Greytmate

I think that territory can be a resource, just like the food or the possession. A dog can consider a place (and the things that are within it) as its own territory if it is regularly taken there for activity. With dogs that live together or not, I don't think any incident is just about generally being 'the boss', it's about controlling territory or another specific resource and will also depend on whether the dogs are aroused/excited/motivated enough for a challenge at that moment. Dominant dogs can and do challenge other dogs to retain their dominant position when they feel its worthwhile to do so to control a resource, I wouldn't say they are never reactive. But I wouldn't say that every dog that reacts to another dog is being or attempting to be dominant. You wouldn't be able to gently turn the head and avert the gaze of a dog that was overreacting defensively, but you can do it with a self-assured dog that is calmly and stiffly sizing up a likely competitor who is doing the same thing back. In fact, I don't really like using the word dominant to describe a dog, as I believe that dog heirachy is fluid, and a dog can only be dominant in a particular time and circumstance and in relation to the other dogs it is with. If we are trying to describe an individual dog and its inherent traits there are much better words to use than dominant. Better to use words that describe a dog's actions, rather than just a label like that.

Yes.

Use a human anti-fungal wash. I have washed plenty of dogs in Head and Shoulders, it's cheaper than Malaseb.

so true Clyde. Not only that but many groups & carers (even though they are trying) are only providing aspects of quarantine anyway. To provide 100% quarantine is beyond what is practical for most rescues or carers. Eta, i am not for a minute suggesting that quarantine is useless, just that it is difficult to make it foolproof. Providing the correct information to new foster carers about the risks of disease in pound dogs, and giving advice on how to minimise them, is not so difficult.

To give another answer to your question - If the dogs are uncontrolled by people, one dog may decide to avert their gaze. Unless this happens, a fight will ensue.

As long as both dogs are on lead and are apart, all you have to do is put your hand gently on the side of your dog's face, and redirect it to avoid eye contact. You may be able to train your dog to look away with a verbal command too. Distraction is another tool you can use.

I revisited the thread where you asked what to look for in an ethically run rescue group, and you were advised to ask if the dogs were quarantined or whether they were to be picked up by you from the pound. What we (DOL) failed to spell out (in that thread) is why that question is so important. Why we have quarantine or what can be done if it isn't available. Did you ask the rescue? If so, what did they tell you? We have to do more than ask questions of rescue organisations, we have to understand the implications of the answers.

Oh no that is DREADFUL. The reason for quarantine is that there is an incubation period for most diseases. A dog could be checked by a vet at the pound, and come up with 100% good health. But if the dog has already contracted parvovirus, the dog wont get sick for another week or so. Ethical Rescues have process whereby they quarantine all animals of unknown background, for a couple of weeks, so that if a pup does have parvo, it can't be spread to other dogs, and can't infect your property. Now that you have parvo on your property, you will have to follow a special procedure to attempt to disinfect it, so other dogs, vaccinated and unvaccinated do not get sick. How disappointing that a lovely , conscientious new foster carer has to experience this. Words fail me.....

There is at least one greyhound trainer in Palmwoods, and a couple of others on the hinterland.

Do we? (re: bolded part). Do you? Does anyone? Unless you have experienced this exact thing, how could you know? You can project on what may occur if you have the knowledge and understanding of the skeletal system and by this, I would think that the knowledge would have to be detailed to be able to try to project, but no-one knows in all reality what will happen precisely. We do know. In almost the same way that an engineer can calculate that if part of a support structure is removed from a building, it will eventually lead to collapse, people specialised in canine movement can calculate what the effects will be of removing part of a dog's skeleton. I don't have to be an engineer or an expert in canine movement to know what is in store for these dogs. Selling dogs like these is totally incomparable with deciding to keep an epiliptic dog. It is the sale of these dogs that is offensive, not their existance.

