Greytmate

Studies have been done, but none that will give you an exact answer. In my opinion it is 60/40 genetics to environment, and the temperament of the bitch is important environmentally as well as genetically. Half the genes come from each parent, and then there may be some genes that modify or mask other genes. Dogs can have a genetic predisposition to instinctively behave a certain way, and then training and socialisation can modify what you have to a certain extent and hopefully ingrain the habits we want. The reason we have different breeds of dog is that both their looks and behaviour have been selected for by breeding. This wouldn't be possible to do if the male exerted no genetic influence over the puppies.

Removing the sack is called a scrotal ablation and is not routinely done. Not all vets will perform this because it involves more risk. It is common for there to be inflammation after castration especislly if the dog is active. Some vets recommend trestment for the inflammation, some don't.

See and that annoys me. Why should you care? Nobody is forcing you to own one. Why can't people mind their own business! If it doesn't affect you, leave it be!! These people are trying to exert cultural influence by promoting foxes as pets.They have received national media attention. Given the amount of damage caused by foxes to the ecology, it could be seen as highly irresponsible to emotionally manipulate more people in favour of an animal that is subject to eradication or culling programs. It is quite valid for people to have concerns about things outside their own backyard. Zoos in Australia have come a long way with responding to cultural concerns about keeping wild animals in captivity. Encouraging unregulated backyard keeping of wild animals in captivity seems pretty regressive. Just because something has never been legislated against doesn't mean it is a good thing for people. Wreckit should be able to speak to her local member and the DPI about her concerns.

I'm happy to debate this subject. There are things on their website which cause me to doubt this. Here is a description of a fox they were advertising for sale. It doesn't particularly sound like an animal that is friendly, but rather one that will just tolerate humans. And there is this life for foxes who are unable to tolerate people. The person running the rescue is only 23. How many years have they been learning about and working with foxes to be able to learn how to assess them properly? Are they doing anything to properly assess the success of their program in a local context? Everything has pros and cons, but overall, what good is anything unless the benefit outweighs the harm. It's not good to cause harm at all. Cat ownership in Australia has pros and cons, but overall our community accepts that the benefit cats bring to people outweighs the harm they cause to ecology. It's because we have a long cultural association with domestic cats and they have been domesticated to an extent that they can be confined and kept without annoyance to others that we are able to tolerate them. So if fox rescue is to be supported, it is up to them to promote the benefits of keeping foxes as pets to the whole community instead of focussing on using emotional language and images to manipulate individuals to want to donate or buy a fox. No it's not black and white. I would love a pet cheetah, and there are many people around the world who do this and can provide care instructions for me on the internet. I could even buy one if if I was able to get a permit. Imagine how special I would be, parading around with my unusual exotic pet. But being a pet is not necessarily in the best interests of a wild animal. And wild animals can be unpredictable in behaviour, they have not been selected for their ability to thrive domestically. A wild animal is a risky proposition as a pet where as domesticated species are much more likely to behave in a pet-like way. So I choose just to keep dogs instead. I am happy for the group to try to convince me why promoting foxes as pets is a good idea for the people of NSW. . But as they have failed to provide any evidence that they have looked at it objectively, and have chosen to use words like 'fur-ever home' on their website, it seems to be an ill-conceived idea to me.

There is no authority over foxes. No fox control laws that work like dog control laws to deal with the collection, transport and impounding of lost foxes. Anyone has the right to trap a fox in a public place and take it to a vet for euthanasia. There is no protection of a procedure for declaring a fox dangerous, no regulation of suitable enclosure, it will just be seized and euthanized if a valid complaint is made to council about it. Yes there are numerous stories of people failing with pet ownership and selling animals not fit to be pets. Fortunately dogs are able to be resold as adults, and the laws are fairly clear about the responsibilities of dog owners. That is a reason why wild foxes should not be promoted as pets, not a reason why it should be done. Dogs are very resilient animals that can be rehomed as adults because of their selected traits to fit in with people. We do not know if foxes are able to cope with this. The best dog rescues are run in accordance with the best practice as advised by dog behaviour professionals. Where is this group getting guidance from to determine best practice for selecting and selling wild foxes? It sounds as though they are willing to rehoming any fox, regardless of its ability or willingness to live in a home as a pet. No, not having foxes as pets is the default in Australia. There needs to be good reasons shown why it is beneficial to the Australian community and ecology to promote foxes as pets. Otherwise I don't see any reason why this group should be supported in their activities or fundraising.

