Maddy

What garbage. If you use appropriate flea prevention on your dog, any fleas they do pick up will only live a very short time. There is no reason infestation should be a chronic issue. Wanting to be rid of fleas is not some germ-phobic unrealistic attitude, it's perfectly doable and prevents so many other health issues. I rescue greyhounds. Despite having a few dogs who came in crawling with fleas (who were treated immediately), I have never had an outbreak and my own dogs never picked them up. We currently have four dogs and three rabbits and the last time I found a flea (which I brought home from visiting a family member with a cat that was allowed to roam) was approximately two years ago. A single flea. Before that.. I can't even remember, it's been literally years. I doubt anyone here wants people to feel ashamed if they have a flea problem but telling people that fleas are natural and it's fine.. that's crap. Have you ever seen a dog whose skin looks like elephant hide because it suffers from severe FAD? Or dealt with dogs whose gums were bone white from the chronic anaemia caused by infestation? Bathed a dog who turned the water pink from all the dried blood (flea dirt) dissolving into the water? Fleas are a health issue and should treated as such. No, we don't have to shame people with flea problems, and obviously we should be providing them with sound advice. "Lolz fleas aren't a problem u germ noobs but even if I'm wrong, I can flip my argument anyway because trollin 4 lyfe" is not sound advice. I'm not offended by your opinion, I'm offended by stupidity and there was plenty to be found in your claims. Jumping between arguments because you can't back up your initial claim is poor form, by the way. Here's a summary of your comments.. "All dogs have fleas" "I didn't mean that all dogs literally have fleas, I meant that fleas are a thing" "No, all dogs do have fleas, just not necessarily an infestation" "I didn't mean that all dogs have fleas, just that it can happen and you should groom/treat as required" "All dogs do have fleas, it's just that environment prevents severe infestation" "Sure, not all dogs have fleas but that's just because of treatment"

There is a huge difference between dry muscling and skin stretched over bare bones. Lean implies muscle without fat, not bones without muscle. I really liked azawakhs but already, it seems changes are afoot, and none for the better of the breed. Edit- If that is a sloughi, that's probably even worse. I can see how some might misinterpret the azawakh standard to read it as "dog should look like it just crawled out of a POW camp" but the sloughi standard says nothing about the dog being "particularly slim" or that its bones should show through its skin.

"Who is responsible" is not some question to meditate while we gaze out our navels. Statements like "Maybe, deep down, we're all a bit responsible" do not help. It's an actual problem and actual people are the ones who are actually breeding dogs that are barely fit to exist, let alone perform any sort of function. Perhaps this is true in some cases but I'm not sure this is really a bad thing. Is it unreasonable to expect a potential owner of a breed does their research and learns about what the breed requires? Greyhounds are a good example of this- they're pushed as the perfect dog for everyone but they're absolutely not suited to walking off leash. As a result, the amount of lost greyhounds reported on missing pet groups is creeping up quite quickly. If you want to own a specialised working breed, you need to do the research and understand the dogs. If we expect everything to be generic labrador-ish in terms of breed traits, simply for the purpose of making them easy to own, we might as well just give up breeding anything that isn't a driveless lap dog. Compromising on breed traits to appeal to pet homes (like sighthounds with no prey drive) damages the working ability of the breed. Quite simply, if you don't want a sighthound that chases, don't get a sighthound. Or if you have a problem with herding behaviour, don't get a herding breed, and so on and so forth. People need to be realistic and to respect the function of the breed. Different dogs, different functions, appeal to different homes.

In some cases, yes. In others though, the standards themselves are worded in such a way that exaggeration seems to be the aim, or at the very least, wording is ambiguous enough that it could be reasonably assumed that more = better. For example, from one particular standard.. "Neck: Long". How long? How long is "long" relative to something else? Who knows, we'll just breed giraffe dogs.Or.. "Able to stand naturally over a lot of ground." Is there a point where "a lot" becomes "too much" or is the longest back with the longest back legs what the standard is suggesting? I'd agree about the trotting thing. Both breeds that I own are sprinting breeds but both are moved at a trot in show. The only time I've ever seen any of my dogs trot is when they're trying to beat me to the couch/my unguarded dinner but they're too tired/lazy to gallop, so they sort of.. lollop to where they're going. The things that make a dog good at a sustained trot are not necessary the same things that make a dog good at running at 60km/h.

