Little Gifts

I've been knitting and sewing a variety of coat styles for a range of breeds for the past couple of years (mostly custom made) but sadly I wont have time this year (despite a sewing room still full of wool and fleece!). I do still have some fleece and knitted coats already made up. If you want to give me some measurements I can see what I've got on hand? Neck, chest and body length? There are a couple of people on Etsy who custom make pj's here in Australia. My fave is a lady with a pei called Paddington. He features in a lot of her pictures. I wish Tempeh would be my model!

Very interesting about the review in QLD now being made into an inquiry. That's exactly what I've been feeling up here - the general public are not willing to let this issue go - the mass grave tipped them over the edge of fence sitting. I've bolded your bit above Maddy because that is what I hope happens too. I know some of you don't feel it is feasible or likely but I do hope breeding numbers are also reduced or capped because as we have seen commented on in this thread, greyhounds are competing with other breeds of dog in the adoption stakes and they have some traits that also reduce the number of potential homes that can ever be out there for them. We can not resolve the end issue - the excessive number of healthy greys being destroyed, if there is no change to the number produced each year in the first place.

It is actually through the stories and photos shared about Maddie and Stan that I can imagine owning a greyhound one day. My only real experience of them was as a kid - an uncle owned and trained a couple and they lived in their suburban backyard. There were a lot of kids in that family and I can remember my aunt cooking up all these stews on the stove that were for the dogs and not the kids. This was back in the 70s. I never felt unsafe around any of their dogs and they probably had around 8 different ones over the years - usually only two at any one time. Never made much money on them I don't think. Apart from that I haven't interacted with any because I feel they are bit like a working dog on a farm or a guide dog and you aren't supposed to kind of pat and play with them because they are 'training' or 'working'. Thank you to everyone who is posting information and experiences here. Some of us are trying to absorb it and be better informed about the issue.

Thanks for that info Maddy. I figured they were racing in some kind of similar class structure now so that slower dogs or dogs of a certain weight or age were racing together already? Extending the age they can race to is another good idea. And as you say a race is still a race and as long as the entertainment and winning factors are there does it really matter if not all races involve land speed records? Very interesting to me Steve that the current system encourages the turnover of dogs. That is the first time I have seen it spelled out clearly in that light. As for the next bit I bolded, I'd actually prefer breeders, owners and trainers to be an important part of the rehoming process where possible. Rehoming may not be their core business but they sure as hell know the dogs in their care better than anyone and could at least share that knowledge to save time, money and unsuitable dogs being in shelters or foster care. So how do we share our concerns publicly without the people who have the dogs and are doing nothing wrong with them feeling judged and alienated? This is industry wide, but as we have read in this thread, not every owner, breeder or trainer supports it or does it. I find it sad but not surprising that rescue and racing do not get on well as a whole. They exist for different reasons. But human nature being as it is, when people try to hide what they are doing it makes people more suspicious. And I guess too when there is so much money in the gambling industry (as opposed to the pockets of breeders, owners and trainers) it seems wrong to impose their excess dog problem onto rescue. I hope some goals to address the key issues over a sustainable period of time will come about so less healthy dogs are placed at risk.

You don't think it is realistic to limit the number of dogs an owner, breeder or trainer can dispose of in a year? Aren't registered breeders limited in the number of litters they can have with each bitch and the duration apart of each litter? Aren't licensed premises limited in the number of dogs they can house on site at any one time? How is taking responsibility for how many dogs you don't want to keep such a different concept? If you already have dogs you can't use why is it ok to just breed more of the same? Why can't they aim for a percentage basis of racing/rehomed versus killed? In what other business is it ok to kill or destroy more than you take to market? With the amount of money attached to the whole gambling industry I think my desire for animal free gambling is naïve but is my interest in seeing less healthy dogs die or be dumped on rescue each year unreasonable? The industry is focussed on winners, which is fine (and understandable) but the killing of so many healthy dogs as collateral damage to that is not. Nor is it ok to put those healthy dogs into an already overburdened rescue system. The greyhound racing industry has a problem and it needs to fix it. It also has the money and should fund the repairs if it wants to see a long term solution to current woes.