People already can, and do, do this all the time. If its not illegal, and the people are responsible, who cares? Foxes are already here - just like feral cats and wild dogs, but nobody is banning them as pets. One escaped, desexed fox is going to do no more damage than the millions of other foxes out there already. As for scent glands, lots of animals have scent glands. As I said, a fox only releases its scent gland when it is frightened. There obviously is a niche for pet foxes, because they have already rehomed some. If it was legal here, I would have another one. They are amazing animals and can make fantastic pets. And just recently, someone was trying to get a permit to import silver foxes to sell as pets. Of course, the same principles apply as with any special needs animal - they must be in the right home. I can't see this group churning out hundreds of foxes and hopefully they will do the right thing by them. I know wild foxes are a problem, I know they can cause a lot of damage - but so do feral cats and wild dogs. So do rabbits, but you can keep them as pets. In the right situations foxes make beautiful, intelligent pets. They are using emotional and persuasive language in their website to strongly encourage new people to consider a fox as a pet, and campaigning in the media for more exposure. They have no way of ensuring that the foxes will end up in the right homes. An escaped pet is going to cause distress to its owner regardless of species, but they can't expect any help with the recovery of a lost fox, and the pet fox is in more danger than if it had never been tamed. I don't think people should be considering foxes as a domestic pet, regardless of there being some examples of where it has worked. There is a lot of potential for things to go wrong that are less likely to happen with a domesticated breed like domestic rabbits, domestic ferrets, domestic cats etc. The foxes are wild, and have not been selected for traits that allow them to live closely and safely with people.

Refer her to a professional trainer and warn her that the council will seize the dogs if she is unsuccessful. It is a serious problem. The dogs are probably barking out of boredom because she doesn't spend enough time with them, so some training work might settle them down a bit. If the dogs are barking because of a trigger, a trainer can advise how to manage the problem or change the behaviour.

Going and talking to the fox rescue people, hearing what they have to say, and seeing their set-up is about as useful as going in to a pet shop and listening to the owner defend their business. It doesn't mean much, and doesn't reveal anything that they don't want to show you. It's also pretty pointless if you consider the harm caused by petshops/fox rescue happens out in people's lives, not within the shop/shelter itself. I do not believe there has been any doubt expressed about their standards of care, so visiting the shelter would be rather pointless. If we look at the bigger picture of foxes in Australia and Australian culture and attitudes towards pet ownership we are able to gain a better understanding of the pros and cons of fox rescue. Do the people working with these animals have any qualification in zoology or animal behaviour or any other discipline that would give them a basis for understanding fox behavioural needs? No need to visit them or even any reason why we should listen to them unless they are experts in the field. I see too many problems occurring as a long-term consequence of foxes being marketed as pets in Australia. I can't see how it is appropriate for a wild animal with scent glands to be kept in a suburban domestic environment, there are no regulations or council guidelines that enforce the responsible keeping of foxes in a community. There is no support at all for a person who's pet fox escapes or behaves in a way that is harmful to the community. There can be no way of knowing how a particular wild animal will mature, whether it will be a good pet as an adult or not. There is no way of knowing when a person who is renting will be forced to move out, or if they will be able to find new accommodation for the fox. They are selling foxes on their website, trying to create a market niche which doesn't exist right now. I can imagine that anyone that they refused to supply a fox to might be tempted to just go out and find one themselves anyway.

Naaw, and isn't that just what a lot of people do. Read the media, look at the surface, never ask questions - because they've already made their minds up. With Breed Specific Legislation, I butt heads with people like you all the time. Heck, there's already one person here trying to derail this thread into something about the breeds they so vehemently despise. I, however, did email these people, and have learned a bit more. I'll be going there in a couple of weeks to meet them, their foxes, and see their operation fully. I think that's the only way to really get a fully informed opinion - rather than just getting your back up, with preconceived ideas, and running with it. If you can't be bothered to really look into something, why do you bother commenting? Kirty, so sorry to hear what happened to you. Naaw, aren't you a condescending and nasty person? Go and headbutt somebody else. There is nothing about any of your comments that makes me think you have the intelligence or enough unbiased information to discuss the issue politely or rationally, so I'm not sure why you bother. Have fun playing with the cute baby foxies.

Neither would I. Setbacks can cause behaviour to be stronger than ever and make it harder to modify. Nek, have you given Jelly a written program for the training? It's a bit sad that she thinks she might have done the wrong thing when she has been putting such a big effort in. A written plan with a timeline would make it clearer for Jelly as to what she needs to do each day, and enable her to determine if she is able to follow the training program all of the way through to its conclusion. She needs to be confident about the training and not be second guessing as to whether she is doing it right.

No, what you have done is interpreted something, based on very little fact. What this group is doing is marketing themselves and what they do. Any group that wants to be successful needs to the do the same. But when that group is actively saying that their position on the subject is that foxes are not pets, all you are doing is twisting it to suit your opinion. Yeah, I see a lot of 'looking past' stuff on here. Maybe just look at instead? What you are doing is making assumptions. A lot of ifs and maybes but seemingly no real attempt to look into it. What I am doing is critically analysing the site, along with the media appearance. I'm not interested in blindly accepting what they say, I can see what they are doing with the emotive language and images they chose to use. They are creating a perception that these animals are suitable to be kept as pets, even if they cover themselves by denying it in the fine print. Oh, did the group not reply to your email you sent to them? I just assume you did send them one because they would be better suited to answer everything you have asked here - and have a chance to quell any of your fears. As I said, I am not interested in asking them questions, as the website and media article convey a message I disagree with. Perhaps you could think about how the average person might perceive that website.

