moosmum

I would not personaly buy a pup from a commercial enterprise. My experience and understanding is that the type of dog I look for has to be proven in a similar environment to that I would be keeping them in, and that he breeder has to have the same expectations of what they want in a dog as I do If my own expectations are likely to be met. I think that, in a nut shell, is what we need to be teaching the pet buying public. I don't expect guarantees. I think thats unrealistic. I do expect that the animals are selected for the purpose/environment they are fill, from 'stock' tested as successful in that environment. That they are exposed to any conditions they are expected to handle to demonstrate they can. That they are healthy, well cared for, and that the breeder/seller does have an understanding of selection for that purpose. We will NEVER eliminate welfare issues. We CAN reduce them by shaping expectations of better. Parklea markets could as easily be pressured to do better. Provide and insist on more suitable conditions. The fact that there was an out cry shows that we are concerned with welfare and do want better. I just don't think out right bans do any more than to increase ignorance in the long term about the realities of animal husbandry, or selection. I believe the increased ignorance from people isolated or unfamiliar with animals is largely what contributes to the impulse buys and support for less than optimal breeders. The puppy farm that helped to combat the Victorian Legislation sounded like they were doing a pretty good job. This should not be taken to say I think thats a good model. But its likely better than 'some' pedigree breeders. As long as we are going to concentrate on the worst examples in order to ban whole environments for the breeding or selling of animals, we will find cause to ban all of them. If you eliminate puppy farms and BYBers, that leaves ONLY pedigree breeders. Few oops litters. Pedigree breeders at present are so few they have little hope of meeting demand. No where near. There would need to be huge change in attitude in pedigree breeders to meet the expectations of the PET buying public ( or working dog buyers) to support a future demand. At present, the main expectation placed on a pedigree breeder is that they meet the demands of the standard, as it is applied in the show ring. That is the test of a pedigree breeders success- That is the environment a pedigree is bred FOR, and tested in. Yes, we need to reduce the incidence of badly bred animals. Animals being neglected, abandoned etc. I just think its far more effectively done if people are more fasmiliar with animals and what it is that contributes to the best of them, and to best of their keepers and that that is done best by example and demonstration. If we showcase what brings the best, people can learn to recognize it and seek it. They seek the rewards of it, and learn their responsibility to finding it. We have animals well integrated into a modern society. If we show case the worst, people won't recognize what DOES work. They will only learn what to avoid. They are taught there are only costs associated with animal owner ship . There is an expectation there is no place for animals in modern society. We expect the costs to be too great to justify them. There are very few breeders these days willing to put themselves out there to show what they are doing, what they achieve, and how it benefits the people who support them because we are all trying so hard to show the failures. There will be fault found in the best and thats what they will be held to account to.

As long we aren't educating owners and buyers by discussion and by providing experience and incentive to get it right, you are not going to prevent impulse buys or ignorance. Venues aren't the problem, lack of better expectation is and you won't change that until you demonstrate what people should expect, and their own responsibilities to achieve those expectations. The more we remove dogs from the public eye, the less familiar people will be with dogs. The less familiar people are with dogs, the more mistakes will be made and lower the expectations will become. If people can't recognize an unhealthy dog that should not be bought or bred, or poor condition(s) its because they have little familiarity with dogs, and little understanding of what they should expect. Or the consequences of no expectations. Yes, some are just concerned with the money- but they wouldn't be supported through sales if people were familiar with and taught to expect more. Just maybe, those who are only concerned with the money would also understand to expect more than that, and that their buyers do too. If you want people to understand what 'doing it right' entails, Then "doing it right" has to be a visible example to emulate. Removing opportunity to do something at all just removes an ability to demonstrate ways it can be done better. No expectations at all there.

Hi Ricey, Good to see you back. I agree. Environmental selection, basicaly. The dogs best suited to the environment they are going to, and their purpose in it. Or tested is as similar an environment as they are being chosen to enter. The show ring is fine, for those who want to show. It can't cover all purposes and I think thats where the K.Cs let breeders and the dogs down. It seems to foster a belief function must follow form.

