Steve

Yeah and dont you love the comments about how entire dogs are more likely to bite so desexing everyone's baby puppies will solve the issue of those dickheads who breed dogs with bad temperaments Does this one look like he wants to bite and kill people because he has testicles?

Very sorry about losing your cat Steve. The neighbours have a dog that can escape easily ,probably needs 8 foot fences; it is up to the owners to do what is needed to prevent the dog getting out. The Op keeps her own dogs contained and should not have to alter her property to keep the neighbours dog out. I hope Cookie cat can recover . Good point - you're right. But these days good luck to anything that can get in here.

Yep we have some breeder members who live in Norway and we often chat about how in Norway it is considered cruel to desex and here its pushed because some loonies have decided it will solve all of our problems and dogs being dumped will just stop. What a joke.

Because its about the management rather than the prevention of offspring. For some owners having the lot cut out is best because the boys dont get horny as much, dont raom, and the girls dont make a mess - its about the owner and society not whats best for dogs. By the way thats fair enough if someone wants to desex a girl so she doesnt make a mess every 6 months thats their choice but Ive other ways of managing that and I prefer not to have it done and I dont think dog owners should just shrug off losing their rights and I dont think government should be so quick to keep dwindling them away without any evidence that it will bring their stated goals.

Always birthdays here.

Yes male dogs dont get testicular cancer if they dont have testicles and females dont get ovarian cancer or uterine cancer if they take out their uterus but what about the huge higher incidence of HD in male dogs that have been neutered early, shorter life spans, bone cancers ,heart problems etc. My argument is based on the fact that we are all happy to weep for a male child that has no testicles and we know how badly that will impact on his growth and health - if we take away a young girls estrogen we all know this creates other problems but because its easier management for dogs thats O.K. - but its not O.K. for my dogs. If it were really all about preventing puppies why not a vasectomy and tubal tie off ?

Perhaps secure your own yard and your own cat so that this dog nor any other can come in and do what has been done. Some years ago my cat was sunbaking on my front step and a couple of nasty dogs rocked up jumped the house yard fence and ripped it to pieces - while I was yelling and sobbing they played tug of war with it . I was on 500 acres miles away from any neighbours - anything is possible and best to try and make sure you can keep anything out as well as anything in.

The above concerns me the most however I do wonder how any of the proposed laws can make some people caring, responsible owners who look after their dogs properly, we can't even make some people look after their children properly. Re the complulsary desexing although not popular with everyone I can see the point in introducing it for pet dogs, although the age its done at should be extended for larger breeds. It does stop unwanted pregnancy & litters & can make it more convenient & easier for pet owners to manage their pets. For male dogs it can help in preventing humping, marking, escaping & wandering & hunting down bitches on heat & for female dogs it makes it cleaner & less likely to attract males to the property as well as obviously not being able to get pregnant. Although many people on here say they manage entire pets fine this is not the larger population who are mostly not so capable or understanding of dog habits & behaviour. The amount of healthy dogs & cats in the pounds that are euthanised is a disgrace in a so called pet loving country & makes me feel sick. Desexing may help reduce this although it will never save them all. Yes Christina but it removes the choice .If I am responsible and dont want to do this to my dog because I believe its what is best for my dog why should I or my dog have to do as we are told in case someone somewhere lets their dog have puppies when they shouldnt? It takes away our rights to manage our dogs as we feel is best for them - just because we think only purebred dogs should be bred doesnt mean we can remove every body's rights or ensure we only get to have rights if we want to join a state CC!

If he wasnt interested in the teaser girl maybe its a testosterone combination. I dont think you should base too many decisions on what this vet has said without having another go. If you supplement his diet for the next 3 to 4 weeks with Aloe Juice and stop any heart worm meds etc its probably worth trying again - might also be worth blood tests to check testosterone levels too. Even desexed dogs still want to do the deed - whether their sperm is fertile or not shouldn't impact on them wanting a bit . Nature does have way of stopping reproduction if there is some other underlying issue and maybe the dog knows something you don't know yet. Dont just concentrate on the equipment look at the blood work.

People dont register their dogs now - why would making people have a licence make it any different? Those who do the wrong thing still do the wrong thing and the ones who do really really wrong things go underground so they dont get caught and do even more really really wrong things. They dont enforce leash laws, registrations, microchipping or any other laws how are they going to be able to enforce laws to make you get your dog desexed. When it gets to court and you refuse to pay a fine because you choose not to give your dog a procedure that you feel is bad for its health do they have the ability to make it stick? Does any one know of anyone anywhere who has ever been fined for not desexing their dog - and if I were fined today and choose not to tomorrow could they just keep on fining me? Is not desexing a dog negligent or cruel? People who are irresponsible with their dogs will still get dogs, dogs will still be dumped and its just another thing dogs owners no longer have a right to do with and for their dogs.

