Add to delicious
Add to technorati
Add to technorati
Digg it
furl
Yahoo
Latest Viral Video:

Follow us on twitter

Discussion Tag Cloud

The hencam forum is proud to be powered by Exa Networks.

hits

We hope you enjoy your visit and join our happy hencam community!

If you haven't already got an account, it's easy to join (and completely free), just click the sign-in button at the top-right of the screen and click Apply for Membership.

If you want to help hencam, then please use our Amazon affiliate links the next time you purchase anything from Amazon - for
UK amazon purchases use this link or for
US amazon purchases use this link! It won't cost you anything at all and amazon will send us few pence which will go to the girls, new cameras, treats and more!



If you can think of anything that should be in this space, then let me know!

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now. We'd love you to join and pin your location on our map!
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeNov 12th, 2011 11:12pm (Nov 12th 2011) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Okay, so I thought we'd have a thread where we can get a proper discussion going about a certain topic...a bit more challenging than the other threads, and somewhere where we can voice our own opinions about specific topics. The topics can be changed every few days / week, and anybody can change it once they think the last one is finished...or we can discuss two topics on the go, it's what we tend to do in the rest of the forum anyway :001_rolleyes: :laugh:

    Rules:

    1) Respect other people's opinion, even if it's not the same as your own (this is kinda the point of the thread)
    2) No arguing; if you're feeling heated then don't read the thread, or if things get out of control then whisper an admin and they can rearrange it or post a new topic
    3) No aggressive behaviour or inappropriate language
    4) Keep the topics family-friendly as we do have younger forum members

    That's all I can think of for now...if anyone can think of any others just let me know. I know none of the regulars would cause any trouble :angel: but the rules are useful for newbies.



    First topic:

    Off-lead dog walking (haha, might have known it was something to do with dogs huh? :tooth: )

    This came about because on another forum, someone with two dogs had one of their dogs on lead and one off, so one could play with a greyhound it knew. She didn't let the 2nd dog off as it doesn't like other dogs running towards it; she didn't tell the other dog owner this. The greyhound ran past her on-lead dog, and her dog bit it. This warranted an overnight stay at the vets for the greyhound, but the owner doesn't feel it's her fault.

    Who's to blame? Should she have muzzled her dog, or should the greyhound's owner have had closer control of his dog?

    There is a lot of stigma on dogs being walked off-lead, and indeed a lot of people advocate always walking your dog on lead for a variety of reasons. I think this is absolutely ridiculous. Dogs need to be able to run and let out their energy. For some breeds (take Kasper for example) no amount of on-lead walking would tire them out, not physically or mentally. And for an active dog they need to be off-lead exploring, running and socialising with other dogs.

    For aggressive dogs unfortunately, depending on how aggressive they are, they may need to be kept on-lead unless in a garden or enclosed area. I also think that aggressive dogs should be muzzled outside, as sometimes off-lead dogs will run up to them to say hello. I don't think this should be blamed on the off-lead dog or that dog's owners, I think it should be 100% the fault of the unmuzzled aggressive dog's owner. Less reactive aggressive dogs may still be able to roam safely off-lead provided they were muzzled.

    It's true that walking a dog off-lead brings with it more risks and dangers, but the same as kids you can't wrap them in cotton wool!
    :rant:
    •  
      CommentAuthorLynnW
    • CommentTimeNov 13th, 2011 5:35am (Nov 13th 2011)
     
    I think all dogs should be on-lead out in public, it's just safer for everyone. If a dog is aggressive it should have a muzzel on, if it's around other dogs.

    We have very strict leash laws around here, if a dog isn't in it's own yard, it HAS to be on a lead. There are a few dog parks that allow off lead dogs, but they are few and far between. I don't agree with a lot of the laws, but the law is the law and we have to live with it.
    • CommentAuthorleevaux
    • CommentTimeNov 13th, 2011 10:46am (Nov 13th 2011)
     
    If you have a dog which is likely to bite humans or other animals it should have to ware a muzzle then there is no worry factor for anyone plus the aggressive dog could be off the lead for a proper run and not have to be restricted in any way.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeNov 13th, 2011 1:07pm (Nov 13th 2011) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    That's interesting Lynn. Do you think you'd feel the same way if there wasn't a law saying dogs must be kept on-lead? I know quite a few dog owners who live where similar laws are in place, and most stay away from the dog parks because there are way too many dogs crammed into a small space, and all the dogs are hurtling about and far too excited to see other dogs. Recipe for disaster.

    For me, if I had to keep my dogs on-lead no matter what, I don't think I'd want to own dogs. Unless I had a huge back garden they could explore and play in. I guess it's just what you're used to. Growing up around dogs, the biggest part for me and the thing that's made me want a dog more than anything else, has been taking them for walks. Watching them dash about madly exploring and climbing things, and playing fetch with them; walking a dog for me is the best thing about dog ownership.

    I do obviously keep Kasper on-lead near roads, places where there will be lots of people, picnic areas, parks, in the villages etc. He gets let off-lead in the woods and the fields, not anywhere else.

    I think there should be a law that states aggressive dogs have to be muzzled (at the moment the Dangerous Dog Act states dogs should always be kept under control, meaning they shouldn't harm another dog or human. When we spoke to the police about who's to blame if an on-lead dog attacked our off-lead dog, they said that the other owners should have kept the aggressive dog in check, for example muzzled, and that we wouldn't be to blame). It would be very hard to enforce a law that said aggressive dogs must be muzzled though.

    I also think that there should be more education programs in schools about dog behaviour and how to act and approach dogs. There are far too many kids who are terrified of dogs simply because they haven't been introduced to them or taught how dogs behave.
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeNov 13th, 2011 5:09pm (Nov 13th 2011)
     
    The owner should be aware, if walking the dog off-lead. I used to walk Ben off-lead all the time, but was constantly monitoring for other dogs. If I saw other dogs approaching (other than his regular playmates) I would call him back and put him on the lead until the other owner had passed with their dog, or told me s/he was safe to play. The one occasion Ben got bitten, he was on the lead and was set upon by a Boxer who was off lead and utterly uncontrolled by his elderly owner.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeNov 13th, 2011 11:54pm (Nov 13th 2011)
     
    This is a really hard one Red! I don't think it is 100% the fault of one dog/owner or the other. If someone keeps their dog on a lead then it's fairly obvious (especially if they've let the other dog off, as in your example) that the on-lead dog could be a problem. Therefore the off-lead dog owners should be able to keep their dog away from it. If they can't, should their dog really be off-lead?

    I think more responsibility is with the owner of the off-lead dog. We have all heard of free-roaming aggressive dogs that have attacked on-lead dogs. In your example it was an over-enthusiastic off-lead dog that got too close. If an off-lead dog cannot be kept away from the other dog by recall then surely it should be kept on a lead until there are no other dogs around. I have always believed dogs should be able to be run free and play, but they should also return to their owner immediately when called both for their own protection and that of others.

    I completely agree about educating children and I believe many dog attacks are because the child has done something to scare the dog and it believes it is protecting itself/ its owner / its home. This is of course excepting dogs that have been 'taught' to be aggressive.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeNov 14th, 2011 9:13am (Nov 14th 2011)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Posted By: KatebThis is a really hard one Red! I don't think it is 100% the fault of one dog/owner or the other. If someone keeps their dog on a lead then it's fairly obvious (especially if they've let the other dog off, as in your example) that the on-lead dog could be a problem. Therefore the off-lead dog owners should be able to keep their dog away from it. If they can't, should their dog really be off-lead?


    Whereas when I see an on-lead dog, unless there are signs saying otherwise, I assume a dog has too poor recall to be let off, rather than aggressive. If an owner had one on and one off-lead dog, I'd totally think the one on-lead didn't have the recall to be let off. Especially if they didn't say otherwise. If the dog freezes and stares at our dog, if the owner grabs the dog or pulls the lead taut, or the owner is scrotey, then I'll assume it's aggressive.

    Even if the dog is obviously aggressive, it's rare we will call Kasper to us and put him on-lead. Doing that actually teaches your dog that other dogs are to be feared, so we try avoid that if we can as our dog is so sensitive. We change direction, take a different route, or run / throw a ball past the dog if we know it's not too aggressive (for example there is a beagle that makes a lot of noise but doesn't snap).

    Recall's another tricky one, as no matter what anyone says you will never get a dog with a 100% recall. And this is coming from the person who used to walk Ellie everywhere without a lead! Kasper's recall is nowhere near as good as I'd want itto be. He won't come instantaneously for a lot of things, but I let him off in places where I know it's safe to do so.

