Greytmate

She looks great. Like Poodlefan said, you wouldn't be able to tell whether she was ideal weight or slightly underweight unless you felt her ribs. She certainly looks healthy, so if she is slightly under ideal weight, it doesn't seem to be doing her any harm. Keeping a dog at the 'right weight' may mean you have to her adjust diet seasonally, and again depending on what activities you are doing with her. Given that you have only had the dog a few months, maybe start a weight chart and feel her ribs regularly and keep note of how much exercise she has done. If you want your dog to be PERFECTLY at the right weight, that is the sort of thing you would do, along with weighing ingredients and things. BUT, who says your dog has to be PERFECT weight? Much better that she is about right, and a bit skinnier after summer holidays running around the beach with the kids and a bit less skinny after a lazy winter staying inside. The main thing is that your dog is not one of those poor bloody slab-sided things that could easily have its back used as a coffee table. A poor dog that is slow to get up because it hurts so much. With an owner so used to seeing dogs like that, that they are ignorant as to what a healthy dog looks or acts like. That is what is important Deelee.

I think it would be good to be able to walk around the streets and not have vicious dogs nearly jumping over fences trying to get you. If people kept their dogs away from the street and stopped them being so vicious, we wouldn't need this new law. I would be happy if we had that law here. In every property I have ever lived in I keep my dogs fenced well back from the street, and have had no problems putting extra fences in, even in rental properties. To keep my dogs safe, as much as out of consideration to people walking past. But when I try to walk my dogs around the streets, I am confronted by angry, vicious, insecure dogs that think they have to defend the whole street, and I worry that some of them will break through or get over fences to attack my dogs. They bark really loudly, and then we hear people screaming at the dogs to be quiet. What is wrong with being required to keep a dog in a backyard? Why would you need or want your dog out the front of your house?

What tragic loss to the dog world. My sympathies to Peter.

Gold Coast Council are very progressive in animal management. Good to see them taking AWL's and other expert advice to try to work out a solution.

Anvet Kedron 3359 1812. Dr Susan Dawson is wonderful and many people here love her. You go see her.

At a time where we are trying so hard to let people know of all the advantages of getting a dog from rescue... We get some dodgy person investigating ways that they can get unwell, undesexed dogs into home of people that apply to adopt a rescue dog. And then they think they have the right to hassle the person by phone for the next few months, in the hope that somehow (over the phone) they will be able to tell whether the dog is coming into season or not. Yeah that really makes people want to get a dog from rescue, doesn't everyone want an unwell dog?

You said this Muggles. That is what I was responding to Muggles. It is as clear as day that you think it is acceptable to rehome an undesexed dog that is too unhealthy to be desexed. That is as dodgy as a used car salesman selling a car with a known and dangerous fault, and promising to 'fix it up later if it needs it'. Unfortunately people do get sucked in by it though, as they feel sorry for the dog. I am not surprise the rescue group has excluded you, and if you are feeling excluded here on DOL, perhaps it is your own attitude that is the problem. I would never lower my standards, so it is up to you if you think you can raise yours. Don't start topics for discussion unless you are prepared for people to disagree. If you are feeling personally attacked, then stop trying to justify dodgy practices that are actually illegal in some parts of Australia.

