Greytmate

If your pup had behaviour problems at 6 weeks it is most likely that the problems are a result of her (random) genetics than because of any handling, lack of handling, abuse or whatever. One or both of the parents passed the problems on. Haredown's comments are not silly. I think you are just disappointed that your dog isn't seen as exotic or special compared to any other carelessly breed dog. Because there is no way to tell what your dog is. It is just as likely she has hundreds of breeds in her than just a few. There is no science or rationality behind your statements, and instead of being useful, they propagate the myth that it is possible to predict the breeding of randomly bred dogs or to understand their ancestry. The reason why we are purebreed dogs fans here isn't just their looks, it is their predictability of breeding them (when done properly) that makes them so attractive and is what distinguishes them from cross breeds. Predictability of behaviour and of looks. You don't get it with cross bred dogs. Why can't you accept that your dog might be random cross breed? Why did you think your were buying something other than that when you took the dog home?

An educated person would say that you cannot tell the breeding of a dog by its appearance, and that it is not possible to tell the breeding of a dog that looks nothing like any aprticular known breed. The council paperwork does ask a silly nonsense question, so if you have a mixed breed dog, you are better off calling it a silly nonsense name and signing your name to that. Grizzled fluff hound x huge dog. Council will accept that one. Guessing perpetuates myths spread by designer dog breeders that a cross breed pup will have particular traits. It's wrong. Only purebreeds are predictable. Once you start crossing breeds the first things you usually lose are the unique identifying breed traits.

Seems like an appropriate time to ask as any. Why are the pics and notes being posted in a public place? If there is a finite number of ethical rescue orgs, why not set up a private mailing list for them, for them to distribute to their own staff or carers as they see fit? Wouldn't this make it harder for PR to advertise dogs that are still in the pound if they had no access to this resource? Dodgy rescue is everywhere, even here.

This dog is a mix, could have lots of breeds in it. You wouldn't say it was any particular breed, it was probably a really random mating. Getting a whole lot of people to tell you what they think it looks like is not an accurate way to determine what breeds are in that dog. Working breeds are common in all areas of Australia, and rare breeds are rare. Your dog is highly unlikely to have any saluki in it. It seems likely that at least one parent had some husky ancestry. We call it a breed when it is a breed. otherwise, it isn't a breed, its across-breed dog. You couldn't expect your dog to be exactly like a husky because it isn't one. Breeding a husky with any other dog at all will result in a pup that has fur that is not like a husky. But it isn't possible to know what that other dog was. Once you start mixing breeds, the first thing you lose are the unusual identifying features of the breed, and the dog's appearance will tend to average out, maybe even giving some features found in unrelated dogs.

Going by that facebook page I would say that Shmoo is probably right. They lack the insight and intelligence to know why procedures should be followed and so feel they are doing a great job by sending dogs here, there and everywhere out of pounds. And because they feel so victimised, they are not going to take advice from anyone. Steve I don't know the people involved, but people only need insurance if they have something to protect, and these people may literally have nothing to lose by selling dangerous dogs. Which is why it is so surprising that the council is offering a verbal assurance of the safety of this particular dog. Councils can be sued for millions.

Really? I thought that is was only WA that didn't recognise declarations made interstate, I thought that NSW, VIC, QLD all worked togther to stop people sending dogs across borders to avoid decalaration? Or does that only work after the dog is declared? It would be easy for anyone under investigation to send their dog interstate for a short break if that is all it takes to avoid having a dog declared. I'm going by the wording in the CAA which states: Different states have different regulations for a dangerous dog and different criteria for declaring them so this would make sense. I guess they could possibly declare them dangerous and if they re-entered NSW the declaration would come into force? I haven't ever actually dealt with a situation like this so I'm just interpreting the wording of the act. The other problem here is the Council may not have enough actual evidence for a declaration. It's hard when it's a 'she-said, he-said' investigation and if they don't have proof that this particular dog killed the other particular dog then it'd be hard to go with a declaration. In QLD, a dog that has been declared dangerous in NSW or VIC is considered declared dangerous in QLD too. Don't have time to drag out the act, but I always figured that section was put in to close that exact loophole of sending a dog over the border. I am not sure what Victorian law is. I have been told by various sources that WA is the only state that you can send a dog (from Vic, NSW, or QLD) to to avoid declaration and I know of at least one person that has done this. Sold their declared dog to man in Perth (very good home with references) , rather than keep the dog as a Dangerous Dog in QLD. WA gov don't acknowledge declarations made here in QLD, NSW does. I would agree that there may not be enough evidence (although I think they have enough if the foster carer provides a written statement) but this doesn't seem to be what was communicated to Cryptic.