    My main thought is that aggressive dogs must be muzzled; then there's no worry about an off-lead dog going to see them, and many aggressive dogs could still be allowed to run free. The man who had four dogs that I walked Kasper with sometimes, he had a Staffy that became dog aggressive after being attacked. Yet she was allowed to walk off-lead, amongst his other dogs and Kasper, because she was muzzled. Never had a problem with her, even though Kasper and the Doberman puppy would be jumping all over her!!

    Also, another example, when we lived in Stoke there was the trainer who would walk the seriously aggressive GSD off-lead. We once rounded a blind corner (trees on either side) with Kasp off-lead, and walked right into the GSD. The trainer screamed at us and the dog and we had to turn and run the other way and call Kasper after us. If we'd been less lucky that dog could have done serious damage.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeNov 14th, 2011 9:16am (Nov 14th 2011) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Posted By: Kateb I believe many dog attacks are because the child has done something to scare the dog and it believes it is protecting itself/ its owner / its home. This is of course excepting dogs that have been 'taught' to be aggressive.


    Totally. Dogs can get confused with children because they act and move so erratically. Most dogs either find their noise and movement exciting or terrifying. Kasper was meeting some other person's dogs yesterday, and there was a girl of about 3 walking with them. She automatically went to our dog and stroked him, and the adult with her said, "No, you have to remember to ask before you stroke somebody else's dog." I thought that was a very good idea.
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeNov 14th, 2011 5:46pm (Nov 14th 2011)
     
    As long as Kaspar's had his injections. Don't want him catching something! :tooth:
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeNov 14th, 2011 7:21pm (Nov 14th 2011)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Hahaha! I'll still never forget the time the nursery was walking the kids on the viaduct, and Kasper was off-lead. The staff told all the kids to stand still (the kids were only about 3 but the staff taught them to stand completely still when there are dogs, as the dogs won't be as interested - what a great idea!). Well this one kid didn't stop and was dancing and yelling. Kasp went to say hello and the kid just burst into tears!! The nursery staff were mortified and kept apologising to US, and saying the boy should have stood still, and this is why you're told to stand still etc.

    We offered to give some of the kids treats and had Kasper sit and they passed or threw them to him. It was a very good idea of the nursery to introduce kids to dogs like that and lay out the rules.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeNov 14th, 2011 10:46pm (Nov 14th 2011)
     
    That is a great nursery Red, and exactly what they should be taught. Caitlyn is too 'keen' sometimes if she sees a dog as her other nan has 2 dogs, and her mom has a dog, so she thinks they can all be trusted. I always tell her she must ask first in case she scares the dog. Doesn't stop her scaring Foggy all the time and trying to stroke her, so we just don't trust her near dogs.

    My sis-in-law has a springer and he is very scared of Caitlyn, so we don't take her round now as its not fair to either of them. My SIL has no control over her dog and he sat growling last time we took Caitlyn. He can't be shut outside as he barks constantly and throws himself against the door. He is my SIL's 'baby' and can't do a thing wrong, so it's better to be safe.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeNov 14th, 2011 10:53pm (Nov 14th 2011)
     
    Sorry, skewed it a bit towards kids instead of on/off lead! Its been a long time since I had a dog, and to be honest I don't remember any of my friends having them (are they more popular now? Also you had to have a licence for your dog - those were the days!) so my experience is limited to pre-teenage.

    What happens if the dog is completely phobic about the muzzle?

    I think we judge other dogs (and people) by our own dogs and standards, and previous experiences, which is demonstrated by the different ways Red and me interpreted the keeping the dog on lead example.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeNov 15th, 2011 10:03am (Nov 15th 2011) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    I don't remember what I was like with dogs as a kid. I know I wasn't scared of them, but I wonder if I ran at them like a lot of tots today do. I probably did :P

    A neighbour that lived opposite had three dogs that I grew up around, and I *loved* them! She had a Great Dane, a Terrier cross and a rescue what I now think was a Springer cross Collie! I went on holiday with her when I was 9 / 10 and she took me to see her friends' two Bull Mastiff; they were beautiful and the size of me :tooth:

    (oops, way off topic :laugh: )

    Has it always been like that or did Caitlyn inadvertently do something to scare the Springer? Your SIL could work with her Springer and Caitlyn, it's the same way you work with any dog phobia (although dog should be muzzled 'cos it's around a child). You counter condition them by giving them really tasty treats (or playing with them, whatever is highest on their love list!) whilst the scary thing is far enough away not to bother them too much. Then you slowly bring the thing closer. I guess it's harder to work with a dog and a child, seeing as kids can be unpredictable! If done right the process should take at least a month, the worst thing you can do is rush it.

    So, it'd be the same with a muzzle. You click and reward for the dog looking / being near the muzzle. For touching the muzzle (you can teach the command 'touch', we did this with the harness and Kasper when he hated it!) click and reward, for putting his nose in it, for allowing it to be held on his nose for 1 second, longer, longer, fastened etc. It's a delicate process but if you have the time and the patience you can make it work :smile:

    Okay, I gotta go...some furry pillock is whining to go out, and I don't mean Lyle :rolling:
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeNov 15th, 2011 10:44pm (Nov 15th 2011)
     
    No, she didn't do anything to directly scare him, just normal laughing and moving around. She's the only 'little' human he's been around. As for working with them to get him used to her, it isn't really practical. Mainly because she wouldn't see him that often, but also because my SIL isn't disciplined enough with him. He jumps all over her hubby and if he tries to stop the dog my SIL shouts at him for being rough with the dog! It's never the dog's fault. And I wouldn't want to risk Caitlyn getting bitten (my SIL wouldn't muzzle him) or being scared by him. Sadly, the safest solution is to keep him away from them and for the in-laws to see them at our house (we're only about a mile or 2 away!)

    Is there any more to say on the on/off lead dog walking? I like this thread as you get to see a point of view you probably hadn't thought of before!
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeNov 16th, 2011 9:27am (Nov 16th 2011) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    That will be why then...for a dog that's never been socialised with young children and seen them as being safe and fun, just the child's noise and movement can scare them...especially when the child comes into his territory. It's always sad in these cases because it's so easy to think 'oh what a horrible dog growling at a child', but it's usually because of poor socialisation, abuse or a bad experience.

    In our case we've had the few people that Kasper barked / growled at look at us oddly and assume we have a horrible dog. My Uncle yelled at him "Don't you bloody growl at me!" Oh yeah, good one, that's just what Kasper needed :001_rolleyes: It's not Kasper's fault, dog's always have a reason for acting afraid, they're not doing it to be nasty.
    I like this thread too :)

    Anyone have an idea for a new topic??
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeNov 16th, 2011 11:54pm (Nov 16th 2011)
     
    I don't blame the dog - I blame my SIL. She didn't give him the confidence to meet Caitlyn and get to know her without being afraid, and now its just too much of a risk to take. Maybe when Caitlyn is older and less scary to him he'll be better with her.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeNov 17th, 2011 5:17pm (Nov 17th 2011) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Eh, a lot of things can play a part in the way a dog reacts to something new...early socialisation plays a massive part, but the personality of the dog does too...submissive dogs are naturally going to be aggressive faster than more confident dog, as they'll be more afraid.

    It also depends on the age of the dog when they first meet the new 'thing', as dogs have fear periods right up until they are around 2 years old...for example the other day Kasper noticed this small white pot (like a very small plant pot) balanced on a garden wall in a garden that we walk past pretty much every day. He was terrified of this pot when he first saw it, and now gives it a wide berth and fearful looks. We must be going through a slight fear period and it spooked him. That's adolescent dogs for ya :blush5:

    Anyone got a new topic idea? I can do another if not...
    • CommentAuthorShobhna
    • CommentTimeNov 21st, 2011 1:11pm (Nov 21st 2011)
     
    I can think of a couple but just wanted to know if the threads will be on animal type discussions or can it be any subject?
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeNov 21st, 2011 1:50pm (Nov 21st 2011) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Nope they can be about anything Shobhna, go for it! :)

    I tend to do animal related ones because that's mostly all I'm in interested in hehe!
    • CommentAuthorollie in UK
    • CommentTimeNov 22nd, 2011 12:08pm (Nov 22nd 2011)
     
    OK, here goes, my latest beef (Oops, sorry veggies!)

