poodlefan

Of course not. There's more to the dog than its coat. However, the myth that ordinary poodles are "challenging" dogs to live with is just that - a myth. Treat them like dogs, not fashion accessories, and they make great pets. They need exercise, they need stimulation, they need company and they need boundaries. They come in three sizes (with different temperaments) and you can have them styled anyway you like from a utility clip to full on frou frou. They've performed a range of roles over the years from water retriever, to army mascots, drug detection dogs and guide dogs. It's a versatile dog that can be a great family pet. An all poodle team successfully completed the Iditerod a number of times. Best comment I've had on my dogs.. "I didnt know poodles could run". Yes, folks they do get off their velvet cushions every now and again. I am happy to recommend them for families who are happy to share their lives with a dog. If they want an animated garden statue, I don't.

What makes you think Australian poodle owners want a dog different to poodles in other parts of the world? I love my poodles for their playfulness, their love of life and their gaiety. If I didnt' want a happy outgoing dog I'd own another breed. They're not nut cases, they have an off switch and they don't bounce off the walls. But that is the point - they suit you (and me) but that temp doesn't suit a lot of people. Many families just want a dog who is happy to hang out with them. A dog that doesn't constantly think and require you to think in order to meet its needs. Personally, I'd be bored out of my mind with such a laid back dog, but that's just me. Breeds that fit more people's requirements exist. I don't hold with making all breeds vanilla flavoured animals that anyone can own. However, a well bred poodle, given decent exercise and training will make a great dog for a lot of families. Let it have a walk once a day, a game of fetch with the kids and watch telly and sleep with the family and most poodles will be as happy as pigs in mud. If families don't want a dog that requires companionship, attention and exercise they they should probably not own one at all. How crossing poodles with a dog meant to work hard in the field all day, to look for human guidance and attention and to be trained to a high level somehow produces a dog that any idiot can own beats me. I don't think we should be dumming down breeds to make them easier to own. I think we should be educating people on how to select and raise a dog that will meet what they want in a pet.

What makes you think Australian poodle owners want a dog different to poodles in other parts of the world? I love my poodles for their playfulness, their love of life and their gaiety. If I didnt' want a happy outgoing dog I'd own another breed. They're not nut cases, they have an off switch and they don't bounce off the walls. Many 'average' dog owners have coped just fine with a dog that wants to be exercised, play and spend time with them. Their popularity over decades is testament to that. Pity some people can't see past the hairdo to the great family companion underneath.

This youngster needs to learn self control. Unless he's put in learning situations, he won't. The timeline you have for getting that self control solidly grounded is closing. Talk to your OH today.

Yep. Always a few attention hoggers. Always a few of the "yeah, but" or "but my dog" sentence starting types. Always a few who think learning needs to involve a debate in which they subtlely demonstrate to the audience and the instructor they they are a superior kind of dog trainer/owner more deserving of attention than others. And they always irritate the bejesus out of the other attendees. And most of us wonder why the hell they bothered to show up if they weren't prepared to shut up, suspend their own opinion and listen. Not every trainer has grounded what they do in a lot of theory. Some simply ground what they do in techniques they have found to work. You can drive a car without a solid understanding of physics or mechanics. Some people can train a dog that way too.

Who's that directed at? This thread isn't (or wasn't) about your pup and your decision. It was about two severely deformed Chi pups. What you choose to do with a pup you bred is off topic IMO. Clearly you disagree. Pardon? How is a post comparing one situation to another similar situation, off topic? That's what discussions are about -- adding our own opinions and experiences to the mix. However, people being "offended" and making multiple posts about that one post and even asking her to retract an innocent statement that they took the wrong way, is taking a thread off topic. IMO. And yes, this post is off topic The situation isn't remotely similar IMO. These pups are severely deformed (to the point of being dependent on humans for everything) and being rehomed. The Ark's pup has a disability that still allows movement and is being kept by the person who bred her. Indeed, the Ark has commented that rehoming the CP pup shouldn't be an option unless the extent and nature of her disability can be established. I think we all agree that the best interests of the pups should dictate their future. What we're disagreeing about is what that future (if any) should be. Why that discussion should result in insults beats me.