Thank you. I think so too. :) I may have done myself out of a dog tho'. :laugh: And I think for her, other dogs will have a hard time measuring up to her memories. She will have high expectations. Finding some one who works to meet them is already much harder.

The little dog is left alone. Shes old and grumpy and deserves her peace. G.D gets that she is handled differently. And that ears and tails etc aren't to be pulled or grabbed etc. Looking gently is O.K. And she seems to have an understanding of Dog body (and sound) language already. The new Tentie pup is also getting some valuable lessons and forming a great relationship with children.

And I have a great chance to teach both control. They are never unsupervised. Neither has hurt the other and they show a lot of affection. Try to hurt that child and you will see another side to the dog. No guessing about it. If you were producing dogs to be good with kids, how else to test that? If you want dogs able to respond to environments they will be kept in, that needs to be tested in the environment. I figure you can't expect to keep dogs protected from every environmental stress, and end up with dogs that can handle environmental stresses. And the same goes for my Grand daughter. I Think kids need to grow up with a dog. You would need to see this kid to believe how confident, how much empathy and maturity she has, and how physicaly competent. I may be biased. She 2 yo this month.

Seem to enjoy it. G.D is NOT in pain in 2nd pic, just trying to get up! That IS her foot in the dogs mouth.

Both learn.

I think they do it beautifully.

They play with oranges

Looking after my Grand daughter gives me a great chance to teach my dog, and I love seeing the relationship these two have developed.

I think kids should be taught to respect and interact with dogs. I think you have to teach the teach the dog to respect and interact with kids too. I agree the dog was not totaly comfortable and I may have stopped it sooner. But depends on what I know of the dog and kid. I think its a part of the socialization to teach a dog that patience is expected with kids, and to look to the adult ifs its really to much to expect. They have to understand whats expected, if you're attentions not on them for any reason. Just my view. It was no worse than annoying pups playing with a tail gently mostly. If I thought kid might pull or hurt, I would at least be directing that hand.

Have you checked Elders? Being mostly primary producers they might offer different approach

Don't get me wrong, I don't think theres any thing wrong with your approach. You work with what you understand, in the way the you understand it. If that helps people its great. Its the best we can do, yet. Maybe my approach would have been different if I hadn't come from a science back ground! I also had experience from a child, some times negative sometimes positive. My sanity also needed a response.I also studied. But nothing I read or saw convinced me any one 'knew' the answers. So I accepted what is part of me on the understanding it can't be explained yet, and can make others uncomfortable because it can't. It wasn't totally unfamiliar to my Mothers side of the family, but still makes most of them uncomfortable. I looked into paranormal research as a profession, but didn't like the approach here in Aust. I still managed to convince my 'non spiritual' father based on effects and probability. I still think there are laws at work that can be measured because a lot of my experience involves measurable physical effects. And study of physics is learning things that could begin to explain, If its used to look in that direction.

You're a thinker, aren't you Moosmum? lol. 'All things exist, yet man can only understand that which he's been educated to comprehend.' - Imre Vallyon. Today's magic is tomorrows science Religion & science are just very different perspectives that are often trying to explain/understand the same thing. For e.g., the Theories of Evolution & the Big Bang are describing the process of Creation. There are truths & there are higher truths. We are limited by the restrictions of the physical. We are eternal beings with untold inherent ability. The clue is to be found in our so-called 'junk' DNA. As a very old book says; 'Ye are Gods'. :laugh: It does give me a lot of 'WOW!' But seriously, If you want to know if something is at work you need to quantify what IT is, and how you can expect it to work.