The thing is, they're situated at the top of the hill and everything rolls downhill from there. Down here, lots of purebred but unpapered dogs come from parents on the limited register. And if these are dogs with horribly roached backs, tiny stumpy legs, bodies that are 90% skin folds.. that's what their puppies will have too. I think the number of multigenerational purebred but not pedigreed dogs would be very low. ANKC breeders heavily influence trends in type and the public looks to them to see what is considered acceptable/correct. To give you an example here.. it's hard to convince someone that blue staffies are not rare or special when there are now large numbers of ANKC breeders who focus on blues, many of whom even have "blu/blue/bloo" somewhere in their prefix. I don't think ANKC breeders share much (if any) blame in homeless animals but that's an entirely different problem anyway.

No one forces a breeder to interpret the standard the way they do. They are free to ignore fashions, peer pressure and the like, and to attempt to follow the standard in a manner that makes sense for the purpose of the breed. Whether or not you win in shows is not really important. Judges are biased (whether or not they will admit it) and they are equally free to interpret the standard how they see fit, which really makes the whole exercise very questionable, when you think about it. When it comes to working breeds, shows probably aren't the best way to assess a dog, anyway. The inevitable result of each breeder assessing their dogs based on function in their given environment will be that there will be regional variation, which encourages genetic variation. As to generalisations.. a lot are made about breeders by other breeders. Registered breeders claiming that any unregistered breeder must be unethical, is a good example of that. Unethical because they do not breed for health? (we'll quietly ignore the brachy elephant in the room) Unethical because because they breed outside of the standard? (Euro Danes, anyone?) Unethical because they breed for money? (Take a gander at how many trendy Frenchy pups are currently for sale on Dogz). The trouble with slinging around this stuff is that it cuts both ways. I'm not suggesting that backyard breeding is great (because it is often used just to make money) but backyard breeders do also include working dog breeders, and those people are of immense value in breed preservation and probably should be treated with a little more respect.

A family member of mine owns pugs and the sad irony is that she's a vegetarian and cares deeply about animal rights, not even realising that in her home, there is inexcusable suffering. She adores the breed but and everything that I find sad, she finds endearing: Snuffly, choking breaths- cute oinker noises. Bulging, sore eyes - adorable boggles. Tongue that falls out of its head because its teeth rotted out of its poorly built face - flappy tongue! It's almost like the people who share those videos of pet slow lorises, not realising the cruelty they are enjoying.

The trouble is, individual responsibility has gotten us to exactly this point. It's the same as greyhound racing, in that regard. The first and most immediate problem is that not everyone agrees there even is a problem. If you want any evidence of this, there was a thread about brachy breeds not that long ago.

No, no amount of rules, codes, standards or recommendations will change the fact that breeders themselves need to totally rethink what they're doing. An obvious place to start, however, is with the rules, to allow for change to take place. Allow sensible outcrossings to improve genetic diversity, address health issues or to restore lost working traits. Remove arbitrary faults that do not impact on health or working ability- colour is a good example there, a solid black border collie herds sheep just as well as a black and white one- and remove anything that was added to the standard for the improvement of aesthetics. The show ring itself doesn't have to be abandoned, just reconsidered. Just off the top of my head.. different categories that make up the overall points: A veterinary assessment to judge overall health. Owners would be required to present copies of any genetic testing done, x-rays, etc. This could (and really should) include a basic fitness test. If your dog collapses and dies during a 100 metre run, that's nature's way of saying no. From there, test working ability (where applicable) over a number of conditions, depending on the breed. For the sighthounds (as an easy example), speed over a straight run, coursing to assess ability to handle sharp turning, an assessment of prey drive (for commonly hunted species, using scents or skins*) and finally gameness. Only once a dog has proven itself to be sound and capable of its work should we even bother nitpicking over appearance. And realistically, if the dog is capable of performing its function, it should fall within its breed standard. If not, the breed standard would need to be reviewed. For some reason, standards get treated as god's word and heaven forbid we should change or question them, as some previous writer obviously knew best. Perfectly good dogs are being trashed by standards that are incredibly open to interpretation. A sighthound covers a lot of ground by virtue of its long legs and back, yet here we are, breeding sighthounds with loins that are so long and loose (because more is always better, if the standard says so) that it can't corner without the momentum of its overly long body swinging it all the way back around. I think at the end of the day, organisations like the ANKC exist only to ensure the survival of themselves. Maybe some within the organisation do really believe in what they're doing but groups like the ANKC have no incentive- quite the opposite, in fact- to even consider returning to a much older and more sensible system. We obsess over purity, as if this were a good thing, even though we know that it is unsustainable and bad for the dogs. It is claimed that this obsession serves to protect heritage but compare then and now in many breeds and it is obviously not true. We have not preserved breeds, most have seen significant changes, depending on what is fashionable at any given time. I honestly would like to see a system that works because I do value the traits that come with type but I don't think the current system is even close to doing what it needs to do. Moosmum, I can't begin to imagine how heartbreaking it must be to watch your breed slowly die, especially given there is little in the way of working lines that remain genetically much different, to use to recover the breed. The ANKC is failing many breeds but I doubt anything will change before the situation becomes irretrievably dire (see: greyhound racing, a lesson in how to continually shoot yourself in the foot, while arguing that you're trying to prevent other people from shooting you in the foot, because being shot in the foot sucks). *I live in Tasmania, a state that has no foxes. Bosley had never seen nor smelled a fox in his life. But when I bought a tanned fox skin from Victoria, I almost lost it when the dogs got a sniff of it and decided that Mr. Tod was going to die that evening. The instinctive drive for the species was there, hidden for lack of access to the species but just waiting to be expressed. Fox skin now lives in a cupboard because I could never trust the dogs not to helpfully hunt it for me.

