_PL_

Ditto! And no parvo is great news. We had a bub with HGE recently, sounds very similar. Fluids, antibiotics and bed-rest. She bounced back.

I'm sick of seeing exotic pets. He should never have been born over there, ffs why are they farming kangaroos in the US anyway??? He won't live to maturity, his poor body will be wasted, he'll be constantly stressed and as a bonus: toted around like a circus exhibit. And I keep seeing this little factoid..... like it makes any difference to the situation. Plus it's news to me that they've managed to domesticate roos. Tamed maybe, domesticated - no. :mad

If they did have opposable thumbs we wouldn't be needed at all!

No but it might stop some. AFAIK the advertised cheapcheap desex weeks in Sydney haven't been able to keep up with demand. If I can find an article I'll post it.

The petition seems to be asking the RS to dig into their savings and run a large worthwhile desexing program. Not force anyone to desex, or stop anyone breeding. They have the funds, they really should be running more advertised voluntary neuter programs especially in the lower socioeconomic areas.

Yes, the numbers game. Like numbers make you a better rescue. I saw the second parvo pup's photo, I listed her on Dol. She is my kind of breed X and the spitting image of another pup we rescued down here. I badly wished I could help and still feel awful especially now she is sick. BUT putting that pup on freighted transport to Sydney was absolutely not an option... for all the seemingly obvious reasons.

It's simple. An undesexed rescue/pound/shelter dog is still 'at risk'. Some choose to desex young, outright removing that risk. Some don't: but to manage 100% successfully you must be confident, rigid and organised to enforce an unenforceable desexing contract on a dog you no longer own. OP: no you don't need puppies.

Oh dear. :p What a shame. Too much too soon. A lot of NSW dogs have been heading that direction - on transport, paid for with donations. People are so trusting of rescuers.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing especially for people who weren't there. Jimmay: Personally despite everything I know about what you should do in that situation and what I hope I would do....I probably still would have turned tail and run like hell. And never gone back to that street.

Saw that. But lost interest halfway through. It wasn't exactly unbiased. But yes you're right, people see something relatable and then become instant experts despite the disclaimers. I've seen some shockers 'disciplining' their dogs in parks and that was long before CM.

They don't remove dog-fight content in a hurry. I just don't see FB getting upset about the swap/sell or Aus microchip laws. But if they charged a fee to individuals using the site to sell and trade animals I bet a lot would disappear overnight.

Frequent pee-stops are normally a red flag for urinary tract infection LB. Incontinence (as far as I have seen in oldies) includes wetting the bed in their sleep and sudden 'leaks' rather than having time to squat properly. Both are treatable.

Best not to leap to conclusions. Yes they might be doing the wrong thing. But you don't know that without asking. (she could be ill, old, whelping or even a rescue/rehab case) Doesn't have to be accusatory, just get a conversation going: e.g. inquire about buying pups.

I forgot about Norwich! Awesome little terriers.

I have the breed I love and can't imagine life without them. But if a PB skye terrier came along...........

I can't see anywhere that says it was a pound dog or is that just the assumption because it attacked? The dog could just have easily been a freebie. It happens, people aren't warned of a dog's known temperament by owners who would just rather move the problems on.

No limit on water, I just don't give dry food at night - seems to make them drink more and increases the need for a midnight toilet break.

Jed I believe it's actually spelled Sydney Silkie Terriors.

Too much time on facebook today Onsntill - ....vainly looking for the 'Like' button. That's ok deelee and I completely understand. Difficult or seemingly hopeless dogs is a topic close to my heart and I did go off on a bit of a tangent.

I could not agree more. And it saddens me the time and money that is spent on retraining difficult cases that could be redirected towards saving more dogs with no problems. I hate to take a hard line, but with all the thousands of dogs in the pounds, I feel the ones with no issues should come first. I agree not all dogs should be rehomed. BUT Personally I'm not fussed about turnover numbers and prefer to focus on the dogs at hand. I cannot take the burden of the thousands of impounded dogs I cannot help. It's sad but thinking about all the others you 'could' rescue will see you broke and in over your head.... take too many dogs and they end up getting rushed through unassessed, stuck in boarding or left with a carer and forgotten. I disagree only on the one point re time and money. Many just deserve a decent chance. Some dogs rescued will naturally take more resources to get up to an appropriate standard for rehoming. For example the seniors, injured, ill, lame, mangey etc often come in with treatable health issues that need addressing. Just my experience but the homes for rehabbed dogs are out there: if the group is responsible, has the funds and can take difficult cases then that's all the better. However deelee I know you're talking about behavioural/aggression issues here and I'm so sorry. When issues appear after the dog is in care, that's the point where a rescue has to make a decision. And again, if they have not the time, resources or inclination to help that dog: it's not rehomeable.

We've gotten a couple of dogs in that you could tell were canned food dogs. They look 'healthy' because of whatever oil or fat is in the food - that's probably the premium tin brands. And are a decent weight but it's not muscle, just a chubbier body. The teeth (one rescue lost 18 in a dental) and the doggy smell coming from their skin along with the physical change once you get them onto a decent diet is enough of a reason for me not to feed it. Apart from the noxious farts.

Nice! I don't think we can get there after all though. Too much on, but I hope it's a very good night for everyone.

Ear problems can become so chronic. Please look at her diet, my last ear-issues dog responded so well to a low-allergy diet. He had to go onto Hills Z/D. Diet affects skin and the ears are sensitive bare skin very inviting to all sort of bugs that like to live in the warm dark. You will definitely see short term results from the meds because they are a good cure for the immediate issue but only while the dog is on them. If it's a chronic problem you'll just get onto a cycle of repeat vet visits, antibiotics and prednisolone. Try Z/D only or a grain free dry food to start with and then an elimination diet (google that one): basically once the ears settle you keep the dog on the allergen-free food and test the dog one food type at a time and if her ears flare up don't feed it anymore. I've heard people get good results on kangaroo. Sorry, I haven't looked at your old posts yet so you may have tried that already.

Danois is right, the inner west is like a maze. Someone could walk past a different park every day on the way to work and throw a bait or two each time. The increasing incidence of poisoning is getting really creepy.

One article suggests 1080