Steve, I don't think I've ever not agreed with you before but I can't this time. Change is coming. There are many people who have never had anything to do with greyhound racing who were shocked by the tv program and horrified by the dead bodies found. As an example - a new dog racing track was planned for my area (funded by the state govt) and the general public have had it stopped and their actions were in direct response to what they saw on the tv. The reason change is coming is because there are bad things happening in the industry that are not socially acceptable and need to cease. Too many people now have some knowledge about these things when they had no clue before. And the guts of it is change is feasible - the industry can continue as long as it is willing to act legally and within socially acceptable standards. I don't think that is asking too much when they shouldn't be doing some of what they are doing now anyway. Actually I should alter everything I said above - change is not coming, it's already happening. Look at everything Greyt listed! And the industry did this to itself. It has no one else to blame.

Fantastic news for her!

We bought a proper doggy pram for our sbt girl as she refused to be left behind either and her slowness was dictating the activity level of walks for all 3 of our dogs. When she got tired she would go in the pram and we could continue on. She lasted till almost 17 so you do need to find a way for both dogs to get exercise and enjoy life outside of the house. I'm not sure what breed/size dogs you have but if you look in Jonah's photo thread you will see a kid's cyclist pram type option for a bigger dog. I've seen something similar used for an elderly GR too. And of course the Macmobile for DIYers!

I looked up some data and as at 2009, 70% of all Australians had participated in some form of gambling. Australians also spent more than $19 billion on gambling in 2008/09. $12 billion of this was on the pokies. I doubt 70% of our population would have a high enough income to waste money on gambling, with 13.9% currently living below the poverty line, 27% receiving some form of government benefit and 19% being too young to legally gamble. It's a big social issue. Could the gambling industry survive without horse and dog racing? Highly likely. I've only known one person with a serious gambling issue and he would bet on which fly landed on cow shit first. I don't consider myself a gambler but I buy lotto a couple of times a year, scratchies when I'm bored and prize home tickets every month so that is me, definitely part of the 70%. Could I live without all those things? Yes, but all that really means is I don't have a gambling problem. I'm still part of the overall, big picture problem.

I know what some of the public want but cant see that happening at least in the near future.Too much money in it and I don't just mean gambling- ,vets, dog food companies, canine specialists like chiro etc,transport companies and all of those who are employed within the industry. The only way you are going to stop people killing them when they are not what they want is to ban the breeding of them because if someone owns a dog and treats it humanely you cant stop them from having them killed. You can't make them send them all to rescue and if they did rescue would have to do what they do because its not possible to find that many homes for so many dogs each year. I think all that will come out of it is that rescue groups are banned from being used and its all done by managing it the best they can by financing the services they will use,such as rehoming services, euth services and body disposals etc under confidentiality contracts to cut down the visibility. Im not in any way suggesting that this would be right but I think they will look to their own survival and what's best for their business over caring too much about what some of the public want that doesn't match their goals. The general public could cripple the industry in other ways. Public pressure could ensure that the $110 mill that Newman promised the industry up here doesn't go anywhere. Plans for the new Logan track (replacing the Gold Coast track which shut down some years ago) is currently at a standstill due to the public concern raised. I really think the people who killed those 55 dogs and left their bodies in a public place has significantly altered people's opinions on the whole industry up here. This of course comes on the back of the ABC story which shocked the general public but those dead bodies pushed lots of people to say that's enough. I for one think the story and the carcasses are just scratching the surface of what is really going on and that is why my opinions on this have changed. It is simply unacceptable to me and many others like me that 15,000 dogs could die every year in the name of sport and gambling. If greyhound racing wants to fix up that major problem in the way they operate and then look at the conditions ALL trainers and owners are breeding, housing, feeding and training under (as per existing animal cruelty laws) then maybe they should continue to operate as an industry in this country. But all this whining about not having policing powers or time or whatever else does not cut it with me when we are talking about an industry turning over millions (probably billions) of dollars every year. They have never wanted to tidy up the messes they knew existed and have been caught out. They need to pay the price for that now because it is not acceptable to our current society. Maybe as a start they could put a limit on the number of dogs a breeder, trainer or owner could cull each year and perhaps there could be incentives for rehoming suitable dogs rather than killing them. That puts everyone on equal footing with their stock and gives existing and future dogs a better chance.