How is it any different from breeders selecting the more extreme? Or breeders doing the selecting at all? So far as I can see, the mains/limited register itself serves to take a large chunk out of the gene pool, each time, and for what purpose*? Show all dogs- if a dog has faults, those faults are assessed and marked against the dog. Fair and reasonable. Arguing against selecting from moderate traits when some breeders put the vast majority of their puppies on the limited register is a bit.. odd, in my opinion. To give you an example.. I picked a breed and looked up puppy ads for that breed on Dogz. For the sake of anonymity, we'll call the breed.. snippets. So, 14 litters of snippets listed, 4 breeders did not specify mains/limited, leaving us with 10. Of those ten, 2 offered all puppies on mains, one had a "maybe" and 7 were limited only. All those puppies are unique combinations of their parents genes, forever removed from the gene pool (unless backyard bred, I suppose). Maybe it's because I see the system from the outsider's point of view but to me, the idea of selecting out one or two puppies, almost always before twelve weeks of age, assessing them against an incredibly subjective standard and then purposely narrowing your gene pool on the basis of those decisions, is the most mind-mindbogglingly unscientific and unsustainable breeding practice I could think of. Ironically, if you want an example of good breeding practices, look at racing greyhounds: there's a reason you don't see giveaway greyhound puppies unless there is something fairly wrong with them (or unregisterable litter) and that is that no dog is assessed on its fitness for its work until its doing that work. Unfortunately, the trouble in greyhounds is popular sires. Right now, you can throw a rock in almost any direction and hit a Barcia Bale pup. He has sired more than 756 litters. How that could be allowed is beyond me, it's like the regulators don't care about the genetic health or future of the breed. Not unlike the ANKC, apparently, given they do not seem to discourage the narrowing of genetic diversity within breeds. *It certainly doesn't prevent or even limit backyard breeding.

Some of those dogs would be working dogs. I know that's certainly the case for the hounds, hunting packs still exist and a show-style Basset would never even get a look in because they simply couldn't hunt with the incredibly excessive skin folds and overdone bodies. To be honest, I'm not especially interested in what goes on in toy/lap breeds- after all, they're job is only to sit on a couch and look pretty, I guess you don't need too much oxygen for that- but when it's working breeds, I think it's an issue that must be addressed before functional type is lost forever. Bassets happen to be a very good example of the problem. At the moment, hunting packs are retaining a working type and that's fine but what happens if the hunts become illegal and the packs desexed and disbanded? All we are left with is the sad, melting Basset that somehow even manages to have skin rolls on its feet. I don't think that all of these breeds are irretrievably broken though, select the more moderate puppies, select for traits that actually support its working heritage. And not pretend working traits like the garbage about BBs having such severely squashed faces because it helps them hang onto a bull. This is plainly rubbish because if a dog can't breath through its sad, crushed nose and it has a mouth full of bull snout.. how else does it breath? Through a blowhole? O.o

Who said they were even doing that? Christ, the assumptions are irritating. For all we know, the "weapons" may have been been toys. Has anyone here ever picked up an actual hunting bow? They're not easy to use, they're heavy, they're expensive to buy and arrows (unless you have grabbing arrows) are going to get lost very quickly (and are also expensive to replace). As for the knife, again, people are ASSUMING it's some big hunting knife that they were out stabbing things with. Because what reasonable parent wouldn't let their kids out to play with a hunting bow and a bowie knife? As for your attitudes to hunting, cool story bro. Some people shoot to eat and (heavens forbid) teach their children the safe and correct way to do it. Go back to sipping your ethically sourced, organic latte and stop making assumptions.

