Greytmate

Yes he would be more at risk of being stolen if entire. In cats and rats and some other mammals, desexing completely stops that sort of marking behaviour. In dogs, desexing may make no difference at all, or it might help only slightly. What it will do is make the urine a lot less smelly and sticky, and it can make a dog less distractible when you are trying to train it out of some undesirable habits. I would go ahead with desexing and because of this problem would do it sooner rather than later, in the hope the lowering of hormones will help with this behaviour.

It does happen sometimes - Diesel did it once a the park the only one of my dogs to do this. However I wouldn't say no then their toilet word - likely they will hear the toilet word and think you want them to go I agree. Dogs are not going to understand what it means when you put a no in front of a command to toilet. It would be very confusing for it. The dog simply needs to learn that marking on people (or fabrics) will bring an unpleasant reaction. Timing is everything with this type of training and so it's important to keep the dog close on a lead, so it can be corrected in time.

If ever there is a situation where I don't believe in Purely Positive training, it is this particular problem some dogs have. If you know the dog has this problem, you never let it off lead around people, and you watch it constantly on lead around people. In large dogs, you are lucky to get a split second of time between the sniff and the leg lift. That is the time to act. By suddenly knocking the dog off-balance, and a deep, harsh verbal correction, the dog will learn that weeing on people gets a very bad reaction. It doesn't take much effort to knock a dog off balance if its standing on three legs. A hard push in the right spot. Hitting the dog in the face is not advised because it could lead to a number of problems and will hurt the dog.

Did you know Koe, that desexing a fear aggressive dog can make them worse creating unpredictability and skittish behaviour? What evidence is there to back that up?

I would move. It isn't the right time to get a dog because you are living with somebody that doesn't want one.

What makes you think that any of the people saying put to sleep have not been in a situation where they had to put to sleep a dog that they had become very attached to? It's up to adults to deal with their children, and not make bad decisions because they want to please their child. If an owner has signed a form to put a dog to sleep for aggression, only an unethical vet would rehome that dog. Your relative may have enjoyed the security of living with a dangerous dog, having had a traumatising experience, but most people are not like that and don't want to have to live that way with a pet dog. A big lesson in this thread is to be very careful when taking on adult dogs. If somebody does want to give a good home to a dog there are ethical organisations rehoming dogs that thoroughly test out the dogs before rehoming them. This is to avoid the risk of having these type of dogs out in the community and the risk of heartbreak for new owners. There are so many dogs with wonderful temperaments looking for homes, dogs that will allow their owners to live a normal life and will bring happiness. Aggressive dogs are a burden that should not be passed on to other people.

I tend to agree with this. Managing behaviour is the big thing. People use the words 'rehabilitation' like that is a process where the dog is restored. But it isn't like that. The process of behaviour modification can be extremely difficult, time consuming and ungratifying, and would take total long term commitment from every family member. I really doubt that this type of problem can be permanently and completely solved so that the dog can live as a normal pet would. Sometimes the bigger picture is the important one. Why have a dog in the home if it doesn't bring joy and improve the lives of every other family member? The right dog could do that. How can he possibly make a decision about what to do with Missy without having her assessed and knowing what may be involved in any kind of rehabilitation?? He has already said he can't return the dog as she was a give away and the original owners have moved. I don't know about you but I could never make the decision to PTS without having a dog assessed first, unless of course it killed another dog or seriously attacked a person. I know what's involved in that sort of 'rehabilititaion'. Lots of and lots of management, and no margin for error. The OP is going to be under tremendous pressure here to 'do something' to fix this dog rather than put to sleep. Sometimes the things that have to be done take such an investment of your time and effort and care, and mistakes can have such devastating consequences, that its not practical to persevere. If the OP decided to keep the dog and then wait until did kill or seriously injure another dog or bite a person before acting, it would be far too late. Not to mention how poor Astro is feeling in the mean time living with an aggressive 'bully' type dog. We can see what this dog is like from the video, and it isn't good news.