And as usual the majority of the people lie down and allow a minority to impact so much on their basic rights without any more than a small moan on facebook and forums. Why would a government introduce laws which have proven not to work and not to make even the slightest difference in other places its been introduced? It doesn't impact at all not one little bit on dumpage rates. Why would dog owners allow a government to take away their right to make their own informed choices with their own property ? Why would people who live in one state simply give up their right to engage in a legal hobby in their homes and have free enjoyment of their property? Governments don't give a toss about the dogs or the future for dogs all they care about is management and getting votes. And we sit back and say "Oh bugger" and fall in line. We wont even discuss - who gets them and how exemptions are handed out. Dogs SA gets more members and vets get more money but the idiots who dont give a toss about laws or regs or dogs do what they always do - whatever the hell they want. Make it harder for small people to breed a dog and easier for bigger commercial breeders to keep down any competition. Do they forget that breeding dogs including cross bred dogs is still a legal activity.

Its my experience that you may as well simply shut up and agree to disagree. Its like arguing what religion is better than another to someone who is sure theirs is best. Some people can live with any dog regardless of its characteristics and some people dont mind not being able to predict in anyway what management issues will be required to live with an own a dog some cant. I know why I will always have purebreds and purebreds bred by someone who knows a bit about what they are breeding and how their decisions impact on the puppies they breed and future generations. Nothing anyone can say or do can change what I think about that so why should I expect that someone who has their own reasons for thinking the other way should just fall in line with how I make my decisions on what dogs I choose? The whole limited gene pool thing and in breeding is a fashionable thing to be using to have a go at pure breds but the reality is that its about selection In my opinion some breeders in some breeds have selected for some things and neglected others. Owners who have chosen these breeds and society in general to me seem to be desensitized to the fact that some things that have been selected for create health and welfare problems. I think those who breed them should wake up and begin selecting for things other than what they have been selecting for in order to ensure that their breeds are healthy and can reproduce without human interference - denying that there is work to do is foolish because the rest of the world can clearly see it. The whole health testing argument thing leaves me a bit cold in some ways too as you can test for a disease but there isn't much point in knowing your dog wont go blind when it ages if it has great eyes but has poor quality of life its whole life due to how its been selected in other ways. The reality is that not all registered purebred breeders do test and some that do still use dogs they shouldn't use even when they know the results and lots of cross bred breeders do test - certainly the big commercial breeders in some states do and they also have to over service their dogs with vet checks too. Puppies sold through some pet shops in Victoria these days come with assurances that the dog wont develop PRAprcd because all sires have been tested There are also real issues associated with current methods of hip scoring and we have been playing the game for a couple of decades and having little or no improvement but rather than challenge this and consider possible better methods or complimentary controls we pay our money and fall in line because it makes us look like we are one of the good guys. The whole longevity, fertility immunity thing has been shown to be able to be corrected with a very small gene pool if those who are doing the selecting are selecting for good longevity, good fertility and good immunity. Im not interested in bagging out other people who breed dogs which are not purebred nor am I interested in working out what might be wrong with their dogs or telling people why they shouldnt think one way or another. Why are there less purebred breeders? A hundred reasons including the whole animal rights war and changing lifestyles and environments but I have to be honest and say. If I were a new kid thinking of breeding purebred dogs as I was some 40 years ago and a good breeding dog from a good breeder was so hard to BUY, if I had to join a dog org and sit there for one whole year before I could get approval to apply for a breeders prefix so I could register my puppies and I could still only do that after I do an exam and have my home inspected, If after I did all of that,plus spent half my wages each week in doing it all right I was considered to be a potential criminal and animal abuser and seen by some in society as pond scum because I dare to want to breed a few litters of puppies or beaten up by established breeders because I wanted to do something they think isnt what they would do and I was expected to do all of that stuff in the first column in the chart I doubt very much that I would have bothered to give it a go.

Id also like to add that Ive been breeding beagles for over 40 years - a long way from being flat faced and for a decade I went through a period of 50% of my girls needing a C section. After selecting for good mothers I haven't seen a C section for the last 15 years Its in the maternal lines in my opinion and we get what we select for regardless of breed.

What's the secret? Is this just good luck? Did you / do you select for free whelping? What breed? If you selected for free whelping, how did you do it? Sandgrubber - if it were this simple then how would they explain the ability for bitches to whelp freely puppies which come out in breach position? The secret in my opinion is always the same - select for good mothers.Those that mate freely, whelp freely and look after their babies without any help. keep their daughters and grand daughters.

Sorry telling him he should take animal care lessons or work at a refuge for me is like telling a child abuser to work at a child care centre. I agree that locking him up wont make any difference but ensuring he cant be in charge of an animal again might be a better alternative. He can come out in a year and do it all again!

