Greytmate

The council helped me with the addresses of properties that I needed to send the letter to. I did not need to talk to the people, just put a photocopied form in their mail box. I was told by council staff that the reason this was done was so that nobody could object later once the permit was granted. They only had a limited time to put their concerns in writing and send it off. The concerns had to be valid and reasonable, and not based on a dislike of dogs or an assumption that the dogs would not be kept according to the permit rules. You have a clean history (hopefully) as a dog owner who has not allowed their three or four dogs to negatively impact your BCC neighbours in the past, and so there can be no reasonable grounds for objection based on your dog's current behaviour. Good luck. I went in with the assumption that most people are too lazy or illiterate to object in writing to something like that, even if they aren't keen on the idea. We had no objections, and had to notify around 20 neighbours.

I have been looking at your drawings lately, and I think you have a talent for it. The shading is excellent, and your attention to detail and getting them right is great. The teeth, the lips, the inner ears and the way you bring those pics to life by giving them a 3d quality shows a real aptitude, and you should be really proud of your growing portfolio. I use a selection of very cheap 4B and 6B graphite pencils for my drawings. Nothing special. What helps me to draw is to not just look at what I am drawing, but the negative space around the object. And I am constantly checking large bits against small bits, negative against positive, to get the whole proportion right. I don't draw objects, I draw objects within their spaces. I think if you could learn this technique (either online or a very short TAFE course) it would bring your lovely pictures into the right proportions. Instead of drawing people for my uni homework, I tend to draw the greyhounds, as I am usually home by myself here. I think greyhound make excellent Life models, and are cheaper and do as good a job as human life models.

We have a permit. We waited until we moved in, and we were told we should have applied before we moved in. I think it meant we needed to have an interim permit until the special permit was issued. Anyway, we got our permit. If your land is over 2000m square, you don't need a permit for up to 4 dogs. Ours was just under this. We had to photocopy their letter, and put it in all letterboxes of properties up to 100metres away. This covered quite a large area. In with our immediate neighbours letters we included a more personal introductory letter inviting people to discuss any concerns with us before objecting. This was not compulsory, but we felt it would make the neighbours happier about having four large dogs live near them. Every year we get an inspection, and there is an annual fee. We have high mesh fences, and we keep the yard clean. We are supposed to have kennels built in a certain way to contain the dogs, but because our dogs are clearly house dogs, that is not enforced. The permit will automatically lapse if your registered dog numbers go to below three, and so you need to be aware of this (and do something) if you want to keep the permit after one dog dies.

That sounds like a really bad place to live. Here is one of the comments on the article.

This topic is so heartbreaking, I am really sorry it has happened. There is no infallible way to ensure the pets that we have will always get along with each other, lots of things we can try, efforts we can make, but there are some instincts in some dogs that cannot always be controlled and they can affect behaviour when there are circumstances we cannot control. The power that large dogs have mean that consequences can be harsh. I give you my sympathy, I really feel for you and your family that this has happened to you.

In my experience, desexing helps a lot when bringing an older male dog inside the house to live for the first time. The inclination to mark is lowered, so training works very quickly to lessen the habit. If the dog does still have a few accidents (forgetful moments), at least it won't be as stinky and sticky. The fastest way to achieve a good result is to never leave the dog unattended in the house for even a second, because that is all it takes. A crate and other tools might be needed. As soon as you see the dog have a sniff and take up the 'position' throw in a negative. Depending on the dog it could be something as simple as a foot stamp, a hand clap or a verbal command. If it doesn't work, move to knock the dog off-balance, along with a negative verbal command. Then give the dog something else to do and praise it for giving you its attention. This method has worked for me on almost 100% of adult male greyhounds on being desexed and brought into a house. On the one or two dog where the habit remained it was lessened very considerably. The danger time is when the dog comes across new dog smells. You could try that training without the desexing if you want to see how that works, but I have noticed it is the desexing itself that makes the biggest difference, it works within a week or so.

Is this a dog you are keeping as your own or are you fostering it and it will be sold to another family? This information is crucial in making a decision.

Kittens are defined as being less than 12 weeks. Puppies less than 16 weeks. See definitions at beginning of document. The hardest thing about that is having an accurate scale that picks up 7-10g/day weight gains for kittens. Yes. Besides that, at any age, a pup or kitten too lightweight to be desexed would need their weight monitored closely. I think that weighing foster animals (of any age) regularly is a good way to monitor their progress while in care.