One of the boys was named on a news website, not just social media. The consequences of the incident undeniably impacted the dog (although it's impossible to say to what extent, given the owner was not forthcoming with any real evidence) but we can't forget that at least one child will now carry the notoriety of the incident for the rest of his life. A quick Google search will turn up his name in relation to the incident; alleging, without any evidence, that he is an animal abuser. Good luck getting a job, finding a partner or living a normal, quiet life with that hanging over your head. Given people are apparently so quick to believe allegations without seeing evidence, how many people do you think will give him the benefit of the doubt and be willing to hear his side before forming judgements about what sort of person he is? Also worth remembering that Tasmania is a small place and things are not quickly forgotten. His entire future will be seriously impacted by this, but for some reason, people have no sympathy for a child who made a terrible mistake. Who here, as a child, didn't do something they shouldn't have? Feel free to cast the first stone if you can honestly say that you never made a bad decision as a child. As an aside, I do not believe that any life is sacrosanct or worth more than another. I just find it sad and somewhat disturbing that so many people seem incapable of understanding that allegations are not the same as fact and that trespassers or not, a dog that will attack somebody badly enough to require airlifting to a hospital in another state, is probably not a safe dog.

I find it odd that people who are upset about the dog being "guilty until to proven innocent" are so happy to jump straight to the conclusion that the kids are "horrible" and/or deserved to be mauled. Seriously. And all based on hearsay, too. How about this one.. what if it was YOUR kid who was being demonised in a case with no clear evidence? What if it was your child people were threatening to stab? What if your child's name had been made public so that some crazy dickhead who spends all day on FB can find out where your kid goes to school and maybe hurt them, or worse? The entire case is a very sad example of how people can take something awful and make it infinitely worse. Anyways, I'm afraid I'm out. I've said my piece and I'm not really up for a Friday night of flogging a dead horse in the hopes that it will understand my point.

The "outer perimeter fence" was just regular stock fencing, from what was reported. Not exactly a stretch. Of course kids shouldn't trespass but equally, your dog shouldn't attack someone who enters your property. Maybe it's a trespassing kid, maybe it's someone from a utilities company who has legal right to enter your property without being hurt by dogs. As for the dog turning on them after it had been stabbed, again, CONJECTURE. We have zero proof of this. For the sake of having a reasonable discussion, let's stop assuming allegations are fact. Lol? I'm a greyhound owner, my dogs spent a good portion of their lives in cages. They have to wear muzzles when they go out in public, this is no great, terrible thing to deal with. No one expects a dog to sit there and be stabbed, this is why the law has the provisions it does: defence of property or self, right there in the Act. The council determined, based on information they gathered, that the dog did not meet the criteria for exemption. Most Tasmanian councils will not lift a finger to declare a dog dangerous unless they absolutely have to. Dogs who attack other dogs are ignored, wandering dogs are ignored, councils seem incredibly reluctant to enforce the Act unless failure to do so would leave them liable. And if Kodi wasn't as innocent as is claimed and he went on to bite again, guess how many people would be raging at the council for not protecting the public? How many people would be demanding a crack-down on "dangerous" guarding breeds, like GSDs? Public pressure is what worries politicians and if they think they can buy votes with rushed, stupid legislation to appease the torches-and-pitchforks brigade, they will do it. I trust that the council made the right decision, based on the available information. There was an option to appeal (Section 31 of the Act), your claim that the owner had " absolutely no avenue of appeal" is also not fact.

Is it not just as possible that the dog was stabbed by two young boys trying to defend themselves from an attacking dog? Any actual evidence, either way, seems to be entirely lacking. It seems the vast majority of people have just accepted one side of the story and aren't willing to consider that there may be another, very different side. As for the owner being irresponsible.. would you say that breeding from a declared dangerous dog is a responsible thing to do? Never mind that it was backyard breeding (which many would agree is generally not a responsible thing to be doing). I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened so besides the backyard breeding bit, everything else is just conjecture.

I've heard plenty about it and frankly, I think the case is actually a good example of why we need dangerous dog laws- to protect the general public from irresponsible dog owners. The owner was not present at the time of the incident, yet the public accepts her side of the story as absolute fact. The FB group screams down anyone who dares to question her version of events and then there's all the dodgy crap going on in the background- like the fact that the owner used him to breed from (I guess with his newfound fame and the fact that his puppies are now limited editions, they wouldn't be cheap to buy). Cases like this serve to only muddy the waters as far as the legislation goes. Tasmanian dog law has other areas that urgently need reform (such as the fact that theoretically, your dog could be declared dangerous for something as trifling as menacing a mouse) and yet here we are, with people arguing that a dog which has seriously bitten a person (leaving aside all other allegations, as none were actually proven) should not be declared a dangerous dog. Tasmanian law already has provisions for the dog to act in reasonable defence of property or self, the fact that council elected to declare the dog dangerous suggests to me that they know something we don't.