I'm speculating that one reason for the distrust between both sides is that rescue feels like they are cleaning up someone else's mess without all the prize money and glory and so would be quick to want to identify breeders, trainers or owners neglecting their dogs and dumping unwanted ones on an already over burdened system that runs on the smell of oily rag carrying volunteers. Breeders, trainers and owners know they are being judged even when trying to do what they feel is the right thing by those dogs. There is nothing circular about the process so there is no reflection or closure. Different values and ethics and different end results wanted from both sides.

Obviously a percentage of funds raised through gambling comes back into state government coffers (here in QLD anyway) and it is then given out as grants to non-profit groups. It is a relatively new thing though - maybe only over the last 10 years? There are always more applicants than money. But the QLD government did approve over $12 million in funding for a new greyhound racing track in Logan March last year(currently under fire for obvious reasons) as part of his $110 million Racing Industry Capitol Development Scheme. Have a read what Newman was happy to spend money on when he sacked so many public servants and ceased funding so many community services. http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/3/15/new-greyhound-racing-track-at-logan-gets-green-light

m-j where the hell will 10 - 15,000 unwanted greys go every year? I think a law of that nature is bound for failure as there are simply not enough homes available for them all to go to. Perhaps some breeders will be forced to curb their breeding numbers if they already have a kennel full of duds looking for a home? But I say to you again that there are already laws in place for ALL dog owners and there are additional rules in place for dog breeders and conditions placed on anyone who is a member of a dog related activity and yet all these terrible things are still happening. No-one is policing these things now. These are the people who are ruining it for the entire industry because great trainers and breeders pale in comparison to the number of dodgy ones unfortunately. The majority you talk about now are the wrong doers and I don't think you can turn that around as the baddies will always look for ways around the rules. The industry has effectively killed itself at present (unless something radical comes about). A couple of you have touched on the financial gains (or lack thereof) of the industry. So who is making the money off these dogs? The punters? Trainers? Breeders? Owners? It sounds all so lucrative but I still can't see the pecking order? With horse racing I'm thinking it would be the owners up top (prize money and status) but with dogs it seems different.

A magistrate should take on board both sides of the situation and determine a fair outcome. The buyer could always make a case if they can prove they have kept up their end of the contract caring for the dog and not breaching any written agreement but I suspect a good breeder is in a position to work differently with an owner if a health issue arises than a pet shop would be. A good breeder is more likely to be able to show that the pup had vet care and checks prior to being sold 'in good faith' as sound, so any damages should be minimal if an Act of God occurs. They probably also got the new owner to sign some kind of contract regarding what to do in the case of future problems with the dog - a kind of warranty arrangement where the breeder has a say in assessing significant health issues that arise. A pet shop can't do that as they don't care about that side of things and hedge their bets. If you buy a dodgy pet and don't come back and complain it's no skin off their nose. Whereas a good breeder would want to know if anything genetic showed up in one of their dogs. Now if we are talking about a crappy breeder then I guess they will care as little as a pet shop. Can you see the difference? Not knowing you were selling a faulty item (especially when you have strategies in place to ensure you are not) is very different from not having any checks and balances in place to ensure you are selling a sound item in the first place. Pet shops may as well stick 'AS IS' signs on all their dogs.

Yep, I think this is why I have changed my mind over any/all practises involving animals and lots of money passing hands. I can't justify to myself the unnessecary loss of animal life for my entertainment anymore. Here's a question for those of you in the know. What would happen to the greyhound racing industry if the public gambling aspect was removed? Would owners/trainers with great dogs still want to meet? Would those who love to see great dogs achieving great things still come and watch? Would it reduce the number of dogs bred and discarded? Would it stop blooding? Would/could it become like obedience trials or the range of other sporting activities that enthusiasts and their dogs like to participate in and watch without it being about money?

