Jaxx'sBuddy

MM i have been wondering about this as well. just off the top of my head (and it might not be a good idea) but what if new people to the forum could only access a few areas and some more experienced dolers could be there to educate them. then they would learn without the trial by fire. i have to say though, some new people are their own worst enemy because they come in all guns blazing without any respect for the forum or the members here

YES :)

Your dog's more important to ME than some stranger's children... I have to agree with that. Jaxx doesnt have a crappy nappy and a high pitched scream. and she is well behaved to boot

Your dog's more important to ME than some stranger's children... Oh Raz, you snob you!! why thank you monah...so when are you visiting

my dog is more important to me that some strangers children...now for children i know, that's might be a different answer

i dont think it is offensive at all quite reasonable in fact eta forgot to say well done on the great outcome!!!!!

Only my guess from what I see being done, but I think pug faces will be one of the first extreme traits they go after. I did think they would go after the Bull Dog first, but now it really is looking like they will go after a trait instead and then apply the science/evidence or what have you to all breeds where it fits. There was a drawing of what they wanted the Bull Dogs head to look like. It had a substanstial nose, the eyes were deep seated as in a normal skull and the head was of normal size (much smaller than it is now). So I would guess it will be about the same for all the pug faced breeds. A real nose, eye set deep and not a large head. Not up on it but I think ther eis also some spinal condition they are looking at too that go along witht he head?? Edited to ad. Just as you told Jed about her dog, you would need to really test before you can say that hearts, hips elbows, hocks and knees are clear of disease. indeed but the HUGE difference here is i am not breeding her so therefore am not giving the public possibly dodgy progeny My dog has been tested. I told you that. There are no syrinxes present on MRI. He is over 5, so it is unlikely he will develop syrinxes. He has no symptoms Additionally, I do not breed him. I have nor used him myself at stud for over 2 years. Nor will I will use him again, nor will I breed Cavaliers because I will not run the risk of producing a pup with SM. MY dogs are all in the lowest risk category, my dog should be used at stud because he has no symptoms of SM, he has NO syrinxes on MRI examination (which makes him an A) and he has never thrown a pup with SM, I do not want to run the risk of breeding any pups with syringo, no matter how unlikely. Ever. So don't label me as producing "dodgy progeny" when you have NFI Oh and he was heart clear at 7 both his patellas and his hips are excellent. i think you have misunderstood the post. i wasn't specifically talking bout you, shortstep was. all i was saying is that my dog hasn't been tested and therefore i wasn't breeding dodgy progeny eta my dog is desexed anyway wow for the response though :)

It is a bit. It doesnt even look like ruger's posts. Sheridan, I totally understand where you're coming from. Nice neighbourhood relationshionships and all that. You'll just have to ask them to MOVE THE FRIGGING TRAMP - but not like that. Dont yell at them My god I've got a neighbour with a tramp and I really really want to kill them... i think it might be a different ruger, this one has only 27 posts that all look the same

and that is why i WILL sign the petition

;) great idea

shortstep the usa is where bostons originate and there are studies done there, why wouldn't they use them. i am sorry but i really dont understand where you are coming from. how is this helping answer the OP? i understand the issues bostons have, i researched them prior to purchase i knew what i was getting into

yes i think the rspca can still enter properties without a warrant and can euthanise animals prior to the court process being finalised and their is no appeal against the process and no external watchdog who hears administrative appeals. mita do you know whether this is correct?

ruger you are being very aggressive, maybe try to calm down and read the forum rules to help you work out how to be a member here without getting so many people offside

Only my guess from what I see being done, but I think pug faces will be one of the first extreme traits they go after. I did think they would go after the Bull Dog first, but now it really is looking like they will go after a trait instead and then apply the science/evidence or what have you to all breeds where it fits. There was a drawing of what they wanted the Bull Dogs head to look like. It had a substanstial nose, the eyes were deep seated as in a normal skull and the head was of normal size (much smaller than it is now). So I would guess it will be about the same for all the pug faced breeds. A real nose, eye set deep and not a large head. Not up on it but I think ther eis also some spinal condition they are looking at too that go along witht he head?? Edited to ad. Just as you told Jed about her dog, you would need to really test before you can say that hearts, hips elbows, hocks and knees are clear of disease. indeed but the HUGE difference here is i am not breeding her so therefore am not giving the public possibly dodgy progeny

txs mita good point about the model, do you know if has anyone used the qld appeals process yet?

i have a brachy breed who runs like a loon, very rarely snores, has good knees, good eyes and a good heart. when i took her to my vet the day after she arrived he said to me, oh she is nice and look she has a bridge/snout. some breeders are getting it right. eta she has the best temperament as well

Yes, indeed. I took on Grumpy at 10 and a half years knowing that we were certain to be visiting the vet for age-related health issues (of course, I didn't quite expect that it would be a military-style operation to get him there!). Given that dogs are considered 'property' in law, what liability does that entail on the part of the 'manufacturer'? After all, a washing machine doesn't come with a lifetime warranty and if you want anything beyond a year or two, you have to pay for an extended warranty. excellent point and one that might be good to include in addressing bad press

mita do you have links that i can look at? maybe QLD could be used as a model?