It often goes hand in hand. Desexing removes or reduces sex drive. Reduction of drive can make training much easier or faster because the drive to display certain behaviours is no longer as strong in the dog. Dog likely to end up better behaved/easier to manage for Mr Average dog owner. Why would they have that expectation? Nobody here is saying not to train the dog, and nothing is guaranteed to eliminate problem behaviour. To stop training is not my argument at all. They should go in with the expectation that desexing is likely to reduce some problematic behaviours and avoid others, and that they will also have to train their dog to get the behaviour they do want from it. The studies back this up, It is only your illogical interpretation of them doesn't. I do believe it. But given that this owner is having trouble handling his dog, he might not value the pep as much as you do, hence the suggestion to desex it.

I have posted studies that suggest that you might need to rethink that. I don't think what you are saying is accurate or helpful. Desexing alone is not being suggested, desexing in conjunction with training is what has been suggested to help this man with his dog. Maybe you could find some studies that back up your opinion, instead of arguing with me, accusing people of bullshit and dogma, and then claiming to be having a different argument. Nobody has put forward the view that all males are hard to handle. But this dog is. All of the reasons I have given to have it desexed are valid, and I have given some evidence to back it up. Hopefully RF will use that to convince the person to desex this dog.

They don't have to be shrinking violets or desexed to not bother anyone, just effectively socialised, trained and managed. Greytmate, in at least 2 of those studies it looks like behavioural problems were identified before desexing, it is interesting to see how those behaviours were affected or not by desexing, but it doesn't really convince me that desexing is the default option of choice when no behavioural problems are present in an entire dog. As many have said in this thread, desexing may make a difficult dog more manageable in some respects. And not in others. The females who became aggressive only after desexing are interesting too - I had heard of that anecdotally but not seen it reported like that before. Yes, just like the dog that this topic is about. It used to be common sense to desex male pet dogs that are not required for breeding. I never said it was not possible to keep a dog entire without problems. The more people give me a hard time about this topic, the more vocal I tend to get. Desex your pets.

I have a good understanding of the benefits that desexing can bring to dogs, and the undesirable behaviours that testosterone can encourage. If you really think that you have a greater understanding than I do of the changes in behaviour of adult dogs after desexing you are going to have to do a lot better than 'dogma' and 'bullshit' to make that clear. Testosterone and its effects are not bullshit. Nobody is saying that removing or reducing a dog's sex drive is a cure all. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand that if a drive is not there, a dog can not act upon it. That means that there will be a positive behavioural change in many dogs once they have been desexed. Whether you think that's bullshit or not. Now if you think its just bullshit, you go find where all these studies can be proven wrong.

I am not campaigning for that. I don't have to offer that understanding in this topic. If people are against desexing, they should not expect me to express my understandinmg here in a thread called Reasons to Desex a Male dog. This topic about this man and this dog. There are good reasons why some dogs should be desexed. I have given them and this dog is one of them. Maybe some of you should start your own topic where you can all be mightily impressed by both your dog's balls and your superior handling ability.

It may well be. Rightly or wrongly, its owner doesn't want to desex it. Suggesting that desexing it will make it any easier to handle was what triggered the dissenting views in the first place. Desexing alone won't make it any smaller, any less strong or any less likely to pull. As I said in my first post, desexing is not a substitute for training and shouldn't be sold as such. Those arguing for desexing (and I am often one of them) need to come up with legitimate arguments or hold their tongues. They also need to be well informed about what desexing will and won't mean for an individual animal. A friend of mine got the third degree from a vet nurse not long ago. "your dog is old enough now to be desexed" she was told. "Yes" she said "but I'm showing this dog". "oh that doesn't matter, you can still do that when he's desexed". Ah, no.. or not for a title anyway. It's not "selfish" to keep a dog entire if you can responsibly manage its behaviour and prevent it from siring unplanned litters. Plenty of people manage to do just that and plenty of folk have legitimate reasons for delaying or not having a dog desexed at all. I can't see what the problem is with that view. Desexing alone does remove drive that can cause a dog to act undesirably. Desexed dogs have one less drive working in conflict with desirable behaviour. Testosterone is well known as being something that can affect mood and behaviour. Removing testicles removes the main source of testosterone. Does anyone here really think that testosterone is not something that can affect mood or behaviour? Do people think it's a good to have a particular drive in a dog that they have no intention of allowing to be satisfied? That is a good argument for desexing, and I won't be holding my tongue any time soon. No matter how many people use topics like this to grandstand about their own abilities as owners and to imply that those that desex are deficient in some way. Desexing is one sure way to prevent accidental litters, and nobody has been able to come up with a compelling reason to keep a pet dog entire. Desexing isn't being sold as a substitute for training, there are valid reasons to desex a dog regardless of training.

