~Anne~

I hope you find them. Keep looking, and contact Lee from PetRescue. Edited to correct - PET SEARCH not PetRescue. Re: the bolded part - it is your breeder's responsibility, not yours, to have the chip details transferred to you. I hope you remind your breeder of their responsibility for future puppies they sell.

Yes please! What an incredibly smart and sensible collection of statements. I am dumbfounded the way people are attacked for having a need to re-home their dog. I often found myself discussing at length the pros and cons of surrendering a Pug. I have been able to work with some owners to find a solution for the issue that has seen them get to the point of calling me to surrender the dog. I wish more would have called me earlier. I wish I could have helped those who were devastated at having to give up their dog, but sometimes there is no other option. There will be, and was, the owners who should never have had a Pug in the first place, but many were everyday responsible people who thought they were up against a rock and a hard place. Totally agree. My comments in the last few threads have been aimed at the same thing. We keep hearing the same things and we follow through on them without actually thinking about it for ourselves and finding out IF these things we believe are actually fact or fiction.

We (as in the dog loving public), as a resource, are too small. It needs to be a society push which usually emanates from authorities or the gov. What is social marketing? Social marketing differs from other branches of marketing in that it relates to the wellbeing of the community (rather than the wellbeing of the marketer) (Donovan, 2005). The fundamental goal of social marketing campaigns is to bring about behavioural change (Andreasen, 2003). This can range from encouraging people to change a specific behaviour on their own (self-regulation) to seeking professional help about a difficult problem. Social marketing draws from a broad range of social sciences for the purpose of influencing people in socially desirable ways and generating social good (Donovan & Henley, 2003; Stead, Gordon, Angus, & McDermott, 2007).

Because Australian landlords have the atttidue that dogs destroy properties. This attitude is somewhat brought about by australian renters who need an attitude adjustment or have a genuine lack of understanding of the damage that can be done to a property. Again, social awareness and education campaigns would help for both tennants and landlords.

Totally agree.

Change community attitudes through education and social marketing. Bring knowledge to the sellers and the buyers. Change behaviours.

Another great post. I so agree about the need for a campaign around this time of year to educate about alternatives.

In response to your comments - of course, yes, they were generalisations and I'm very well aware that all registered breeders are not necessarily ethical, or that all pet shops are not necessarily unethical dodgy used-car type sales outlets. I did not cater for all the ifs, buts and maybes scenarios for the purpose of not having a post that went for pages upon pages. My comments were based on my own experiences in looking for a dog as I spoke to many suppliers including pet shops, BYBs (even though I didn't know they were this at the time) and registered breeders. As a relative newbie myself, I'm happy to be educated and am very open to constructive feedback. However, making assumptions about what I seem to be insinuating (especially when they are not correct) and then labelling me as elitist and arrogant is over-stepping the mark fairly significantly and getting very personal. Thank you very much for berating me and I'm sincerely glad that you've taken your frustration out on me which means that hopefully someone else will miss out on being a target. I hope you have a lovely night I took it more as a generalisation, not specific to you. I know it is a hard biscuit to swallow, but it is partly truth and it is one reason why the purebred dogworld is in the decline it is. Obviously there are many other factors as well and please note, I have said it is one of, not 'the' reason.

Great realistic post!

yes but by question and answer as there is no compulsary chipping here in WA. I don't know what the answer is, I really don't. I think in the last thread I said something like you can't control people...So even though no one wants more laws I am sorry but they are needed. If a dog is chipped to Joe Blog in a compulsary chipping programme then they are responsible and they should collect the dog/puppy and be responsible for the welfare of that animal. Good breeders take care of their dogs and their puppies future and if the rest don't then someone needs to make them responsible.I don't care if they are the pure breed community, the backyard crew or the farmers, they should all be equally responsible for their own breeding. I don't know if the pet shops are responsible for all the deaths but they give an outlet for sale much like gumtree and other online sales rooms. You know I was told yesterday that one particular pound were euthanaising 90 dogs today, that is bloody shocking, so whoever is breeding them need to be making sure they are going to a place they are loved and cared for. I am honestly trying to keep emotion out of this thread but gee it is hard. Poor bloody dogs and the ones I feel for the most...the cross breeds that aren't cute and fluffy, the poor staffy cross, kelpie cross, bully cross cos they get the last chance which is often no chance and they die in their thousands every year. I know "pure" dogs die but they do have a much better chance as there is often someone looking for that particular type of dog. Yes, I know exactly where you are coming from. I deliberately keep trying to only look at the logic and not the emotional side because it is important that we find the answers and stop unneccessary killing, the throw-away mindset, and the demise of the purebred dog.

Interestingly, I read an article once that stated the opposite. The motor of the fan apparently increases the room temperature. As for cooling, a fan by itself it can't cool anything. The actual act of cooling anything works through evaporation unless you use a coolant or gas. The reaosn why we feel cooler is the air blowing at the minute droplets of perspiration on our skin. The only way a fan can blow cool air is to have it blow over ice or cold water.

Because dogs don't sweat, putting fans on them achieves nothing unless the dog is wet... again, it is all to do with evaporation.

Mita, I am not talking about evidence that dogs needs socialisation. I am directly referring to pet shops creating dogs with issues because of a lack of socialisation, over an above or even equal to, any other source of dogs.