I know, what's the story, Jaxx? We get a puppy and we realise at some stage vet fees will be part of the package. It's part and parcel. I think what I'm sort of thinking about now is what asal touched on - the greyshaft situation. I dont know if you were on here when that happened. It turned me off getting into breeding because some people will take breeders for a ride, but you breeders should know (I'm sure you do) that most of us are reasonable. i wasn't on dol when that happened but i have since looked it up. i buy a puppy, i look after it. what i want to know is has the breeder done all that they can to ensure they have bred the best dog possible that will be healthy. cr*p happens and we cannot hold breeders responsible for things outside their control. HOWEVER, if there are tests that can be done and they are not done then i believe the breeders must take responsibility for what they have bred and the consequences of not testing

That's really sad but pretty rare, isnt it (the hysterical reaction I'm talking about)? My fave dog was given to me - her breeder entrusted me to give a little dog a nice home. When the dog got sick the breeder offered to pay the vet bills. I said no because that's my deal when I take on a dog. I think most puppy buyers wouldnt even think to ask the breeder to pay if the dog gets sick or am I totally naive? you are not naive raz my puppy came to me with an inguinal hernia and i had this fixed when she was desexed and i never expected the breeder to pay for it even though she had it the day she arrived at my home

i sincerly hope you are right. think i lost hope of sanity prevailing anywhere governement and laws are involved upon learning what happend to Judy Guard, and the law is still not even being considered for review. instead concerns dismissed and more listed for adding as i said. i soo so hope you are right i think what happened to Judy Gard threw us all for a loop, not just breeders but all people who are fair minded. we need to make sure to the best of our ability and combined knowledge that we do fight what's happening and we fight for what we care about, the dogs

asal, with great respect, it may not happen the way you are outlining. what you are saying is just one of many ways this can end. you may not have the right conclusion there may be more positive conclusions and that is what we need to work towards

any risk assessment of puppies that includes a lifetime liability would make that puppy far too costly and impossible to manage given nutrition, care exercise etc can contribute to puppy/dog health problems and i suspect puppy buyers don't want that. i suspect they want if to know the breeder has done all that is scientifically/medically possible to ensure the puppy has the best chance at a healthy life. the liability should be before the puppy goes to the buyer, it should be encapsulated in best practise for breeding the particular breed. hope this makes sense

IMO when we are talking about bad press it is all negative comments about pure bred dogs and pure bred dog breeders. its not just what is in the media although that surely needs to be addressed. so i see a multi pronged approach being needed: - puppy buyers as ambassadors for good breeders - a media/marketing campaign that highlights pure bred dogs - a campaign where any negativity in the media is counteracted immediately i am sure there are more but this is just off the top of my head

Look I totally understand but I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of your everyday chap who just wants to buy a dog. All of that technical stuff, personality conflicts, dog world politics just goes whoosh. We just want a puppy and when we get a great puppy and a super cool breeder, we talk about it. We puppy owners promote you breeders. If you talk ad nauseum about all the other stuff, we glaze over. I know that's pretty abrupt and I dont mean to be rude, but you guys need to use us (the puppy buyers) to be ambassadors for purebreeds, and the only way to do that is to be really lovely mentors - which I know you all are because my breeders have been super nice people that make me proud to be part of the purebreed world, but so often you hear the same stuff about breeders being snobs. We've all seen it. someone rocks up to a show because we all say - go to a show before you buy a dog - and they walk away dumbfounded because someone told them off for calling a 'girl' rather than a 'bitch'. (yes I actually watched that happening. It was pretty bloody disgraceful and the person involved went and bought a mongrel from a puppy farm as a result) Raz, as you know, I've been saying for some time that I've seen show people be rude to enquirers at shows and have been screamed at for saying so. It's not just my experience. I have seen a breeder run down other breeders to enquirers because of stupid bloody breed politics. I've heard other breeders run down other breeders dogs because of this, that and the other. Happy puppy buyers are the best ambassadors, I agree, because we're often not bound up in those things. Well, Steve, what do you want us to do? I like this. Seems so much better than the pet expos. YES the idea in the link i like