But not before she'd used him to breed from.

Checked for what, exactly? Having an ad on Dol doesn't make someone ethical, it just means they've proven that they are a member of their state body. I think people need to be aware that the bigger risk is not scammers but breeders who don't do the right thing. A scammer is easy to uncover (whether they're shipping the dog from a Nigerian prince's house or somewhere more local), but buy a puppy from a breeder who doesn't GAF and good luck figuring it all out by yourself, with the next 10+ years to regret not being more scrupulous in your research. OP, I think you're perhaps being a tad pushy. If someone nagged me via messages for a week and a half and then accused me of being a scammer, I'd politely tell them to go.. well, you know. That said, if the breeder is consistently difficult to contact, I'd look elsewhere because when you run into problems with the puppy, the last thing you'll want is a breeder who takes a month to reply to emails.

I was wondering the same thing. Maybe he meant dogs of that size shouldn't be off leash but still, size really doesn't have much to do with risk of attack.

Oldest I've personally seen was a 13 year old female JRT. The owners brought her in because they thought she had pyo. Turns out, she was pregnant. Personally, I'd desex both dogs, but if you only have the budget for one, desex the bitch.

Not really the sort of thing I'm after, mostly because the hounds tend to roll off beds like that and very large chunks of foam are not easily washed. I'm talking about basket-type beds (the sort with high edges), or cave beds. Beds that are warm, soft and can hold extra blankets/bedding in winter. I know such things are capable of existing- the Shitty Whippet has two different brands of cave bed (one even converts into a basket bed) and they're both warm, soft and really easy to wash. But both of hers are already size "large" (she weighs a whopping 11.5kg) and the only larger basket beds I've found have all been ugly ripstop fabric.

Our local pet meat place sells fresh green tripe They're a DPI licensed, accredited producer so I have to assume the DPI down here are okay with them selling it. To answer the OP.. so many things. First, large dog beds that are actually large. A 70 x 50cm bed is large for a small dog but calling it large sort of implies it might fit a large dog. In my opinion, a large bed needs to be at least 90cm on its shortest side. On the topic of large dog beds, maybe with fabric covers that weren't really, really, ugly? Like, maybe several colour choices in some neutral colours that don't involve zigzags or other bright, fugly patterns? It sort of seems like owning large dogs means you don't get to have a pretty house- if you want a large dog, get used to maroon and/or crappy brown ripstop fabric. Also, a better range of coats for larger dogs. Why can't one of my 35kg greyhounds wear a pink, bedazzled singlet that says "Princess"? 90% of the coat choices for larger dogs in pet shops are ripstop dog tableclothes that are shapeless, stiff and ugly. I get most of what I need custom made, just because I want something that looks reasonably nice. Same goes for collars and leashes, really. I don't want studs, skulls, leather or camo, just because I own a large dog. Just nicer stuff for larger dogs, in general. It's endlessly frustrating to find something I really like for my dogs, only to find out it doesn't come in their size.

Completely unrelated industries and their associated animal welfare issues are used over and over again to draw attention away from the racing issue. For example.. "Well, greyhound racing has problems but what about how chickens are killed? Why aren't we talking about that, if welfare is such a concern?" It's an irritating as "Oh, the greyhound industry might kill X number of dogs, but the RSPCA kills X!!! number of dogs! Who's the real killers here hurrhurrhurr!" (followed by much self-congratulatory back-slapping at having come up with such a thoroughly brilliant argument) To make it very simple, using the shortcomings of other groups/industries to excuse away the problems. As for whether or not things will change.. there's really no argument in some areas. Down here, things are as bad as usual. Corruption and mismanagement continues, Tasmania is the last stop for many below-average dogs and some thoroughly shitty people (who were very publicly banned), are back at it. Ted Medhurst, seasoned dog shooter and forger, was initially given an 8 year ban. That ban was made very loud and public, to show that the industry was serious about welfare. But quietly, his ban was overturned. Which tells you a lot more about how much welfare is really prioritised, when the general public have lost interest in the case. Ted Medhurst was slipped back in for the same reasons that the unnamed trainer I mentioned before were- because at the end of the day, welfare is a nice idea but it's a business and the money must always come first.

Ah yes, back to the old "but other things could also be a problem" argument. As if our inability to attain complete perfection in animal welfare is a valid argument against even trying to improve things where we can. And let's be honest, there is ample room for improvement in greyhound racing.