    At my grand daughter's school it is the norm' for classes to be "Mixed ability".
    The theory being that this will encourage the slower learners to get up to speed.
    In practice, however, it results in a lot of time wasted in disciplining the disruptive pupils and teaching time becoming much less.

    What would be your avenue of approach here?
    It may be different in some other countries, so what can we learn from those?

    :read:
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeNov 22nd, 2011 5:54pm (Nov 22nd 2011)
     
    I see nothing wrong with streaming of abilities; there's nothing worse than being out of your depth with geniuses or being frustratingly held up by slower learners. I was bottom of the bottom maths division, but preferred being there than being tutted at by boffins who could do things in their head I couldn't do on paper!
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeNov 22nd, 2011 7:04pm (Nov 22nd 2011) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Oooh, that's a good one Ollie! :smile:

    See, in Year 7 (aged 11 - 12) I was placed in the bottom set for science, and from Years 7 - 9 (aged 11 - 14) I was in a low set for maths too. In both classes it was ridiculously hard to work, learn and concentrate because the class was full of idiots messing about, yelling at the teacher / each other and starting fights. I wasn't in those sets because I was an idiot, a bad student, or someone who didn't do their work...I just was. I got put in them straight from Primary school, where our entire year was just 15 children in one class with no sets (my Primary school was tiny tiny :smile: )

    By the time I was in Year 10 I had moved up to the first set in Science (for the braniacs) and was in a midway set for maths. At GCSE I got a C for maths (which to this day I blame the useless substitute teacher we had [our 'proper' teacher was missing for two whole years as he broke his back] the sub made us spend our lessons doing subtraction such as 6 + 9 = ? :mad: ) and I got a B and a C in science.

    However, I've always been in the top set for English. What a difference! There were rarely people messing about; chatting, yes, but not fighting. We worked well, we learnt things, and (most) the teachers I had were enthusiastic.

    So, at my school the bottom sets were mostly full of people who didn't *want* to learn...they would yell, we'd get chairs launched across the classroom...and for the poor student who had ended up in that classroom but didn't want to be a part of the rabble, it was impossible to ever learn everything. The teacher also had a hard time, s/he couldn't concentrate on the students that were trying, but instead was too busy breaking up fights and sending people out the classroom.

    I think for either mixed ability classes, or the lower streams if the school works that way, then there should always be a *lot* more more staff / teaching assistants to help out...

    *shrug*
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeNov 22nd, 2011 7:25pm (Nov 22nd 2011)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Sorry for the wall of text, that was quite an essay! :)
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeNov 22nd, 2011 11:33pm (Nov 22nd 2011)
     
    I agree with the views so far. In sport mixed ability might help but not in academic subjects. It doesn't encourage the slower learners to try harder, it just disrupts the brighter kids and will drag them down. Messing around is more fun than doing work after all!

    The more able kids should be in normal sized groups, and the less able in smaller groups so that they can get more help from the teacher. But it seems nowadays that they prefer to 'experiment' with the latest theories at the expense of our kids education. When I was at school we were streamed and it didn't bother us or make us feel thick. It meant we could get help from our peers in the higher sets and in the lower sets we would find some kids were better at some bits than others so would again help each other out. Schools are too busy worrying about 'equality' and parents who won't believe that their child isn't a brain box. My son was in mixed ability classes and it just reinforced his belief that he was 'thick' and couldn't do it. He isn't thick, and with the right help could've done it, but it's too late now - he has lost all faith in education.
    • CommentAuthorollie in UK
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd, 2011 10:17am (Nov 23rd 2011)
     
    my next door has two dislexic sons. Now adults they say how at school they would play the goon and disrupt class to appear "funny" and able to manpulate the teacher, so avoid being teased as "thick".

    The teachers are not allowed to put negative statements on the end of term reports, so parents read a report that hides the fact that their child is really failing in it's education.
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd, 2011 4:55pm (Nov 23rd 2011)
     
    Mixed ability sport??? That was my nightmare...best day of my lifec was when the doc signed me off games forever.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd, 2011 10:38pm (Nov 23rd 2011)
     
    My son's teachers always told me he was 'just lazy' and was 'perfectly able if he'd only put his mind to it'. He told me all the time that he was dyslexic, but his teachers denied it. Lazy was their version. Then when he left school and did a college course the tutor identified him as dyslexic in their first lesson and gave him the help he needed. If only the school had done that he might've come out of there with some qualifications because they were right, he was perfectly able, if only they'd put THEIR minds to it and looked past the end of their noses.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeJan 11th, 2012 9:07pm (Jan 11th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Okay, I have a new topic!

    The RSPCA recently did a campaign against pedigree dogs (I assume to try promote cross-breed adoption), even going so far as calling them 'mutants'.

    However it has since been discovered that some of the local branches charge a higher adoption fee for pedigree dogs over cross-breed dogs. The difference can be as massive as £120 for a cross-breed, and up to £300 for a pure! (see link)

    http://www.chesterfield-rspca.org.uk/pets-for-adoption/dogs/dog-adoption-fees-and-conditions

    What are people's thoughts on this?

    I don't think they should be charging more for pedigree dogs and especially not such a differing price range. An adoption fee in my eyes is to cover some of the costs of taking the dog in, and to make sure the people adopting are responsible and able to pay...asking different prices is saying that some dogs are worth more than others, just on breed alone...but then again that's the RSPCA all over isn't it, ranking some animals higher than others.

    I am not a fan of this idea AT ALL, despite the fact that the branch may draw in more money because of it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeJan 11th, 2012 11:11pm (Jan 11th 2012) edited
     
    Hmm, I'm not sure about this one! My first thought was "no way, how wrong!" but then when I thought about it a pedigree dog will attract a lot more attention and be more desirable, so therefore can bring in more money for the centre which will go towards helping to care for the other dogs. After all, if you can get a cross or a pedigree for the same price, which are people likely to go for?! Which would mean the cross breeds being overlooked purely on breed. It would also deter people adopting a pedigree for £120 and then selling it on for a big profit to anyone willing to pay - at least the RSPCA do home visits and vet potential owners which a profiteer wouldn't.

    Just had a quick look - seems Dogs Trust have a set fee which makes me think the RSPCA are wrong and just profiteering. Dogs Trust have a no kill policy, a robust home visit system (I assume) and are also a charity. If potential owners are assessed properly then selling on shouldn't be an issue.

    I don't think any rehomed animal should be sold as a pedigree - no papers, no value in selling on and taken in for the love of the animal only. They should be sold as a 'type', e.g. german shepherd-type dog.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeJan 11th, 2012 11:45pm (Jan 11th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Just quickly before I go to bed, it's only *some* branches of the RSPCA that do this which I think is very odd...others have a fixed adoption rate.

    Animal Care had a fixed adoption rate unless the dog had health problems that could be expensive (such as needing surgery - ongoing health problems such as diabetes would be covered by them), if the dog was very old or had serious behavioural issues (they offered their behaviourist to help free of charge if this was the case, too)

    I like the hypocrisy of it too...these dogs are 'mutants' but hey let's charge extra for them! I can't imagine it would help some breeds either - please tell me they don't charge pedigree price for Staffies?! And, last point, these dogs are ADOPTED, they come with baggage - people who aren't as 'dog aware' and are just 'trying to do a good thing' may get put off by the price and instead go to Back Yard Breeders and buy a pure-bred (admittedly not health tested but they won't know) puppy for half the price!!
    • CommentAuthorollie in UK
    • CommentTimeJan 12th, 2012 10:57am (Jan 12th 2012) edited
     
    I always thought cross breeds were "mistakes" and not intentional.

    I remember my Uncle's Scottie fathering to his Alsation. Now they were very, very cute but a mistake! And rather mind boggling... and loads of them!
    :running_dog::running_dog::running_dog::running_dog::running_dog:
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeJan 12th, 2012 12:22pm (Jan 12th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Posted By: ollie in UKI always thought cross breeds were "mistakes" and not intentional.


    They used to be / are supposed to be.