That is a point I would like to discuss. The very saddest thing about a person or an animal dying, is the grieving by the living who loved that person or animal. I believe the ones who have died do not suffer in death. Those who grieve do suffer, the more that one surrenders to love that person or animal, the deeper the grief. The time to put an animal to sleep is any time after it is known that suffering will soon be inevitable. We have quite a few experienced vet nurses posting here, and their professional opinion is that these pups will suffer. I know they will suffer, because I have a good basic knowledge of canine physiology and psychology. Experienced breeders that know a lot about dogs know the pups will suffer. But to the average dog owner, they just look like a happy, healthy pups with a bit missing. That doesn't mean that I am demanding that every problem dog be euthaised at birth, or by the rescuer. I believe that breeders and rescuers have the right to keep their dog alive, if they have enough love and hope, and the dog isn't suffering yet. It is their dog after all. If they have made an attachment, and surrendered to love, and the dog isn't in pain yet, who am I to tell them when to kill their own dog? Experienced ethical breeders and rescuers know not to surrender their love to animals like these, because unfortunately many dogs requiring rescue do have physical problems, and birth defects do happen sometimes. They know to euthanise the dog or pup before they fall in love with it. Most have learnt the hard way the consequences surrendering your love to an animal with serious problems. Or they have seen it happen to others. Most importantly, ethical breeders and rescuers do not encourage or allow anyone else to form a deep emotional connection to the animal. They do not advertise the dog. They do not sell the dog. They do not give that dog to somebody else. But we do know that these pups will not be healthy long term. We know that a dog's skeletal system can take a certain amount and type of strain over a set time frame. We know what will happen to the skeletal system of a dog with two missing limbs. We know the system will fail in at least two ways. The only question is whether it will take months or years to fail, and which way it will fail first. We know that dogs instinctively tend to hide expressions of pain. We know that a dog's instincts are triggered strongly, when the dog is excited by something, adrenaline will block out pain. We know that dogs don't have the self-awareness that human disabled people have, to safely adapt their lives to avoid serious injury. You are not. But do you go out looking for special needs dogs to take home? Some people do, and they do it for attention. When you bought your dog, did you go with 'special needs' as part of your criteria? Or did you have other criteria? Most normal people have a list of positive attributes they desire in a dog, not negative ones. I can understand how Anne might see things a little differently when she rehomes a breed where demand outstrips the number of dogs she has to rehome. If somebody has been waiting for a special breed, and there is limited opportunity to own one, that person is more likely to accept a dog with problems. This is very different from a person that passes on a healthy example of the breed or type of dog they they want, in order to purposely take on a problem dog. The bionic vet exists to fill a niche in the market. If your adult dog lost a limb or was injured permanently, wouldn't you want to fix that? Many people would, and I can understand people wanting that. But I do not think prosthetics are suitable at all on a growing pup. A vet may agree to treat the dog, but if you ask them what they advise, you sometimes get a different answer.

Many animal welfare organisations, the ones run ethically, would NEVER rehome a dog like that. It would be illegal in Victoria to do so anyway. Some rescues are ethical, some are not, just the same as some breeders are ethical and some are not. This thread is both a breeder and a rescuer FAIL thread. This thread has had some better arguments put forward than the nauseatingly "Inspirational" thread in General Discussion. Would be good to have some more comments from some of you in there. What disturbs me the most is the expectation some people have that rescuers are supposed to be doing this type of thing, because rescue dogs are expected to have problems. If bleeding hearts stopped rehoming faulty dogs and just rehomed the many healthy, sound dogs that need homes, rescue might have a better reputation as a good place to get a good dog. More dogs would get homes. But this sort of disgusting behaviour gives rescue a really bad name. Promoting dogs to the "pity market" is actually quite a low act in my opinion. It devalues dogs terribly and is pure emotional blackmail. And there are some scary, sick, people out there who revel in the attention that comes with 'rescuing dogs like these.

We had our house treated with Fipronil. Which is Frontline's active ingredient.

Send you some? Send you some? You really meant to say is "Dear Gecko breeder, I have been a gecko lover and owner for many years now, and since my last gecko passed away of old age, I have really missed having a gecko around. I saw your photos and was really impressed by the awesome quality of your fine geckos. I was talking to another gecko lover, and they too commented on how topnotch your geckos are both in conformation and temperament. Could you please let me know if there will be any geckos available as pets from your next litter? I would be honored if you were to consider me suitable to own one. Please let me know if you have any questions for me, as Iunderstand you only want the best for your geckos. Yours, The Fenster."

It means different things in different contexts for me. I don't use it as an official label, but I do use the term. It can be used to describe the dog in control, or the dog trying to maintain control, or the dog trying to take control.

And geckoes love each other. Very much. Get a room geckoes.

Spiders eat baby geckos, but I've never seen a gecko eat a spider.

Will post some tonight when I get home. I have taken a few pics of them lately.

Being compassionate can mean being compassionate towards the people who are wanting to adopt a rescue dog and not emotionally manipulating them or encouraging them to adopt through pity. Being loving can mean recognising when an animal is so faulty that it will not lead a pain-free life, and will be subject to being attached to a prosthetic which could endanger it and which is likely to cause pressure sores. Being loving and compassionate sometimes means being brave or selfless enough not to put a dog like this on the market. Putting one's own personal distress aside so as to not cause long-term distress to other people or animals. Passing on a problem dog to somebody else is always the easy option compared to keeping a problem dog or having it euthanised. Not much that is loving about that.

