Tralee

I don't use it. People don't like being treated like idiots. I wouldn't buy a dog on limited register, and I don't put them on the limited register before I send them to homes. If you can't trust the people they are homed with, then don't send them there. Px

How cool is that lady!

Nuh BSc DipEd MA

:D Build a bridge.

A very common mistake. Raining cats and dogs is a simile. A simile - a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared. ... Compare metaphor- a figure of speech that expresses the resemblance of one thing to another of a different category, usually introduced by as or like. For example: as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” It follows that: Banding together to form a group or class action is a metaphor. A metaphor is something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else. ... Compare simile- a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action that it does not literally denote in order to imply a resemblance, for example: "He is a lion in battle." Regards Px

Its a metaphor. That's how language works, you know. Without metaphor there is no language. You know, like, draw me a picture.

Nuh. Disagree I am not ususally the optimist, but what is needed is the banding together of like minded people. Have you never heard of things like "Class Action." The lines are being drawn as we type this and we need to align ourselves on the side we wish to advocate for, ie, the dogs. Its a democracy and its your vote that will ultimately count.

I'm not sure that when incomings exceed outgoings the line has not been crossed. The excess is naturally going to be absorbed into the kennel. For example, time is going to significantly reduce any excess over the life of a dog. The more dogs, the greater the economic reversal due to age. Also the higher the gains, the greater the risks. I'd be paying some sort of hefty insurance premium for such expensive dogs. I'm not so sure about Ground Hog Day and shifting shadows, as it seems to me that commercial breeds are much more like a case of the Goose that Layed the Golden Egg. Which means to say, commercial breeders will put time ahead of their profits once they become productive and greed will be their undoing. Neither do I think the activities of some registered breeders can be held up as a lamp to others. Px

How-you-can-stop-puppy-mills Breeding for Quality not Quantity - Love not Money. An old article, coopted from Channel 7 but makes some good points. No way to treat man's best friend More recent article but shows how charities can oppose the guzumping interest of commercial breeders. A one person crusade Yep

I'm sorry, I've never heard of a charity breeding dogs, can you please provide a source for this? Repeat. It will not be possible to operate on the plane of Law, and protest over bad laws rarely does work on that level anyway. The platform has to be raised to above and beyond the law. I've quite clearly outlined that my point is not legislation or law enforcement I'm not going to explain it to you or keep going over old ground. As far as I'm concerned it is already so yesterday. Px

I have no problem with your $7000 a puppy breeder, whom I assume are registered breeders. Because, as I have pointed out, it is a side-effect of bettering the breed which over-rides the other outcomes. The same cannot be said for what the RSPCA has quite clearly, and correctly, identified as the indiscriminate breeding and placing of dogs. The placement of the dogs by the breeders and the procurement of the dogs by the public is an even greater problem because in a market economy demand is the genesis of the transaction. It is fair to say that there cannot be a one size fits all, and my stipualtion for a triple criterion still applies. Which dogs, under which conditions, with which managemant practices will be the most efficacious. These are the principles under which I am guided, none of which can be deemed to apply to legal commercial breeding enterprises. There are other economies, not just commercial ones. :D Regards Px

If the law says that large scale commercial dog producers are fine then really what leg do you have to stand on to get the laws changed. If the dogs are kept according to the COP then what exactly are you going to complain about? No welfare breaches then the RSPCA aren't interested. You might personally not like volume breeders but that is your own opinion and not enforceable by law. It is inevitable that puppy farms will flourish with these new laws and will be untouchable. If who says? The Law is abstract and arbitrary, if I have to explain that then I'm sorry I don't have the time or space. Suffice it to say the Law is an Ass. Any lawyer will tell you that. It will not be possible to operate on the plane of Law, and protest over bad laws rarely does work on that level anyway. The platform has to be raised to above and beyond the law. Some charities are quite adept at doing just that. Hell knows, some charities have even changed the World. I would argue that the RSPCA are very interested and have the will. Lacking the resources is not the same thing. What's inevitable is the quality of dogs will be inferior and that includes temperament. They won't last long after that starts happening. The question is: Is some future dog attack a reasonable cost? Your answer, or anyones answer, must be No. Regards. Px

Not so, and you also have the option to disagree with what people tell you. Commercial means profitable. And herein is the dilemma. We all know that puppies cannot be raised properly for some financial return. However, the government will extract taxes from commercial breeders. Therein is the task ahead, ie, showing that if it is done properly, breeding cats and dogs is not a profit generating enterprise. It is a useful defintion because it also gives us the criteria by which to judge others. Namely, "Did you make a profit?" Large scale breeding of cats and dogs can only be conducted properly under the auspices of some recognised charity. Small scale breeders are charitable by definition. So I would have no problem with commercial breeding done properly and used as a tax concession. So, if the motive of the government is not increased revenue, but the ultimate welfare of our animals and an increased sence of humanity throughout the electorate, then I say; let if fly. But then, pigs might fly too. Px

