poodlefan

I was thinking that too Jules.. bit of an overreaction for two days of no contact if that's all it was.. if I was the breeder I'd be unimpressed to see this thread here after such a short time. My thoughts too. Not only is it all over DOL but I wonder how many other people have heard all about this breeder that 'refused' to answer calls, texts and emails. If folk stop bumping the thread with posts, it will be old news soon enough. Oh and where's the puppy photos????? :

I'd be taking her to see the vet. Older dogs lose their senses to some degree. You may have to tempt her with really tasty foods. I know a friend of mine's old girl would eat nothing happily except My Dog in her last weeks. My friend threw her raw feeding principles out the window and gave her dog what she enjoyed. What are you feeding her now? I hate to say it but it might be time to start preparing to say goodbye. Loss of appetite may also signal the development of some sort of health condition.

I'd fence it off. A couple of those Bunnings compost bins would work. If you cannot be there to correct the behaviour, you'll be battling to stop it so removal of the temptation would be the most effective method of dealing with it.

I'd feed softer bones - chicken wings, legs, carcasses or lamb flaps. Save the harder bones for really big ones he can't swallow.

No. Moisture will be drawn into the wound by the stitches and bacteria may be drawn in with it. Give him a sponge bath instead and avoid the area with the stitches.

From the petitition: Anyone who doesn't have personal experience at the shelter shouldn't sign the petition IMO. You'd be agreeing with something that you can't verify. As I read it, the petition is arguing that those dogs that are being PTS are rehomeable. Lack of homes is surely no reason to beat up UQ for taking dogs that are going to die anyway? If the issue is that the shelter could rehome more dogs then the petition is targetting the wrong end of the stick. Sounds like a fantastic trigger for the shelter concerned to boot volunteers to the kerb. If providing access brings unwelcome heat on shelter staff, I'd expect management to act to remove it.

The concepts of animals as "property" and animals as sentient beings that deserve care and compassion are not incompatible. Most people take greater care of things they own anyway.

I'd be wanting them: * given space to run and play with littermates - to develop physcially and to practice behaviours that help them learn dog speak. I would NOT want them housed with other litters, and to bully or be bullied without any possiblity of escape or respite - I see that in those glass cases all the time. Those pups must be Vitamin D deficient quite quickly. * started on toilet training. NOT forced to eat, sleep and eliminate in toxic fume emitting shredded copy paper. * I'd want them on four feet, being encouraged to approach and receive affection from a range of people - NOT shoved into peoples arms and manhandled by anyone including kids. Those breeds that require life long grooming should have had their first groom by the time they head for new homes and should be accustomed to handling also.

O.k. Lets look at this a minute. Surely the general idea from the pet shop point of view is to move these dogs out as quickly as possible. I remember once checking on some beagle pups which were in a pet shop in Penrith. They had come in on the Monday and by Thursday 8 were sold. I dont think that holding these pups for 4 days in a pet shop woul dimpact at all on how easy they woul dbe to train or live the same lives as any pup from any regsitered breeder. In fact I know lots of breeders would rarely handle their pups because they work or because they need to keep em in one spot etc. How long has a pup got to be in a pet shop to suffer to a point where it is altered and more difficult to train. What is it that a pet shop does which can be guaranteed not to be happening in any home with a litter in anywhere which would impact on trainability? Lots of peopel take a new pup home and dont socialise it due to worries about vaccinations etc and it would see less animals and less people than a pet shop so what am I missing? For the most part, I think pups spend far longer in a pet shop than that and probably the most important issue is where they are whelped and how they are raised. Certainly most are in the shops not long after 5 weeks of age.

If you feel you are up to it, I would keep him, give him the best quality of life possible for however long he is with you and when he's gone, take up the breeder's offer of another pup. You never know, he may surprise you. Dogs don't read veterinary text books and some live for far longer than vets think they will. If you cannot bear the idea of having a dog that's likely to be with you for only a short time, give him his wings. I'm really sorry this has happened.

You, and a lot of other trainers Cosmolo. Of course, its not just the period of time they spend in the pet shop that creates the issues. I've read studies that indicate that the critical period for socialising pups to humans starts at 3 weeks. Pups born and raised in "non-domestic" situations simply don't get the exposure to people that they need. That can lead to life long issues with strangers. The RSPCA, before they start telling breeders to get the whelping boxes out of the family home, should chew on that for a while. My signature says what it says for a reason.

If you half fill a water bowl, freeze it overnight and then top it up, it will stay cooler longer. I do that for dog shows.

