Adrienne

From a pet Industry point of view any breed of dog which requires services to be maintained is highly desirable. Breeds that need clipping are a huge client base. I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year in Australia on clipping dogs. The explosive popularity of Ooodles has been driven by something and it's not “stupid people”, I think it is Pet Industry. Just as the clothes Fashion Industry dictates to us what we will like and buy, the Pet Industry does the same. Designer dogs? You betcha, designed to need services in order to be maintained! I think there are many lovely examples of the Oodles. From a breeding perspective it would be helpful to investigate high levels of body sensitivity though - I was surprised to learn that this is an inheritable trait identified and removed from at least one seeing eye dog breeding program. I thought it was simply a conditioning thing. With my poodle cross litter I was diligent in combing each pup on a table every day and for the two that had the poodle coat I also buzzed them all over with the blunt end of my clippers. They have zero trouble at the groomers. I have a friend with a dear little dog who is very reactive to being clipped and it is such a genuine downside for her. She is happy to pay the financial cost, but the emotional toll every few months is really sad. I don’t think he was ever comfortable with it and he doesn’t even like being held closely which is a shame, because my friend would love that. He seems happy in all other respects.

The lack of a single database to be used by all is ridiculous. We are an Island for *sake and it beggars belief that there is no genuine interest in knowing basic information about our Nation's dog population. Why is this so? Perhaps each State is assessing the dollars the dog industry contributes each year and is reluctant to mess with that aspect? Perhaps the Pet Industry lobbyists are working hard to protect the supply of animals? Perhaps there are reasons which we are not privy to? The more I look into dog genetics I realise that the dog is an important species for identifying genetic markers for heritable conditions in humans, and dogs are also great subjects for hip replacements, cranio-facial surgeries, cancer treatments, congenital eye disease, skin cancer etc etc. Dogs contribute to our understanding of psychosocial disorders as well. Taking a big picture view, the supply of genetically predisposed, genetically diseased, and physically challenged dogs into the general dog population is a boon for research. Dogs in research has always been a distressing notion for all people, we don’t like to think of dogs in research and as lab animals they are big and have psychosocial needs which are hard to provide for over time and they live so long … But now thanks to our canine population many many conditions and possible treatments are being researched through the contact these animals necessarily have with Veterinary practices. More and more diagnostics, more and more possible treatments etc. Dogs will benefit too in the long run, but I don’t think we will have an end to congenital defects in dogs until there is no longer a use for them in research. In the mean time, each individual effected dog will be owned by an individual person or family who loves it very much and will spend lots and lots of money on it paying for tests, surgeries, treatments and palliative care, and experience distress and heartbreak at their pet’s suffering. If you read some of the Industry literature, there is much excitement about the potential for research. I am excited too - the potential to bring our dog population to functional health is great, but I have a sinking feeling that there is still too much to be had from the current mess and it won’t be resolved until it has been wrung dry. In the mean time the show has its prescribed Villans' (breeders) and its prescribed Heroes’ (rescuers). Responsible breeders will lead the way out for us all. Buyers rights seem to be the only thing that might put pressure on those selling faulty animals - can’t wait for someone somewhere to bring an action against a supplier of a faulty animal. Fit for purpose is a thing. Companion animal is a thing. Database is a thing. Genetic testing needs to become a thing available to all at very low cost, and dna profiling should be funded for shelter and rescues. Shelter and rescue protocols should be standardised and quality data collected.

Pity they didn’t include the reason for the Beautiful dogs blindness...

The only way to ensure an individual animal is not bred from is to have it spayed/neutered. Where is the strategy from the Industry as a whole to this area? Breeders are not well placed to hold animals through to a good spay/neuter age, owners are well placed but enforcement seems impossible - though for this breed it would be plausible to create an obligation in that there could be no argument made for wanting to keep an animal intact for drive in sporting/trialling disciplines… are these breeds involved in any type of activity? They don’t seem built for it! Given that animals can be tracked now with microchipping and these breeds tend to have an increased need for healthcare interventions it might be more plausible to have an actual legal requirement for spay/neuter attached to individual dogs of the breed based on animal welfare grounds. If such a requirement was in place the introduction of it would make it very clear to buyers of these dogs that they are in fact buying an animal which is not fit to be reproduced based on the difficulties the dog itself will face over its life time because of it face. It might begin to dawn on people that they are actually buying seriously deformed animals - though I understand from research that owners of brachycephalic breeds seem to experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with their canine friend's physical challanges and what it means for their quality of life.

