Greytmate

Really? Well, I must know a lot of the "not many". Chase, quite likely, but kill, not so much. My boys haven't grown up with cats. They will chase, but don't even try to grab. Chase quite likely. Yes. That is what "going after" is. Not a very difficult concept to understand fro most people. Growing up with cats usually teaches a dog to treat those cats like family members. Being kept in an environment where unknown cats are running through can actually heighten a dog's prey drive, and can encourage them to chase. This is a likely outcome for any dog. Your dogs haven't grabbed a cat yet Corvus, but that doesn't mean they won't if they were continually exposed to feral cats intruding into their territory. The behaviour can escalate as the dog finds the chase rewarding. It can also turn deadly very quickly if one day a cat chooses fight instead of flight. I wouldn't have thought an Aussie Shepherd would start off as a serious cat chaser. But the environment has turned it into one, and could turn nearly any dog into a serious cat chaser. That is why I recommend that the OP does not buy another dog. Maybe people should read the thread about solving the dumping issue, instead of encouraging people to bring dogs home into environments where a dog is likely to learn bad habits. This is an owner who we know will not tolerate the habit, or make any changes to put an end to it.

Tend to agree with not getting more dogs if you are still having feral cat problems. Many dogs live with pet cats with no problems, but not many dogs wouldn't go after a feral kitten if they saw one in their yard. You could get a new dog and have the same problem happen again in a few months time. I can understand being upset about the dead cat, but it isn't the dog's fault it is living in an environment that is heightening its prey or defence drive by the random animals coming on to your property. Some people make a choice between keeping dogs and certain wildlife safe on their property, because the two cannot coexist in harmony. In your case you may have to choose between keeping dogs or providing a sanctuary for ferals. Get a dog when you live in an environment that doesn't have feral or stray cats, if it is important to you that your dog gets along well with cats. :D

That would be lovely, but I doubt it would affect dumpage rate. There are plenty of cities around the world with a low dumpage rate where there is very little open space. I think it encourages the myth that all dogs need open space to be happy. They don't all need it, many dogs can be exercised on lead, they can be mentally stimulated and trained in a small area. Besides that, many people are happy to drive their dog to a park the same as they are happy to drive to the shop to get a bottle of milk. It isn't a big disincentive. I would rather the council put more money into educating people on right choice of dog for various lifestyles than purchase more space as a strategy against dumping.

Recently I have seen some retirement places advertising that they allow people to bring pets because PETS ARE IMPORTANT. Nearly fell off my chair.

People dump dogs that don't meet expectations. There will always have a high dumpage rate until we improve the way that dogs are placed in homes, and that goes back to the way dogs are marketed and sold, and the back-up service and advice offered. Euthanasia rates are a completely different thing, and are being reduced by different shelters in different ways. AWL QLD has a Zero rate at times, whatever that means. Has nothing much to do with dumpage though. Then there is the euthanasia rate of sub-standard dogs. The ones that are left out of all statistics, because they truly are unwanted by anyone at all. Improving the way that people breed and raise dogs is the only way of reducing numbers in this category.

Well bred dogs are undervalued for a start. The high prices achieved for substandard dogs shows what people are prepared to pay if they think they are getting what they need in a dog. Pet shops do promote themselves with their retail presence. Some puppy farms promote themselves through an online presence. But promotion is only a part of their marketing strategy. Promotion alone isn't enough. Purebreeds need a marketing campaign too. One of the problem is that there is such a blur between puppy farmers, backyard breeders, cross breeders and registered breeders, with many unethical registered breeders and also many unregistered breeders who are attempting but failing to be ethical through lack of education. You cannot market "purebreed dogs" as a preferable 'brand', when there is no quality control. You can market "MDBA" as a preferable 'brand', because there is quality control. (Well you could, if MDBA wasn't such a lame name) There has to be an incentive to do this, and I believe it is possible to put an incentive in place. None of the pet shops or puppy farms are running very sophisticated marketing campaigns, it wouldn't be hard to do a better one for a better quality product. Forget trying to legislate on the basis of ethics. That will never succeed, because you cannot restrain people's right to trade. But there is sound science behind why an ethical breeder's practices work, and why pet shops and most puppy farms don't work, and that can be used to push for change.

Hi Lucy's Mama - (this is going to get confusing now). Lucy is my dog - she's a yellow Lab. The motel I was recommending is just past Ipswich - called the Country Pet Motel. The Zammits (owners) also breed labradors. Abbey (owned by the Zammits) is my Lucy's mother. Whew - that was confusing. Hope you are having a better day They do breed labs, but are they CCCQ registered breeders?

If it is a dog's character to rush at fences and bark at strangers, then there needs to be a way to enforce a good minimum standard of fencing for dogs of that character. This law provides an opportunity for that. An alternative might be to put your dog's enclosure or yard away from a public boundary, so that people are not scared that the dog will break over under or through the fence at them, and nobody will report the dog. Not all dogs scare people with their behaviour Lo Pan, and I see nothing wrong with menacing dogs being declared menacing. The dog couldn't care less. This law is a good one, as it enables potentially dangerous dogs to be kept behind a good standard of fencing before they cause harm. There is no reason why every single dog should have to be behind a extra secure fence, but there are very good reasons why some of them should be, and now council can force their owners to provide decent fences.