Well the problem as you know is not specifically puppy farming. However, commercial interest is a part of the problem. I can take the time and make the effort to home the best dogs in places that have had Maremma as a pet before, or with rich Italians who currently have Maremma running and working, only to be given the disconcerting news that a top breeding bitch has not survived its first year, or that the dog was isolated in the recent floods and drowned. Despite our best efforts and intentions there is a lack of 'will' either through ignorance or just plain laziness. The problem is clear. The problem is the overall care and concern for the dogs through their full and complete life cycle. Puppy farms - exploitative or commercial interest ones, compound the problem of caring adequately for the animals taken into domestic or more productive situations. Although it does try to do something, the solution is not legislation since we cannot legislate for 'saintliness' or maunufacture the wisdom of Plato and Socrates for others. The solution is just as clear. All that can be done is to be 'an example to others' and teach them by our example. Regards Px

Steve. The campaigns against this sort of sickening practice do not lack teeth or vigor. Neither are they obscure or incomprehensible. We only have to add the average age of dogs in Australia (5yo) and the numbers euthanased each year to our protests to get our point across. Implying that the problem is insurmountable and leads to a blind alley in not helpful at all. Hi All. :) I think its best to stick with the term 'puppy farm' because is has the same connotation as 'battery hen' and they are both in contemporary use. Definitions are an absolute necessity because we need to agree about what we are talking about. The debate, if it is to shift from animal neglect to commercial interest, also needs to move its focus from a 'what and where' scenario to an assessment of 'how and why.' In brief, the RSPCA discussion paper has gone to some lengths to define the term 'puppy farm.' RSPCA Australia Discussion Paper Fortunately, in this article, wikipedia which is not a peer reviewed source, is cited in just one reference. The commercial question is a bit trickier to discern but it can be revealed, I should think, by winnowing the nuance from any Code of Ethics worth its salt. That is, an assessment of how and why puppies are bred. The paradox is that although education is the solution, Ireland has the highest educated population per capita in the World. Go Figure!!! Regards Px

Deja Vu

Well, maybe they do in some places. But they don't get a sympathetic ear here. I thought that was the nuance in my comments. While the DPI regs are problematic they have set a precedent and we will need to choose a yardstick from somewhere. It may be a one glove fits all approach but until something better comes along that's science I'm afraid. Well again I don't think I was being pro-law at least I was not trying to be. My point was that a reasonable yardstick has to be taken from somewhere and the Tasmanian case did not meet the minimum requirements of Our Code of Practice here in NSW. I think some of the regs can inform and educate and that is welcome. Some others seem to infringe on common sense. But blatant neglect, abuse and exploitation needs to be identified for what it is, and those implicated in it brought to light. Let me be florid in my expression here. Just because the authorities live by: "So let it be done, so let it be written" which means to say 'they go by the book' it does not follow that the sense of horror, disgust and cognitive dissonance that cases like the Tasmanian labradoodles create cannot be taken beyond law in our appeals to a wider audience, or that we cannot bring a greater voice to our protests against them. Px

I've already qualified my initial post with this comment. The discussion needs to be moved forward and not around in circles.

Horrible, just unimaginably horrible. I hope he is OK now. I was attacked several times as a child. Once I'm even sure my step-father knew the dogs temperament before he sent me into the yard where the dog was. However, that's another story. But agreed, a strange dog remains a strange dog. The outcome is always known. Px

Laws are mandated social pressure. It is not much of a leap to see how they are connected or their relevance to each other or how one informs the other. You can always let a reply 'go through to the keeper.' Px

:laugh: :laugh: :p Well tickle me pink! I suppose over two thousand years counts for nothing for "a breed in development." Only in the USA. They have to americanise everything and cannot be beholden to anything or anyone. Well the Italians recognise it as breed. FCI Standard N° 201 / 26.3.1998 Otherwise, there wouldn't be any and that's all I need. Px

With all due respect, that's simply inaccurate. Everyone has been subjected to social sanctions, or ostracised. Other sticks are financial boycott, public discrediting and political protest. Education of course should be included. The Law is an ass. And the law is informed by social practice. Change social practice and the law will change. Regards Px

No

+2 Everyone, Mace(aka:joek/m&m/magic/many others) is a known Troll with multiple logins, so do not take him seriously. Best way to treat a troll is to ignore them. add m-sass :D

Excuse me!, my son was bitten on the arm by a unleashed dog pushing his bicycle past a dog walker on the footpath in a similar situation and afterwards became terrified of dogs. The way I got him over his fear was using the leash as an indicator that he had the choice to easily avoid the dog and that a leashed dog couldn't get him. The leashed dog was the first step in his fear rehabilitation to give him confidence that the dog being leashed did provide him with choices to feel safe around them. The basis of his early treatment was to ensure that a leashed dog posed no threat because they were restrained and he had the choice to pass them at a distance he felt safe knowing that the dog couldn't make physical contact with him. We could have given him the above advice I highlighted, but I doubt such advice although I agree should be the case in a perfect world, would have had much effect in his dog fear rehabilitation. Welcome to the forum m-sass. :D My comment was in response to the earlier post by mace mace on 20 January 2012 - 11:44 PM, said: The leash range of a strange dog to me is their personal space which I prefer to keep out of to prevent what happened in this case. So if you want to be a thrillseeker by entering a strange dog's personal space, the bottom line is, be aware that getting bitten may be the result........the choice is yours. However, I did not give any advice, or present advice in the sense in which you have framed it. My point of reference is the biting dog not the pedestrian. I refuted the point of view that a leashed dog is a calculated risk that provides choices. It doesn't and the law clearly says so. Congratulations on the successful efforts to desensitise your son. Px