For me that's the crux of the issue, but the inability to carefully raise pups, match pups to their new owners, create a reasonable level of expectation and understanding and provide the back up support , is not strictly limited to pet shops either. It goes beyond that lack of back up support for me. Petshops have pups during their first critical socialisation period. They house them inadequately (space, fresh air and sunlight aren't available) and that can lead to long term issues with toilet training, temperament and physical development. They expose them to the general public when they are not fully vaccinated and I understand losses can be quite high. Litter splitting across several points of sale adds to the mortality rate. Issues as to whom and how the pups are sold come second to me behind the welfare of the animals. Nothing about transporting and housing these very young pups is "best practice" from that perspective. That's not subjective, those are cold hard facts.

I'm really sorry to hear this. I'd be starting with a letter to DOGS NSW outlining your scenario, emphasising that YOU RELIED ON ADVICE FROM DOGS NSW THAT THE BREEDER WAS A MEMBER and purchased accordingly. I'd be asking them to intercede with the member on your behalf. I hope that produces some results. ETA: Your next port of call if Dogs NSW don't come through should be the NSW Dept of Fair Trading (or equivalent). Target Dogs NSW for action, not the breeder. They have more to lose.

You definitely want to put it where the dog can't lick it. I recall a South Coast vet telling me that 80% of tick he finds are forward of the shoulders.

Yep. Male children between the ages of 1 and 4 are at greatest risk and most bites are to the face and head. It's not a matter of "targetting" though - kids often approach dogs at face to face level. And there is such an easy way to prevent this attacks - supervision or separation.

I would not leave a cool coat on a dog unsupervised. I'd certainly never put one straight on a dog that had been exercising. You could try a cool mat KTB but some dogs don't like them. A wet towel (wrung out) on cool tiles is often good. A wet towel on the dog for 10 minutes is good too but again, not straight after exercise. Panting isn't necessarily a sign of distress - just a dog's natural cooling system. I do use a water mist from a spray bottle to cool them at times - focus on the areas of bare skin like the tummy.

What's her general demeanor during all of this Mackenzie - is she scared? This could be timidity rearing its head.

For what its worth, I'd rehome a dog before I'd subject it to regime of routine shaving.

Mine would be. However if it happened in CW's yard, it would be difficult to see how she would legally responsible.

Put rat and bottle of wine in letter box and run away.

Hopefully he'll have the good sense to stay out of dog parks from here on in.

Pekes don't have owners, they have slaves. :D

The ANKC for one......(although they don't specifically use the word "unethical" but given that the following appears in the Breeders' Code of Ethics then a reasonable assumption could be made IMO). 11. A member shall breed primarily for the purpose of improving the quality and / or working ability of the breed in accordance with the breed standard, and not specifically for the pet or commercial market. THATS WHAT I thought. do you realise the creaters of the pet only breeds in particular maybe? the toy breeds were by todays standards, unethical???? see now what i mean? they are attacking the very people who created what they are registering today? The creators of toy breeds without working backgrounds didn't breed commercially. Most didn't have to work for a living either. Dogs that didnt work were largely owned by the aristocracy where they were kept as treasured and much loved companions in an age of arranged marriages and when children were often wet nursed and raised in other courts and families. They weren't called "comforters" for nothing. Don't think for a minute that matings weren't arranged as carefully as marriages in some breeds though. Companion breeds were kept within guilds, families or social groups and wouldn't have been sold to strangers for cash. Some were gifted between rulers of countries and some travelled with brides to new nations. Stealing a peke in the good old days would net you a death sentence. Royal pekes had their own slaves. Your average person had no chance of netting one. The first Pekes outside China were stolen by sailors and presented to Queen Victoria. She did a hell of a lot in terms of influencing the rise and popularity of a range of dog breeds. The concept of a "lap dog" that didn't live indoors, sleep with its owner and have its every need taken care of is a largely a 20th century idea that IMO hasn't done much good for the dogs concerned. You can link wider pet ownership to the rise of the middle classes that came with the industrial revolution. However, the middle classes didn't attach the same value to these dogs. And then we add the Australian dimension - dogs outside. :D To see breeds developed over centuries for their people focus living in social isolation in back yards is distressing enough. To think of them living out their lives as breeding machines for profit breaks my heart. Their developers never intended that they spend much of their lives alone and exposed to the elements. Seems to me these breeds had it better in the old days.

All I can say is that, if that's the measure, there are a hell of a lot of pet owners exhibiting at dog shows. :D