    The whole point of breeding dogs is to further the breed, to improve it. So dogs must be health tested, be able to have their lines traced back, etc etc. Cross-breed dogs are inevitable due to accidental matings from dogs that haven't been neutered. However recently there's been a call for "designer" dogs; these are cross-breeds that have been purposefully mated because 'designer' puppies often sell for a higher price than pure-bred puppies. Ridiculous. No such thing as a designer cross-breed, and anyone who breeds them are in it for the money...and this is coming from someone who owns a (rescued) "Sprollie" :P

    Designer breeds such as Labradoodles, Puggles, Jugs, Sprollies, Labradingers, Huskamutes...nobody knows what health problems they will carry because they're new, it's highly likely the parents weren't health tested, and they're produced by BYB for some quick cash.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeJan 12th, 2012 11:37pm (Jan 12th 2012)
     
    The cross-bred dogs (or mongrels as we used to call them) were always healthier and hardier than their pure-bred cousins. I don't understand why people will pay so much money just because the cross is from two pure-bred dogs.

    I assume each branch of the RSPCA has leeway to do whatever they like then. I would've assumed that RSPCA policy would dictate charges etc - they seem to run them more like a franchise!

    I must admit I changed my view after writing my post and had to edit it! I read what I'd written and thought "what a load of tosh"!
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeJan 14th, 2012 11:58pm (Jan 14th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    It's down to luck how healthy cross-breeds are to a certain degree, and many people today argue they aren't any healthier than pedigrees...depends on their parent's genetics etc etc. But I personally believe they're healthier; sure they'll have their own problem and some might be unlucky enough to be riddled with health problems, but I think comparing them to pedigree dogs where the gene pool is so small...especially the unhealthier breeds. A Cavalier King Charles Spaniel cross with a JR for example is surely healthier than a pure Cavalier, a breed that's inundated with all sorts of health problems... *shrug*
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st, 2012 10:48pm (Feb 1st 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Okay, another discussion!

    So, on the via duct we walk on (which cost loads to renovate and is supposed to be this big special thing for cyclists, walkers, families with kids, horse riders and dog walkers to use) there are signs to pick up your dog's poo every few feet, because obviously kids play on there.

    But at the same time, every six feet or so (not exact :laugh: but very regularly) there are huge mountains of horse poo. And obviously horse riders are allowed to leave it there (legally I think it's to do with the diet [not eating meat] whereas realistically it'd be an inconvenience for them to get off the horse to pick it up) but, at the end of the day, it is poo...! We walked past a dollop of it the other day that, if I'd have stood in it, would reach halfway up my wellie!!

    I get that dog poo isn't pleasant to stand in...but neither is horse poo! And whereas dog poo is much smaller and dogs naturally prefer to poo at the side and in grass, horses do it anywhere and everywhere! I don't mind the horse poo being there, I just find it hypocritical that they take such a stand against dog poo and plaster signs everywhere...

    Does society just see dog poo as being 'icky' and irresponsible, whereas horse poo has become 'rural' and acceptable? What is there stopping dog owners from thinking they don't have to clean up after their dogs' if riders don't have to clean up after their horses? (apart from hundreds of signs :tooth: )
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd, 2012 11:44pm (Feb 2nd 2012)
     
    Maybe the fact that it is big dollops means people can see it and avoid it, whereas dog poo is 'hidden' so more likely to be taken home on the bottom of your shoe!!! At one time horse poo was highly prized and people would collect it for their gardens - wouldn't happen with the doggie variety. I wonder if its something to do with parasites? Saying that, horses have to be wormed regularly the same as dogs so that's probably a red herring.

    I really don't know why its treated differently (apart from the practicalities - you'd need to carry a shovel and a bloomin' big bucket everywhere with you!) In more urban areas horse poo really isn't a problem! It would be an interesting question to pose to the local council.
    • CommentAuthorTrevs Mum
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd, 2012 5:08am (Feb 3rd 2012)
     
    I have a hilarious image of people carrying a platic bag and pooper scooper when they go riding and collectibng the poo along the way.
    Now there's a job for someone, poo collector:face-devil-grin:
    • CommentAuthorollie in UK
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd, 2012 8:23am (Feb 3rd 2012)
     
    I remember in Holland, some years ago, the street horses all had a canvas device behind them that collected their droppings.
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd, 2012 5:59pm (Feb 3rd 2012)
     
    Dedicated gardeners nick the horse poo as soon as they can anyway - I've seen people nipping out with buckets and shovels after a horse has...passed!
    Dog poo is vile, seething with toxoplasmosis, and jumps up and rubs itself in childrens' eyes. According to hyterical Hovis-style mothers and health and safety people anyway. I don't see much difference either, Red. I think you'll find it boils down to the fact that rich people own horses and rich people seem to make the laws in this country...
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd, 2012 6:04pm (Feb 3rd 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Posted By: ollie in UKI remember in Holland, some years ago, the street horses all had a canvas device behind them that collected their droppings.


    Huh, that's interesting...

    I just think horse poo has this almost romantic association, 'oh we're in the countryside isn't it lovely'...whereas there have actually been calls for dogs to be walked on-lead everywhere so that owners will 'see their dogs poo' and be able to pick it up...the opposite is true with Kasper, if the person holding the lead tries to bag his poo he gets way overexcited and flings himself at you and tries to play tug with your sleeve, but that's just him... :rolling:

    Posted By: KatebMaybe the fact that it is big dollops means people can see it and avoid it, whereas dog poo is 'hidden' so more likely to be taken home on the bottom of your shoe!!!


    What about at night?! It gets dark early in winter, and it being on the path means you're more likely to tread in it. There are no lights on the viaduct so it's pitch black.

    Posted By: KatebIt would be an interesting question to pose to the local council.


    True. I bet practicalities would be brought up, and I think I did read that it had something to do with horses, cows etc not eating meat. What about veggie dogs?! :tooth:
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd, 2012 11:10pm (Feb 3rd 2012)
     
    Maybe people would think it was an animal on the path at night - some of the dollops I've seen are so big they could be mistaken for everything from a hedgehog to a great dane!!! :rolling: I know they are bigger animals and therefore bigger poo, but there are a lot less horses around than dogs, except on your viaduct it seems!

    While we're on the subject, whatever happened to white dog poo?
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th, 2012 3:09pm (Feb 4th 2012)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    I stood in a massive dollop the other night, but it was so cold it had so frozen so it was fine!! :tooth:

    Kasper of course loves to eat the fresh dollops, always a delight :bigsmile:

    White dog poo? :shocked: As in actual white, not just frozen? I wonder if it's because dogs tend to be fed better quality diets nowadays...?
    • CommentAuthorollie in UK
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th, 2012 8:34pm (Feb 4th 2012)
     
    I remember the white dog poo.
    This an answer from Google:-

    White dog poop is the calcium left behind as the water evaporates, and the 'organic' components of the poop are consumed (in various ways) leaving the inorganic stuff behind.

    But nowadays dogs don't eat as much bone as they used to, including bone meal. Also, tighter regulation on dogs crapping on pavements means that turds don't hang around for years in public places like they used to, giving them less opportunity to dry out and turn white.


    If Casper eats other dog's poo then his diet wont be pure veggie?


    There are lots of horses round my village and I get plety of heaps along my road. A bit smelly in the hot weather but that's the smell of the country !!!
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th, 2012 9:50pm (Feb 4th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Posted By: ollie in UKIf Casper eats other dog's poo then his diet wont be pure veggie?


    Oh, Kasper's not veggie. I wouldn't like to push my beliefs onto my pets...he gets meat kibble, liver, bones etc...and of course, LOTS of poo! Not dog poo usually though, horse, deer, fox and cat is his favourite! :rolling:

    Hmm, that's interesting. I've seen a white-haired mouldy dog poo once, that was revolting :ack2:

    Horse poo has a fairly pleasant smell (okay, that sounds weird...) but cow poo, now that is just disgusting!!
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th, 2012 11:00pm (Feb 4th 2012)
     
    So does that mean dog food is better quality now Ollie? Yes Red, it was literally white and you'd see it pretty often. It didn't come out of the dog that colour!
    • CommentAuthorollie in UK
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th, 2012 10:33pm (Feb 5th 2012)
     
    Just have a read at the food tins. I am appalled at how litte real nourishment is in there.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th, 2012 11:16pm (Feb 5th 2012)
     
    Sadly that's true of lots of food stuffs Ollie. I thought by now there would be a real 'kick' against additives and preservatives and we'd be looking at much healthier ready-meals (which in effect is what we give to our pets!) If a company like Innocent can do it why can't the others? (I suppose the answer is one word - profit).

    I thought at one time pet food had to be fit for human consumption (not that we'd want to eat it!) but it seems it isn't anymore.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th, 2012 6:24pm (Feb 6th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Posted By: ollie in UKJust have a read at the food tins. I am appalled at how litte real nourishment is in there.