If the dog isn't pure because there are no papers, please tell me what cross breed that then makes it? It doesn't make it a cross breed. It makes it a dog of unknown breeding. No registration papers, no breeding records, nothing to indicate parentage. Small brown dog of unknown breeding.

Speaking as a previous owner of an aggressive dog, no I would not. I'd feel furious that the other owner's negligence had probably put back my dog's training and rehabilitation by weeks if not months. my point was that the case did not involve owner's negligence not much point me arguing the case though when you view the world as you do The owner is responsible for their dogs actions even if it was an accident or unintentional. If a dog slipped it's collar or broke a leash fastner and bit someone with the incident reported, you don't get excused because the incident was an accident, the dog is either under effective control or it isn't and if the dog gets away from you and gets into strife, you have failed your ownership obligation is how it's formally viewed. It's only in extreme circumstances with well witnessed evidence of wrong doing will charges be laid against a leashed dog and owner against an unleashed dog even at an off leash area and if a dog is on leash handled by an adult regardless of what it did, it's 99% safe in avoiding a prosecution of negligence. Prosecutions of negligence against dog owners are rare even when there is negligence. How bad would you feel if your dog killed another dog that approached it? Most dogs won't attack that approach in a friendly manner. But there are some that do, and I think they should be muzzled in public. There are different levels of dog aggression, some of which go beyond simple defence.

I agree with these posts. It's something that has to be planned for now, has to be proactive and not reactive. As population grows, dogs will create a bigger impact, and it is up to us to make that impact a positive one so that the worth of dogs is not diminished by the community, and is even enhanced. In the grand scheme of things dogs do have a high cultural value, and so we have to make dog ownership more sustainable. As for the conspiracy theories. A topic like this is always going to bring out the good ideas as well as the ludicrous ones.

Red meat production is unsustainable. So we should only ever give pet-grade meat to dogs, not good human-grade meat. That's my plan to save the planet anyway.

Dogs can smell illness and many other physical abnormalities. It isn't a sixth sense, it is a super-sense of smell. One million times better than humans can detect scent. They are also extremely adept at reading their owner's body language, but humans would develop that skill as well if they only had the limited vocal range that dogs do, and had to use non-verbal communication like dogs do.

No, don't take the dog anywhere. Just call the council and report it. Every time you see the dog loose. We have reported it lots of times that's the problem we are currently facing the council are doing nothing! It's be a year ! Then write a letter to the council CEO and ask why nothing has been done about your complaints. Put in the reference numbers that you would have been given when you made the complaints. Every time you report the dog ask for a name and reference number and write it down, then call back an hour later to find out what action has been taken. This dog is causing problems with traffic, make sure the council knows that, and has it in writing.

No, don't take the dog anywhere. Just call the council and report it. Every time you see the dog loose.

Their sense of smell is very powerful, they can smell and taste things that we cannot, and smell differences in what we cannot distinguish. Their hearing is powerful and has a much higher range than human hearing. Their eye sight lacks colour and range but has better movement detection than humans do. They sometimes cannot distinguish differences in what they feel by touch as much as humans can. They do not have sonar like bats do. I don't think dogs have a sixth sense, but if anyone can identify a sixth sensory organ in dogs, it would be interesting to know about.

I have wondered about this. There was a dog on campus yesterday. I haven't been able to find a rule against it, and our uni doesn't have animal courses. Unis that do have animal courses would have to alllow animals on campus. Good on your for telling the security guard to go back and check the rules. Giving you a hard time is not part of their job.