LOL. Just keep testing it on the dogs. I wonder if it is safe to leave on unattended?

That is right. If people bred for colour as a priority, the dogs would quickly lose ability as the gene pool would be restricted.

Ruger, this site is about whippets, but the information on the D locus is the same as it is in SBT. Colour Genetics

That is right in a way. The problems start when people start breeding specifically for a dilute colour like blue. Litters are not identical, each pup has it's own combination of inherited genes. Not every pup from every litter will be worth breeding from, regardless of the pup's pedigree or colour. The chance of a blue dog unexpectedly in a line not known to carry the colour is low. The likelihood that this pup will be of really excellent quality is even lower. But people who breed exclusively blue staffords will use dogs that are not of good quality, just to produce the colour. Once the 'rare' colour gains popularity, and people breed for colour as a priority, other important traits can be lost. In animals and breeds where colour is never important, you do not see a deterioration or change in type in certain colours. It only happens in animals where a colour is more important to people than the breed.

That is the professional approach. Dog breeders provide much better product and back-up service than pet shops can. The difficulty is marketing that, when welfare constraints mean that good breeders don't shove their pups in glass retail display cabinets to be bought on impulse. Dog breeders are good at breeding dogs, but generally hopeless at promoting them, and many are not able to keep up with demand anyway, so there seems little point to promotion. As a result there are pet shops everywhere. It would be easier for breeders to keep up with demand if there were fewer restrictions placed on them. We need to make sure any restrictions are about welfare and not all about limiting numbers. And purebreed dogs do need a proper marketing campaign so that people are aware of their benefits.

Corvus, maybe the tests should be done on the breeding animals, instead of the baby puppies. This would give us less accurate information, but if recorded on pedigrees would build up a good picture over time. In a way, showing a dog, or trialling it, or working it, is a kind of stress test. Those activities will at least rule out some of the extremely nervy dogs that should not be bred from.

Interesting, and not surprising.

I would expect different membership prices depending on the level offered. Maybe a basic membership that included access to various off-lead areas, some equipment and toys, and a voucher for 4 DIY hydrobaths, with towels, brushes and shampoos provided. I would pay up to $180 for this, for a single membership, if it was in a convenient location. I would pay more for a dual membership. I think the membership should be for the people not the dogs, so people can take any dog there, but people should be limited to handling only one dog at a time. That way it doesn't get too expensive for those people with multiple dogs. It would be good to have a fenced area where anti-social dogs could be allocated times to be exercised off-lead on their own. I would pay $5.00 to swim my dog for a casual 15 minute session, or if the place was close by I would pay up to $150 annually for unlimited pool sessions. If you want to provide a really good level of obedience or agility instruction, you will have to take into account what level of service you are willing to provide. Just charging a flat membership fee might mean that some people will dominate your time and other customers will have to subsidise that. There are so many different packages you could offer, so it depends on what combination of services would appeal to people in the area. You could do a package for puppies that includes basic puppy school and grooming training as well as basic membership. You could do membership packages for people needing to increase their dog's fitness, or for those that need rehabilitation. You could offer luxury day-spa packages as well. It depends on the market in your area.

Saying that it was found dead on the median strip is a little different than saying "My dog killed it". The gratefulness might be tempered somewhat by ill-feeling towards the predator. I totally agree with you that it depends on the neighbours and the circumstance. CW EW, you might want to make a big deal of your brave attempts to save the rat and administer CPR.

Old guy, long hair, 3 day growth, sandals. Well dressed woman, couple of gold rings, nice makeup. Would either of those two examples give you a different impression? (there is a point to my question - I'll get to it in a bit) even though i think i know where you are going with this i will answer honestly. the guy would make me more suspicious Especially if it looked like he was using a cute fluffy puppy to attract the children. That would be even more suspicious.

That is some quality googling AmandaJ. Thanks :D

Yes I found it. :D :D

Can you give us a reference for this information? Google isn't a recognised authority on Australian law.

As the hostile attitude towards photographers increases, the zoom lenses just get longer. You are far less likely to know if you are being photographed today than ever before.

I can recommend Dogmovers too.

I do it all the time. You'll have to shoot me, Jaxx. ;) no shooting (pun intended) by me i think there are so many people where publishing their photo could cause them serious problems that the risk is too high. do i like this situation, not at all and i don't know what the solution is. if the photo was not to be published and for private use i would have no issue unless it was a child and that is only because of the creeps around What serious problems can it cause to so many people, and how do you know the photo caused the problem? I just can't see how the risk would outweigh the benefits.

If they have a question, they can ask it politely, and will probably get a polite answer. If they want to give "questioning looks", there is no obligation to acknowledge that. What is a "questioning look" anyway? I think that overall, we lose out if photographers are restricted from recording what they see in public. Obviously children are entitled to protection if they need it, but adults should be able to cope with a photo being taken of them if they are in a public place.