mita

I'm all for dogs learning to socialise with each other. BUT it has to be in a situation that's controlled to some extent, & supervised by people who have like minds. Running into strangers with their dogs when out walking doesn't have that control built in (even despite council regulations to keep dogs on a leash in most public places) ... and you have no idea what's going on in the mind of that stranger (or the dog!) Fair enough ... on those occasions when like-minded people with good control over their dogs will negotiate some careful socialisation as they pass. BUT there's too many incidents where people have had poor control over their dogs and have no sense how they can affect other people & their pets. Results have been traumatic.... or even tragic... for some poor innocent dog & owner. Just one bad experience can be enough, tho' some people have had more than one. I've had more than one & will only walk our tibbies around the nearby shopping centre.... & never out on the walking tracks nearby, where dogs are walked & exercised. There's always trouble waiting to happen.

That daycare pic is impressive. Those dogs, including your Roo, are really 'engaged; being together. No room for the self-harming anxiety. A very good move. Even if daycare can only be two days a week at present, it's made a point. I'm not suggesting anything ('getting another dog' is no fix-all recipe, can in fact double the trouble) ... but makes me wonder if Roo has ever lived with another dog/s. You also get valuable feedback from the people at the daycare on what Roo specially likes to do. Just as your using the video at home provides feedback.

That's what it has become, in all but name. Jelly has posted that she considers she's personally come a long way since beginning the thread .... especially due to Nekhbet (& daycare) but also to all 'for hope and encouragement'.

Maybe it's time to change the title of the thread. As it stands, it's 'Please help me save my dog'. Because, when started, Jelly was asking for general input and ideas. Since then, Roo and Jelly are now under the direction of Nekhbet and they have a plan of action going on between them. I can understand them wanting to focus on applying that plan. Certainly I had to do that, when our sheltie was being trained out of separation anxiety ... concentrate on the plan set out by a vet behaviourist. It's more a case of following Roo's journey on a particular road now.

As a pet owner, I totally agree with this. If it were me that had obtained the puppy from Pillow, I'd look at the situation from just that angle. Given all the objective evidence from current reliable sources, I can't see anything that could've been done to prevent it. So, despite Pillow's decent offer to refund purchase price to help with treatment.... as a pet owner, I wouldn't take it (speaking only for myself). What would matter for me, would be dealing with a breeder who went straight into action, as Pillow did, to research this condition which can come out of the blue... and whose origin & genesis is not crystal clear. And who so genuinely cared about the pup... and my situation (as Pillow does, too). I'd count myself fortunate.

Thanks again. Looking good for weekend adoptions. Lovely pic on that Facebook page of a little boy with his family's new cat.

I can't see it's all that dreadful. Dogs over the age of 12 months (given OK general health) will still be allowed in nursing homes. No one regarded it as odd that puppies under 12 months were not selected for the children's hospital pet therapy. It was a matter of a still developing immune system still not at top speed with seeing off infections. And frail elderly tend to have weakened immune systems. More prone to infections getting a hold. Presence of a puppy can't be blamed solely for any such outbreak. Puppies are in households... & the general hygiene advice applies, like washing hands, same as if there were no puppy. Infections like that are not just spread by puppies.

There's a combined UK universities animal health group ... so a reliable source. http://www.ufaw.org.uk/SHOULDEROSTEOCHONDROSISBULLTERRIER.php (their site deals with it in each breed separately, it's not saying only found in BT's). They say that OCD is found in large & giant breeds, but some smaller, too. Most importantly: It is likely that affected puppies can be born to unaffected parents (Hazelwinkel & Nap 2009). Detecting carriers - those which carry and may pass on the gene(s) but which do not show signs of the disease themselves - is not currently possible. As affected puppies can be born to unaffected parents ... and there's no present way of detecting carriers, there was no way you could prevent it occurring. That group also says that, while it seems genes are implicated, the gene or combination of genes associated with OCD hasn't been identified. The genes responsible have yet to be determined. Also, on another site, a Veterinary Radiologist points to something environmental perhaps triggering an underlying predisposition: With OCD of the shoulder, lameness generally first occurs between 4 and 9 months and may be associated with a fall or accident playing with another dog. Lateral radiographs of the shoulder will reveal a flattening of the humeral head. http://www.aztec-net.com/~lofrancokuvasz/health.html I can't see how you could've done anything to prevent it ... given there's no screening possible for carriers & unaffected dogs can produce an affected puppy & an environmental incident may be necessary to trigger it. The way you're searching out information about the disorder shows you're a decent, caring breeder.

