous plants or products in yards.

If you knew you had things in your yard that could kill your dog if ingested, why wouldn't you just remove them?

I wouldn't be relying on a muzzle (especially given wire muzzles are more commonly used here than the plastic) to stop my dog from eating anything smaller than a cat- mine manages to eat wallaby and possum poo when we're out walking (he sort of lowers his head and scoops it up quickly as he's walking past it) and if he can fit that through the wire, plants and mulch would go through easily.

There are some things that just come down to common sense. If it's poisonous, don't leave it there, regardless of muzzle.

Everyone was so caught up in the colour *snip*

I find it a little odd that part of the appeal is the perceived "rarity" of the colour* when a quick glance through the staffy breeder listing brings up a fairly considerable number of kennels who breed only blues (you can usually pick these kennels by name- they tend to end with the highly original suffix "blu").

So.. they're not really rare (unless "rare" means "there's a metric sh*t-tonne of them around").

*A vast majority of advertising for blue staffies is based around the colour being "rare", not any other positive traits such as temperament or conformation.

Common law or not can you show me ANY evidence that ANYONE has EVER been prosecuted in Australia for displaying a beware of dog/ Dangerous dog sign?

If these signs did assign liability to the dog/property owner why are Beware of Dog signs so readily available from hardware stores?

I don't think anyone here is saying a person could be prosecuted for displaying a warning sign, just that (in the event of an attack) such a sign could be considered an admission from the owner that they knew the dog concerned was dangerous to humans.

In that sort of situation, you'd likely have little recourse if council animal control decided that your dog ought to be registered as a dangerous dog and impose on you all the restrictions that a ruling like that would entail (after all, you've already admitted that your dog is unsafe).

I would put a sign up saying 'beware of dangerous dog.' Even if they aren't most people would think twice about trying to pat the dog. Or I would put up a baby gate style rig up so that you're dogs can't get down the side of the house to the gate.

maybe just put up a sign saying something like ' beware of the dog' - i think if you say something like 'beware of dangerous dog' and they nip someone, you can still get in trob 'cos you are acknowledging that the dogs are dangerous.

silly really, since it's your property andyou sound like you are doing the right thing.

I'd be avoiding the word "beware". It still implies you have something dangerous living in your yard.

We have three gates (a colourbond steel, then a wrought iron gate and then a wire gate) between our dogs and the street and two of those gates separate the dogs from our water meter and fusebox (to allow access). We also have a sign on the gate advising dogs on the property (not warning).

I'd like to hope this would protect us legally in the very unlikely event someone ever came into our yard and got bitten by one of our dogs.

Personally, even if it's an extra expense, I'd be putting up another fence rather than risking any sort of accident involving my dogs.

efs