I don't think science, done properly, discounts 'the spiritual'. Some scientists may. I think its mostly that science hasn't had any conclusive, repeatable evidence that it does. Seems to me religion and science are just 2 different sides to the same coin and both can provoke a spiritual Awe. Maybe its a human Drive? Science basicaly looks for purpose. Why does some thing behave as it does and what are the properties and limits that make it so? Religion gives one- to serve a 'higher' conciousness. Religion says we can't understand it, its beyond us. Science says we must, to serve it. Religion tells us purpose is there. Science tells us to find it. Spirituality seems like the glue between. The form of Conciousness is still the Great Mystery. The Cambridge Declaration of Conciousness says its not confined to Human beings, but we have no real idea of its limits or properties. I've had a lot of experience that can't be explained by known Laws. It doesn't mean they aren't there. We just can't explain them. We can't prove what we can't explain. Science can't accept Laws with out explanation or verification and still be science. Unfounded beliefs limit understanding, and how we respond. Understanding the nature of conciousness might explain a lot. I think its pretty Awesome... How does a culture of cells, bound together by the limits of their common purpose, achieve conciousness? What IS it?

I've had many of each and not noticed a difference overall that I could put down to sex and not just the individual. I think that females might be more intense generaly tho', and more pro active where males are more likely to accept things as they are, or let go when its done.

I was told years ago that its harder to find a bitch that will defend ( other than their young). But when they do, they are often the best. Don't know if thats right, or not. Makes sense tho'. Same as Tdierikx's Uuuhh! with variations. For realy persistent bitey pups, I might give them more of my limb than they wanted so they gag it out. I like very confident dogs. If its realy persistent and pushing the boundaries, a loud and sharp growl as I swing to eye them. Worst case, grabbing the scruff same time. Not hard, just holding firm til the pup lets go of its arousal, and me. I like very confident dogs, and watch my bitch train some pretty testing pups. She makes it simple and clear. We play rough and I know she has great judgement and control, she got the same until she did (plus game ends) if teeth meet flesh.

I absolutely understand that dogs like Rottis are protective by nature, bless them. It's been my observation over the years, that dogs tend to be a little more protective of their female owners/handlers, especially when around unknown men, than their male owners. I would have to agree with that. In our case, I'm also the trainer and one with the bond. O.H loves the dogs, but doesn't work at a relationship. My dogs have shown they will defend O.H as well, but if theres no detectable threat, I'm the one they watch against it. And kids. We have noticed that we have to control ourselves much more too. Our feelings towards people can affect the dogs reactions if we allow 'feels' when its not called for. Even if we are careful not to display them. Heightens suspicion? Our dogs are friendly towards all invited guests, but when O.H had resentment to one for things said behind his back, THAT was the one person my dog chose to block with a warning when he got too close to me, too fast for her liking.