If public spaces and services in general were more accommodating of dogs ordinarily going about the place with their owners, I suspect many people contemplating the assistance dog credentials route, would loose interest and simply own and live with their dog quite happily enjoying the assistance without the palaver! The accrediting bodies being involved with particular breeders is understandable in order to secure a reliable supply of fit for purpose dogs, but refusing to test the credentials of any other dog not bred for, and supplied by them makes things murky… The testing protocols are the testing protocols. They are competency based and testable. Access to the test and opportunity to try for credentials is a must if people want to cape their mate up and get going about the place together. The airline is only seeking to limit its liability around risks associated with people travelling with their animals. No Vest? No credential? NO WAY! I am ambivelant about the assistance dog sector. I think the dogs can be great. I think the benefits can be real. I think there is a lot of shite going on also because demand for fit for purpose animals is through the roof.

I would rather buy a pup (purebred or mix bred) whelped in an environment where the dam is living an enriched life and has all opportunity and lifestyle to display all her mothering and socialising behaviours to her offspring. As I understand it, this is the element that contributes most to any puppy becoming a happy and balanced animal. Put another way, the absence of a competent unstressed mother, produces anxious and unbalanced dogs. I don't think its impossible for a dam to be unstressed and competent in a kennel environment, but when the numbers get beyond a modest number I think it becomes really important that those pups get the hell out of that environment and into their homes at eight weeks or asap - because what they then need is so much more than what can be provided in that environment. Individual attention for young pups goes a very very long way IMO and it simply cannot be achieved in establishments as big as the one mentioned above.

Worse fail for extendable leash I saw just last week. Old guy walking little dog on footpath and poor guy simply had to take a leak in the bushes ... felt bad for him as he obviously couldn't hold it. BUT, he was facing into the bushes and his little dog happily trotted right onto the road - I had to break suddenly and give a light toot to the old guy who spun round doing his fly up. I'm sure he thought he was being tooted because he was having a leak, but he he quickly saw what was happening and fumbled around trying to retract the leash. I just smiled and waved... but really retractable leashes - why run your dog on something where human only reacts when dog gets to limit of leash?

When I had my Georgie euthanised at the vet I brought her body home, wrapped in a sheet. I unwrapped her body I the garden beside the pre-dug grave so Jilly could see and sniff her, which she did. We sat together for a small while before I wrapped Georgie's body again and I buried her. She was still warm and soft when I put her in the ground, I waited until Jilly inspected her all over and seemed to realise that Georgie was not asleep. Jilly seemed a bit quiet, but within an hour was bopping about the place. She was only a pup at the time. When my old dog Jazz was euthanised at home, my younger adult dog Jackie inspected the shrouded body and sniffed it all over, she seemed very serious and quiet. She watched from a distance as we put Jazz's body in the ground. Jackie was very quiet for the rest of the day and did not go near the grave. By the next day she seemed to have moved on. Jackie didn't see Jazz euthanised, nor did she see Jazz's body - only wrapped up in a sheet.

Maybe some naming and shaming would be helpful for the general public. I am not suggesting to do that on this forum, but elsewhere. Truth is a solid defence against defamation.

Oodles is understood as a cross breed involving poodles.

The way you express yourself seems creepy. Your words come across as passive aggressive. The triple love hearts at the end of your message are very dark.

I agree, I have seen this too. It's pretty disturbing. I've come across two types, one is a person who needs to be needed and won't tolerate their animal progressing beyond severe dependance on them, and another other a type who is so hard themselves - so "old school" that they seem impervious to their animal suffering. And also many people who don't understand that most animals are very stoic and staunch (by way of instinct) and don't realise their animal is suffering. Or people who think some behaviours are just their animal's "quirks" and not indicating stress or anxiety. Or people who over respond to their animal's stress behaviours which tip the animal into global anxiety... what is OLG?

I hadn't thought of this, though when I read this I remembered a breeder mentioning they saw the new owners of one of his pups showing off their new "rescue" puppy on fb! This really does my head in - how complex! The idea of "Rescue" as the only ethical buy is really promoted. If a Rescue was involved - that what I call a FAIL for the dog and the family in terms of placement. I also wondered why the family is trying to sell poor little dog to someone else, clearly she needs to be rehabilitated by knowledgable people ... so FAIL for the current owner. I am not goading, I posted soon after I read the ad because I was distressed about it. Rescue is an important part of Dog World, though in terms of knowing about the real ins and outs of it I am a lay person (who is also a genuine and pragmatic dog lover). Last night I went back through various old posts on DOL mentioning with Rescue/ rescue groups and wow, yeah... The space needs regulation and the public need education! I thought that dogs are not placed until they are rehabilitated (if they need that), and yes big hearts with no specialist knowledge is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps the terms "Rescue" and "Rehoming" would be better not used interchangeably, in my mind they are not the same thing but they seem be be used as if they are. My own experience of having to surrender to reputable rescue was very personally distressing for me but the right option in my circumstance. I understand my dogs were re-homed promptly through knowledgable and connected people and I am so grateful for the referral from DOLers and the work of the rescue people.