And where exactly did you pull that from? I pulled it from the commonly accepted definitions for the word marketing and the word pet. The website is very similar to websites operated by canine rescues in their efforts to place dogs in homes. They use many of the familial terms reserved for pets and family members, such as adopt, foster carer, special needs, forever home. I can look past what they say they are doing and why they are doing it to determine for myself what they are about. I will gauge the level of harm they might cause to others against the benefits they bring to foxes, fox owners and themselves. Nobody has been able to explain why foxes are good pets compared to a domestic animal, or how a first generation fox can be trusted not to behave aggressively as an adult.

They are marketing them if they are on the front page of the paper. A good death may be preferable to living in an unsuitable environment. We know that dogs are highly adaptable to various domestic lifestyles and people can make an informed choice about what sort/breed of dog they need. Wild animals are completely different. It is cruel to keep them in captivity where they cannot act according to their natural instincts.

I have a problem with a group who is out there marketing wild/feral animals as domestic pets. Domestic animals took many generations of domestication to adapt to a domestic lifestyle. These baby foxes could have all sorts of temperament 'flaws' that socialisation cannot override. Luck would play a big part about what the animal will be like when mature. And nobody has put up a reason why a fox is so good as a pet, except to say that some are dog-like. So get a dog.

Novel idea, but foxes are wild animals, not domesticated. I would imagine they could be a bit bitey as adults. I'm not sure they would be entirely happy being kept in a domestic environment. Why would you want a pet like this instead of a dog or a cat?

Yes, support of good local independent business is a very desirable thing for community well-being. Many people now prioritise this when choosing how to spend their money. It isn't silly, it's a valid and responsible ethical stance.

There is a fair bit of info out there about what Greencross is. Greencross share price - From Proactive Investors Australia. If you wanted to know more about their ethics you could find out a lot more. They did have quite an unusual staff incentive going a couple of years ago, which raised a few questions with me. But has nothing to do with the care of the dogs. Greencross routinely offer many services to dog owners and have high standards of care.

The dog has a very serious problem that could see it badly hurt or killed. I'm hoping it can be fixed, but I am not 100% sure that it can be. Jelly has to discuss this with Nek. I'm just putting it up here. Any failure is not seen by me as a personal failure that is for sure. Both Jelly and Nek are pretty dedicated people.

That's good. Did the vet say how long the medication would take? I think any training professional should be able to give an indication of what outcomes are to be expected within a certain time frame to determine success of that particular method, or any alternative methods. You also need to be clear about what you do want to achieve. Yes that is an outcome, but I wouldn't be satisfied if one of my dogs was unhappy or anxious for up to half of its life. A another outcome you could consider is the ability to come and go from your home, to work and to occasional social outings, knowing that your dog is safe and is in an environment that keeps her satisfied. That is a higher expectation, but it is the outcome I would want to have if it was my dog. Good luck with this. I do want things to work out for you, and I am glad Nek is helping you.

How do you judge success or failure, except to expect a certain outcome within a certain time frame?

I am not suggesting there be an instant result. I am suggesting that Jelly have a realistic and informed idea of how long this should take, and not let it drag out indeterminately because there will always be people with suggestions for improvement, that won't ever stop. But in the mean time, the dog is still anxious when Jelly is not there and prone to getting in very dangerous situations. It is only Jelly that will suffer if the dog seriously harms itself. No, you're suggesting that Jelly put Roo to sleep. If it doesn't work by this date, put your dog to sleep. Yes I am.

I am not suggesting there be an instant result. I am suggesting that Jelly have a realistic and informed idea of how long this should take, and not let it drag out indeterminately because there will always be people with suggestions for improvement, that won't ever stop. But in the mean time, the dog is still anxious when Jelly is not there and prone to getting in very dangerous situations. It is only Jelly that will suffer if the dog seriously harms itself.

Surgery won't alter the dog's prepotency, which is what the stud fee is for. I hope he loses this case and also gets in big trouble for using surgery to try to fool people about the qualities his dog is able to pass on. Not sure if it is illegal to scam people there.

This isn't a good outcome. I would have thought the object of the crate training was to reduce the anxiety and activity associated with your absence, not just to keep her in increasingly fortified boxes. I will repeat the advice I gave at the start of the thread. While it is good that you are willing to make the effort, without a time scale to gauge improvement, I'm not sure how you say whether the training has been successful or not.

Having a young blind dog is restrictive on your lifestyle and can lead to horrific painful injuries. I wouldn't choose to own one for that reason. You know (if your internet info is reliable) that this dog will inevitably suffer pain if the surgery isn't done. An older dog that slowly goes blind is much better able to cope with a normal home environment than a young dog, but still requires special care. Consider whether you could ask the breeder to contribute to the cost of surgery up to the purchase price. You could only ask this if it was clear that the breeder could have avoided the problem with health testing. If it's just bad luck, you would just have to pay the price. I wouldn't ignore this, you have a very good chance of success if the info you have been given is correct. However we don't really know as much about it as you do, as we don't know anything about the dog or your lifestyle and ability to cope, and we have not had the specialist consultation that you have had. The specialist can tell you more about any known factors about the 15 % of dogs that were not helped by surgery. They can tell you the rate of dogs who later regressed. A small young blind dog is easier to manage than a big young blind dog.