Is it? I have never heard of it before and yet I work, read, live by animals every day. Again, where is the evidence? Is it a real fact or a perception? I'd love to learn more about it this as it has obviously escaped my notice. Sorry, can you clarify your comments. I am confused. I think you are saying that most surrenders to rescues are animals purchased from pet shops???? As a rescuer, who took in a high volume of surrenders, I can easily state that there was a very tiny percentage that came to me that were originally purchased from a pet shop. Most were purchased from registered and unregsitered breeders. That is only a tiny sample though, but it is obviously very different to any examples you are aware of it seems ;) The biggest flaw in the statement is the idea of compulsory chipping. Pet shops, at least in NSW, have had mandatory chipping for something in the vicinity of 12 years now. Puppies purchased from pet shops are chipped. Why are Sydney pounds filled with dogs not chipped if they are coming from pet shops?

There are too many variables, and as you said, there is no study. How can you be so sure that what you believe to be right, is right? As stated earleir, actual collections of statistics currently taking place are challenging long held beliefs. Variables that would affect the outcome spring to mind like - how long does a pet shop puppy stay in a pet shop before it is sold? Are all pet shops equal in their neglected care? What of puppies bred and sold by breeders that are not socialised properly - surely there are just as many? Why are they different or not noticed?

Sorry Nic, I mean in general. Why can't purebred pups be sold from a shop front (aka a pet shop) with similar controls like the RSPCA shop fronts? As pet shops currently are, maybe this is so. Obviously there would need to be changes. Where is the evidence for this calim though? The question is certainly relevant, but if you look at the sources of dogs in pounds where stats are compiled, pet shops are not top of the list you will find. My view is that we just keep repeating a mantra without actually looking for evidence. The evidence when it is sought out, seems to point us in different directions as the AWL study showed that Steve refers to in this thread. It is a bit like the desexing debate of animals in welfare situations. After researching this thoroughly, I really can't find any evidecne that shows desexing programs stops animals ending up in shelters or prevents them being abused. In fact, several studies show that the numbers coming in to shelters did not change even after intensive desexing campaigns. Obviously, this is another area of discussion, but as a rescuer, I have spent several years repeating the same thing as everyone else "desexed dogs are safe, desexed dogs stop dogs ending up in pounds" without questioing anything. Is the same thing happening with pet shops? Should we start to view the situation in a different light as some in the rescue arena now are? Can pet shops become our allies when it comes to promoting the purebred dog? Is this a better way of dealing with the pet shop issue? I could be following a completely wrong train of thought, but I think we all need to go back to basics and look at companion animals, welfare and breeding in a fresh and bare bones light.

Dog rocks work. I used to have to use them with some female rescues. It stopped the grass burning.

I totally agree. In short - there simply does not appear to be any evidence to support a lot of claims made against pet shops. It may be an abhorrent thought to many breeders, but is it possible that breeders could work with petshops? Rescues are now beginning to. Sure, there are bad pet shops and these need to be stopped. Pet shops buying bulk from breeders whose operations mean the adult dogs are kept in abusive situtations and the puppies produced are possible genetic time bombs should also be eliminated. Why can't we work with the industry to ensure the pups they sell and good quality registered pure bred dogs? Why can't they sell a puppy after qualifying a potential home just like a rescuer or a good breeder does? Why can't the current status quo be changed? Imagine if pet shops only sold pure bred registered dogs. Why can't the same be done with purebred pups?

It isn't really killing of any "good stuff" at all. Some dogs are sensitive to raw foods. I'd cook it.

I think firstly you need to determine if pet shops are as bad as claimed and if it really makes any difference to the life of the dog sold. Bybers appear to be selling far more dogs than registered breeders or pet shops and far more dogs with health issues and to the wrong home. If any one area is a threat to purebred dogs it is this area. Many of the arguments against pet shops simply do not hold up. Strip back dogs and dog onwership to the bare basics and throw away the arguments that are simply repeated again and again but do not make sense or are simply untrue.

Totally agree. Everytime I have had sudden onset of inappropriate toileting in both cats and dogs, there has usually been a medical explanation. Not always of course, but this is the first ting I would investigate.

:D RIP Sophie. I am so sorry Moselle.

Why can't they though? Why can't a pet shop ultimately offer the same level of education and support? They don't at the moment, we know that, but then neither do a lot of other people including breeders. Totally agree. I think it certainly indicates a failing in re-homed animals in that instance. I am against the idea of aborting pups just because 'they shouldn't be re-homed'. There is no over abundance of dogs, so why not allow them to whelp and re-home the pups?

Pugger, the shedding will be completely normal I am willing to wager. I have just finished bathing my three to get rid of some of their hair, and for their weekly bath. It is that time if year when the heat hits and the shedding starts in earnest, although as you know, it never really stops anyway. I bathed Monte first. He has a very thick coat and a lion's mane (what I call the excessively thick hair around the neck). The drain clogged up with his hair. My hands were plastered with it. The towel was layered thick with it. He always sheds massive amounts of hair. Olivia was next. She had some hair in the drain, and there was some on my hands, but not to the extent of Monte. Her towel was pretty full of hair after I dried her off. Next was Boof. Hardly a hair to be seen really compared to the others. His coat is very thin. He freezes in Winter. He doesn't have a lions mane.' There wasn't much hair on his towel either. Pugs all shed, some more than others though and it all depends on the coat. Ollie has a lion's mane from memory doesn't he? This means he will possibly have a heavy coat. Most Pugs do. I am glad to see it isn't the dogs setting of the asthma and you don't have to re-home him. If it ever does come to this, I'd contact Pug Rescue Vic to see if they can help perhaps.

That is so sad. :D I hope something is done to fix the situation.