    People want cheap dog food, you get what you pay for in most cases. I saw a 15kg bag of dog food for £10 today, you have to ask yourself why...

    If most dog owners bothered to educate themselves about the ingredients in dog food, it's easy to find a good quality food that's sold at a decent price. People understand that junk food = bad for a human's health but don't understand it's the same for dogs...why not?!

    These are the ingredients for the food we feed Kasper (coincidentally we paid £21 for 15kg, so practically nothing!!)

    Whole rice (40%), duck meat meal (20%), naked oats, peas, whole linseed, sunflower oil, sugar beet pulp, vitamins and minerals

    Let's compare this to a well known brand that people expect to be good, so not Pedigree (because everyone knows that Pedigree is **** by now right?!)...erm, how about Iams?

    Their adult dog food; 15kg costs around £35

    Dried Chicken and Turkey (>25%), maize, wheat, animal fat, dried beet pulp, sorghum, barley, chicken digest, dried whole egg, brewer’s dried yeast, potassium chloride, sodium chloride, calcium carbonate, sodium hexametaphosphate, linseed, fructooligosaccharides (0.15%), linseed.

    The first three ingredients are the most important. They should be meat (eg. chicekn, turkey), rice, potatoes or oats. Meat meal is fine, meat derivatives should be avoided. Maize and wheat are fillers and indicate a poor quality food, especially if they are high up on the list.

    People think they can trust the big brands.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th, 2012 11:29pm (Feb 6th 2012)
     
    What brand do you feed Kasper? I used to buy dog kibble for the rats, but can't remember the brand now. It was difficult to find I remember that, but a small bag lasted them half a lifetime, literally.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th, 2012 12:20pm (Feb 7th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    We currently give him the Skinner's working dog food, Field & Trial Duck and Rice, it's the best of their dry dog foods. Some of the others can be a bit iffy and have maize / wheat in, but the Lamb & Rice Sensitive Adult is okay too :smile:
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeApr 25th, 2012 5:24pm (Apr 25th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    I have a new discussion subject...it came up as on another forum someone was asking if Pit Bulls are legal in the UK. Short answer no, they're a banned breed (which is an entirely different argument...)

    So, this is how it currently works. If you have owned a pit bull before the ban, it has to be registered, neutered, muzzled and walked on lead in public...pretty ridiculous, I know. But you can keep it.

    However, any dog that looks "of type" (meaning any dog that has any distinguishing looks / characteristics of a pit bull or other banned breed) can be seized without warning, and with no need of a complaint being made, by the police or dog warden. Not only is this ridiculous, but if you have proof that your dog is not any part pit bull, say you have proof mum is a Staffy and dad is a Lab for example, the police can still seize it as a dog 'of type; it can go to court, the dog can be PTS and you can end up with a criminal record!

    Isn't that ridiculous?! The directgov website ( http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/InYourHome/AnimalsAndPets/Dogs/DG_180098) has some interesting bits to quote:

    "If your dog matches many of the characteristics of a Pit Bull Terrier, it may be a banned type. This is because dogs with these characteristics are more likely than other dogs to cause severe harm if they attack.
    It won’t matter what type or breed a dog’s parents were. (Cross-bred and mongrel dogs can have the characteristics of a Pit Bull Terrier.)"

    "Some kinds of American Bulldogs have been found to be Pit Bull types."

    Could there be a worse way of doing this?!
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeApr 25th, 2012 11:26pm (Apr 25th 2012)
     
    I suppose they've got such vague criteria because people were saying their dogs weren't pit bull they were cross-breeds. The problem is they are making the assumption that because a dog looks a certain way it is more dangerous. I am sure you have met many dogs that look very cute but are way more dangerous! A few years ago there were more attacks by Labs than any other breed. Not sure what the numbers are now.

    And what a waste of police time! If someone complains then it should be assessed by a competent expert (though they'd probably charge the owner) not just take it and destroy it because it looks a certain way. Maybe they'll extend this thinking. Looking at the way some girls dress nowadays, maybe if they go out looking like a stripper in heels, short skirt and lots of make up, they can be arrested for it. Or a lad in a hoody, jeans and trainers is obviously a drug dealer so take him in too.

    At one time people had a dog for protection, but with the latest laws they are bringing in (every dog microchipped and any attacks can lead to prosecution even if in their home) means that if someone walks into your house uninvited and gets bitten you can get a criminal record, fine, etc. Owners should take some responsibility, e.g. putting the dog in another room when the repair man comes, but anyone uninvited should not be able to complain.

    As an aside, I wonder if this compulsory chipping rule will lead to abandoned dogs with neck wounds where their owner has tried to remove the chip.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeApr 26th, 2012 12:30am (Apr 26th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Someone I vaguely know, their parents' labrador got taken as a type dog! He's a pure lab, just a bit bigger and blockier than most, and he got taken!! There was uproar, and they got him back soon enough...of course they did, he was a Lab and everybody's always on the Lab's side!

    Funny you should say that, the most dog's Kasper has been attacked by are Labs and Lab crosses...and it's not because we see more of them, when we used to live in Stoke all we saw were Staffies...oh wow the rats are climbing all over me, the keyboard and mouse and making this very hard to type out! :rolling:

    The other forum I'm on, somebody on there is a vet nurse, and she's already seen a case of a dog come in with a wound from 'walking into a sharp fence.' The vet recognised the dog as belonging to different owners, realised it had been stolen, and contacted the police...turned out the dog had indeed been stolen and they had cut out the microchip :(

    Yes, I also liked (okay, wrong word...) that these seized dogs would be looked at by the police, who would determine whether or not they're 'type' dogs...what do the police know about dogs and dog breeds?!
    • CommentAuthorollie in UK
    • CommentTimeApr 26th, 2012 10:43am (Apr 26th 2012)
     
    Two Staffies live next to me. I don't like dogs (bad experience - twice savaged by same Alsation) but these two mini tanks are as soft as butter. Very loud bark though!
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeApr 26th, 2012 5:51pm (Apr 26th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    We had a Staffy that used to live next door to us before I even knew what a Staffy was...she too was an absolute cuddle monster! :smile:

    We don't see hardly any Staffies where we live now. Isn't it funny how certain dogs, you just don't see them some places? I know two people in the village that have Staffies...we mainly see Labs, JRTs, and toy dogs such as pugs, bichon frise...where Lyle's parents live it's very anti-staffy. The Staffies stay in rescue for years there, and my next dog *has* to have Staffy in it just so I can prove Lyle's parents misconceptions wrong...

    The dog walker we see sometimes walking towards the woods (she's really not very good) walks this absolutely gorgeous Staffy who is so excited to say hello to Kasper and us, but because of the breed the dog walker yanks it as far back as she can. She had a 3-ish month old Staffy pup last time and did the same with that :( ...as a result me and Lyle try extra hard to make sure the Staffies get to say hi to Kasper!
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeApr 26th, 2012 10:43pm (Apr 26th 2012)
     
    We see lots of staffies around here - goes with the standard 'type' of person (i.e. male, hoody wearing, cropped hair, jogging bottoms, trainers, looks like they're casing every house they pass!) Staffies were bred as nanny dogs. They would leave them in the child's nursery so that if anyone came to do harm to the child the dog would protect it. They never harmed the child though. It's all down to training, whatever the breed.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeApr 26th, 2012 11:10pm (Apr 26th 2012)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Yeah, we saw quite a few Staffies the last place we lived, same with Rottie's...all really badly trained, 3/4 were dog aggressive and every owner we saw yelling, yanking or hitting their dog...
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeApr 27th, 2012 10:20pm (Apr 27th 2012)
     
    Its a shame that, instead of taking away pit bull-like dogs, they don't take away bad owner-like humans and save dogs and the rest of us from having to put up with them!
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeApr 29th, 2012 2:30pm (Apr 29th 2012)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Dog owners should *have* to take their dogs / puppies to positive reinforcement training classes and puppy socialising classes. It should be a legal requirement.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeApr 29th, 2012 11:48pm (Apr 29th 2012)
     
    Not sure how enforceable that would be!! Besides which, some of the people that run those classes don't have the first idea of how to train a dog! Didn't you have some run-ins with a useless trainer?
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeApr 30th, 2012 4:24pm (Apr 30th 2012)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    When my Aunt and Uncle adopted Chip, the RSPCA made them sign a contract to take him to puppy classes and they did. He was, surprisingly, very well trained as a youngster...unfortunately they didn't keep up with it!