He attempted to fulfill the criteria with no less than 33 Standard Poodles without success. He got lucky with the first cross-bred litter, and quickly realised that the probability of obtaining suitable stock this way was also very low. I wonder what would have happened if he'd used slightly older dogs. They mature later than Labs but they live longer too.

You can use a crate to assist with toilet training and to make sure he doesn't chew inside.

What sort of figures? I can tell you that if you're not feeding a decent brand of dog food, and you're not exposing your pup to at least one hour of unfiltered sunlight a day, you're possibly looking at a deficiency. Vitamin D deficiency used to be known as rickets. It was once quite common in pups. The advent of premium dog foods makes deficiency less common these days but a raw fed pup kept inside might be in trouble. Supplementation is tricky.

In the meantime, if you want them to sleep inside at night, you could crate train them and sleep them in crates.

Who's that directed at? This thread isn't (or wasn't) about your pup and your decision. It was about two severely deformed Chi pups. What you choose to do with a pup you bred is off topic IMO. Clearly you disagree.

Really? Visit a pet shop or google for one. Not many Standard Poodle breeders I know will sell you a pup without wanting to know more than your credit card number.

I would buy Elly a coat and fill the kennel with straw. Straw is very warm and as they are smooth coated, it won't make a mess of them. Buy your young boy lots of bones and take him to training. Chewing is something a lot of dogs grow out of but is is a stress and boredom reliever. No point in getting cranky at the dog. Just divert him onto more acceptable things to chew.

I think they buy them because they are marketted as "hypoallergenic", healthier than purebred dogs and a damn side easier to get. Address that and maybe we'll be getting somewhere.

Dog food reminds me a bit of the "two men and a donkey" story. You're never going to please everyone with what you feed. As a person prone to over analysing things, I relate to the being overwhelmed feeling. You want to give your dog the best. That can be challenging when there's no clear winner of what IS best. I've fed all raw, now I feed a mixture of raw and premium kibble. I change brands from time to time. If you're buying a quality product and your dog looks good on it, I'd say its time to relax. All of the brands you've mentioned are good. Just change from time to time - I think that helps even out any potential imbalances and keeps your dog interested. For a pup, these days I'd recommend a premium kibble and raw meaty bones. Sounds like that's pretty much what the pup's breeder feeds now. It wouldn't be considered a BARF diet. Just kibble and bones.

I didn't realize there was a direct correlation between the number of posts and anything at all really. This is where the personal denigration starts is it? All of you who stated you would have euthanised The Ark's cerebral palsy puppy have only served to prove his/her point. When you breed puppies, you are either going to keep them or sell them as show quality, rehome them as pets, or keep them as pets. In this case you are all agreeing it is not show quality, and you can't rehome it as a pet, and for whatever reason you choose not to keep it as a pet, so you would euthanise. So like The Ark said, breeders would have put this puppy to sleep. Get off your high horses. This is all about you getting offended by someone saying you would have done exactly what you said yourself you would have done. Maybe if The Ark had said some instead of most there would have been less offense taken, but I certainly haven't seen a majority of people here arguing they also would have kept that dog, seems the ones on the attack are the ones whose decision would have been to put it down. I believe you started the personal denigration wiith your "holier than thou" accusations. I never said a damn thing about The Ark's pup. I made my comment about two pups so severely deformed as to be incapable of any meaningful kind of movement. Once again, please don't put words in my mouth. If the The Ark choses to keep her CP pup, as I've repeatedly said, that's her choice.

You're assuming that most dogs get to the dog park. I can tell you that a fair proportion of dogs never leave the back yard. I see oodles in need of a good groom pretty regularly out and about. The numbers argument doesn't justify puppy mills. That's where most DDs are bred. And most of them shed anyway.

