Greytmate

I understand the thread is about dogs that pose a danger to others but as your statement was that all reactive dogs should be muzzled I wanted to point out that not all reactive dogs are dangerous. Not everyone realises this.

Some dogs react by barking.

Some dogs react by running away.

The reaction we are talking about in this thread, is the reaction of deadly aggressive force. Did you read the story we are discussing? A dog that reacted by killing another dog.

That is the reaction we are talking about here. I hope everyone realises this now.

You are not responsible for your dog's actions if rushed at by an off leash dog and yours in on leash in a public place. The person at fault is the one who allowed their dog to be at large and do the rushing and the consequences are irrelevent. You don't have to muzzle reactive dogs or keep reactive dogs away from public places where there may be dogs at large rushing at leashed dogs. It's up to the owners of all dogs to keep them on leash in a public place and not allow them to rush at other dogs and respect the personal space of others.

I do not want to see my dog hurt dogs belonging to irresponsible people. What sort of person are you exactly?

This thread is nasty.

Yes, very nasty. Noone with reactive dogs should be taking them out without muzzles. That is highly irresponsible.

Rubbish. Not all dogs who are reactive are a danger to other dogs. A lot of reactive dogs will just bark and carry on in an attempt to get the other dog to back off and have no intention of hurting the other dog. My dog is reactive as a result of other dogs rushing, attacking and bullying him and he has never left a mark on another dog. Even when he's been attacked he's never bitten, he's just fended the other dog off until they could be separated. There's a huge difference between this type of reactive dog and a reactive dog that wants to hurt other dogs.

We are obviously talking about the dogs who are dangerously reactive. All dogs will react in some way to being attacked.

You are not responsible for your dog's actions if rushed at by an off leash dog and yours in on leash in a public place. The person at fault is the one who allowed their dog to be at large and do the rushing and the consequences are irrelevent. You don't have to muzzle reactive dogs or keep reactive dogs away from public places where there may be dogs at large rushing at leashed dogs. It's up to the owners of all dogs to keep them on leash in a public place and not allow them to rush at other dogs and respect the personal space of others.

I do not want to see my dog hurt dogs belonging to irresponsible people. What sort of person are you exactly?

This thread is nasty.

Reading some of the stupid comments in this thread seems to really show how bsl & dangerous dog legislation has come into being-when you have morons trying to justify dogs killing other dogs and setting up a clear delineation between large dogs and "little yappers" all you are doing is giving councils and governments more reasons to try to discourage people from owning large dog breeds.

If your dog can't be trusted either muzzle it, or keep it away from other dogs regardless of the breed. If your large dog is going to kill a small dog if it gets into a spat with it then it is up to you as a responsible dog owner to take reasonable steps to stop your dog doing that.

Yes, good post.

People should know if they have a dog that plays well with others or if they have reactive or intolerant one. I have a reactive one, he is always muzzled and on lead, and so he can't injure little dogs even if they do rush out unexpectedly or yap annoyingly.

I have met plenty of small dogs that quite happily meet and greet my dog without issue. It's not simply a small dog thing, it's a lack of socialisation and training by owners who think their little fluffball can do no wrong and has the right to do whatever it pleases. Sounds to me like you're trying to justify your small dog acting aggressively toward other dogs?

Sounds to me like you think that a small dog barking is a provocation for another dog to attack it. That's so wrong. Dogs are allowed to bark, barking isn't harmful. The dog that killed another dog on the beach is the dangerous one and is the problem here. It is entirely their owner's responsibility to keep their intolerant dog on lead and muzzled. Otherwise a dog like that should be euthanised.

The type of movement and behaviour that the predated animal displays can incite a predatory reaction more than size and shape can alone.

Prey drive is a sequence of events going through scenting, staring, pointing, stalking, chasing, grabbing, killing and eating. We utilise different stages of this sequence in different breeds. For instance, a herding breed will scent, stare, stalk, chase but will not grab the sheep. A terrier will progress through the sequence to kill a rodent. A gun dog will point and stalk and gently retrieve a bird. A scent hound will vocalise after the first stage of the sequence. A wolf will complete the sequence and eat the prey.

This shows that predatory behaviour isn't just about intensity, but about different intensity at different stages, depending on genetics.

If you do a search here on 'predatory', you will find a few interesting threads on this topic.

Where did I say that a little dog yapping and carrying on JUSTIFIED an attack?

I was simply questioning whether there might be a little more to the story, I don't believe provocation is a justiable excuse for the outcome but it would go a long way to explaining what happened.

What do you think provocation means?

You can have any opinion you want of small, yappy and otherwise annoying dogs, but if a dog attacks another dog just for barking at it in a public place, that dog is not normal or safe. It should be declared dangerous or euthanised. If there is more to this story it is the history of this dog that attacked and why the owner decided to have it off lead.