    Oh we've seen some dreadful trainers, but none of them have been PR trainers. I think there's a really good website that lists all the good positive reinforcement trainers and qualified behaviourists somewhere...
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeApr 30th, 2012 11:43pm (Apr 30th 2012)
     
    The problem is that when you set something like that as a 'law', the trainers would have to be properly trained and accredited, which would mean they would have to register with some governing body or other that'd probably charge them a lot of money, and then they can charge what they like for classes and anyone who wants a dog would be forced to pay it. How would the elderly get on who want to take in an old dog that doesn't need much exercise, or the owner can't get out? In theory it's a good idea, but I think in practicality it would cause too many problems and lead to dogs just not being adopted any more.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeMay 1st, 2012 11:27am (May 1st 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Hmm, that's true. Unless it was just with puppies...I know most rescues offer free training and meetings with their behaviourist with any dog adopted from them, but then that cuts into the rescue's funds.

    Vince was taken to puppy training, and he is not very pleasant now either. I don't understand the people who bother to take their dogs to puppy school, but then don't keep up with training...you can't expect a puppy to remember all the lessons and socialisation it learned, that's like not expecting a 5 year old to need more schooling! When our dog hits two he can be considered to not need anymore socialisation, but we'll always be giving him it.

    Then there's my friend who's dog didn't need any training at all because it was such an intelligent breed...wow yeah, that turned out well!
    • CommentAuthorollie in UK
    • CommentTimeMay 1st, 2012 11:55am (May 1st 2012)
     
    Another topic -
    My 14yr grand daughter has been selected to be one who speaks to the visiting Ofsted folks. She has been instructed to only say positive things. She has decided that this may includes positive phrases such as "That teacher is useless".
    • CommentAuthorollie in UK
    • CommentTimeMay 1st, 2012 12:00pm (May 1st 2012)
     
    Another school topic -
    Schools have disruptive pupils in every class as they are not now allowed to be segregated into separate classes.
    In "The old days" these children would not be there. They would be playing truant. Compulsory attendance at school seems to have messed up education big time for the other pupils.
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeMay 1st, 2012 9:06pm (May 1st 2012)
     
    Ofsted are rubbish anyway; they worry about things like fences in secure areas with no crime and ignore the fact that the kids are made to do huge numbers of exams so the schools can climb those stupid league tables.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeMay 1st, 2012 11:18pm (May 1st 2012)
     
    And the league tables are fiddled - schools only put kids in for exams if they know they're going to pass, thereby having a large % pass rate.

    I assume your granddaughter will have a teacher hovering nearby at all times. If the school was that good it wouldn't need to tell her what to say. As for disruptive pupils, I don't know what is the answer. It is a shame for the rest of the class that want to learn to be distracted by such a pupil, and easily led kids will be dragged down by them. But put them all together or exclude them from school and you have big resources thrown at them at the detriment of the 'good' kids. When I was at school we had disruptive pupils but the teachers controlled the class and didn't take any crap from them. They don't seem to be as strong now, probably down to bodies like OFSTED preventing them punishing those kids.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd, 2012 4:09pm (May 2nd 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    I always had disruptive kids in my class...I can't say they affected me too much. There were the disruptive girls that didn't stop talking, disruptive boys shouting and playing pranks, and more disruptive girls and boys that would swear, argue and throw chairs around...they were just always a part of the classroom and you dealt with it. Lower sets tended to have more, obviously.

    We had a teacher that totally flipped once too. Slammed a book down on a kids' table almost hitting the kid, then kicked a chair all around the room, banging off all the walls and damaging some...me and a friend complained to our head of year, and she told us that was a serious accusation to make and we should stop being silly. I hated both teachers evermore.

    Then there was the teacher who was absolutely horrid and very inappropriate with the girls...several complaints were made by parents but nothing happened until he held a Year 7 to a locker by his throat, surrounded by witnesses. Then he was fired.

    We had it all at our school, and the teachers were always worse than the kids...
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd, 2012 11:29pm (May 2nd 2012)
     
    When I was at school if a teacher held a kid by the throat and you went home and told your parents, they'd punish you again as you obviously did something wrong to make the teacher react that way. Nowadays the kids bring their parents in who threaten the teacher, go to a lawyer/newspaper/tv, and kids realise that teachers have no power at all and they can do whatever they like without consequences.

    Our Chemistry teacher used to administer the cane on behalf of the Headmaster. He would always do that when he was teaching a class. Said child would be taken into the side room (that had no door), would be told why they were being punished, what that punishment would be (i.e. number of 'hits') and then sent back to class. Only the real hard/bad kids ever got the cane, the rest of us were too scared so behaved. It was a rarely used deterrent but it was very effective. My brother was badly behaved at school and was caned twice. He said he deserved them both. He's still alive, sane, sensible and respectful. Same can't be said for some of today's yobs.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd, 2012 11:57pm (May 2nd 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    I would NEVER hit a kid. I won't hit my dog so I most certainly won't be hitting a child. Positive reinforcement has been scientifically proven to work best with not only dogs but children too...PR always works better than punishment and coercion. If teachers can't get the pupils interested in education that's their own fault for being useless and unimaginative teachers, and in no way should they take that out on bored children!

    I had a wonderful history teacher. He was imaginative, fun, and made us *all* want to learn. He had some of the most badly behaved pupils ever in that class, they hated history, but he made them want to learn

    Teachers are adults, pupils are children...they should always know better and in no way use intimidation or violence to scare pupils into learning. Teacher holds a kid by the throat, damn right he deserves to be sacked and more on top of that! I understand it used to be different and that there are major faults in the education system today...but I absolutely detest violence towards children.

    My thunks anyway :smile:
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeMay 4th, 2012 12:05am (May 4th 2012)
     
    I know it's not very PC to say this, and I'm in no way comparing it to the schooling of the 80's previously mentioned!, but I think there is a place for a parent to use a smack as a last resort. Not as an 'anger' thing, but as a bringing a child to its senses short sharp shock. And I don't mean beating, punching, or bruising either. One quick tap can stop a tantrum, give a warning (I would rather smack a child's hand if they're constantly trying to put it in a plug socket than let them try it out). I have seen too many non-smacking parents with the most awfully behaved kids. They probably don't think their child is badly behaved, but just ask the people around and they'll have a different view! My mom never smacked me, but by God she had a terrible tongue and I was terrified of her. By the way, despite admitting that yes, I did smack my kids (rarely, honest!) when they were young, I would never do the same to anyone else's kids, including my grandkids. It's not my place to discipline them.

    I also don't believe that bad behaviour is the domain of the underprivileged. So called 'posh' kids are often worse, and the more affluent are more likely to dabble in alcohol and drugs. There is no one method that suits everyone - we all have to find out own way of making things work.
    • CommentAuthorollie in UK
    • CommentTimeMay 4th, 2012 10:56am (May 4th 2012)
     
    Quite a few years ago I had aquaintances who let their children run wild. No discipline. To my eyes they were little demons.
    Parents did not smack or shout but used only words to explain correct behaviour.
    These chidren are now well balanced grown ups and have beautiful personalities.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeMay 4th, 2012 4:05pm (May 4th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    If I ever hit any child of mine, I wouldn't be happy with myself...same if I hit Kasper. I saw some wonderful parenting at the supermarket yesterday...the mum was paying for shopping on a self-serve machine, and had her young 3-ish year old daughter attached to her by one of those leads that fasten around the wrist.

    The kid was bored and trying to look at the machine, she wasn't touching, just looking. Whilst the mum was paying, she screamed "Megan!" and yanked the childs' arm 8 times, that me and Lyle counted. Imagine being that kid and that's all you hear?! You don't get told what you're doing wrong, what you should be doing, you don't get provided with a toy so you have the chance to behave...you just get yelled at and ignored.

    By the end of it the kid was sat on the floor crying and screaming that her hand hurt, because the lead had tightened and her poor hand was bright red! Mum didn't listen or notice, bagged the shopping and dragged the screaming girl horizontally out of the shop!

    I think Kasper has taught me a lot in regards to parenting as well as dog ownership...that sounds awful haha but I understand rewarding good behaviour and distracting the bad so much better now. I think having such a sensitive and 'difficult' dog has prepared me a little for parenting.