That's quite impressively unprofessional. Let's hope that tactic prompts many people to find other rescue groups to support.

I would be happy to see landlords having no right to refuse tenants doing whatever they like as long as it is legal and doesn't disturb neighbours, including owning pets. We are happy to have pets in the property we rent out. It is an investment that is as likely to be damaged by children as anything else, and we don't have any right to refuse them living there. If the property is damaged, it will be dealt with using the bond and insurance. What difference does it make to me if that damage is caused by child, dog or turtle? The main thing is that we have tenants that care about the place. They were chosen because of their references. Why should we try to restrict their lifestyle?

Really? I thought that is was only WA that didn't recognise declarations made interstate, I thought that NSW, VIC, QLD all worked togther to stop people sending dogs across borders to avoid decalaration? Or does that only work after the dog is declared? It would be easy for anyone under investigation to send their dog interstate for a short break if that is all it takes to avoid having a dog declared. Whatever the case, I am just astounded that Parramatta council have a dog expert called Michelle who can seemingly predict the liklihood of this dog attacking again, and has declared the dog risk free. It is worth following that up, just to make sure Michelle's bosses know the risks they are taking in allowing somebody like her deal with the public.

I would have a pug any day. But I wouldn't want a boston. I minded one once and it tried to jump out the window. Full on. I call them Pitbull Lite.

No. I especially wouldn't want my dogs to be put in with other dogs that may be prone to any type of anxiety. If you are looking for a solution for dogs with anxiety problems, the solution may lie with training the dog's owners, or not having that particular dog in your kennel at all.

Wow. Pin her down and demand this opinion in writing, and if she doesn't, call her out as not doing her job properly, and go over her head. Also demand to know her qualification for making such statements and ask for that in writing too. Then when you have it, email council CEO and your local member and get them involved. Ask them if they know the risks in having unqualified council staff make public statements as to the safety of individual animals, and warn them they are giving official approval which will make them the target for legal action should the dog bite again. Sounds to me like Michelle wants it all to go away. Too hard. Well that is too bad for Michelle, because she is at the bottom rung in a chain of responsibility to ratepayers that do not want their council to be sued.

Rather surprised me, too. There's a difference between just reading a post or topic....& making a decision to reply. People can read posts or topics to their hearts content. That doesn't place some obligation on them to respond. There is a level of obligation to respond if a person is asked a question, asked to back up a claim, or to reply to a message. If that person is seen hanging around the forums, people might wonder why they are avoiding the question. Being anonymous is a non-offensive way of prioritising responses in your own time without any pressure. The level of obligation is dependant on how credible or polite a person wants to be online. Some people feel no obligation, some feel it very strongly. Trolling and online bullying are often about manipulating people's feelings of obligation to respond to posts. I agree with your last sentence very much. But I have reservations about the rest. Given no laws or regulations or common courtesies are being broken, people have the right to speak their mind. They also have a right to decide when not to speak. Frankly, if someone wants to avoid any question, they are free to do so, whether I like it or not. Even the law allows the right to remain silent. The reverse is the Gestapo approach of 'we have ways of making you talk'. The fact that someone is 'hanging around the forums' is a case of someone deciding where they want to be. There appears to be a need to control, beyond reasonable boundaries. I was thinking more about manners. If you ask a question and you get responses, don't you feel obliged to thank them or at least acknowledge them? What about a person that posts a distressing story asking for help, and lots of people respond trying to help but have questions to ask in order to find out the best way to help. Is the OP obliged to give a more detailed explanation or acknowledgement of the questions? I've noticed that it tends to annoy other forum members very much if people do not respond in those situations. If you were in those situations where you had asked for help or a question, would you feel obliged to respond to people giving advice? I know that I would. I am quite free to not respond, but what would people think of that? What would they think of me ignoring them, but my name being there at the bottom of the screen to remind them that I have read their post and have chosen to ignore it? That's why I like anonymous. I don't want people to think I am ignoring them just because I am busy. Even if it's true. :laugh:

Rather surprised me, too. There's a difference between just reading a post or topic....& making a decision to reply. People can read posts or topics to their hearts content. That doesn't place some obligation on them to respond. There is a level of obligation to respond if a person is asked a question, asked to back up a claim, or to reply to a message. If that person is seen hanging around the forums, people might wonder why they are avoiding the question. Being anonymous is a non-offensive way of prioritising responses in your own time without any pressure. The level of obligation is dependant on how credible or polite a person wants to be online. Some people feel no obligation, some feel it very strongly. Trolling and online bullying are often about manipulating people's feelings of obligation to respond to posts.