There are plenty of breeders that are not able to prevent their dogs having accidental litters. You don't need to prove knowledge or responsibility to register as a breeder. I don't see how that point is an argument for or against desexing. This is a person that is having trouble handling their dog. That person, that dog. It isn't an old argument for that person. The arguments are getting old. And yet there seems to be very little research showing that desexing has any disadvantages at all for dogs that are pets. Why aren't there any new arguments? Until some compelling or relevant arguments are put forward, other than to scoff at people that do have trouble or have had trouble with the hormone fuelled behaviour of entire animals, I'm going to keep on the desexing bandwagon. No matter how old it gets. This dog is an ideal candidate for desexing. It won't do any harm, and will probably help a lot. The topic wasn't started to ask what people here do with their own dogs, it was about the advantages of desexing. An argument in favour of desexing is not an open invitation for people like you to make negative comments about our handling skills. That is what is getting really old around here.

Most wedding receptions are stupid displays of extravagance. But each to their own, I object to animal cruelty and things like that, I can't see the point in getting upset about or objecting to another person's joyful celebration.

If she had NOT adopted that puppy, she probably would have adopted a different dog, as that was her intention. Maybe that puppy isn't dead but maybe another ones is. Maybe she needs to buy the type of dog she was originally going to buy, and keep this one as well, before we know for sure that one more puppy won't be dead.

Only if the resident dogs were not vaccinated and wormed regularily. That will reduce the risk of problems, but... Vaccination sometimes doesn't work. And worming isn't a preventative. An environment that people have carefully kept worm-free for years can be contaminated quickly by a dog coming in from a dirty property with hookworm. More frequent worming may now be necessary. It is disappointing when people obtain pups like these and encourage the problem of overbreeding and careless breeding to continue. I hope that pup's parents had ok temperaments, and that lack of worming hasn't caused irreversible physical or neurological problems in that pup. A dog is a very long term commitment, so good luck All4addy. You are going to need good luck.

You really are in the minority if you believe that pups should be kept for six months before being rehomed. Not only is it better that a pup should go to its home at 8-12 weeks of age, but the chances are if they don't get a home by that age, they maybe never will. If somebody wants to buy a pup, they will go to whoever is selling puppies. If you withhold them from the market, the older they get the harder they are to find homes for. I don't know any breeders that think that it is in the dog's best interest to keep it and rehome it at six months. Whether a dog comes back or not has more to do with whether the owner can manage the dog, not what age they bought the pup at. It is a pretty big call to suggest that only rescuers (or breeders?) can be trusted to raise pups, and not the pup's owners. Fostering baby puppies is nothing at all like fostering adult dogs. Adult dogs get easier to manage as time goes on, baby puppies get a lot harder before they become easier again. There are people that only want to foster pups, but refuse to take on adult dogs. The priority should be to get a pup homed at 8-12 weeks, and not just to put it into foster care. You need to read the document and be clear about where they are talking about juvenile foster, and where they are talking behavioural foster care. If you don't know the difference between the objectives for each type of care, you are not going to be able to make sense of the document.

It's a good example. It highlights that the behaviour a dog may show can be a reaction to a certain 'thing', and that reaction can depend more on the dog's inherent temperament than it does on what the 'thing' is.

I should have made it clear that I am not a breeder. But if I was, I would do basically the same with greyhound pups as with any other pup. Allow it gentle and positive exposure to all the scenarios it might encounter in the future. A lot of things, too numerous to mention here, but basically the same as any breed, working or pet. I think there are differences in the way that different breeds will act as baby puppies. Mostly noticeable when you see them playing with toys and each other in different ways. Greyhounds often like to play snatch and grab games, other types of pups are more into chewing, stalking, herding or wrestling games. You can give them the toys, but the way each puppy will play is individual and instinctive. You can't teach a baby greyhound to act like a baby kelpie.

Ok, take a step back. When breeding puppies the first consideration is what I need to do with these pups to produce dogs with excellent temperament. All you can do with raising them is to socialise or neutralise them to their environment, and to start a bit of training. You don't do anything after they are born which will make a huge difference to their temperament at all, unless you really under or overstimulate the puppy, neglect it, or give it negative reactions to things that should have positive associations. Good temperament is a combination of the appropriate level of different drives, a sound solid nerve, and how extroverted or introverted the individual dog is. Out of these three things it is only the third that can be really enhanced by environment, the first two are determined when you do the mating. They are qualities most like to be found within lines of dogs within breeds. What is Good Temperament? It depends on what you want the dog to do. It's the reason we have different breeds. Breed with temperament in mind and understand what good temperament is in your breed. Then socialise or neutralise the pups, and raise them according to the normal good advice given here for the critical socialisation phase of 5-16 weeks. It needs to be done in that order, because you cannot really remove basic genetic temperament faults caused by careless breeding, you can only manage them or accept them.