    Working with an animal that doesn't understand English or right from wrong also means I have to have LOTS of patience and try be creative with showing him what I want too! But because he's a dog there's the bonus of putting him in his crate if he's too much :tooth:
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeMay 5th, 2012 11:58pm (May 5th 2012)
     
    Ah, if only we could crate the kids when they get to be too much!!!! :face-devil-grin:

    The woman you saw was just not doing a good job. Some parents are just unable to cope with their kids, or maybe life in general. I try not to be too judgemental of someone I see a as a one-off because I don't know what else may be going on in their life, or what could've happened 30 seconds before I saw them. For example, I remember driving to work (when I was working at the hospital) and the car behind me was being a real idiot. Speeding, trying to get past everyone, cutting people up - I decided to just get out of the way and let him go be an idiot elsewhere. A couple of minutes later I arrived at work and there was the car - abandoned outside the maternity unit! He was rushing to see his baby being born.

    Back to parenting though - it has to be a mix of everything, including making on the spot decisions which sometimes might be wrong but that's what makes us human. Whatever happens it should always be explained to the child, whether that is a discussion, shouting at them, or a smack. A dog is always a dog, and always has much the same level of understanding. A child grows and you expect them to understand more and behave accordingly. Positive reinforcement doesn't always work - sometimes punishment has to be used, it's just finding what is effective for that child. I think kids are more like cats than dogs when it comes to training!!
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeJun 16th, 2012 10:47pm (Jun 16th 2012)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    I have a discussion topic...there are several rescues here in the UK that rehome dogs from other countries. Countries that are way overpopulated with dogs, where packs roam the streets, being physically abused by locals, are constantly starving, and if the dog catchers get them they will be treated despicably and killed.

    Now, is it right that these rescues are bringing dogs into the UK, and taking homes that would otherwise be available for the thousands of dogs needing homes already in the UK? We already have far too many dogs in rescues, why add more to the mix instead of trying harder to find them homes?

    Nobody can argue that it isn't amazing and noble work they are doing, saving dogs' lives...but at the same time, shouldn't we be trying to help the dogs here first...? :smile:
    • CommentAuthorollie in UK
    • CommentTimeJun 17th, 2012 2:52pm (Jun 17th 2012)
     
    Careful Red, someone will be on your tail shouting "Race Discrimination".
    I'm fully on your side though, on all counts.
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeJun 17th, 2012 3:53pm (Jun 17th 2012)
     
    I was thinking that these dogs are asylum seekers. If we can help, we should, but not at the expense of dogs already waiting for homes. Perhaps they should pay to help people who want to bring strays home from holidays?
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeJun 18th, 2012 12:01am (Jun 18th 2012)
     
    I didn't realise this was happening on any great scale. What sort of numbers are we talking about? Tens, hundreds, thousands? The distinction for me would be whether the people that home them would've taken a dog from another shelter here. There are always people that will get a puppy from a neighbour, or Gumtree, but would never take in a rehomer. Maybe more effort should be put in to convincing the ruling parties in those countries to treat their animals better - though most of them treat their humans the same way so that's unlikely to help.

    We have enough of a stray problem in this country without taking in even more from other parts of the world. If we are ever lucky enough to have a shortage of dogs for rehoming then we could maybe look to other countries to help them out.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeJun 19th, 2012 5:18pm (Jun 19th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    I'm really not sure where I stand on this (thanks for the replies too!) My thoughts are:

    ~ If the dogs weren't rehomed in the UK they would be left to starve, be tortured and killed in their original country

    ~ but at the same time they're taking up homes that dogs already here could be put into...I think I find it particularly hard to accept because of the thousands of Staffies being PTS in dog pounds or left to rot in rescues...

    Tennessee at Animal Care has finally got a home. He had been there for four years, and he was almost 11 when he left (I think)...imagine if his owner had adopted a dog from another country? Nobody would have been interested him, the likelihood is he would have died alone in rescue.

    Kate, I don't have any figures. All I know is that there are rescues who work only for rehoming dogs that are in rescue abroad. One rehomes them from Romania where a small, understaffed rescue manages to save the dogs from the dog catchers, who would kill them for profit. Once the dogs have a home here, they're shipped over to meet their new family.

    The other issue I have is that all the dogs I've seen listed have all been described as loving, sociable, and good with other dogs and strangers. How do they know this is true?! It also says that the dogs at the rescue are never walked or given attention, due to not having enough staff, so how can they assess the dogs thoroughly? If someone says they'll have a dog, the rescue brings them to the UK and finds them to be dog aggressive...then what? They join all 'our' dogs in rescue in the UK...?

    Posted By: chief chickenIf we can help, we should, but not at the expense of dogs already waiting for homes. Perhaps they should pay to help people who want to bring strays home from holidays?


    That's a very good way of phrasing it, and exactly what I meant! And that's a good idea too, I've read several 'happily ever after' stories where people have been on holiday, fallen in love with a stray dog, and brought him / her over to the UK after months of arguing and spending money...
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeJun 19th, 2012 11:17pm (Jun 19th 2012)
     
    After spending a lot of money to get them here people are more likely to keep them and care for them properly (you would hope!)

    I thought of this thread today when I saw an advert on TV for a Donkey rescue. They bring donkeys over from overseas to live in a sanctuary. They may be rehomed, but that is not the priority. Is that on a par do we think?

    There are several charities that work abroad to neuter cats to reduce stray and feral numbers. Is this not possible with dogs too? I suppose if they're being treated badly by their owners, or being bred for food, it would make no difference at all. I really don't understand animal cruelty.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeJun 20th, 2012 3:59pm (Jun 20th 2012)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Posted By: KatebI thought of this thread today when I saw an advert on TV for a Donkey rescue. They bring donkeys over from overseas to live in a sanctuary. They may be rehomed, but that is not the priority. Is that on a par do we think?cruelty.


    Hmm. That seems different because it's donkeys (I'm uneducated with donkeys, I don't know how many need 'rehoming' or how many rescues there are) and their priority isn't to rehome them...surely there can't be as many donkeys in rescue and in need of rehoming (or as many people willing to rehome then) as dogs...?

    Funnily enough my mum always wanted me to have a donkey rescue :smile:
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeJun 20th, 2012 4:01pm (Jun 20th 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Posted By: KatebThere are several charities that work abroad to neuter cats to reduce stray and feral numbers. Is this not possible with dogs too? I suppose if they're being treated badly by their owners, or being bred for food, it would make no difference at all. I really don't understand animal cruelty.


    I think the problem this one rescue I looked at had, was that a lot of the dogs had 'owners'...but the owners left them to live on the street and didn't bother neutering them. Then there were also lots that had been kicked out by their 'owners'...so there are hundreds of dogs roaming the streets, breeding at will, being abused by anyone that fancies, and eventually dog catchers kill them for money...so the charity just wants the dogs out of that volatile situation, then neutering etc follows...not that that will fix the problem...
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeJun 20th, 2012 10:30pm (Jun 20th 2012)
     
    The sad thing is that no matter how many dogs we remove from a country like that,they will just be replaced by hundreds more. It is now embedded in their culture that dogs are worthless and can be discarded at will.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeJun 21st, 2012 8:26pm (Jun 21st 2012)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Posted By: KatebIt is now embedded in their culture that dogs are worthless and can be discarded at will.


    For a nation of animal lovers we seem to be quite spectacular at abusing and letting dogs down ourselves :confused:
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd, 2012 6:20pm (Jun 22nd 2012)
     
    Not compared to other nations...
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd, 2012 12:44pm (Jun 23rd 2012) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    But that's not something to be proud of...is it? It's not like we can say we're 'better' than other places - we're well known for supposedly being a 'nation of animal lovers'...how can we say that when thousands of animals are abused at home, thousands more are left to stray or rot in rescues? The friend who is staying with us, his dog was a rescue and had her tail and one ear cut off with what seemed to be a knife :ack2:

    Then there's all the people who accidentally "abuse" their pets simply because they don't understand their needs...dogs who are high energy and get a 10 minute on-lead walk, rabbits who aren't fed hay / grass, rats that are kept in cages too small for a hamster...
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd, 2012 7:09pm (Jun 23rd 2012)
     
    ...and women who apparently kept 2 rabbits in a hutch not big enough for 2 guinea pigs..:face-sad:
    I think on the whole we can be proud of our record of animal welfare. There will always be aberrations, and that's a terrible thing, but we were the first nation to have a society for animal welfare at all and most people are compassionate and kind.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd, 2012 11:05pm (Jun 23rd 2012)
     
    Working at the cat rehoming centre you see both sides - people that dump a cat because it is a stray/sick/old/a baby has taken it's place/it belonged to aunty Ethel and she's in a home now and we don't want her smelly old cat in our expensive home.