Saw this on Gumtree today. "Looking for a quiet and loving home for our almost 3yr old toy poodle, Cherry. We bought Cherry a year ago from a rescue group. She had only ever known life on a puppy farm and had never even been on grass. When we first got Cherry she was a nervous, quivering wreck, constantly circling. In the year we’ve had her she has come a long way, but is still a very anxious dog and still circles a lot. Cherry is not suited to a home with children, hence the reason we are seeking a new home for her. My son cannot even walk into the same room as her without Cherry being scared and barking at him. It seems to be getting worse, not improving with time. Cherry would suit a retired single person who will dote on her and build a strong connection." Does anyone simply wanting a pet dog to love, deserve a ruined dog like this? What was the "rescue" group thinking making this placement? Poor dog, poor people, and shame on the "rescue" - this was obviously not an adoptable pet. And the idea that a retired single person should take on a little dog that is not socialised, in fact is traumatised, is not IMO fair. There are a lot of people out there who have upturned their daily routines, said no to outings and participating in community life because of their dogs' problems. How many people are isolated in their homes, not having visitors, not going out and not being able to have the kiddies over because their dog is reactive, fearful, obnoxious etc etc. This is a big fat FAIL for dogs and people. No Kill policies do not automatically lead to happy pets with happy people. IMO people not being prepared to humanely kill animals, are not animal lovers. It can be the best option for the individual animal. In responding to this post, please don't fill it up with individual cases of where some dedicated fully knowledgable person rescued a ruined dog and managed to over years make all the difference blah blah. I am trying to pose a serious question about the purpose of Rescue Groups, the outcomes they achieve, who benefits, and whether or not people are being guilted into participating in a well meaning but wrongly focused idea - that the most ethical buy is a rescue one....

I suggest STEP 1 : spend a few hours scrolling through rescue and pound pages in order to fully understand the LIKELY outcome for most of the pups you cause to be born. (I actually don't believe this is a genuine post - c'mon, "You cannot be serious!" (I've gone all McEnroe)

Yes, I don't know. Breeds becoming genetically unsustainable or disappearing is just something that gets mentioned quite a bit when talking about pure breeds... and it seems to me that the breeders of those breeds which are labelled as endangered or whatnot could perhaps be more proactive in doing something about it? If there is a problem with any breed surely the AKNC and breeders are the ones to fix it? Just saying....

It's pretty simple to gain approval to breed in your LGA - even after puppies are born! It does sound very draconian but if people do basic things like register their dogs and apply for a BIN number and keep basic records, sell your pups chipped etc there doesn't seem to be anything to worry about really. It's just forms people! If you are transparent with authorities, transparent with your qualified buyers/adopters and providing good conditions and lifestyles for your animals there is no great burden there as far as I can see. As for mandatory desexing - again, there are pathways for preserving your animal whole if it's important to you. I don't agree with this type of legislation though. I can't see it preventing unwanted puppies being born - in fact I wonder what types of "solutions" it will force owners of unwanted puppies to come up with on their own to avoid a whopping $5,000 fine because their bitch has had an unregulated litter.... might be back to the days of "bag em' and chuck 'em in the creek!". I am sure legislation like this is not going to capture puppy farmers who are very focused and know the exact letter of the law in order to stay on the right side of it. Hands down the most powerful phenomena would be ETHICAL BUYERS. RE: some breeds going extinct - why aren't breeders of these breeds outcrossing and breeding back to purebred to strengthen the genetic diversity available? This would only take a concerted effort for a few years. Sorry, maybe some are. Is this the sort of thing the MDBA is involved with?

I just don't see this happening. It is impossible to enforce and there is no support from those credentialed and truly in the know. Also, There are legitimate reasons for keeping an animal whole other than for breeding. Our animals are our personal property. There can be negative outcomes of early desexing for individual animals and the people that own them. Can't think of a more devastating measure to narrow the gene pool and limit the availability of any pure breed of dog than to sterilise the vast majority of a population. The problem of over supply of the wrong type of dog is pretty obvious... the pounds and rescues are full of them - the RSPCA and Rescues seem to exist to simply take the load off those BASTARD breeders who don't give a hoot for the pups they cause to be born. Free desexing for anyone who wants it would go a long way in this space me thinks.

Love this work! I was just googling the other day for Nose work groups in my area and found one; hoping to take Jilly along in a couple of weeks. Her favourite smell is a tennis ball .... I am amazed at the number of tennis balls she finds in parks and gardens wherever we go. I was watching a show on telly about sniffer dogs and the handler was explaining the "honing in on smell" pattern - like a cone/wedge narrowing down to the most intense smell. What surprised me next time Jilly and I were out at our favourite off leash was just how far out she actually began this behaviour - like an easy 20m from where she found the ball. Pity there is nothing very useful about tennis balls! She is bonkers for them and, I kid you not, will choose one over chicken.