A dog that is considered not suitable for desexing could still be provided the socialisation needed (outisde the home) without placing their health at any risk. In my opinion, locking away a puppy during its critical socialisation period (for human socialisation) has greater long-term risks for the animal and will only decrease the chances it will pass temperament assessment and be suitable for rehoming. In regards to puppies, I'm of the opinion they're far better off developing in a foster environment with proper socialisation and training in place than being rehomed as adorable 8 week old puppies to the average home where they (so often) end up with issues that become increasingly difficult to manage (before the issues finally become too much to handle and the dog is dumped as a young adult- ending right back in rescue's lap). Personally, I wouldn't rehome a dog until it was 6 months of age. I understand that in larger rescue it's not always possible to keep dogs that long but the longer, the better. Rescue shouldn't be just about rehoming as many dogs as quickly as possible but ensuring dogs that are rehomed stay rehomed. Edited for typo So present the evidence you have for this, because obviously the advice given to write this law (possibly from the AVA) conflicts with what you say. I see good and bad points with bringing baby puppies out in public. I am against foster carers purposefully withholding pups from sale until they are six months old. Dogs are ideally rehomed between 8 and 12 weeks of age. Rehoming them at older ages is mentally tougher on the dogs, and unnecessary, given that baby pups are much easier to sell than older pups. There are plenty of 'serial dog owners' masquerading as foster carers of pups. In what other situation could you repeatedly get free baby puppies, and then be able to pass them on, without looking like an irresponsible dog owner? Get them while they are cute and little, allow them to bond with you over a few months, then when they lose their baby looks and start to get harder to handle, sell them? The vast majority of dog owners want to buy baby pups, not older pups. Regardless of whether you think they can be trusted to raise them or not.

I've read it very thoroughly and I still disagree. Their definition of a juvenile (as far as I could find) was simply "puppy". At the very least, this needs to be elaborated on. Even assuming they mean fairly young puppies, I still don't think it's appropriate. Providing the dog has been vaccinated, I don't think there's much benefit to the dog in keeping it locked in someone's backyard for weeks, if not months. I'm not suggesting that foster carers should be encouraged to toss the puppy in a dog park but there's benefit to be had from positive experiences of the outside world. Puppies go through several important development stages before six months of age and to miss out on important socialisation periods when there are a variety of safe ways to make the most of them just doesn't make any sense to me. There are different categories. They have been elaborated on. Juvenile (babies too young to be desexed and rehomed), Behavioural (needs some training before rehoming) and Veterinary (needs treatment for illness or injury before rehoming) You need to reread the entire document, understand exactly what the three terms mean, and then read and understand the obligations and restrictions applying to each. Don't mix them up. If a pup is too young, small and lightweight to be desexed, there are problems associated with taking it out in public. The laws are designed so that dogs cannot just be out in foster homes doing nothing, getting older and less rehomable by the day. Thought will have to be put in to what the goals is for each dog in care, and how to achieve them within a short time. Dogs can't just be left in care for months on end without professional guidance and a professional approach on how to solve any problems. These laws will solve a lot of problems that rescue currently has.

I wish I had come into this thread earlier. I have had dozens of adult male dogs desexed (and assessed their behaviour), and before that I was an instructor who sometimes advised handlers to desex their make dogs. Desexing takes away the strong motivation for a dog to display sexual behaviour or to challenge some other dogs due to sexual competition. Some dogs may still have behavioural habits afterwards, but these are usually very easily trained out of the dog. The urine of a desexed dog does not have the strong odour of the urine of an entire dog. A desexed dog loses the urge to mark as often and even as an adult will tend to lose that habit. An entire dog is more likely to want to escape. The hormones do give dogs strong urges. An entire dog is more of a target for other dogs challenging. This person, an older man, struggling a little to control his dog, who may not have thought about the benefits of desexing before, is exactly the type of person I would be encouraging to desex. Have done before, will do again. It's nice when they come and thank you later for helping them calm down their naughty dog - through training advice and desexing advice. Why do they geld stallions? Same reason they desex dogs. Except that dogs are not going to kill somebody when they want some sexy-time.