Greytmate

Suggesting that breeders should dump their faulty pups on rescue is disgusting. The ultimate in irresponsible breeding. While there are people who will adopt special needs dogs, there are many that take them and bounce them back again, because they didn't properly understand those needs. A good breeder will do all in their power to avoid breeding dogs with faults, and take full responsibility when they get it wrong. If they can't do that, they should stay out of breeding.

It takes more than a couple of hours to see Wilson's Prom. It is somewhere you can spend days, and takes quite a while to drive in and out of. It is stunning and unspoiled and one reason for that is that it is so remote from agriculture and other signs of civilisation. If you want to see it properly you would be best not to take dogs on this holiday.

You corrected the wrong dog. Unfortunately it isn't acceptable to go around correcting other people's dogs. You rely on instructors in classes to let people know that their dog is behaving unacceptably towards other dogs and to offer them methods to avoid problems before any correction is needed. Perhaps you should write to the committee with your concerns.

Or , on learning that their dog isn't expected to behave like a border collie, labrador or poodle, it might make them understand that their dog's apparent failure, slowness or reluctance to learn is because of the breed/handler combination, and shouldn't be taken as a personal failing in their ability to train. I think that is the point of this thread. An observation of when a breed/handler match seems to be causing problems. People dropping out of community obedience schools happens mostly because their expectations are not met. Adjusting their expectations is one solution, and that might include discussing how a dog's bred traits might make obedience easier for some breeds than others. It isn't about being wrong, it's about some handlers having to try different things to get the best out of their breed. Something very hard to do in a class situation and it is unfortunate to see people struggling like the lady in Atanquin's class.

It is confrontational, and it's rude and it is highly likely to end in a fight. Any instructor that can't see that shouldn't really be instructing. Feel free to thank the instructor for their time, and leave the class. It might not be prey-drive or anything that tends to be breed specific. This dog might just be wanting to dominate. It is normal for a dog to be reactive to that. I would have the heebie jeebies too if somebody in class was giving me death stares and the slit throat gesture. That is what seems to be happening here.

To get a better idea of this dog's mood and intent I would also observe head position and a few other smaller details. Whatever it is, it doesn't sound good. Let the instructor know it is giving you and your dog the heebie jeebies.

What you really need to do is to start studying about genetics and breeding now, not "when the time comes". Coat colour is only one very small part of dog breeding. To do it ethically means you need to learn a lot about inherited traits. Otherwise you might end up with a lot worse health problems than deafness in your pups, and you will be responsible for that. The word is speyed, not spaded. There are hundreds of dogs that are euthanised each week, because they were unwanted by their owners. Don't take a chance of producing more problem dogs, learn as much as you can about dog breeding and then decide if it is right for you.

I never labeled her as incompetent, just maybe not suted to the dog/ type of dog as she was struggling. And to be Honist I was surprised the other instructor didn't do some one on one with her. I used to see it when I was instructing. It is often a communication problem that instructors are not able to get everyone to realise that training is more than about saying commands and has a lot to do with body language and tone of voice. But I remember the case of an ex-nun with an unruly border collie that didn't seem to have the ability or the inclination to deepen her voice and speak in a less than pleasant tone. Other instructors and I struggled over weeks to try to help her. Some people are very uncomfortable with the 'theatrics and drama' that is an integral part of dog training. They stay for a couple of classes, giggle in embarrassment, and stop coming back. And yes they should have chosen an easier dog to train. Maybe private training is going to work better for these people than a club situation.

Most people seem to think that the biggest difference between breeds is appearance Many people also think that undesirable behaviour happens because particular dog lacks the intelligence to understand what the owner wants. 'Training' for these people usually consists of issuing repeated commands and maybe physically correcting the dog when it ignores the commands. The poor dogs must get so confused..