A responsible owner would ensure that they would muzzle and have their dog on lead if it was likely to be provoked to attack by something as harmless as noise.

You might not like yappy dogs, but they have a right to exist and have a yap in public without being killed. The dog that died did nothing to provoke that level of aggression.

An owner will be able to gauge their dog's condition and mental state after staying one night. A dog won't suddenly flip a switch and start the anxiety after 24 hours, unless something had changed drastically. You would expect to see increasingly agitated behaviour from the dog over time before it escalates to harmful levels.

not that I have seen. I find most owners incredibly clueless as to their dogs mental state lol, maybe people are more clued in, in Aus? lol. as for not suddenly flipping, not true at all, I have been working in a kennel for 4 years, anxiety is not common beyond the first day or 2(in our kennel, I know nothing about how dog act in normal kennels, which around here are NOTHING like you described), but the serious anxiety issues we have dealth with have ALWAYS come later, and only when the dog is staying for a long time, like the dog is having fun, but wants to go home now, its been long enough, I have only seen it twice and they were both extended stays.

I didn't realise I had described a kennel. If dogs become suddenly anxious after some time of being calm at your kennel, it would suggest that there is something in the kennel environment that has contributed to this or that you may have missed the more subtle behaviour cues.

I don't think the OP would be clueless about her dog's mental state.

I'm not following what you are telling us. No boarding kennel here offers 8 hour overnight stays. The OP isn't interested in day care. Face-to face means that you can see what a kennel is like and see the facial expression of the staff member who thinks customers are silly or clueless. You can talk on a phone but the only way of walking through a kennel is to be there.

It can be reassuring to know that a dog has coped with an overnight trial before going away on holiday, that when it was picked up it was acting normally, whether this feeling of reassurance is realistic or just a perception. Holidays are meant to be relaxing, not worrying that the dog is unhappy.

The point is that if the dog shows extreme anxiety to the point of harm, the dog can be collected by the owner easily and quickly if they are doing a trial stay. That can't happen if the owner has gone on their holiday.

Its unlikely that there is going to be a problem like this, but the trial means that when the owner goes on their holiday that they know how the dog is coping because it has coped in that environment before.

I have seen this a few times, only after the dog has been at the kennel for several days..considering most trials are only 1 day or night, I still don't see the point lol, we had a dog this happened with, the dog ripped the guillotine door out of the wall, and ripped the fencing on the outside run and got his head stuck..this was a full week into the dogs stay, AND he had stayed before(for several weeks) without problem, because we could not get anyone to collect the dog, we pretty much had to rig up a padded room for the dog. in another case it wasn't our kennel, but a dog staying at a vet kennel, the vet clinic transferred the dog to us because he was hurting himself..but again it didn't start till a few days into his stay(it wasn't anxiety, the dog just desperately needed more exercise then a regular kennel could provide, the dog was great with us). if the dog has severe anxiety issue, I totally see the point, to see if the dog can even handle it, but not for a normal dog unless the trial is more then 1 night.

An owner will be able to gauge their dog's condition and mental state after staying one night. A dog won't suddenly flip a switch and start the anxiety after 24 hours, unless something had changed drastically. You would expect to see increasingly agitated behaviour from the dog over time before it escalates to harmful levels.

It is concerning that a person working in a kennel would consider client requests like this 'silly'. People leave dogs in kennels because they want the assurance that their dog is safe and sound while they are away. Your verbal assurance isn't the same as an owner knowing that their dog has stayed in kennels and was in a good state when they picked it up.

It's also worrying that a person working in a kennel doesn't seem to think a dog kennelled alone would have anything to get used to in its environment, and a dog only would need to adjust if in a new social situation. All new environments, whether other dogs are there or not is going to have an effect on a dog and require some getting used to.

An owner can use a trial stay to gauge the environment for themselves, to see how noisy and smelly it is, and to see how much space their dog gets. And they will get a better idea of staff attitude if they speak to them face-to face.

I don't see the point if they are to be kept single because it doesn't change anything, there nothing to really get more comfortable with.

The point is that if the dog shows extreme anxiety to the point of harm, the dog can be collected by the owner easily and quickly if they are doing a trial stay. That can't happen if the owner has gone on their holiday.

Its unlikely that there is going to be a problem like this, but the trial means that when the owner goes on their holiday that they know how the dog is coping because it has coped in that environment before.

For Greymate's sake "this is all just a media hype rubbish, please walk on and take it with a grain of salt"

For anyone else, it is in the USA, it will be interesting to see if its hype or true (the same company had product recall in 2007 for killing 2 dogs), their FB is full of outraged pet owners and photos and stories apparently linked to the product, many of which are being deleted by admin and not being responded to.