It is wrong to rehome a dog that is so unhealthy it cannot be desexed. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the dog and the reputation of rescue. Steve had a really good point. For somebody that says they are concerned about losing dogs under GA I am really surprised at your stance. It seems selfish. It seems that as long as you personally don't lose any dogs under GA, then that is ok for you. But its ok for a brand new adoptor to take home a sick dog, and have the new pet they have just bought and bonded with die under GA a couple of weeks later. It is up to rescue to step up to the challenge and bring the dogs up to an adoptable state before placing them with a family. To avoid the possibility of a really horrible situation, I wouldn't like to even offer a dog to somebody until after it was healthy and desexed. Muggles, maybe it is you cutting corners in wanting to see dogs go out undesexed. You may have been lucky so far, but any group rehoming hundreds of dogs knows that there will be a fair proportion of new owners that will not keep in contact once they have their dog, even though they agreed to stay in contact when they adopted the dog. I would ask why you would adopt out an unhealthy, undesexed dog rather than spend more time working with it until it is healthy and desexed? you have not understand my point at all. i think you need to read it again, maybe a bit slower and with your glasses on? she is not, not being desexed because she is too unwell. its because the vet said they think she is already done and they weren't keen on opening her up and either was I. I did not want this dog (or any dog for that matter) opened up unnecessarily. How is that me wanting to cut corners? I would have happily kept her for as long as it took. I have never rushed a rescue. If i had been given the option for her to have an ultrasound i would have jumped at the chance, but i was told that it wasn't an option. are you a foster carer? why are you attacking me? calling me selfish??? I have never said i think dogs should be rehomed undesexed, but in this case i wanted another option. AGAIN I REPEAT I DO NOT LIKE DOGS OPERATED ON IF ITS NOT NECESSARY. THATS ALL IM SAYING. No need to be so rude. I was merely answering your question. Please read in your question (quoted above) where YOU talk about rehoming a dog with health issues. We all get that you do not want the dog operated on needlessly, nobody wants that. But there are many worse things that could happen than that, and you seem to be completely ignoring all of them. I have been fostering for over ten years and running a large rehoming organisation for over five years. I am not attacking you, but your question did deserve a response. I am sorry you are disappointed that people have a different opinion than you, but some of us have invested a lot of time and effort into this sort of thing and understand the potential risks. It is normal that every rescue dog undergoes at least one GA. Only a very few get to escape that. If you are unable to accept a risk that a dog in your care might die under GA, why would you want to potentially put a new adopter in that same position? That's the part I find selfish.

I have seen some of the worst cases of obesity justified to me because the person actually believes that a vet said their dog was at the right weight. Everything you say is countered by "I will trust my vet's advice thanks." You just can't win sometimes.

Last weekend we were at a relatives house and their poor young golden was so obese. She just lay around, or walked very slowly, and took a very long time to get up or lie down. Her head looked way out of proportion and her body was just a huge slab of lard. I estimate she was over 50kgs, and should have weighed around 30kg or possibly less. The owner expressed concern that the dog was being fed too many leftovers by the visitors (she was going around begging). But then explained that she was concerned only for the fact that if the dog had a late dinner it would 'get the runs' during the night, and she didn't want to have to hose out the back room. An hour later I saw her giving the dog a huge plate of leftover meat and bread, enough nutrition for several days. Not sure how I am supposed to tell them that their dog is in a bad way, and its joints will be destroyed by the time it reaches middle age. I think they would take offence.

White Rose Boarding Kennel at Walloon. The best care.

There is one more issue to consider. Any bitch kept by a rescue for only a couple of weeks and rehomed undesexed may be pregnant. No adoptive family should have have to whelp and raise pups from a rescue bitch. And it happens. All it does is deter others from adopting - word travels. There is another issue too. I wouldn't put an unwell dog through a behaviour assessment. For the test to be fair, the dog should be healthy.

It is wrong to rehome a dog that is so unhealthy it cannot be desexed. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the dog and the reputation of rescue. Steve had a really good point. For somebody that says they are concerned about losing dogs under GA I am really surprised at your stance. It seems selfish. It seems that as long as you personally don't lose any dogs under GA, then that is ok for you. But its ok for a brand new adoptor to take home a sick dog, and have the new pet they have just bought and bonded with die under GA a couple of weeks later. It is up to rescue to step up to the challenge and bring the dogs up to an adoptable state before placing them with a family. To avoid the possibility of a really horrible situation, I wouldn't like to even offer a dog to somebody until after it was healthy and desexed. Muggles, maybe it is you cutting corners in wanting to see dogs go out undesexed. You may have been lucky so far, but any group rehoming hundreds of dogs knows that there will be a fair proportion of new owners that will not keep in contact once they have their dog, even though they agreed to stay in contact when they adopted the dog. I would ask why you would adopt out an unhealthy, undesexed dog rather than spend more time working with it until it is healthy and desexed?