I can see why. Maggie is gorgeous. Isn't it interesting how the elderly dogs have some special quality that makes them perfect!

He was a truly amazing bomb squad dog. It says he was responsible for saving thousands of lives. So he got a burial with full police honours.

That's so unfair to show the old Council pens, when the AWL has upgraded accommodation. Tell you what, Varicool, I couldn't have been less impressed by the 'complainer' who was wheeled out to say her bit. And why would anyone complain that a 'Welfare' group, which has that word in its name, would treat cats with the flu'. If they're not interested in animal welfare, why did they select a group famous (& rightly so) for its commitment to welfare? Keep letting us know if there's anything we can do. gsdog2, thanks for those links!

Kate Mornement, a leading author of the Monash article, edits a newsletter all about Shelter Research. The articles are brilliant... & cover much of what we've been talking about.... like reducing stress in shelters & pounds, adoption etc etc etc. Editions on site below. This stuff should also be circulated widely. A taste of the related topics given: Improve re-homing through behaviour assessment Environmental enrichment for shelter animals Maximising the success of volunteer programs Managing shelter stress in dogs and cats Public perception of adoptability Why do dogs enter shelters? How to improve cat and dog compatibility How to have a healthier shelter http://www.petnet.com.au/publications-information/for-welfare

My description of the fact that, scientifically speaking, current 'temperament testing is flawed.... is not laying 'blame' on those who use them.... especially Councils. I've used 'flawed' descriptively, not emotionally. I've constantly said pounds/shelters have to do something with what they've already got. And fully understand why Blacktown pound is going to use testing. They can't do nothing. And I don't think you've gone O/T when you say pounds shouldn't be pressurised into doing nothing. One good thing is that the organisation of local government pound managers & staff (Aus. Institute of Animal Management Inc) is right on the ball with how challenging their task is. This group's shown they want to do the best they can do, re both public safety & the welfare of the dogs. The paper, from Monash, that they invited to their 2009 Conference, covers so many of the issues brought up in this thread, It refers to research, gives a great swag of examples of behavioral testing, & comments on their value. The authors are saying.... assessment is needed, it's a case of how. There's great pointers to help pound staff. Don't get put off by the jargon words in the title... what they mean becomes clear in the article. It's a good read....should be circulated widely. Congrats to the authors. http://www.academia.edu/1121691/Reliability_validity_and_feasibility_of_existing_tests_of_canine_behaviour

Understanding the stressors is an idea.... it's in the tester's head. Actually covering that in assessment, means the tester must do something. That's the only way it translates into test results. Say a dog is anxious.... and behaving anxiously during testing in the pound. The tester may have inside her head.... that the pound is a stressful place, with strange smells, strange people, strange sights & sounds. But that dog may actually be anxious .... wherever it is. It's a constitutional trait. Or... it may be that the dog is only affected by the pound stressors. And is actually within the bounds of normal in more neutral places. You're on to that.... when you say it's a good idea for a tester to look beyond the obvious. But what is the obvious... the dog is anxious. And there could be two possible quite different reasons going around in the tester's head. And you have no way of going outside the current pound environment, in time & places, to test for which. So how would that translate into actual objective testing results? I teach testing. And the job of testing is to come up with some objective information that reliably tests what it says it tests. That's what pounds & shelters say they need & want. As the Monash paper said, none of the usual 'temperament' tests have been found to have established predictive value. But , in the meantime,.... pounds have to do something, flawed as it might be. They can't do nothing. Who'd be on a pound staff? A tough job.