Pick whatever route you want. There everyone's happy :D :D

Now leave me alone.

Why start a thread for discussion if you want to be left alone? :laugh:

Maybe you would be better sticking to commenting on the outraged facebook pages rather than in a forum where people have come to expect credible and balanced information on all things canine?

Thanks for posting those links Mita. There is no need for people to be disturbed about what is going on with dog food in Australia.

Their facebook is full of outraged pet owners and their stories linked to the food. So far noone from the company has recognised these claims and even stood forth and said they where investigating?

No where that you have looked anyway. Have you contacted the company for comment?

Facebook is full of pages of tripe, even less credible than the trash media you first quoted. :laugh:

What evidence do you have that the companies are not taking it seriously? Or do you believe in everything you read in trash media?

It is current as it is still under investigation, people are coming forward with their stories.

I am concerned that a large corporation is not taking allegations seriously, i find it very disturbing.

If you find it trashy and sensationalised keep on walkin.

No, I think people should be able to get a balanced view on this, why should trash media get a free run?

Those who buy food produced locally have nothing to worry about, those who buy foreign food (the minority of people here) should familiarise themselves with food production laws in the country they choose to buy from.

I don't disagree with you that without the experts it's almost impossible to estimate if animals who hate the confinement aren't suffering.

It is not almost impossible, it's something that can be measured in a controlled experiment by determining levels of cortisol and making other observations. This area of knowledge is the reason why zoos have changed so radically over the last few decades.

Snopes says it's undetermined. Snopes is not god.

I want to know why Purina haven't acted on the 220 cases of sickness linked to their food.

Noones reacting, I'm sharing a dog related news story. Similar was shared with the TOTW recalls last year in the US.

The sources you have quoted are not known for their high standards of journalism, they are known for trashy sensationalism, and this is not current news anyway.

You seem to be reacting and worrying about risk.

I probably wouldn't take to kindly to any child calling my dog evil. You could report to council that their loose dog rushed at and frightened your dogs, and the ranger could go around and have a chat to them about what they did wrong.

Reminds me of this little article here from a few years ago. Exotics are in Australia like it or not. They just need to be scrupulously managed.

Don't make pet exotics suffer because people are too scared to take them to the vet for help. A bit like the BSL people have mentioned. Pets are pets, ferals are ferals. Restricted breeds and wild animals are being kept in the community and there isn't much anyone can do about it except make sure they are well cared for and tightly controlled. Banning things drives them underground.

How do we know that keeping a wild animal in a suburban backyard enclosure is caring well for it? How do we know it is not suffering greatly by being confined near humans?

Tight control and scrupulous management of feral and wild animals is something that is best determined by experts on these animals, people with suitable qualifications. These rescue people are pushing the line that "with just the right amount of patience and TLC foxes can make a loving addition to any family." That doesn't sound like scrupulous management to me, it sounds exactly like selling pets using very emotive sales tactics.

Trash-media at its most trashy.

Here is what Snopes says about this 'news'. http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/beneful.asp

This US product is not available in Australia, so it would be silly to react to it. Our food is sourced, produced, stored and distributed independently from what they are doing in America.

Well I've given you my first-hand experience, and the anecdotal experiences of others. If you google 'fox forum' you will find lots of people who keep them as pets overseas. Many overseas breeders sell the kits at a young age so they can be tamed by their new owners. But you choose to ignore that info. You are basing your opinion on what YOU know about foxes, not all the information available.

These people are not breeding foxes they are taking wild foxes and there is a big difference.

I don't want more anecdotal evidence, I would like to see the same type of evidence that informs how ethical canine rescue is run. There is also arguments put forward that the fox should not be kept in captivity and they are pretty persuasive.

What is the success rate of taming wild foxes? How do we know that they are not overly stressed by captivity? What is the impact on neighbours of keeping foxes in captivity?

How does a pet snake benefit the community? Or a pet spider? I bet they benefit the person who owns them, because the care for/appreciate that pet. I have a pet yabby - he was taken from the wild by someone and sold to me. Does he benefit the community? I really don't understand your emphasis on community benefits. My neighbours dogs who bark all day certainly don't benefit me. Nor does my neighbours cat who sprays on my front door. Or my neighbours chooks who attract rats into my yard.

These animals are small and kept indoors. Invasive species are often illegal. There is very little cost to the community by people keeping these types of animals, no loss of community amenity such as a larger predator might cause, and so there is a net benefit in the government setting up a system for regulation of ownership.

The culture of cat ownership has changed in line with our improving knowledge of the ecological damage they cause in Australia. Encouraging people to think of foxes as suitable pets seems very regressive.