Once a dog is adopted its ownership changes. You have to do what you have to do before you sell it. It's not about forgetting. It's about following a process. i've only been involved in rescue for a few years. obviously i haven't had time to harden up yet. It isn't about being hard. The consequences of getting it wrong are so much harder to take. It's about trying to avoid terrible things happenning. How long is a piece of string? What if they don't want to be contacted? You cannot know the mindset of every person that adopts a dog. I would agree with this, except I would use surgery as a second-last resort. The dog cannot be adopted out undesexed, its status has to be established. Ultrasound is the thing to do. Muggles. Don't be so quick to write off the group. It is unethical not to have a strict desexing rule, and it is ethical to be following a process when working within an organisation. Even if that process requires some improvement. Of course they are under-resourced and do not have enough carers. So I suggest that you might offer to take the dog right now for however long it takes to find out. And you could search around for a vet who can do ultrasounds cheap for rescue. And you could talk to the rescue group about the advantages of using ultrasound instead of exploratory surgery so that they can do this in future, and probably save money and time as well as being better for the dog and for the new adoptor. Just think of how many ways you, just one person, can help overcome this problem you speak of.

I think I know who it is. Will PM you some information.

I think you should look at the mini poodle rather than the standard. In my opinion the minis tend towards 'cheeky' and the standards tend towards being a little 'stubborn'. But it might just be that naughty behaviour in little dogs is easier to deal with than naughty behaviour in big strong dogs.

Given that the brown, liver or red skin-pigmented dogs are discouraged within some breeds, and given that the dilute which would give you pale eyes as well as a paler nose, is also less deirable in some breeds, you could probably say that a dog with a nose of that colour is possibly less likely to be well bred than the dogs of those breeds with black noses, and therefore may be slightly more likely to have undesirable temperament characteristics as well as physical ones. But that is a pretty big stretch for me to even say that. I do not the think that nose colour and behaviour are genetically linked, although I am open to look at any evidence that can show proof of a link.

You are right, the staff behaved unprofessionally. Did you ask them to remove the cat? The training suggestion was in response to a poster claiming they had a problem that their dog was stressed at the vet because it was not allowed to play with the cat. Obviously your problems are quite different.

If the motivation for the dog to approach the cat is 'to play' (I will assume you understand your own dog's communication signals), then this is a simple problem solved with basic obedience training. It is unreasonable to allow a dog 'to play' with anything or anyone it wants. Any stress would be reduced if the dog was able to understand and obey your commands to leave the cat and lie down. Do you give your dog food off your plate because he demands to eat it and not being able to may cause him stress? Or do you teach him that you are the leader and in control of all resources? Use the next opportunity with the cat to exercise control over your dog and ignore (or correct) any undesirable behaviour in your dog. Reward the dog for appropriate behaviour. If you feel that training would best start with some distance between your dog and the cat, create the distance yourself. If vet staff see you being pursued by their cat around the room I am sure they would be happy to remove the cat at your request.

Most cats know when an animal is in prey drive towards them. The ones that tend to survive long-term in vet clinics are much better judges than we are of what the dog is thinking and how to avoid heightening its drive.

Is one more available than the other? Some breeds are rare and hard to get. Others are so plentiful that you can find really great ones in rescue.

So the fence has to sit on concrete? Maybe you could get hold of about five old car wheels (without the tyre) and fill with concrete and set a star picket upright in each of them. Then you will be able to buy a roll of dog mesh and use bits of wire or black cable ties to fix it to your poles. You could use chain mesh if your labbies are inclined to try to push at the dog wire to get through. I am not sure if the gaps would be small enough to stop labbies escaping, but the only way a fence like that would be strong enough is to have a very stable base. I would look at using a star-picket fence in the actual lawn instead of on the patio, and allowing the dogs to have one small corner of grass. Not big enough to do zoomies, but large enough to easily establish good toileting habits in the new home. Then the fence could be moved over time to give different areas of the lawn a rest. Try to grow the lawn very long and thick, so the roots grow deep. Don't mow short or water too frequently. With that large shade tree, you may never get a lawn that is really zoomie proof with such large dogs.

Louise left The Paws Group, who organised the past events. Not sure what is happening now. We need a big dog event in Brisbane besides Ekka. A combined BCC/CCCQ event would be good.

It does sound like a greyhound would suit. A retired older greyhound of about four or five years of age. The younger ones do need a little more regular walking.

For larger dogs you could provide a harness and a seat cover and a prepaid post satchel to send the equipment back to you.