Under our laws pets/animals are actually considered goods and chattels. So they entered a contract with a pet store buying an item (let's forget it was a living thing) that was supposed to be fit for purpose. Under what would be considered normal care (basic food, access to water and adequate shelter) this item would be expected to operate fit for purpose for 'x' period of time. In this instance the 'goods' started to fail within a very short period of time. Alterations to house and lifestyle had been made in good faith to accommodate and care for these 'goods'. It became 'fixed' in place. Money had already been expended to care for these 'goods' above and beyond the basic care needs being met. Regardless of the comments in the story I'm not sure about a tribunal can use the emotional card of a dog being a family member. I doubt goods could ever legally be considered the same as living beings (humans who have legally registered birth names) so the tribunal would have to be basing their decision on some legal grounds for it to stick. Basically these people made a purchase in good faith, met all warranty obligations and were sold faulty goods which were now considered fixed in place and couldn't be returned for refund so they got compensation instead. There are lots of other non-living goods out there that can't be returned for a refund either - you can't pull down house extensions for instance but the owners can be reimbursed for extra costs expended to rectify faults and live with a less than perfect job that might give them problems in the future.

I was thinking about the actual camping floor mats you can buy that come as squares but can be interconnected to make a bigger floor mat. They are fairly highly condensed rubber so would be comfy and durable. And pretty cheap! http://www.anacondastores.com/camping-hiking/tents/tent-accessories/spinifex-foam-floor-mat-pack/p/BP90030158

m-j all dog owners already have laws and by-laws in place regarding the care of their dogs. Registered businesses that accommodate or breed animals would also be subject to additional laws/by-laws. If they were a member of a key organisation regarding the breed of dog or commercial industry the dog was part of there would also be more conditions they had agreed to with membership. So the issue is not the percentage of people who are doing the right thing but the number of people who are blatantly doing the wrong thing. They are the ones ruining it for everyone and these dogs are paying the ultimate price for it. And as far as an industry goes, how is it morally ok with anyone that a healthy animal is killed simply because it can't run fast? Where has this industry set up proper rehoming options for the hundreds/thousands of dogs that they know don't make the cut each year? The rescue stories regarding greys are often appalling. They clearly don't have any value to a lot of owners and trainers if they can't make them any money. This is a very different scenario to normal canine breeding situations where those that don't meet purpose go to pet only homes - they don't take them off somewhere and shoot them. And do you really think those dogs couldn't sense fear in that paddock? They didn't just take one or two at a time. There were 55 there! They could probably already smell the decay of other canines! Laws, culture and consequences have not worked with alcohol either. Go for a walk at club closing time or visit an ER on a Saturday night and see the damage people are doing to themselves and others. The amount of crimes committed under the influence of alcohol is also staggering. And this costs our communities more money than the alcohol industry makes. Laws do not make greedy people suddenly good people.

I know BFR have a shipping container going to Vanuatu but I don't think already opened kibble would fair well. Hopefully a local rescue can use it.

Could just be gossip but I think I read on FB before that they had found at least one microchip in the carcasses. I don't know how realistic I am being here or how far I think things should go but I'm starting to think we need to take a long hard look at a lot of things we do with animals. We are supposed to be a civilised society but we use farming techniques to poorly breed companion animals, and greed and corner cutting to save money/make more money in both the greyhound and horse racing industries (remember the public outcry after last Melbourne Cup?). Maybe as a species we are incapable of putting the needs of animals first when it comes to money and if that is the case we need to make sporting activities involving animals and mass breeding of companion animals illegal because we can't be trusted to follow the rules already in place. We have ruined these things for ourselves. We have nobody else to blame for bad media or the loss of income. We are causing the senseless deaths of innocent creatures for fun, entertainment and money. I don't think I can continue to pretend that is ok with me anymore.

This is really tricky but your friend obviously loves her dog so why not focus it that way? You were so worried for the dog's anxiety levels and being a pet owner yourself you know that is not normal or healthy and that for the sake of the dog isn't it worth trying to resolve whatever issues can be resolved? She may never end up with the perfect dog but it will hopefully be happier and more content. I bet your friend is already well aware of the issue and is hoping the dog was ok while she was gone. All you are doing is confirming with love and kindness and the best interests of the dog that it wasn't. And at least if she sees a behaviouralist she will get tools to manage any problems that wont ever go away. As the good friend you are can let her know what you are willing to do to help, which obviously includes caring for the dog if she goes away again.

It will be great to see regular pictures of him (hint hint) so we can all watch his amazing coat develop!

Cheesus - those poor dogs who have lost part of their jaw simply because of poor dental hygiene. But what an amazing program!

I've been down this road too. You might sometimes wonder if you made the decision too early but you will always fully regret leaving it too late.

I like Milla too and I pronounce it Meelah/Me La if that helps?