Im not pro fox keeping but Im not against it either at the moment..im interested in hearing the pros and cons. I just hate generalizations and assumptions, and think that discussion should be beyond such things.

I don't think we should assume that the idea of foxes as pets is of overall benefit to Australia.

Much study has been done on the keeping of dogs and cats and the benefits of domestic pet ownership to society. That isn't an assumption, it is something that is known through study. The procedures and practices that ethical dog rescues used are based on the latest research available and the best practices set by professionals keep up to date with this. They are not just things that are assumed to work, they have been shown to have a positive effect.

So where is the evidence that selling foxes in Australia will be of overall benefit to people and animal welfare? I am not going to assume that foxes have a place as pets in Australia just because a few people desire to own one. Where is the evidence that early socialisation can override adult traits of wild animals? Where is the evidence that foxes living in backyard captivity are not suffering a great deal of stress?

I'm going to base my opinion on what we know about foxes, and not just assume that they are suitable to be offered for sale as pets.

Who would you imagine is running this database?

There are DPI guidelines and lots of regulations for keeping most domestic animals. But foxes are not domestic animals.

Are snakes/lizards/some species of birds/frogs classified as domestic animals? Are there not licences to keep these?

Id imagine that foxes would be classed as exotic? Surely those who keep reptiles are on a database? Doesnt seem to be hard surely?

I don't know, you brought up the idea. Who would pay for running a fox database and who would work out the licencing terms? I'm pretty sure the other wild animals you mention are supposed to be kept in small indoor enclosures and some especially invasive species are not legal to keep at all. Is it worth having governments put systems in place to facilitate keeping foxes responsibly? Or is that cost one more thing that outweighs the benefits of them being kept as pets in the community?

And just to clarify, that article is about someone who ADOPTED a fox, not the founder of the organisation. The ADOPTER is 23, not the person who runs the shelter.

Sorry to hear about your Loxy, Kirty. I don't want to get involved, as I don't have a major problem with it if they are desexed and rehomed responsibly.

But I will add that even if the founder of the organisation was 23 that shouldn't matter! I am only 23, have been around animals my entire life, have been involved in rescue for 5 years, including running a rescue for the last 2 years. I have a Bachelor of Animal Science Honours, specialising in companion animal welfare and management and a graduate diploma, plus numerous courses. You would be surprised what the younger generation is capable of, 90% of our rescue organisation are under 25. :)

To be able to credibly devise and manage a wild-animal capture and rehoming program I would expect a person to have post-graduate behaviour qualifications as well as qualifications in zoology or vet science. Without these types of professional qualifications they are not in a good position to justify their actions as being beneficial rather than harmful.

We wouldn't accept the word of unqualified people working in zoos or for the DPI in the management of wild species, and there is no reason to accept it from people selling foxes either.

There are people who think its ok to "rescue" any animal and rehome without desexing. Oh and there are people who are happy to place troubled/destructive/aggressive domestic dogs to "farms". You dont need a licence to keep bunnies or ferrets yet they are pets that come with responsibility re husbandry & containment. Id imagine there is a database for the keeping of foxes as a pet, and any illegally kept animal would be subject to seizure.

The answer is if we always look to the lowest denominator in society we are sure to find issue with any form of animal ownership. Dog & cat ownership by its popularity would definitely be under risk!

Yes indeed WIW you are entitled to your opinion.

Who would you imagine is running this database?

There are DPI guidelines and lots of regulations for keeping most domestic animals. But foxes are not domestic animals.

Calling for a ban on keeping a feral pest, is hardly nasty and I'm surprised that it hadn't been made the law a long time ago.

No, it is quite nasty and your tone is making you come across as being quite petty and unpleasant. There is no evidence that the activities of this rescue group have impacted negatively upon landowners or native animals which are the key issues of the fox population in Australia, and no evidence that they are not doing their very best to ensure that the foxes are placed responsibly.

No, wreckit has been very reasonable. She has explained her objections and is willing to act on them. She doesn't deserve to be attacked personally for this.

There is no evidence that selling foxes as pets in suburbia will not lead to problems. Many have been spoken about here. Who cares how hard they try to do their best, they really do sound very misguided to me. Let them prove that they have the credentials to do this and that they understand the bigger picture. They need to provide the evidence that what they are doing is worthwhile, they should not expect the public to blindly accept whatever they say, and they should expect some opposition from those who are unconvinced.

The scrotum will always shrink a lot over time anyway, even in old dogs who had giant dangly balls.

Your vet was out of line saying that the odds were against you for recovery because of this. Your dog will recover. I would not subject this dog to a scrotal ablation, and I would avoid the daily walk while he is still swollen.