Here are a couple of explanations. From http://www.lsu.edu/d...ss/genetics.htm From IPPC 2011

No, more of an assumption as to why boxer breeders traditionally euthed white boxers. I don't think we should dismiss something that was probably done for a reason. So, I spent the last hour on Google-scholar looking for studies, none I could find that establish exactly what the health risk is. However there are numerous studies about different cancer in dogs. One study did mention an increased risk of one type of cancer in pitbulls and white boxers but didn't go into specifics, others spoke about general increased risk in boxers and bostons that may have been inherited from the old English white terrier breeds they were developed from. Other studies talk about the skin pigments produced within some cancers. Unpigmented things are rare in nature, there is little evolutionary advantage to land animals being unpigmented (as opposed to being a highly reflective white-coated, dark-skinned animal in some environments) Pigments always have essential functions besides allowing us to see a colour, sunscreening being a very important one. I'm not sure how this would mean a white boxer is more at risk than a white bull terrier, but I would consider a white bull terrier also a high cancer risk. Much more so than any dog that had pigmented ears and muzzle.

Yes, that's why topics like this are important to discuss, even though they can get emotive. Nobody wants to put down puppies they have bred. Looking from another point of view, why would a person choose to buy a pet of higher health risk than its littermates? You would hope that puppy buyers want their dogs to have as long and comfortable lives as possible and would want to buy from breeders that felt that supplying only healthy, quality pups to puppy buyers was an important part of their breeding ethic.

Pigment acts as a sunscreen against the UV rays that can cause cancer. The less pigment in the animal or human, and the more UV rays absorbed, the more they are prone to developing skin cancer. Further to this. In many animals and in humans, the body will attempt to produce the amount of pigment necessary to provide protection according to sunlight exposure. That is why some people's skin goes a darker shade of tan or brown after sun exposure, and some people will freckle up. But if the genetics say "no pigment at all" the skin will just burn. In some dog breeds, like dalmatians and greyhounds, sun exposure leads to white areas of dogs becoming more heavily freckled. I'm not sure if old white boxers go freckly or not, can anyone advise?

Pigment acts as a sunscreen against the UV rays that can cause cancer. The less pigment in the animal or human, and the more UV rays absorbed, the more they are prone to developing skin cancer.

If she has perfect hearing it means that she has some pigment (colour) in her inner ears. Without that pigmentation, parts of the inner ear would be unable to function, and she would be deaf. Depending on the breed, the patterns of unpigmented areas can vary. In my breed (greyhound) you do get dogs that appear to be all white. But on close inspection most of the white ones have very faint pigment spots on the ear skin, and so deafness is rare in the breed. Other breeds have different distribution of pigments that result in a different variety of colours and so deafness can be much more common.

I think it is a genetic trait, and it is fairly common in greyhounds. I wouldn't have a dog's canines extracted at 6 weeks, that sounds very drastic for what may end up a very minor fault. How many people do that and what breed do they do it to? I don't see how the lower teeth are 'caught behind' either. They sit behind the upper teeth in this fault, but I can't see how that would retard the growth of the jaw. Do you have any references?

What are the vet papers? It is a conformation fault, and can lead to health problems, but it isn't always a health problem. You need to make sure the lower canines are not damaging the palate behind the upper canines. Take the dog to your vet to check that if you are not sure. Do you still have the receipt for the dog? You might have a claim against the breeder if there are health problems as a result of this, but no claim if there are no actual health problems and the dog is just a pet. Lots of dogs are like this and it doesn't always cause problems.

Exercise Zeus at other times and places. He doesn't have to miss out. The behaviour doesn't sound good. Would need to see it to give an opinion on the dog's mood.