Nutters - but then again we have our own share of them here too. People who see what they think they see and make assumptions on what happens in daylight [the poor dog is in that cage all its whole life and never gets out etc ] decisions to steal someone's dog, or bully them or vilify them based on their opinion sensationalised to get people to agree regardless of truth , a person's defence or circumstances. Same thing- if they are concerned they should leave it up to the appropriate authorities.

Surely just because someone is homeless they don't automatically loose their property rights and some person or group can simply take it off them?

Its great that you are thinking about it and developing your own opinions but not everything is as easy as it seems and you need to be careful about who is doing the pushing - there is a long journey yet in your research before all of the issues can be considered and you can grow in your understanding and knowledge. This sums up pretty much why Im against the term guardian. My link

Well actually - it is the dog owners choice and thanks anyway but Im not up for anyone else determining other wise. It amazes me that almost everyday there is some niggle towards taking away dog owners and breeders rights and we all just go along with it. Each year in this country there are tens of thousands of people who breed their dog and now and then a big splash hits the news about some bogon who has done the wrong thing and the answers that are called for is to take away everyone's rights in case we all turn out to be criminals and animal abusers. every single activity or hobby or occupation has the potential of having some that do the wrong thing but this is even worse than most because those determining the right thing are often narrow in their views and biased. Just because one person or one group think it should all be done their way doesn't make that the way it should be for everyone. I am not my dog's guardian - I am its owner .

A mix of true, false and depends. You can breed a litter for profit, you just need a license and comply with the rules . You can sell an undesexed dog over 6 months but you have to let them know. The age , frequency and caesarian limits listed are correct, but approval from a vet that the breeding is ok gives an exemption. The licenee number needs to be included in ads and that might prove to be the most effective bit if they enforce it I don't think there are any existing puppy farms and it would be hard to set one up without being noticed and in breach of some existing planning rule, and the unregistered backyard breeders mostly seem to ignore restrictions so I doubt they will do anything much for animal welfare really. Enforcing the leash laws would probably do more, but I guess they mean well. So in reality the only thing is that has changed is that vets get richer

Nup - for numerous reasons Im not buying it.

So - is it better for a pet shop to purchase animals which dont come from someone who operates their breeding activities as a business? Keep in mind when the relationship between breeder and pet shop began the breeder was a registered breeder with DogsNSW and they were able to sell puppies to PIAA pet shops via their code of ethics. Many great registered breeders have an ABN and run their breeding activities as a business and some of them only have a couple of dogs on their property with lots of others in guardian homes. I would have thought it was safer for a pet shop owner to purchase puppies from a source they trusted to consistently supply happy and healthy puppies rather than simply spot for backyard breeders, or those who operate without declaring the money . Honestly - objectively. The stated problem appears to be that pet shops purchase puppies from people who breed puppies in poor factory type conditions. So what is the solution if pet shops are to continue to sell live animals? Exactly what is it they need to tick or cross off when choosing someone to supply them with puppies? If the CCs have to occasionally chuck someone out and have to deal with complaints every day of the week about their breeders how can a pet shop do better than them in choosing a source for their puppies? Personally I think if someone cares so little for what comes next for their puppies and they prefer to remain anon to the families who will live with them - take a much lesser price in order to sell them in bulk - that's a big enough cross. But given its still going to continue- realistically- how could a pet shop choose a source for their puppies and not end up in the poo? This one chose a CC registered breeder, who consistently supplied thousands of puppies over a long period of time which were happy and healthy - One pup died 18 days after it left the breeder from causes which were not able to be controlled by the breeder and which could happen to anyone. The breeder is accused of being pretty rotten but is still breeding and selling puppies, copped a couple of fines and doing as they are told and life goes on. The next problem is that if we stop the sales of puppies in pet shops how do we then stop people buying the same puppies from the same breeders direct or via other sources anyway?

Sounds more like a hock issue My link

Would seem to me the obvious short term solution is to keep your own dogs on your own property and not let them go onto other people's places.

According to one news story, the pup died of pneumonia... and I'd assume that during the 9 days the new owners had it, they must have noticed something wasn't quite right... I think there may be a little more to this story than we are being led to believe. I'm not advocating puppy breeding on a mass scale for the pet shop market, nor am I advocating buying from pet shops... but I'm wondering how a pup dies from pneumonia NINE days after purchase. Surely if medical attention was sought earlier, this would not have had the outcome it did? One of my own dogs managed to develop aspiration pneumonia after inhaling her food - she's a Lab, go figure - and she had an interesting cough develop that I saw a vet for asap... one week of high strength antibiotics later, and she was fine again. A pup with a cough or breathing issues should have been straight to the vet on day one... not later... T. Im like you and the photos are pretty horrible but the pup left the breeder 18 days before it was sick - cant see them pinning selling sick puppies on them.