And that's the rub, T. There's evidence of the effects of the typical pound environment. Which is among the reasons why there's been no scientific gold standard re prediction from currently available temperament tests when administered in pounds & shelters. One strategy, tried in some US pounds/shelters, is to design the places to reduce the stress. I think it's San Francisco where the municipal shelter is extremely different. But all that requires a lot of funding... so it's not going to happen here. I have no idea in what ways... even small...that our own pounds & shelters can modify to reduce stress. But some small adjustments have been found to make a difference, in studies. Another reason that the tests can't be said to be scientifically predictive, is that they don't test 'temperament'. That word is wrongly used. To get a hang of temperament, you have to observe a dog's behaviour over a longer period of time, with a variety of settings, mostly neutral. No pound or shelter can do that. Without a doubt, the current testing in pounds samples behaviour as affected by being in that pound. Dogs capable of considerable aggression may become quite subdued in a pound ... and not show up in a temperament test. But, in life outside that pound, with the stress removed & more confident. the aggression may re-emerge. And there's heaps more variations. All this means, there's no way that pounds can observe the dogs, over long periods of time, in different settings. So it's now wonder that, as the Monash paper said, those running pounds & working in dog management want better assessment tools ... given how constrained they are in what they can do. But, in the interests of public safety, they have to do something.

Pardon my interruption, Katdogs, when you weren't talking to me. But I know just what you mean about how easy it is to overlook the passion of a writer, by focusing on the technical language. And I'd second your invitation to CBE to stay around on DOL to hear equal passion here about ethical rescue.

You're saying you know how a good temperament test will cover stressors in the pound. I'd like to hear about that, as I'm interested in assessment. So how is that done? And what temperament test you know does that? how big an ramble do you want? :laugh: In short, be honest, know it is not a perfect test, to have shades of grey except for the obvious cases of extreme dog aggression and human aggression. To be a guide to where the dog may be best suited compared with just handing them over with no care. I don't want to embarrass you, Malti. :) You haven't answered my 2 questions. But, not to worry. I can't stomach it when I see someone being picked and picked relentlessly on DOL. And I don't intend to do it to you. :) And I've got your general gist.

From the local newspaper at 22 March. Seems the matters are still under investigation. The RSPCA has been engaged as an interim measure. From what I know of Cr Antoniolli, he's a decent man: Health and Regulation Committee chairman Andrew Antoniolli said council would not divulge the accusations made against the AWLQ... "The matter still stands pending the investigation," Cr Antoniolli said. "We believe in natural justice." The Ipswich Rehoming Centre remains open and accessible to the public. "Council has engaged an external party as an interim measure pending the investigation," Cr Antoniolli said. "The pound operations and rehoming operation will continue." BTW In searching for this, I found a comment posted by another ex-volunteer. This person described the work of the AWL staff & volunteers and the fact they were in Council-supplied buildings. She praised greatly what was done on behalf of the animals. I hope the 'investigation' includes such evidence, not just the opinions of the disgruntled.

Yes, I saw a complainant on television. I was very, very unimpressed. BTW the Ipswich Council gave the contract to AWL Qld along with its already existing accommodation. So any complaint about accommodation should involve the Council building more suitable premises. Can you keep us up-to-date, Varicool, of anything we might do? Interestingly, we're life members of both AWL Qld and RSPCA Qld.

As I am pro-temperament testing, I must be an extremist. However I'm not pro ANY temperament test. :) Which makes you the opposite of an extremist. :) You qualify your position. Extremists never do.

Only extremists would fall into either being pro-temperament testing or anti-temperament testing. It's a case of what kind of testing can help public safety and be balanced for animal welfare. Pounds are right in the middle of this & have to deal with the reality of what they've got.... a lot of homeless dogs. And there's signs they're facing up to the issues. The Monash University paper was delivered, on request, at a conference attended by those who run & work for local government pounds and dog management. And it rightly says that there's huge interest from those sources to obtain the most objective and most predictive assessment tools possible. However, they say, nothing presently exists that's gold standard science re either of those. Dogs can 'pass' a temperament test, but go on later to bite or attack. And dogs can 'fail' a temperament test, but later prove not to be a problem. But pounds have to do something, in terms of public safety... with what they see in front of them. And make judgement calls. Calls that might have been different in an ideal world where there was broader assessment/trialling But this is the real world. So it's understandable that Blacktown Pound is stepping up to do what it can. The elephant in the room IMO is the considerable human cost in terms of the mental well-being of pound/shelter staff working with such decisions (research evidence). Any assistance to make pound testing as objective and predictive as possible ,would go a long way to give them confidence in what they're doing.