Hang on, you said previously that aggression in dogs was a reflection of their owner's lack of training. That implies that placid temperament is a learned trait in dogs, and does not have a genetic basis. I think that is wrong. Now you are saying they are because of a lack of owner management that a dog might display aggression. I agree with that. It isn't the words you chose, it was the idea you were putting forward that people are disagreeing with, and now you are putting forward a completely different one. The first idea you put forward is the reason why so many people have trouble accepting that management might be the only way to stop aggression. Remember there is always a first time for dog aggression and so there will always be incidents that catch people by surprise. Let's encourage people to buy pet puppies from breeders that select for non-aggressive temperament, to be aware of common breed traits, and to recognise the non-verbal communication and other signals that our dog might have aggressive tendencies. Very few people at a dog park or anywhere else would be happy to see their dog hurt another, so there is little to be achieved by saying they are bad or that their dogs are bullies.

A dog's temperament is set genetically, and training and socialisation will only have a limited effect. You can take most of the credit for owning a well-trained dog, but it is the breeder that should take the credit for the dog's underlying nature. I think many people are surprised when their dog attacks another dog, and many don't want to accept that their dog is aggressive, so will ignore the behaviour or blame the other dog. The idea that 'bad dogs have bad owners' makes some people absolutely refuse to accept that their dog has a behaviour problem, so it is a harmful myth to be spreading around. Prey drive is one reason why a dog would attack a pup. Such a dog should not be in a dog park, and should probably wear a muzzle in public. Given the attitude of the owners of this dog, they should be reported to council. Before their dog kills another dog. Shaking another dog does not produce many visible injuries, but it can cause quite a lot of internal damage.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he would do the same in any home. That is why he needs a professional assessment. How easy do you think it would be to find an owner that wants a problem dog instead of one with no problems? Why would somebody want to do that? Do you think an owner that does want a problem dog may still want him if his problem is quickly solved? What if his problems are not really solvableat all? I am not saying you should put this dog to sleep. I am saying that it would be highly unethical to place this dog in a home without it having been assessed. Not all dog temperament problems are solvable, or even managble long-term., no matter how expereinced or financial a person claims to be.

Or they can give you a life of misery. Depends on what is causing the behaviour. This dog needs professional assessment, the owner does not need to be given hope when there may not be any.

Yes, I know it is only the shelter's responsibility. However, the OP has an opportunity to ask that this be followed through, as well as the other option to get a refund and just say good bye. If she does insist the shelter gets a proper assessment done, there is a better chance that the poor dog won't be just placed with another family, and they have their hearts broken too.

The shelter owner has confirmed she will take him back if we are unable to help him and I would guess as a no kill shelter she will attempt to rehome only with an accurate description this time of the issues he has. I think it would be unethical for her to rehome this dog without having it assessed properly (by a professional) first. I don't think it is good enough just to rehome him with such serious issues that could end up in his injury or death. Suggest to the shelter that you want the dog assessed in your home before you return it. Then you will know exactly what is needed for this dog, and she will have a better idea too. Getting a refund is one thing, but unless this shelter operator takes her responsibilities seriously, this dog could end up either stuck in a shelter indefinately or in another home that is not able to deal with that level of problem behaviour. Who is going to take on a dog that may or may not have serious temperament problems that cause it to be so destructive and to try to escape? Who goes out to adopt a dog wanting that? Nobody normal. While I think you are entitled to a refund, I wouldn't send this dog back to that place unless the shelter owner is prepared to take the problem seriously and find out if the dog is suitable for rehoming at all. Sometimes it is kinder to have a dog put to sleep than it is to have it pass through a number of homes that are not able to solve the problem. Kinder for dog and people. I am really sorry for you, and I feel that the shelter operator has a responsibility to ensure that the dogs that she rehomes are at least up to pet quality. Unless she holds a qualification or follows an approved testing procedure it would be negligent for her to make a decision on the dog on her own. Now that she knows the seriousness of the problem behaviour she has a duty to do something about it. Disclosing the problems doesn't remove her responsibility, and unless she finds out why the dog is behaving that way she won't know whether it is suitable to be rehomed again or not.

It depends on what questions the vet was asked. Does the dog meet a certain criteria that enables it to be certified? Or Does this dog have any symptoms of ill-health, including inflammation? The vet will only test what is asked to be tested for, and can only report what he finds on the day he examines the dog.