If people bothered to look at Standard Poodles and Lagotti, they'd find that niche filled by two breeds that breed true. And frankly the majority of people don't want non-shedding dogs because they don't want to have to have them groomed. They just don't connect non-shedding with high maintenance.

Is everyone choosing to ignore this comment :rolleyes: To me this comment explains Chewy's reaction to the OP's frightening situation I was attempting to prevent Chewy making this thread all about her. Again. Chewy passed judgement on the OP but missed a rather important fact. That goes some way to explain her reaction IMO.

Never said you did. Said it had happened in the thread. I'll pass on being patronised thanks. Shall we just remember however, that you're the person that wants to directly compare disabled dogs to disabled people? My "welfare mentality"? :rolleyes: I've never been on welfare in my life. That's not a brag but a thank God I've never needed to be. Again you put words in my mouth. The welfare SYSTEM exists to provide support to people who cannot support themselves. That includes children with disabilities and their carers. It's not about what I would do but ensuring that these dogs aren't left in the lurch. It's about support, not just money. Its about physio, special ed, counselling, transport AND money. Did you not read what I said about things like respite care? Where's the respite care for a dog owner who cannot leave a dog alone for a few hours? Where's the counselling for the stress of raising a dog that is totally, utterly dependent on you for its every basic need? Not from the rescuer rehoming them, that's for sure. What happens if the new home can't adequately provide for these dogs? Where's the safety net then? I'd sure as hell raise an argument for euthanaising a few owners though. I'd start with those who can't find it in themselves to provide an adequate standard of care to healthy dogs. I would not rehome them. Personally I would have euthanased them at birth. The two statements aren't necessarily connected.

Um, the OP? She said her Mum wasn't strong enough to restrain the dogs. Why is she walking a dog in public then? Because she's with her daughter. :rolleyes:

Um, the OP? She said her Mum wasn't strong enough to restrain the dogs.

So you would only keep disabled humans alive because they or their carers get welfare? It's not about welfare, it's about quality of life. PF said that they are offended at being judged for doing something other than keep a dog that is not suitable for rehoming. So you can't rehome it, you are not keeping it, what is the only alternative? How dare someone suggest you would do exactly what you said you would do. PF, I bet you didn't even realise you said that, did you? You and Fifi both said you wouldn't keep disabled dogs, Fifi because she/he can't get welfare for them, PF because they can't be rehomed. I am offended at your holier than thou attitude, when you are the ones who want to euthanize the dogs because you don't want to put the effort in to keep them, and then get offended when someone calls you out. Wow, there's a few leaps of logic there. I've never said anything about me keeping such a dog. I did say that what people chose to keep is their business and none of mine. As I've never bred a dog in my life, I fail to see how I could keep one. Rehoming is different to me. If you can't predict a dog's needs, how can you responsibly rehome it? Do you leave it in the hands of others to determine their quality of life with so many variables unanswered? While we're accusing people of being sanctimonious, consider what sort of behaviour it is to put words in people's mouths and then judge them accordingly. If you can't debate this without becoming insulting, perhaps you'd better give it a rest.

Super Chewy to the rescue. You want the weaker person to wade into the middle of a dog fight and save the baby. :p Who's rescuing the old man - or doesn't he rate on your priorities?

As requested: Treating dogs like humans is anthropmorphising, not humane. I eat animals but I'm not a cannibal. By your logic, I should be. As I can own an animal I should also own human slaves? Ah, nope. Yes, I do have a different standard of treatment for humans and animals. Dogs are not humans. Therefore direct comparison between the species doesn't fly with me. Comparing euthanasia of severely disabled pups with Nazi policies (as has already happened in this thread) is crap. Pure and simple. These little animals will live or die, will only have the care that their owners dictate. No welfare system, no assistance with medical expenses, no checks and balances, no respite care. No thanks.