It's gecko mating season, in a few weeks it will all be over. The house is full of Gecko Love right now.

You seem to have a few assumption about what rescue dogs are and you seem to think that problems in them are inherant or expected. Rather than assuming you are stupid, I will put it down to you not having examined rescue issues in much depth, and knowing little about formal or informal foster assessment. There are many reasons why buying an adult dog that has been assessed is a lot more reliable than buying and raising a puppy, and can result in a much better dog. An adult dog has a fully formed personality and can be much more predicatble than an undeveloped pup that only has a potential for good personality. If rescue publicised the good dogs more, and the faulty dogs less, maybe people like you wouldn't have such a warped perception of what rescue dogs can be. The market for people that want to take on problems is quite small, and there is no reason for rescue to concentrate its activities on this tiny section of the pet buying community. Instead we need to focus on the advantages of buying a rescue dog from a well-run organisation. To prevent such a high number of good dogs having to be wasted.

I don't know what makes you say this, very strange behaviour to think that they are only saving them for attention? I have dealt with hundreds of potential adopters and foster carers, and it was part of my job to examine what their needs and desires were to best match them with the right dog. Most people want a dog because they like dogs and they want to be able to do dog things with their dog. They don't like having problems with dogs. Reading this forum over the last few years gives an extra valuable insight into what makes people happy about dogs, what they expect from them, and what upsets them or makes dog ownership difficult or problematic. But there are odd people out there , many of which come across as very caring, who revel in the attention they can gain by having a dog that is more needy than most. Because it makes them feel needed. That is fine to want to feel needed, but it isn't always a sound reason to get a dog with high needs. Especially if it is more about how a person wants to be perceived, than how they really are. Often the truth of owning a high-needs dog is only really discovered after some time, or it becomes less rewarding over time as the dog matures. This can spell disaster for the dog. This person posting the You Tube video has certainly attarcted a lot of attention here. But how many people reading this thread go into the rescue forum, and read about all of the good people saving dozens of quite ordinary dogs and making a really big difference? Isn't that inspirational? Many people will not consider getting a rescue dog because of a false perception that these dogs are not as good as a dog from a breeder. When in fact a dog from a good rescue is going to be a better bet than a dog from a poor breeder. I would like people to know that they can easily get an excellent dog from a good rescue or a good breeder. Not all dogs do have problems. Even ones from pounds or puppy farms. It is up to people selling dogs to do what they can to ensure the dogs they sell have all their serious problems solved, and not look for people that want to adopt a particular dog purely out of pity. No dog is perfect, but most people are happier with imperfections and individuality instead of deformation and novelty and pain.

It isn't surprising. There are people out there looking for tragic cases that they can feel good about rescuing, and get a lot of attention for rescuing. Once they have achieved that, the dog no longer serves any purpose to them, so they sell it and move on to the next dog. Buying a rescue dog can be a really good way to get a fantastic dog, but the more people that use 'rescue' to fulfil their own need to be seen as an 'angel', rather than to help a number of dogs go to good families, the fewer people will think of rescue as being the place to get a good dog from. This type of rescue encourages the public perception that rescue dogs are second quality, and that simply isn't true of dogs from the well run rehoming organisations. That hurts all rescue organisations, and means that long-term, more dogs will end up being killed instead of rescued. I get enjoyment from knowing that fantastic dogs I have rehomed are out there improving the lives of the families that bought them. I feel sorry for people that have had problems occur with their dogs that make life a little harder. I don't understand a mentality where somebody would want to own a pup with a very serious defect rather than a healthy one. Overall I am glad I helped so many dogs, by allocating resources to achieve the maximum number of good dogs sold and people made happy by them. Pouring a large amount of resources into a dog like this seems a bit small-minded to me.

In a black nosed dog, the brindle can only be black brindle. If it looks brown it is because of the way the brindling is distributed over the coat. To my eyes, a lighter coat has less shine, and I think it is because the darker hairs reflect back more light where as the lighter ones absorb the light. The opposite of what you get with paint. But unlike paint, light or white coats in dogs have reduced or no pigmentation, where as only red or black dogs have full pigmentation. I also think that dark hairs might be thicker than light hairs, and so might be shinier for that reason too. If a dog is unhealthy or has hook worms, the coat can grow unhealthily and the cuticles would not be flat. In some breeds, the coat is supposed to be wiry or rough, and that is purely genetic. The shiniest dogs I have ever seen are ones supplemented with oily fish. I really think that oil is important for coat shine.

Yes well they need to justify their actions somehow, otherwise they could be seen as being heartless What actions? This dog is for sale, and I don't think there is a reasonable justification to sell a dog like that.