Little Gifts

It's weird - I had two vomiters yesterday as did two other people I know! Must be something in the air! One of mine gives no vomit alerts - she coughs and there it is, right where she was lying or standing. I used to have another that would go through the most extreme, body contorting heaves and still not bring anything up. I can't even type about the re-eating of said vomit! Tempeh brings up bile some mornings if she is too hungry. She's always been like that and has seen the vet about it. We usually give her a late night snack and that fixes things. If she throws up she normally waits until I've washed all the dog beds and put new ones out to purge over. But recently I was out at an event and didn't get to bed till around sunrise. I got in and pulled the doona cover (pretending to be a sheet) over me and it was damp and smelt strange. One of mine has some pee incontinence so I wondered if she'd got a bit leaky. I was too tired to worry about it so just walked it into the laundry, grabbed a towel in case it had soaked into the mattress I needed to lie on and got back in to bed and pulled something else over me. When I awoke later in the day I realised what was on that doona cover I had pulled it over my body!

When I first moved to this area back in 1988 there was a lady who was always in the local paper about being victimised by the local council and always in desperate need of public assistance. She saved every single dog she could and she had them all living together in one big fenced yard. Hundreds of them. She was always being evicted from a property and in desperate need of a new one for having too many dogs because she refused to play by any real rules. The local shopping centres had food donation bins and they were always full. I don't know how else she covered the costs. I never knew of anyone who adopted from her, there were never any volunteers pictured or mentioned in the news stories and I knew the biggest vet in this town (who also donated a lot of services) and she wasn't a client of theirs. The stories were always about her saving the dogs, not rehabilitating and rehoming them. From the photos it looked sanitary but barren and now I realise that it was not a good place for a dog to be and she was probably a hoarder using the guise of being a persecuted rescuer. I think her first name was Margot. She dropped off the radar quite a while back and I always wondered what happened to all those dogs. I can't believe puppy farmers try and use the same excuse. The main difference is that most hoarders don't recognise themselves as hoarders and selling the animals and making a profit from them seems to not even be on their list of priorities. Having them and having lots of them to fill an emotional void seems to be the key. So it still comes back to that problem of authorities knowing this is happening and not removing any animals at risk as soon as possible. Yes they might get more but isn't there a responsibility to the ones already known to be at risk of harm? Removing and continuing to remove may be the best outcome that can be gained legally and otherwise.

I had a rescue that originally had epilepsy and had been heavily medicated from 6 months old. It took three years of work but eventually he was off all meds and no longer fitting. But we were left with significant separation anxiety and fears relating to storms, the garbage man, rustling plastic bags and a long list of other things. He came to live with me because I had his mother and had fostered her when she whelped, raised the pups and helped with his original adoption. If I didn't take him he would've been pts. His mum was only 1 year older than him. Not once did his behaviours ever change the behaviour of his mother. In his heightened sense of anxiety she was irrelevant to him. She pretty much left him to whatever damage he was doing and never barked or cried or did anything to indicate he was losing the plot. She may as well have not existed to him when he was freaking out so obviously her presence did not reduce his separation issues. She was not scared of anything and nothing he did changed that. We managed him fairly well but not perfectly. Both dogs were dropped to my parents while I went to work. I worked local to home so if a storm was brewing I'd go home and bring him back to work with me. But there were unexpected events and he would tear things apart to get to a human and what he perceived as safety. One of these events led to him injuring himself and needing to be pts at 11.5 years of age. It can be a life long effort. So my advice is to ensure your next dog is bomb proof and you are unlikely to be able to determine that with a pound dog. There is also no return policy or support provided with a pound dog. You are asking for things to fail by going down that path.

So is court ordered treatment for the hoarding a more suitable sentence? Perhaps court ordered animal care courses too.