    But then there are others that come in and fall in love with a cat and take it home, love it and care for it, and send us pictures because they are so proud of their cat and want to share their joy. Of course there are people who have a genuine need to rehome a cat and are extremely upset at having to do so - people who are sick and have no one they trust to care for their pet, or who have to leave their home because of a family breakdown or loss of job and the new home won't allow pets.

    There are horrible people out there, and there always will be. But generally as a nation we do more for our animals than the countries that were being referred to at the beginning of this discussion.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeSep 21st, 2013 2:23pm (Sep 21st 2013) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    I'd completely forgotten about this thread, but I have a new discussion...

    What do you think about the argument people shouldn't keep pets? It's purely for the person's benefit, the animals get nothing out of it and they can't continue with many of their natural behaviours.

    See I think this is a tough one. I'm obviously very pro-pets, I love having them in my life, I love providing the best life possible for them, and I love watching them interact with their environment and, if possible, interacting with me. But I can't think of an argument as to why I should keep pets other than 'well if I didn't get them somebody else would anyway'...

    As long as the animals aren't being damaged in any way by being kept as pets, why isn't it a good thing?

    The friend who came to stay brought this subject up. He said it was fine to keep pets like Kasper, as he's obviously loving life and being treated like a king, but their hamster at home shouldn't be kept as a pet as he's never taken out of the cage. But that's nothing to do with 'keeping pets is good/bad', that's more to do with the owners and how involved they are with the pets.

    I also disagree with the statement that the pets get nothing out of being kept as pets - they get the safety, regular feeding and ease of pet life, and there are plenty of pets who get enjoyment from living with people too (dogs, cats, rabbits etc).
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeSep 21st, 2013 4:56pm (Sep 21st 2013)
     
    Our animals have a whale of a time, running free for most of the day and just being themselves. I agree some animals have a dreadful time, but that's the owners. I think the statement should read Some people should not have animals as pets' if anything! I don't regard our animals as pets as such, more as people who share our home but rely on us to be looked after.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKateb
    • CommentTimeSep 21st, 2013 10:42pm (Sep 21st 2013)
     
    5 of my 6 cats chose to come and live with me. The only one I chose was Emmett who is now 18, deaf, one-eyed, and arthritic. How long would she survive if she wasn't a pet? I haven't forced the other 5 to be pets, in fact Kitten was born and lived feral, but I gained her trust and she is happ and healthy.

    I suppose other animals, especially caged ones its slightly different. A snake or a lizard would probably choose to escape if they had the chance, and rodents would probably also do that, but as long as they have good owners surely their lives are improved by living with us as long as we enrich their lives and allow them to mimic their natural behaviour? Living wild would be full of fear, and a constant fight for survival. Most small rodents are simply food for other animals, so is it wrong for us to have them as pets? And what is wrong with us having them for the sake of it? Pet owners are happier and healthier and very often kinder than those that don't have animals, though the vet bills usually make sure they're poorer!!
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeSep 22nd, 2013 5:57pm (Sep 22nd 2013)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Posted By: Kateb

    I suppose other animals, especially caged ones its slightly different. A snake or a lizard would probably choose to escape if they had the chance, and rodents would probably also do that, but as long as they have good owners surely their lives are improved by living with us as long as we enrich their lives and allow them to mimic their natural behaviour?


    Agreed, although some natural behaviours are hard to provide for. Syrian hamsters for example would wander miles in the wild, but obviously that's not possible in a cage or even with free time...or is that where wheels come in?? :smile:

    -+
    -dgf <----- Kasper wanted to join in the discussion :laugh:
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeSep 22nd, 2013 6:01pm (Sep 22nd 2013) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    Posted By: chief chickenOur animals have a whale of a time, running free for most of the day and just being themselves.


    I guess that would be the ideal for all pet animals :smile:
    •  
      CommentAuthorLynnW
    • CommentTimeSep 22nd, 2013 6:31pm (Sep 22nd 2013)
     
    Good question, Red... for me, life wouldn't be worth living if I didn't have my critters. Some people should NEVER have pets,they just don't know how to take proper care of them, or are abusive to them. Domesticated animals really depend on humans to live longer, happier lives. Wild animals sometimes live longer in captivity, but for the most part should be left alone, except little rodents which usually have a longer life expectancy as pets than living in the wild at the bottom of the food chain.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeSep 23rd, 2013 4:13pm (Sep 23rd 2013)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    It seems we all agree that rather than the 'people shouldn't have pets' argument, it should be *some* people shouldn't have pets! And the pets that we own are given the best life possible, far better than if they were living in the wild.
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeSep 23rd, 2013 4:16pm (Sep 23rd 2013)
     
    ...and the running free bit isn't all it's cracked up to be; I just got home to find open cast mining going on under the apple tree!:rant_red2::wha:And sweeping everything back in I realised I've inadvertently buried a glass ball from my sculpture...:( Anybody want a pair of reprobate rabbits...?:crying:
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeOct 15th, 2013 10:59pm (Oct 15th 2013) edited
     

    Keeper of the hens

    What does everyone think about dog breeding?

    I think we have totally ruined some breeds, many of which are my favourites...Bulldogs can no longer mate naturally, or give birth without C-section. Pugs are terribly unhealthy and many faint whenever they become excited. Cavaliers that have brain issues causing immense pain and seizures. German Shepherds that have backs so slanted they look like mutants and their back legs can't straighten...and that's to name but a few! (please note I have nothing against these breeds)

    Back Yard Breeders are breeding more dogs than ever before, with no health tests carried out on the parents. These dogs are brought up in barren cages with no stimulation or socialisation, and many grow up to be sickly, problematic adults.

    Cross breeds are being passed off as 'designer dogs' and being sold more than pure breeds…is this wrong??

    The whole point of breeding dogs is supposed to be to "better the breed"...but can we honestly say we are doing that? And with millions of dogs in rescue centres or pounds, *should* we be breeding more dogs? Or should we be cutting back until the vast majority of rescue dogs have been homed?

    I've seen a responsibly bred English Bulldog and she was beautiful, I'm pretty sure I shared here but in case I didn't:

    http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/able-mabel.html

    Shouldn’t we be doing this with all dog breeds? Ditching the breed standards and instead trying to breed healthy dogs with vitality and good temperaments?
    •  
      CommentAuthorchief chicken
    • CommentTimeOct 16th, 2013 4:25pm (Oct 16th 2013)
     
    She's lovely and in far better proportion. We have always purpose bred dogs (for hunting/herding/temperament and so on), but now the purpose seems to be purely aesthetic (or UNaesthetic in many cases) and for the kudos and pockets of dog breeders whose interests in the dogs is monetary rather than caring. While there are so many homeless mongrels I personally could never buy a purpose bred animal. As you say, these breeder are slowly destroying breeds and it's not till threatened with exposure/prosecution that they start to back pedal and try to reintroduce old lines. My friend had a non-bug-eyed King Charles spaniel with a pointy nose and was often approached to use her for breeding to try and get back to the Gainsborough painting type spaniels. She always said that 'My dog is spayed, and even had she not been I would never turn her into a sausage machine for your profit!'
    •  
      CommentAuthorLynnW
    • CommentTimeOct 16th, 2013 7:50pm (Oct 16th 2013)
     
    People have destroyed so many breeds of EVERYTHING, not just dogs and cats. People breed for the way a dogs looks instead of the way they act. They create dogs that can't breath, see well, have hip problems and shorter life spans. It's all about the money, not the poor dogs. These "designer dogs" are the biggest joke on the planet. The dog is a "mutt", not a "designer dog"..gawd, and people pay big bucks for them, while perfectly wonderful dogs fill up the shelters and can't find homes..grrrr!:cursing:
    •  
      CommentAuthorRed
    • CommentTimeOct 17th, 2013 3:06pm (Oct 17th 2013)
     

    Keeper of the hens

    I agree with everything you've both said.

    The saddest thing is Lynn that now the rescue centres are becoming full of "designer" dogs!! I've lost count of how many "Jugs" (Jack Russel cross Pugs) I've seen in rescue centres; people buy them because they look like Pugs but don't realise how energetic they will become. "Sprollies" are also seen in rescues a lot, usually at around 8 - 12 months old when they start becoming more work.

    And don't get me started on "Sprollies" being sold as an ideal family pet...a Collie cross Springer Spaniel, are you having a laugh?! How many families are going to be able to provide upward of 3 hours exercise a day??