The K.cs don't have to accept any thing they don't want want to include. They must recognize it though, if its a dog and they claim to be for dogs and not just pedigrees for their own sake, exclusive of dogs. A species diversity allows it a range of response that gives it adaptability to change and challenge. A species ability to respond governs how it evolves to meet those challenges and changes. A Breed doesn't hold the diversity of its species. Its ability to respond is limited to its condition(s) as a breed, in a specialized and isolated environment. If you will only recognize set 'types' of the species, You aren't just favoring the predictability of 'breeds'. You'd have a right to do that. As people who give a place to dogs you will favor the ones that bring value to the environment YOU provide. But if you won't recognize the species, you exclude the diversity inherent to it, and the people and conditions that keep them. You exclude response beyond recognized conditions. You will only recognize limitations- of isolated, fixed and restrictive conditions for predictable types, with out ability to respond other wise. The conditions that distinguish 'type' from species. That is not for dogs. Thats for 'conditions' that bring predictable results. Thats antidiversity. Dogs won't survive as if those conditions are imposed on the species. Thats what happens while the species isn't recognized. Conditions are imposed to have breeds. Thats O.K.IF we recognize the SPECIES for its diversity of response to meet the demands of any conditions it needs to overcome. Breeds will always be limited to the conditions that give them a distinct identity.Even when that condition deteriorates. That won't change with out recognition of the species beyond breed. The Dogs ACT site in its opening statement makes that declaration. No doubt many affiliated orgs. do. That we accept the conditions of breed limitation, but not recognize the diverse responses of a species to its human environment. The message the species sends to its environment- is that diversity of species is unacceptable. We refuse to recognize it as a species. Only divided into precise but entirely separate components with nothing in common. There is no entire purpose.Only pieces held apart. Yet if you need to look at the condition of the species, you need to put the pieces together to see if how it works.It won't work if theres no purpose to hold it together.You are missing the nuts and bolts. There can't be a species. Only predictable, recognizable component conditions for one with nothing in common to give the species purpose or adaptability to its condition. A kind of chaos. A dogs purpose is to respond to the conditions of humanity in ways that improve those conditions. Humanity is the dogs environment. Its increased when more people see and recognize the value in keeping dogs. For what it does for the human condition, a dog improves his own. The species has response-ability to its environment, to shape its condition through how it responds. A breeds 'purpose' is to restrict its responses to the conditions of its identity as a breed. At least while nothing else can be recognized. The value Humans see and recognize in the breed depends on what value they find in its condition, as it is now. A breed has no response-ability to its environment or condition. It depends on the supporting conditions remaining unchanged. They don't and won't. A breeds identity can only evolve, respond and change if theres recognition that its species condition is never static. Its condition will change (and has). The responses to the changed conditions can't come from its condition?! It can only come with a response independent of its condition. From its purpose to its condition. With out recognition of the species condition, response isn't possible from a breed. The environment is forced to respond to the breeds. Thats beyond the ability of environment. Thats not the in the nature of environment. Environment demands. It doesn't respond. Identities respond to demands. If they can't, the available conditions are reduced. Pugs can't breathe? We reduce the Pugs to those who can, but won't alter their conditions to enable better breathing. We wouldn't recognize a Pug if we did. Because its his condition we recognize. Not its abilities of response to our demands to breathe. His purpose is to fit into the standard conditions of his being. We can't address the condition of a Pug if its only its condition that gives it a recognizable identity. Humanity has its own environment. The K.Cs formed an identity, of common response to an aspect of their environment. Dogs. That was a positive move that could have promoted faster and better responses from the canine species. Through demonstration of the benefits and values it contributes to the purpose of dogs. But their statement of purpose included the instruction that the environment inhabited by that collective identity would recognize no other condition. No environment or purpose beyond the pedigree condition. They state they do not recognize a species, only their own conditions. They promote a demand, that only a dogs 'conditions' give him purpose and value. Reality is, a dogs ability to respond to his condition, and how it does, decides if there is any purpose. Environment demands that response be adaptable to any conditions of the species environment, or those conditions/environments are lost to it. They serve no purpose in those conditions with out responding to them. The K.Cs are to maintain the conditions of breed group identities and response, into standard, static environments. Without recognition of other states the conditions a C.C member can respond to are limited to those conditions alone. Their environment and its conditions are self contained in the body of an organization bound by common purpose. Its Exclusive of any other purpose. Its members gives up autonomy of response. They have an over riding member identity, whos purpose is its 'self'. NOT Dogs. Its purpose is to 'set' and limit Canine Conditions The statement of non-recognition removes "The purpose of" the pedigree system to a dogs condition, to make the "Pedigree system" the purpose for a dogs condition. The dog is no longer the purpose of the K.Cs. The conditions are. Recognize the species and a pedigree system can benefit the dogs, even the ones that system doesn't actualy accept. Because with out recognition, there is nothing to accept but conditions. Without response-ability, any conditions will be unacceptable sooner or later. Grey hound racing, pet stores, puppy farms , BYBers, Pugs, G.S.Ds AND K.Cs. Because we don't demonstrate responses that work IN those environments to continue providing value. We hold those environments responsible for the lack of value to be found, when the environment HAS no ability to respond. Only to demand we live up to its expectations of us. The environment can only demand or 'expect' what is demonstrated as possibility. C.C.s making the statement they do not recognize mixes between pure breeds turn the response of pedigrees (to improve practices), to a condition of its environment. A cultural instruction as much as any gentic instruction to a culture of cells in the body they inhabit. Its a faulty code in the programing of cultural behaviour. It removes communication between the cell culture and its environment. The cell culture acting as if its independent of its host, taking what it needs, but not serving the common purpose that will allow survival. By each cell responding to its conditions independently, as far as its genetic variability or diversity allows. Improved response by a single cell has the ability to improve response in other cells by an exchange of information. An improvement in a cells response over those around it is replicated. Cells with the improved ability won't suffer the same rate of attrition as long as those conditions hold. They can replace those cells with less ability to recognize and respond to conditions, giving greater resistance in future to similar conditions. Under that statement of non -recognition: You are cells. You don't recognize the 'body' of the canine species or its purpose. You have created a different body whos purpose is not the good of the body you are contained in. Simply because it can't recognize any more than its own small part in the purpose. Your C.C creation is a part of a bigger body. It won't exist long with out recognition of that fact or it serves NO purpose but its own. And that is in conflict with the responses required to ensure the health of the body. Those C.Cs found a response to improve the condition of dogs, and removed it by making it the condition of their being. Their identity. A record of Pedigree. All dogs have a pedigree. The recording of it isn't what makes it a good dog or a bad dog. Its the response behind it that does. The recording itself can't be made to apply to all dogs before their value is recognized, because its NOT the measure of the dogs value. Its not possible to apply to all other conditions of dog. Not until every condition fits a 'standardized' classification and we don't expect anything more from them. The purpose for Pedigrees is lost with an imperetive to restrict the culture to that purpose, and not the dogs pedigrees should benefit.