I think I get frustrated because it was probably clear to officers attending these properties that these people should not be owning any pets. Who needs to have alias names and refuse to say who owns an animal if they are doing nothing wrong? And if you have animals seized from a property or people associated with a property then wouldn't they be on your red flag list if future complaints came in? Having worked in statutory child protection I know the difference between removing a victim from harm and being able to make a case that results in a conviction. One does not necessarily equate to the other (for a variety of reasons) and sometimes just making sure the innocent victim is the best outcome. This is one of those times when I wish dogs didn't have to suffer while humans got their act together. As for the desexing issue, I think there is a case for neglect if dogs who are related to each other are left to breed, if dogs of different sizes are left to breed (risk to a small bitch if she is carrying large pups), if an aggressive male is left to mate unattended with a bitch in season, if multiple males are left to mate unattended with a bitch in season, if no vet assistance has been obtained for a bitch or pups if needed and if the bitch does not have a suitable environment or nourishment to successfully whelp and raise puppies. I guess they would have to be able to prove this but these would be some basic issues that place a bitch and pups unnessecarily at risk of death or injury, especially if you have a lot of dogs in a small yard like they did.

Any updates on how things are going this time around?

In the ACT dogs over six months have to be desexed unless the owner has a permit to breed. Yes but I disagree that not desexing a dog is neglecting it. I think the law was brought in to stop backyard breeders and to do something about unwanted dogs arriving at the pound and leaving in green bags. I guess it is neglect if the dog has unplanned litters. I just wish they would enforce the laws already in place. If it is illegal something should be happening. Otherwise there is no point to the law. Imagine living next door to either of these properties, particularly if you could see over the fence. It's all a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit really. There were noise complaints made and automatically that should trigger attention to the number of dogs being kept there (against the law) and the condition the dogs were being kept in (also against the law). Then of course is the issue of keeping so many fertile animals together (another breach of the laws in ACT). What the hell RSPCA and local council? These dogs were starving. That doesn't happen in a week. They had open wounds with no evidence of vet treatment. They were living in their own faeces. How many things need to be wrong and how many laws need to be broken before something is done to protect the animals at risk??? I hope all three abusers are crippled by fines and public opinion and are never able to even pat a dog again, let alone ever own one.

I got a pink girly one and was frustrated because it doesn't cope with my shove everything in technique. Not long after Aldi had those fishing bum bags and I bought a couple of those. Pockets fit all your goodies - keys, phones, tissues, lip balm, treats, poo bags, and were a fraction of the price. OK so they are not as pretty....

Oh Sars that is very sad. I had an old sbt boy and the vet initially thought he had this but further tests revealed another issue with his spine. I remember finding an online community of people with dogs who had it and they were very helpful and supportive. So whatever treatment you pursue I wish you and your boy well.

I contacted Pet Circle and a rep from BH contacted me. The rep said it was just leftovers from another run of kibble that hadn't been picked up during the cleaning process and it was all fine and wouldn't hurt my dogs. He declined a photo of it. He was fairly 'whatever' about my concerns and no refund offer was made and I didn't ask for one. Our pei can't eat beef and of course I was worried there was more of the same in the bag and that it could've contained beef so I made the decision to discard it all. I was disappointed at the time but just let it go. I figured it was just one crappy bag out of all the hundreds of others I've purchased and been happy with.

We are BH users and due to location ours costs us about $85 on auto delivery with Pet Circle. Our older dog (husky/shep) started losing weight on the chicken and rice version and the vet recommended we move to a seniors type of kibble. After that bag finished though we were buying the fish and rice version and her weight has been fine on it (and the lamb and rice we are now getting). We also have a pei and her skin has generally been great (some contact allergy issues here and there) so what we feed her is important. All ours get kibble morning and night with some other stuff added. I did get one BH chicken and rice once with a contaminant in it. Was not happy. The company did not replace it. Apparently it was some other stuff off the production machinery that got missed during cleaning and it was all green and a bunch of the kibble had stuck to it and was turning green too. I threw that whole bag out and considered switching back to Canidae but stayed with BH because it works for our dogs.

I just read through all of your thread in OT and realised Rupert is an OES! For some reason I got him confused with some breed I'm unfamiliar with that looks like an OES as a pup but grows up to look like a different breed. How I got myself so confused I do not know! I had an OES as a teenager - it was my dream dog and I loved my girl Phobie to bits! She was so chill we used to get her to ride bikes and wear clothes. It will be great to watch Rupert grow up!

Both so terribly cute! I love Smoke's special ear action! Just when you think he is growing up you see him beside dad and he is still so tiny!

They look gorgeous together!

He looks so OES at this age. Very cute and I love the name but want to call him 'Rupret' after Steve Martin's character in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels!

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.