CBE, you've given your contact details for anyone wanting to communicate with you in the real world. You've indicated you've left the way open. A good idea is to make your training goals and strategies clear on your website or Facebook page... and specially why you do things that way & based on what evidence. That's the kind of information people would need to make their decisions. I don't want to push a format on you, but IMO this Brisbane one is a good example. http://www.cleardogtraining.com/ I noticed earlier that lillypilly said she'd made contact, to discuss things in detail. I have respect for lillypilly and NSW Animal Rescue, especially in relation to their work with puppies/dogs with special medical needs and having a last pregnancy program.

You're saying you know how a good temperament test will cover stressors in the pound. I'd like to hear about that, as I'm interested in assessment. So how is that done? And what temperament test you know does that? Wasn't Cosmolo previously talking about that sort of thing? Taking into account the situation the dog is in and acknowledging that the dog may behave/react differently due to the stress of the pound? I don't mean to be rude, minimax, but I was talking to Malti.... about the understanding she posted about. I've already given my 'how' earlier in the thread.... & it referred to an ideal world, not one that's presently & totally available to most pounds: It's a fact that temperament tests given in the usual pound environment are in the context of high stress for the dogs (evidence for that). We wouldn't test humans' temperament in a situation where they were under high stress. BUT it's also a fact that large numbers of dogs are dumped in pounds. That's the only starting point the pound staff have to work with. In an ideal world, the dogs could be placed in a more natural setting before being tested. And any rescue offering a more natural setting, would need to be highly skilled re dog behaviour... as well as realistic about risk posed by any dog. Or pounds would be organised in ways designed to reduce stress. BUT, meanwhile, back in the real world, pound staff & ethical rescuers can only do what they can in the face of considerable problems.

You're saying you know how a good temperament test will cover stressors in the pound. I'd like to hear about that, as I'm interested in assessment. So how is that done? And what temperament test you know does that?

Oscamia, there's discussion of the point you've made , earlier in this thread. 'Temperament' testing in the usual pound environment isn't the optimal way to get an assessment of what temperament actually is. And an example was given of the RSPCA ACT which uses such a test only as a starting point. BUT the discussion went on that it's a matter of resources which that particular shelter has, and is able to use well. Council pounds don't have those resources and budgeting for them by local government is not likely. They're left with just any observations they can make while a dog is with them .... and any test that they think might be useful. It's not ideal at all, I agree ... but it's the reality the pounds have to deal with. And they have to balance public safety with animal welfare. No wonder there's evidence that the realities of pound environments are also hard on the humans involved. I posted earlier how UQ reported that pound and shelter staff were at risk for mental health problems. It's not an easy situation, is it. Especially given the large number of dogs that council pounds have to deal with. BTW There was a paper presented by Monash University staff at the 2009 AIAM Urban Animal Management Conference. 'Reliability, validity and feasibility of existing tests of canine behaviour.' Toukhsati et al. After making the point that the tests are erroneously called temperament tests, they examined a number of them. Then concluded (seems they were seeking a more ideal, too): Conclusion There have been very few reports of behavioural tests specifcally designed to identify dangerousness in companion dogs, including those in welfare shelters. Taylor and Mills (2006) state that fewer than ten such reports could be found in the peer-review scientific literature and that even among these, reports on reliability, validity and feasibility are incomplete with authors’ often reporting one,but not all, aspects. Many shelters and pounds carry out their own behavioural evaluations or temperament tests to assess dogs’ suitability for adoption. It is worrying that not only are many of these tests designed without consulting a behavioural expert, in addition they have not been formally presented in the scientific literature. Even more concerning is that those tests that do appear in the literature often have incomplete reports relating to the quality of the test.This is alarming considering that important decisions about the future of many dogs are made on the basis of these tests (Taylor & Mills, 2006)