Yup. My guys are encouraged to love children, and to welcome guests and attention from people. I am well aware that they have a very strong protection drive that comes naturaly. My job is to see its never misplaced or over done and final judgments are mine to make. The dogs learn responsibility to their own freedom of action. There are social rules. The dogs listen and watch. An invite to enter has a different response to an uninvited entry, another to a person who remains out while I talk to them, or who ignores an instruction. Its important to me and my dogs that they recognize and accept the social rules if they are going to do their jobs in a safe and reliable way. They can't do it at all if they are kept away from people. They couldn't learn to recognize and accept the wide range of 'normal' human behaviors and types.

Such a beautiful little girl. A lovely tribute to her. So sorry for your loss, Its hard to accept they are gone when they have been so much part of our every day. Hugs.

Will def. give that more work than I have been. From being able to discuss this, I'm thinking maybe Over stimulation could be be part of the problem? And he does seem better the last few days, so touch wood, we can get past this with out drastic measures.

In this case, I'm pretty sure its sexual. He is not bored with over an acre and a half to run with at least one VERY active playmate/teacher besides the old girl, horses and chooks, kids AND his toys when he must stay inside. The last thing I needed was a 2nd puppyhood in my 10 ( 11!?) yr old, shes as bad if not worse than he is all over again. Lots of time outs for the pair once she starts carrying him 'round by the collar or has him bolting from one hole to another 'round and 'round the house. I gave him my bed spread after he ruined it, left it on the bed for now. At least it might save the 2nd layer. He tunnels under besides adding to the fluff to picked up :laugh: He may be asserting some dominance with the old girl , I will keep an eye on that, and try some more formal training.

If theres a good chance his sex drive will moderate, I am happy to keep him entire. None of my 'big' boys have been neutered and it has not been a problem so might wait and see how it plays out. The girls are pretty good at putting him in his place, The smallest and oldest needs back up now and again. Thanks guys I can always change my mind or do it later...council Rego due next month and with his enthusiasm, I thought it was worth considering IF it wouldn't cause probs. so its good to know it might sort itself. Keeping him busy is easy, keeping myself from being just as busy running after him is harder He Is shaping up nicely but hes like a cat in where he can get to! A 'high drive toddler' and him together has me spinning in circles :laugh: