~Anne~

Yes I agree with this. It's the - I want a puppy and I want it now - attitude that keeps the sausage factories and pet shop sales in business. Buyer behaviour and community expectations and behaviour have been successfully altered for centuries with education and marketing campaigns. Think of major gov campaigns that you know of like the Grim Reaper. It actually educated and changed social behaviour. There are a million examples of how this has worked but that is the main one that comes to mind.

Bringelly isn't exactly in the Illawarra though Lillypilly. Closer to the Illawarra, at Heathcote, are Hanrob Kennels. I have heard mainly good stories about them and the facility is owned by a Vet to my knowledge.

Education and awareness campaigns. At the moment, at local government level in particular, they appear to spend more time and resources on cleaning up the mess by operating impound facilities, employing rangers and managing social and or health impacts on the community. Perhaps it is more logical to switch resources to prevention? I really don't know the answer and to be honest, I think the answer is far too complex and involved to be summed up in a thread on the internet. Surely though logic and common sense has to come back into the equation somewhere and recognition that life is different now in the 21st century and we live and play differently.

Can't give you an answer there, as I'm only stating my opinion on what I've seen as I troll through rescue sites on a daily basis. You would be better asking that question to Pug rescue or Beagle rescue (as they both seem to be huge and have a good sample-size) and see what their view on the matter is. Your other question confuses me a little, as a decline in dog ownership as a percentage of the population would in itself be a contributing factor in the large amount of dogs in shelters and rescues. Up until September last year, I was Pug Rescue Sydney :D :D Maybe you misunderstood the figures I was pointing out. I haven't the exact numbers on me at the moment but I have quoted them on this forum before. The population of Australia has grown by (let's pick a number just for illustartive purposes only) 10 million in the last 20 years, while the number of people who own dogs grew by only 1.5 million in the last 20 years. This suggests very strongly to me that there is no 'oversupply' problem. However, the numbers of dogs arriving in pounds and rescues each year increase. Why? My best guess is that it is more to do with how we view pets and our responsibility towards them, than any issue with how many we are allowing to be born into this world.

If we are to believe that the reason why so many dogs end up in rescues and pounds across Australia is due to the 'oversupply' of dogs in the pet market, then how do we explain the declining dog ownership growth when compared to the growth of the population of Australia? Also, I think the definition of 'purebred' dogs in pounds needs to be clarified. If you have 50 'purebred' dogs in one month in a pound, how many of that 50 do you think would be registered pedigree dogs? I would say that the percentage of registered pedigrees would be very minimal.

I keep reading these kinds of statements but have never seen evidence of there being a number of strains and the vaccine only covering a certain number. Can you provide a source for this? Ask your Vets Anne, they will tell you the vaccine only covers a certain amount of strains. IMO, and even though Canine Cough does only cover a few strains, it is wise to have it done. The dogs may still contract CC but they don't seem to suffer as badly with it .(in most cases) :D Perhaps you need to read the thread instead of repeating the same misleading info that we have just discussed. Thanks Rappie and Stormie. Your responses have been great and educational.

If it is purely the calcium you want to esnure he gets I have a fabulous and cheap method that was told to me. Don't throw your eggshells away. Instead, break them up and microwave them until they become really brittle. I can't recall how long I did them for, but they were very brittle and I think it was literally only a minute or two. You then crush them up in a mortar and pestle or with a rolling pin. The more you do it, the finer the powder. I think I had 4 shells in total and it made heaps of powder. When I am feeding just plain mince, I will sprinkle about teaspoon of this powder on the mince to every kilo of meat.

And if we listen to what people say, they are very successful with this tactic. Maybe we can be as well. The problem is funds. PETA has some very well-known, incredibly wealthy people who are willing to inject them with funds as required. Unless they can be matched, there is little that can be done to push PETA from the scene. Like them or loathe them they only are able to do this with clever marketing and by a long slow process of gathering support. They are only human, we are too. We can match and beat PETA with the right people. The MDBA are already there, we just need to jump behind them and support them and find some clever PR and marketing gurus to assist perhpas??

And if we listen to what people say, they are very successful with this tactic. Maybe we can be as well.

This is also the way I think we should move although obviously you have stated it in a very simplistic manner, but the gist of it is very much true in my opinion. The only way to alter the course is for concerned people to become the people who make the decisions.

So, by rights, the OP should have called the local Council, and asked for a Ranger to inspect the premises...because Council officers are responsible for ensuring 'puppy farms are comlying with the code for breeding facilities? Why then, when the OP called the RSPCA, did they not say..'Unless you have witnessed actual cruelty, you should call the local Council and ask them to investigate'. You could then assume that if a Council Ranger encountered any abuse, they would then call in the RSPCA? It seems like a lack of communication all round? The OP sees what looks like a puppy farm, which concerns them and is worried that there might be neglect occuring due to the number of dogs and the disrepair of the premises, so calls the RSPCA, thinking they are the correct authority to call. They hear nothing back, so calls again, and again...and still hears nothing back from the RSPCA.......but by rights, should have been told by the RSPCA to call the local Council to report their concerns in the first place. it appears so. i think there is a huge problem here TM and very poor communication from the people in authority Yes, I have to agree with you both on that count.

It is possibly a urinary tract infection. Only your Vet can really determine the cause though. Dogs with UTIs will have visible blood at times in their urine. They also expereince some pain and discomfort with this condition and are prone to toileting inside when tye would never normall do this as they feel a constant urgency to urinate. Females humans also experience the same thing. UTIs are common in both female humans and dogs.

I contemplated it, but you said it better and funnier!

Gender doesn't ever really enter the equation for me.

Out of curiosity what is classed as 'over vaccination'? General consesus is the yearly vaccination protocol. Google "Jean Dodds" and "over vaccination" for some ardous reading. Interestingly, Jean is the main writer on the subject and I often wonder why there are not more experts writing papers on the subject. :D

Why did he die? The blue in Schipps is known as the death gene and rarely do they survive beyond birth. Besides the alopecia which he had from only a couple of weeks of age, he became blind, couldn't eat without being hand fed, developed kidney, liver and heart problems and other auto immune issues. We knew when we took him on that he wouldn't survive for long but we wanted to give him a home for his short life. How terribly sad. Now that is one pup that may have been far better off culled at birth.

Your luck is runnign it would seem. There is one for sale, a little bit smaller though I think, here on DOL in the Off Topics For sale area.

Why did he die?

You will find that a lot of the problem with certain breeds and their non-acceptance of colour is that in some cases, they cannot actually pinpoint the origin of the colour in history. Some breeds have therefore questioned the validity of pedigrees and claimed that the "odd" colours (which may still be perfectly beautiful) have come in via infusions of genetics from other breeds carrying the colours. This is one of the leading arguments behind the non-acceptance of the sable colour in American Cockers today. It was hinted at some time ago that another breed was introduced, either accidentally or deliberately into certain pedigrees and this is where the sable (and possibly the merle) genes started to happen. Despite the fact that there were for a few years some simply stunning examples of Sable and Sable parti American Cockers shown, and titled, it is now possible to register them but they are DQ'd from the ring in the USA, Australia and some other countries. But permissible in Canada and the UK. Very confusing. One of my old American imports is the grandfather of some simply breathtaking sable/parti dogs (one is an All Breeds BIS winner in the USA) but he never sired a sable to my knowledge during his stud career in Australia. A similar theory and situation exists with brindle Pugs.

Moselle, I think you might need to read up on allergies and how they relate to the body. The outside influences you talk of - pollen, carpeting and similar are the allergens. The dog has to have an immune response for those things to affect it. They cause the reaction you see but they do not cause the allergy. Over vaccination may be a cause of dogs developing allergies, so on that one you may be correct.

Dog allergies are not always a result of genetics, FCOL. Outside influences can promote allergies in dogs just as the same applies to people. What outside influences? To my knowledge, an allergic reaction is an immune response. I might be worng but I am sure the immunity is directly related to genetics unless there are causes such as disease, infancy or geriatric stages.

No. Some colours are not acceptable for other reasons, such as because they make a dog more prone to being mistaken for what it is hunting. Or make it blend in too much with the background and make it impossible to find. Or simply because they are recognised as being THAT breed because of a unique colouring or an unmistakeable marking. For example, a Beagle no matter what the main colour is, MUST have a white tip on his tail so that the hunters can see him above the undergrowth. And I believe one of the reasons that white is frowned upon on the throat and chest of Rottweilers is because the white becomes more visible in the dark, thereby making the dog a target for attackers. Don't quote me on that one, the source is possibly not all that reliable. But it does make sense to me. Thanks, how interesting about the Beagle. I never knew that. Still, if a breed that wasn't used for hunting and was simply a lap dog, had colours that occassionaly cropped up that weren't related to health issues, would breeders normally cull? I am not sure if it is true, but I can recall reading somewhere that black Pugs were once culled. It could be a fallacy however, but if you look at old pics of Pugs there are never black ones. This could just be because there weren't as many however.

Apricot and silver are variables of the colours fawn though to my knowledge, and not actually different colours.

Erny, reading, asking questions and firing off correspondence is not participation, at least not in the way I mean it. If you want to effect change, become a decision maker. Run for Council. Run aas a local member. Join committees and groups. Be there and have your say counted when these things are planned, discussed and debated. Maybe - except that most of us are not able to become a participating member of their local, state or federal government and like you I have no doubt that councils do what they think is right based on what they have been advised is whats best for the residents etc . My main issue isn't really with councils it's with the people who want to yell and scream and demand more laws because people don't follow current laws. I totally agree. However, thinking back over the decisions I have made and the opinions I have held in the past, I too was one that called for more laws once. I had little understanding at the time of the bigger picture and the consequences and potential consequences of more laws. I am now educated and have a much broader view of animal control and animal laws (I might add, in part becuase of you). I would think that the narrow view thinking and the enlightenment scenario is a common one amongst doog owners. If I can learn and alter my view, why can't decision makers? Through joining them and participating we can gently effect change in the way thigns are viewed perhaps. Pie in the sky stuff maybe, but I'd rather do it this way then become cynical, hardened and frustrated.

I have the CS Master Collection and it doesn't have this. I just tried to download the trial version but it says my emails are already regsitered? Maybe I have registered before when I have purchased Adobe stuff??