dog_fan

If it has nothing to do with genetics then why have pure bred breeds? Pure bred dogs are a package not just looks. If people want a particular temperament they can research pure bred dogs and have a good idea of the temperament they will get. It is also possible to change this temperament for good or bad by how the puppy is raised.

It is thought this petition was got up by a couple of puppy farms and if you sign it you are supporting them. I suppose it depends on how it is presented. This morning I read it was a vet that got it started. Who would know. I *think* VicDogs wants their own petition running. First is completely wrong, second on the right track...........don't believe all you hear!! if the first is completely wrong then VicDOGs is in deep poo because that came from official sources I might be an official source!! No you can't be unless you state what your official capacity is.

A smart programmer could have made the data matching a lot easier for end users.

I think the "owners" are now just the caretakers. I think the greyhound board now has taken ownership of all greyhounds registered with them. This seems unlawful. I spend my money purchasing goods therefore the goods are my property. What law allows a third party to take control of my goods without my consent?

I am so over the language used to describe the relationship humans have with dogs. I find the use of the word caretaker offensive an it insinuates the relationship is temporary and can be ended by another person who isnt me

I own my dog it is my property. I am not its caretaker. Why are you using this word?

What problems have sighthound breeders created? Right now its damn wise to be defensive. Their dogs are in the cross hairs of the RSPCA. I didnt say all breeders of all breeds. We all know the problem brreeds and we all need to acknowledge the problems. Nothing can be fixed is the problems are not acknowledged. Eta the public see defensiveness as if there is something being hidden from them . there is a high degree of distrust that they have

This will never be addressed until all breeders stop being defensive and stop being victims and open their eyes to the problems they have created. Only then can the needed changes happen. The breeders who are trying to change are often villified for what they are doing by their peers. The ankc is a competative system and until breeders stop this competition between themselves ar will win.

How about the problrms get fixed instead of people having a victim mentality?

I do not understand the emotion in this thread. It certainly puts an end to any discussion.

What I think is the relationship pet rescue and rescues have is a symbiotic relationship. Each party gets something out of the relationship that helps them. If a rescue does not want to be involved then they don't have to. Building a website following is very hard and to reach as many people as pet rescue does is a good reason for rescue to use the free service. I really do not understand what the issue is.

In some apartment complexes there is even a weight restriction for apartment dogs set by the owners corporations. There are many no pets rentals and many no pets owners corporation rules for many apartments

Whatever you agree to is a contract. It would be in a puppy buyers interest to know exactly what the terms of the deposit were. This will avoid any misunderstanding.

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that if your dog goes missing you have to pay more to spring it from the pound if it's unchipped. Hopefully someone from rescue while be able to correct me if I'm wrong. Yep true - an owner is fined if their dog is not chipped . yep, for our area the council can fine dog owners with unregistered dogs (which requires the chip number - no registration without chip number) with up to AU$ 2,200! And yet we still have unregistered dogs. Just goes to show legislation and threats of punishment do not work

...usually you can't advertise an AK-47 on eBay, gumtree or over a newspaper (not so sure about Fakebook so) - obviously there are some measures in place that makes shopping for this type of goods pretty difficult. Why not applying those measures to dogs?...Ebay already doesn't allow the sales of dogs (and other pets). Once you start controlling the sales in this environment, you will get the registration numbers up. I can't see that it would make it more difficult for people that want to do the right thing - for my own dog buying experience not much would have been different, beside that I would have had to send off application papers before we bought the dog. This strategy will only push the sale of dogs underground with sellers finding other places to sell their puppies. The people that are doing the right thing are not the problem, the problem is the people who are currently doing the wrong thing as they will continue to do the wrong thing ...underground means also higher costs (higher risks, higher fines...)...which will benefit the recognized and registered breeders. If I intend to buy a dog, why should I embark on such a risky business where I can get heavily fined and have to pay eventually even more for a dog if I can get my dog without this stress the legal way? Regulation does not stop drink driving which is high risk and has high fines. Regulation does not work. ..that's debatable ...I still believe that getting reminded of the hefty fines help some people to consider a plan B. Hefty fines are nothing else than 'positive punishment', losing the licence is 'negative punishment'...a little bit keen to state on a dog forum that those methods don't work. Actually what changes behaviour is changing attitudes through education. It's the endless campaigns that cost plenty of money. This ^^