In most states there are limits, the various state acts allow councils to set their own limits. In NSW the state act doesn't allow councils to set limits. Most areas in Australia do have council limits on animal numbers. Each foster carer would have their own limit on the number of dogs they can safely handle. The important thing is that rescue group assesses each situation carefully, and use their own judgement about who they place dogs with, because foster carers shouldn't be left to realise their limits the hard way. Many carers over estimate their abilities, and the dogs might pay the price for this. A foster dog is going to become more adoptable if it is in foster care with a carer that has time for it, and where it isn't stressed by too many other animals. So there might be a situation where a foster carer is turned away because of too many dogs in the home, even if there is council approval. The OP is talking about America, so things are going to be different there. There are a lot more groups, so perhaps some groups can be very choosy about what sort of homes their dogs are fostered in and some groups cannot be. We also don't know what breed, but if it is a popular breed in rescue, then high demand for dogs would mean that rescue would want to discourage foster carers from adopting a dog.

This post reminded me. Council sometimes stops people fostering. Some councils are ok, and allow a foster dog over the official limit of two dogs. Some councils do not allow more than two dogs on property for any reason at all. So maybe that is why a foster failure might mean a person can't continue to foster.

There might be good reasons, but the rescue is under no obligation to spell them all out. How do you tell somebody that their kids are feral and cruel, their house is filthy, their own pets need attention, and their partner doesn't give a rats arse about what animals are brought into the house? Easier to say "I'm sorry, we don't have a suitable foster dog for you at the moment". A rescue group has a responsibility to the animals it places, they are not there to fulfil the needs of potential foster carers wanting a free dog. If you are told you cannot foster, just accept it. Either find another group with different standards or rules, or makes some changes. When I think about the type of people I have rejected as carers, the thought of them taking me to court is insanely ridiculous. Good carers are so valuable, like gold, there is no way a rescue group would reject one unnecessarily. I wonder whether this thread is about a true thing, or whether a rejected foster carer doesn't really understand why they have been rejected.

Get your dog used to being in a crate before you fly, and your dog will be less stressed. In summer you would try to book flights in the coolest part of the day because the dog may have to wait around in a big shed for a while, and will be exposed to the sun while loading. Sedation is dangerous. If a dog gets that stressed that it becomes a health concern, in my opinion it shouldn't be flown at all. An airline can refuse to load a dog onto a flight if the dog seems not to be coping.

Surely you're not seriously suggesting this dog should never be let off leash outside its property because one of its parents has been involved in some sort of attack??? What do you know of the socialisation and training if the parents? What do you know of the socialisation/training of the dog in question? Socialisation and training doesn't totally override genetic instinct. There is nothing to suggest that Rocksteady has had any formal training that would proof him in every situation or that his owner has a deep understanding of dog behaviour. My point was about what could happen when a situation is out of the handlers control. Out in public. Rocksteady's parents are likely to be just as lovely and sooky as he is in temperament. But obviously there is a hidden side to their behaviour that is terrible, and the aim is to make sure Rocksteady is never put in a situation were that behaviour might be encouraged in him. Especially now he has come to council attention. I didn't say that Rocksteady will attack, I used the word might. I just think Rebbecca should be very careful with him. He doesn't deserve to be declared dangerous, and hopefully he never will be.

If you can afford a lawyer, get one. You can ask for them to provide things in writing, but if you want to know everything, apply under your council's FOI (Freedom of Information). There is an admin fee, and names will be blacked out, but it will give you a copy of everything they have on your and your dog. The act is very clear about dangerous dogs, menacing dogs and restricted dogs, and it is outrageous that your dog would be declared dangerous because of what its parent did. Also, although Rocksteady sounds like a lovely dog, what his parent did should be taken as a warning of what he might be capable of if certain circumstances occur that are beyond your control. Not a dog to let off lead outside your property. Good luck with this.