So how do we measure the quality of the breeding program? What standard of excellence are they breeding towards, and what assessment or competition is available to verify this? Showing, dog sport, working or something else? This particular breeder seems to be going for the bogan standard of excellence. And in that realm of competition, they might be true champions. Maybe. But colour dilution alopecia is rarer in blue dogs of other breeds like whippets and greyhounds that are usually not bred blue x blue. And people experiencing the problem with blue staffies may not be linking it with their dog's colour. The desirability of the colour is influencing some breeders to use blue dogs in preference over other coloured dogs that might be much better conformed and behaved as pets. That isn't good for the breed. Instead it creates a separate genetic branch, where the breeders artificially restrict the gene pool much further than is necessary. This makes it harder for them to breed better dogs. There has been lots of study done on how much people want things, why they want things, how much they are prepared to pay and how much they value them. The 'blue english staffy' has a symbolic value that really appeals to many people. Unfortunately or fortunately, many other breeds don't have the symbolic cache that 'blue english staffies' do. This raises the price that can be obtained for them. There are different factors involved with how long people value the things that they buy. Even very expensive things will often be quickly discarded if they lose their symbolic value and a new trend takes over. That hasn't happened for BES yet. The people that tend to buy BES are not totally ignorant about dogs, they have done some 'research' to find out enough to know there are two types of staffies and that most of them are not blue. I would guess that the dogs are generally very well-loved and would be sold privately instead of being impounded if no longer wanted. That doesn't mean that the dogs don't have more problems that they would have if they had been bred for healthy mind and body and not just bred for colour.

Why would I respect the opinion of somebody that doesn't want dogs in their vicinity? Would you respect my opinion that I don't want people's children near me? I understand that I have to obey the requests of shopping centre management, or risk never being allowed back in K-Mart again, but there is no respect there. I do think dogs should be allowed anywhere except for food preparation areas, and only dogs that are inadequately controlled be asked to leave. My dog won't affect you, and so it is irrational for you to demand I don't have it near you.

Some people are just strange. A dog that I homed once was found wandering out in a rural area. When I contacted the person I sold it to, they got upset and angry and told me that their dog was dead and buried in their backyard. Bizarre story. At any time they could have given the dog back to me. But some people would rather not admit they were wrong about getting a dog and will lie to cover up their own irresponsibility rather than face that.

Of course they are going to argue, I would if I had gone there thinking the dog would be ok. If I couldn't change your mind, at least I would have a chance to voice my displeasure about your anti-dog policy and see if or how you try to justify it. I would also want to find out if it was a management rule, or just you. If dog owners do not politely and assertively question these things, management won't find out how much business they are losing or find out why they are losing it. I can't see why you would expect them to say sorry to you, when you are the one booting them out.

It's only food shops where it is unlawful to take dogs. Every other shop or shopping centre is at the manager's discretion. If you can get away with taking the dog in the shopping centre, why not? I wouldn't leave one tied up unattended though, anywhere.

It depends on the dog. Either it is potentially good enough to breed from, or it should be desexed. Then you find the right home for each dog.

Not naive. Just an ethical stand on providing a home for a dog for life. Life will always present countless opportunities. To take on a long-term commitment like a dog and not consider that it will mean missing out on other things is the naive point of view. It would be very unusual for an Australian to be compelled to leave Australia, it's a decision. Why should I have respect for people that don't honour the commitments they make? A dog is for life.

I don't consider it ethical to rehome a sick dog, and if the owners have chosen to take 'the journey' I would want to know why 'the journey' was necessary. Perhaps there are some cases where it is necessary, maybe to care for an ill relative. But many people choose to go overseas for the economic or cultural gain, not because they have no choice. They are not refugees who are forced to undertake 'the journey'. So you think it would have been better to put my storm phobic greyhound who hates loud windy noises and crates through 24hrs of flying to get her over here? Trust me we considered it as she was our heart dog, but thought we would never forgive ourselves if she hurt herself and just couldn't imagine her being anything other than totally stressed during the whole experience - Let alone then having a month in a cold damp quarantine cell. If we put her through that we would have been doing it for our benefit not hers. I'm sure she was stressed by being rehomed too. I don't understand why you decided to get a dog and then come here (I've no idea how bad it is where you came from), but this thread is more about the people that get a dog in Australia and then choose to leave behind.

Obviously it isn't the same for everyone, or we wouldn't have a topic talking about those people. However to the dog it is all the same. When a dog is abandoned, we (most of us on DOL) care about the trauma that the dog must endure, regardless of who owns it or why they got rid of it. Dogs normally get attached to their owners regardless of their owner's feelings about the dog. We can recognise that many people may be willing to get rid of their pets and go overseas. But they get my derision and not my respect. That is what we all need to remember.