dog_fan

here is what it says on the PIAA site: PIAA pet stores stamp out puppy farms and guarantee dogs for life Posted: Tuesday, 6 March 2012 | By: SiteAdmin The PIAA policy, effective in NSW from 1 October 2012, guarantees that: Dogs purchased from PIAA member retail stores are sourced from PIAA approved breeders who meet animal welfare standards and whose operations are subject to independent audit by a veterinarian each year. Any dog purchased from a PIAA member that is subsequently abandoned by its owner will be re-homed and saved from euthanasia. The first state to implement PIAA re-homing is NSW, where PIAA has partnered with RSPCA NSW. here is the full article http://piaa.net.au/news/piaa-pet-stores-stamp-out-puppy-farms-and-guarante/ I suppose this isn't talking about cats though

But he denies that petshops are an issue. Does he? or does he deny PIAA pet shops are the issue?

Absolutely. It also appeared that they were having more of a go at the judges for putting such a dog up. Yes that's what I got from it as well. Especially when she said that the vet was doing nothing more than what a judge could do. I suppose one way to achieve change quickly is to make sure judges consider everything before they award

It appears from that clip that the participants knew the dogs would be tested.

As far as I know - yes. What does the eye certificate cover, would it pick up ectropian or is it only a check for degenerative eye diseases? it picks up everything possible and would most certainly cover ectropian and entropian. Thank you

As far as I know - yes. What does the eye certificate cover, would it pick up ectropian or is it only a check for degenerative eye diseases?

What were these people thinking, putting a dog up with these problems. I am sure they would be breeding from it as well. No wonder people see registered breeders as unethical. Imagine the pain this dog was in. I have to wonder about the judges along the way also... Yes but aren't judges usually also breeders..maybe they are cut from the same cloth.

What were these people thinking, putting a dog up with these problems. I am sure they would be breeding from it as well. No wonder people see registered breeders as unethical. Imagine the pain this dog was in.

Because it does matter. Wrong information never helps anyone and if it is so wrong then it undermines anything else you say because what you have said is clearly not possible so everything else you say may be wrong as well.

So that is really beside the point, is it not? Sorry I do not understand what you mean

It would be an unusual bitch that would conceive if she wasn't in good health. Have a read of the Breeders forum on here and see how hard it is for bitches to conceive and these are well looked after bitches who have not been bred season after season.

I do not accept any of that rubbish to be factual any more than Wikipedia being used as a reliable and factual reference source

No they are determining that the dog who won has faults and should not have won. Maybe people won't put overly exaggerated dogs in the ring and that can only be a good thing as far as I am concerned because just maybe they will start breeding towards a less exaggerated look and healthier dogs.

Yes it has already affected my decision as has conformation issues and the prevalence of diseases and conditions that affect the quality of life of the dog.

I do KWYM but I think the shelter has a responsibility to assist the new owner rather than just saying to crate train the dog, advice that was given without a behavioural assessment. Crate training the dog may be the worst thing to do, who knows until an assessment is done? I know if I was in this situation I would return the dog because I certainly would not have expected to deal with all these issues and I wouldn't want to deal with them. If I had been warned about the behaviour and had taken the dog on knowing all the issues and had made an informed decision then of course I would work through the issues, but the OP was not told of them and now has to deal with a dog who I am sure has not met expectations.

I would be concerned that this new dog will teach the other dog some very bad habits and the problem will be doubled. I think you are in a very difficult situation and the shelter needs to either assist you more or take the dog back. Clearly the shelter did not do a thorough assessment of this dog before he was re-homed so they bear quite a lot of the responsibility for this situation.

I agree.

Shooting a dog is quick and the dog does not suffer, unlike the animals that are mauled and die a slow death when hunted by dogs. I totally understand a farmer shooting dogs that trespass onto his land.

I would return him to the shelter. Sometimes we are not equipped to deal with such difficult issues and it may be better for all concerned that the dog be returned. I think you have tried very much to remediate this dog but maybe the issues cannot be resolved.

I do not believe it is possible for a bitch to have 2 litters a year, especially on a consistent basis They are pregnant for 9 weeks so that would make them pregnant for 18 weeks a year if they have 2 litters. If they cycle every 6 months then it isn't possible for a bitch to have more than one litter a year. edited for mathematical error

How is it even possible for a bitch to have 2 litters per year??????

I don't think they are puppy farmers, I think they are unethical ANKC breeders who do not breed for the betterment of the breed they breed purely for colour as their priority, which makes them unethical. I disagree - quite vehemently too! I do NOT see that people who are breeding for a specific colour are necessarily unethical. You are making wayyyy too many assumptions there. So they aim for a particular colour? SO WHAT? I bet they also look out for bad genetic traits and do their level best to exclude those too - and you can't say they don't - you do not know. Don't ever put your hand up for Jury service!! And you accuse me of making assumptions

To focus on just one thing at the expense of all others is not breeding to better the breed. It is also breeding dogs that are not true to the ANKC standard as blue SBT's cannot have a black nose, again not bettering the breed. I thought these issues would have been well known to anyone who has been around dogs for any length of time

I have given my personal response to the photo. I've pointed out that, tho' I do not agree with what's presented in the photo, that does not constitute my discrediting a man I know nothing else about. I have no idea how this man behaves in any other situation such as the Companion Animals Working Group in NSW. A person's behaviour can not be predicted from one photo. All my comments were specifically related to my personal response. It was a judgemental attitude and assessment on how the people were feeling and behaving, based on a photo that you have no idea of the context. Critical thinking and analysis out the window, emotions in.

Regardless of what people call them, if the animals are being cared for according to legal standards then they are not a puppy farm. So as long as the dozens or hundreds of dogs are well fed & watered in their nice clean little cages, that's ok? And what the heck else can large scale intensive commercial breeding of companion animals be called , if not a puppy farm/factory? Unfortunately yes that appears to be perfectly legal...but for the PIAA to support, maybe even encourage the practice , well that makes me livid. It is a sad day when the companion canine is reduced to this A couple of years ago I had the dubious pleasure of debating this in person with Mr.Perkins. I would be banned if I wrote here what that conversation left me feeling. The word legal is important here. Laws are around that determine what is legal in respect to breeding dogs. If establishments meet that criteria they are behaving appropriately. If you don't like the law then attempt to have it changed but according to the law they are not puppy farmers.