Australian Terriers are awesome little dogs. Mine have been no nonsense, charming, hardy, fun, attentive, engaged, loyal and easy to live with. You cannot offend them, they are easy to maintain and cheap to feed and medicate (size). Of my two, one was more vocal than the other though not excessive in any way and he was responsive to a "Shush Shush". They really can live in any environment from an apartment... to a farm... to a swag!

Perhaps breeders of Registered Pure bred dogs could be less invested in being "Illustrious" and elite and get in behind their breeds as great candidates as family pets (if the breed is actually great family pet material - some are not) and so increase the number of them available through the year. The whole, "I breed only what I need for show" is supposedly the only ethical stance a breeder can take which is nonsense and a great shame. People want pet dogs. I believe best practice in managing the breeding of a bitch is breed young, back to back and then retire early. Some breeders will reckon that even a repeat mating is superfluous and unethical - if the progeny were great, what's wrong with repeating for the purpose of supply to pet buyers? If you want your breed to be more popular they need to be available, be seen in the community being great pets. They need to be out in homes where they are loved and promoted by their families to anyone who will listen... and lets face it today everyone is talking up their pet dogs across all sorts of channels. I really think one of the reasons hybrids are popular is because they are easy to buy. Easy to buy does not mean sell to anyone, it means there are enough to go into ready willing and able homes. As well, it might be helpful to point out "endangered" means in the Registered Show Sphere, and that population is not the be all and end all for some breeds - there are pure bred dogs outside of that world.

Extraordinary

Good to know about ACA, I will have a look at it! Just off the top of my head I am thinking there are already regulations in place across many areas and they are simply not being monitored and enforced. I don't think the answers are found in more regulation - certainly not before concerted efforts are made by way of sufficient funding and resourcing of those tasked with that work. Jeeze I'd like to see transparent longitudinal data on what is really going on with dogs and cats in Australia. Some things just don't add up.

Error! Should read "She was clear that veterinary practitioners did NOT generally suffer ill effects of being involved in providing euthanasia services...".

I watched this yesterday - thanks for putting it up, I had no idea it was happening and I will keep an eye out for the next one. I really appreciated the evidence of most of those appearing, in particular Emeritus Professor Jackie Rand and both of the Australian Veterinary Association members. And WOW, Emma Hurst... would not say the word euthanise, had to use the emotive word "kill". Would not use the term "behavioural decline" in relation to dogs being housed in Pound facilities, instead repeatedly using the term "Kennel Rage". Was heartened to hear that no one repeated her terms, choosing instead to use terms like 'behavioural decline" which encompasses a wider range of unwanted behaviours and mental states, such as depression. And I was pleased also that none of the qualified professionals identified 'over supply' of dogs as a problem to be targeted (by legislation). All of them hands down supported targeted measures aimed at assisting dog owners to keep their pets - noting that the housing crises and cost of living pressures and domestic violence were some of the most common reasons owners were surrendering their dogs. Worthwhile listening carefully to the evidence of AVA on emotional burden on Vets involved with euthanising pound dogs. She was very clear that veterinary practitioners did (not) generally suffer ill effects of being involved in providing euthanasia services to pounds when there was involvement from intake, there was context for the action being taken, and when they were not simply called into a facility to euthanise en-masse dogs which they had no prior knowledge of. She makes some very careful distinctions in her evidence and would be good for people to understand these. I was so pleased to hear that at least some shelters/ rescues were dedicating some of their capacity to supporting domestic violence victims and elderly people to keep their pets. To me this type of support is really valuable and prevents sound animals going into the system when they actually have loving owners facing hard times. Reputable Rescues are so important and they should be funded for facilities, consumables and training for their volunteers. RSPCA and Blue Mountains pound facility - what a rort! I am so glad they were questioned about that and will now have to provide further detail after taking a question on notice. Emma Hurst did not want to give more time to Emily Suuval, so funny to watch. State Governments definitely need to seriously invest in better pound facilities and qualified staff and adequate staffing ratios so that animals are not destroyed emotionally by spending time in the system. Animal Welfare League came off as absolutely amazing, sitting beside the behemoth RSPCA, AWL guy seemed to give evidence of staggering achievements and outcomes with their measly $5 million dollar grant compared to what RSPCA has done with their whopping $20.5 million grant. RSPCA defends their swollen coffers by saying it is only responsible to operate with a buffer of three years operational costs in case something happens to put their operations at risk... just can't think of anything that might do that.