Now ye're talking - to someone who runs a dog rescue charity

pawrick wrote: »

Whats your opinion on licencing and micro chipping in relation to making the work of an animal rescue easier or conditions better for dogs (or pets in general).
To me it seems to be a bit of a muddle of different groups/agencies managing databases and i think licences should be combined with chips in a better way.

Yes, the whole microchipping and licensing thing in Ireland is a bit of a mess. As far as I can see, it's largely down to chronic under-policing and under-enforcement of the legislation that's in place. It has *sort-of* cleared up the mess of there being several different databases operating here, but caused other problems in some ways.
Other countries and jurisdictions certainly do it better. Our neighbours in the north, for example, use the metal collar tag as the license, instead of a piece of paper. Very easy for the warden to tie a dog with its owner. In addition, neutered dogs are far, far cheaper to license.
Down here, the new-ish microchipping laws had great potential on paper, but in practise, I find the whole system quite cumbersome, somewhat confusing for owners, and utterly underenforced.
It is illegal to possess, sell, or exchange any dog without a microchip, yet it is rampant. For goodness sake, there are ads galore on the likes of adverts.ie and Donedeal advertising dogs (free and for sale) that are not microchipped... perhaps these advertising websites should put a stop to people using their sites to engage in illegal transactions and exchanges, huh?

Dubl07 wrote: »

Do you think the state should mandate and pay for or contribute to neutering of most dogs, both male & female? The Scandinavian model springs to mind.

I might be getting mixed up in my old age, but I think the Scandinavians are kinda horrified by our across-the-board neutering. They don't really do it, I think vets consider it needlessly invasive. Perhaps I have this wrong, feel free to correct me if so!
So why have they not got a gazillion unwanted pups flooding their streets? They have sensible, strongly enforced dog control laws, and the people are..well... more compliant that us Irish:o
You never see stray dogs there, but you do see lots of inclusion of dogs in society, with their owners in cafes, bars, hotels, and other places they're rarely permitted here. There's a lot of social pressure on owners to make sure their dog is mannerly and sociable as a result, so in Scandinavia, and indeed in a few other European countries I've been in, all you see is content, well-behaved dogs who get to go everywhere with their owners, bothering nobody and having a great quality of life.
But, as I have already hinted, there tends to be compliance issues with a lot of Irish people when it comes to laws, when it comes to dogs at least. Which maybe means that we have to go the nuclear option and make canine reproduction biologically impossible, because we don't seem to be very good at enforcing our current laws.
But here's the thing. This is anecdotal, my own experience, but I've come to the conclusion that the type of owner who neuters their dog is not the type of owner who lets their dogs randomly pollinate other dogs anyway, so as it stands, the dogs that actually need to be neutered to control overpopulation, are precisely those that won't be neutered. So, maybe we do need to compel people to neuter. But I won't hold my breath.:o

'Designer' crossbreeds are currently sneered at by some of those who consider themselves 'real' dog-people, but there is a demand for them and it's nothing new. After all, golden retrievers were bred originally from various crosses and back-breeding. Instead of slamming back-yard breeders, do you think it better to licence such breeders provided they had health checked both parents from nose to tail? It would make puppy-farmers' costs go through the roof.

The problem as I'd see it is that producing good family pet dogs goes far beyond health-testing and genetic testing. There needs to be a really good working knowledge of genetics, lineage, breeding lines, care of the pregnant bitch; there needs to be major time investment put into the pups, from birth and really kicking in at 3 weeks, to ensure they are adequately handled, and acclimatised to a pet dog environment (which means providing a homely environment for them), and socialised with kids, men, women, other animals etc. By definition, puppy farms just cannot do all this, whether they're enforced to be license or not. If they can do all this stuff, they're not really puppy farmers! In which case, whether they're priced out of the market, or forced out by having to make too many fundamental changes, then mission accomplished!
I don't believe that dogs should be bred by anyone other than people who know how to produce excellent pet dogs, in the same way that I can't breed cattle or sheep, because I have not, and can't too easily get the circumstances in place that are legally required for me to breed them!

It's now possible to find a dog's genetic material in its poop. Should all dogs be genotyped so that dog waste can be traced back to the owner?

Perhaps. I know it's done in other countries, and maybe this is another nuclear option we should take in Ireland due to the terrible lack of compliance we all too often have. Or perhaps the laws we have in place should be more rigorously enforced first!

What info should a dog carry on its collar? eg, should the authorities issue a 5-year licence with a metal tag for checking by wardens and abolish the one-year ones that most people stick in a drawer?

To be honest, if the current microchipping laws were properly enforced, it would do away with having to have external tags at all... it's too easy for them to be lost. I think the license should be tied into the microchip: as it stands , the microchipping certificate is meant to act as a "logbook" for the dog for the rest of its life, allowing for change of ownership, just like with cars. But, and I know it's becoming a bit of a lament, you can introduce all the new legislation in the world, it's useless without enforcement

SaltSweatSugar wrote: »

Thanks for doing this AMA, I really, really admire the work you guys do. Thank you for looking after our furry friends!

I want to donate to a local animal rescue but I've often wondered if they would prefer money or items such as food, blankets, beds etc for the animals. I want to donate whatever the rescue would get more use out of. I know money obviously goes a long way towards costs, vet bills etc. What would you recommend?

To be honest, it really depends on the set-up of the rescue, and I'd be inclined to ask any rescue you'd like to help, to see what suits them best. Generally, rescues that keep dogs in kennels like to get towels, beds and bedding, and food, although these things can also be handy for dogs going into foster care too.
In my case, we use foster homes pretty much exclusively these days, having used kennels in the past for short-term occupants. Our fosterers tend to be all over the country, and getting not only the dog to them, as well as beds/bedding/food from elsewhere, is a bit of a logistical challenge It's often easier for me to order food online to be sent directly to the fosterer, this is particularly important when the dog needs to be on a specialised diet for a while. So, for me, I prefer money, which also goes towards paying the vet bills. I know some charities have soiled their bibs in recent years when it comes to financial donations, which is pretty annoying for those of us who rely entirely on donations, and who put every penny back into the rescue effort whilst volunteering our own times and resources too!