Why would a cute photo be my defense.... I know any dog can be dangerous, as my last dog was a pitbull... Although she wasn't declared dangerous. Well obviously its not black and white therefor i have asked other opinions. No a bandogge is not restricted in qld... They are frowned apon at times. I have done the right thing, and I have registered rocksteady as the exact breed he is. Previous to this I have not even had the ranger been near my dogs for anything. The problem is that bandog isn't a purebreed. It is a type of dog that might be a pitbull cross, or might be some other type of cross. Pitbull crosses are restricted in Queensland. Your dog looks more like a pitbull or amstaff than it does either a bullmastiff or a neo mastiff, and its extreme white markings means that neither parent is very likely to be a purebreed bull mastiff. If you can get copies of the papers that show the breeding of the parents and grandparents, and can back it up with DNA evidence, then you can show that your dog isn't part pitbull. Council is not going to accept a verbal explanation of a dog's breeding. If you don't have evidence, they will decide on the breed by his looks. In QLD, some breeds are restricted, but they are not declared dangerous. There is a difference. Unless you can tell us what was written on the piece of paper given to you, nobody really knows why your dog was declared dangerous or what your next step should be. One thing for sure, it doesn't matter to the council how the dog behaves He could be the nicest, most placid dog in the world, and that won't affect the council's decision at all. Either he will be restricted because of his breed, or declared dangerous because of a particular incident. Have you contacted your dogs breeder, to see what evidence they might have about the dog's breeding?

"Grubby mitts"? I'll have you know my mitts are usually pretty clean. Why do you have so low regard for Mr and Ms Pubic and their 16 screaming children? :laugh: Let's eat some greasy fried meat on a stick followed by some fairy floss and an icecream, touch interactive stuff in the government pavilion, feed some straw to a goat, stick our fingers through the bars on all the cages of the fancy chickens, and then go into the dog pavilion. And run our fingers through all that lovely soft white fur. That's what I like to do at the ag show, what do you do there? :laugh:

I think it is always polite to ask first. It's manners and the safest thing to do. Most people will ask, and many are too scared to ask and so will miss out. Signage is great, in inviting people to ask to pat dogs as well as not to touch without asking, but the same rule doesn't hold true for all dogs all of the time. There are always areas that the public should never need access to. The ring entrance and marshalling area, the dog toilet area, the show secretary desk, or exhibitors handbags. I think we have to idiot-proof things if we set up an event and then invite the public to attend. Some exhibitors will tire of being asked and having to say no, especially if people are being encouraged to ask. If all this is considered in the event planning stages, we wouldn't need to ask is it 'right or wrong' to pet dogs at shows, the shows themselves could often be better arranged so it is clearer where the public is allowed to be and what they can or cannot touch.

People go to dog shows and expos for their own reasons, which may conflict with the show organiser's reasons for having the show. When I was doing GAP displays, we would always have to organise our own private space for dog time-out, and storage of personal belongings. Our displays were designed to attract people to come right into the stand and engage with the dogs rather than have people stand back and watch from outside. We would position the dogs, objects, and ourselves within the space to encourage or deny access depending on how crowded it was and how people were behaving with our dogs. So when you say that you were annoyed at people coming into the back of your expo display to pat your dog while it was drinking, it appears that your own expectation of what the public will do is different to the message the public received when they visited your stand. Whether it is an ag show or an expo, the public will act the same. They are there to have a fun experience with dogs. They don't think about what else is going on that day, they usually only think about their own immediate experience. But whether you have an exhibitor like Bjelker who has white fluffy dogs that should not be touched, or an exhibitor like AnimalMad who wants people to touch her dogs, there will be times when any dog might need a break from being on public display, so thought needs to be put into how this is going to happen. The public don't know when they see a dog going past whether it is having a break, going to the toilet, going into the ring, or out to socialise with everyone.

These sort of problems could be avoided with better space planning and management. You make some really good points about why problems can happen. When you think about the chaotic and stressful environment at some ag shows, it is a credit to the dogs and handlers that most of the time there are no negative incidents. There is a lot more that could be considered in the planning of dog shows to meet the needs of various exhibitors and the public. Everyone should go away from a dog show with a positive feeling about the interactions they had. They certainly don't need to pat every dog at a show to have a great time, the important thing is to make it clear what public can and cannot do, without exhibitors having to act like a security guards constantly protecting their dog and belongings. The story Diva told of the public being encouraged by show officials to go into gazebos that the owners have set up as private areas isn't fair on anyone, and could even be dangerous. Things like that don't have to happen if they are planned for in advance and the various needs of different exhibitors are taken into account.