WExtremeG

my 1 yr old daughters rubber duck- completely unharmed :laugh:

Thanks for replying, it was along those lines that I was thinking. :) I'm a member of a fb group that is considering people to also include microchip numbers in with the sale ads- am expecting some resistance from the people advertising due to how similar some pups can look like within a litter With keeping collars on them- are they a special sort? also, would nail polish work instead of?

After you've microchipped the pups and they're ready to go to their new homes, how can you tell which chip number/paperwork belongs to which pup? thanks

I have a 1.5 yr old GSD and a 6 yr old Balinese (semi longhaired Siamese) I do not allow them to eat together alone EVER! I learnt my lesson early on when the cat walked over to steal the food of (my then) puppy- puppy snapped and marked the cats face. The cat was lucky- the cat didn't learn from it either so I make sure the cat never gets to the dogs food, because oneday the cat could end up dead- it won't be the dogs fault- it will be mine. They're feed separately :) or if feeding treats I supervise and make sure the cat never approaches the dog.

opps..

Unfortunately not all registered breeders think they need to microchip their dogs. Regardless of how much she paid for the dog originally, it is not too small to be chipped. I get kittens done that do not weigh 1.8kgs and have been chipping long before it became law in the ACT. Hmm.. went looking through my cccq rule book and they say to comply with the states rules regarding keeping and breeding of dogs- so let me rephrase ... it obviously didn't come from a responsible or ethical breeder.

Where does Socialising Dogs mean they have to meet every random stranger's dog while out walking? Dont impose your idea of socialising dogs on every stranger you meet in the street. Exactly.

her $2000 'purebred' obviously didn't come from a registered breeder then- why do people continually get sucked in? hope she finds her dog (and microchips it when she gets it back).

public awareness!!! when it comes to the general population, most people are clueless about general health and inherited conditions and there is a false sense of security when their idea of 'healthy' is buying a purebred dog...but unless the breeder has tested/screen/ or eliminated certain traits from their program then the consumer is not going to be getting what they're expecting, because they didn't realize that not all purebred dogs will be created equal and unless they're health tested/screened by their breeders before breeding then it is like comparing apples to oranges. So until people realize there's more to it than just price and 'papers' people will continually think that they're getting quality healthy dogs when it is really just a genetic (unlucky or lucky) lottery no different to having a mutt.

Vet records would be one way.- of course we would need to differentiate between pedigree purebreds and backyard bred'purebreds' then obviously you also have the crossbreds/mutts as well. One vet I know doesn't make a distinction between the first two- sees 'purebreds' with problems all the time- thinks the breed standards are useless as no one's paying any attention to them - well how many byb'er ever read a standard and cared? How many will tested for diseases/problems? How many care about conformation? Ignorance is no excuse- many are repeaters- and there is a strange notion that these dogs are problem free- how can one even come to this conclusion? With the availability of genetic testing and (for the most part) reg breeders breeding away from genetic faults therefore limiting them in the gene pool, lowering the risks of getting an affected puppy, surely one could see that a pedigree puppy (as opposed to byb purebred') is in a league of its own? I am willing to bank on it that pedigree dogs as a whole, are healthier with less genetic diseases than those with unknown histories/parentage-simply because we have the knowledge to breed away from genetic diseases/problems and use the best dogs that we can, because we as a whole care about the future of our breed/s for generations to come. And from my own experience- our pedigree dogs have been much healthier especially when it comes to structural, than any of the crosses/byb purebreds that some of our family members chose to own.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. This is actually not an established fact as far as I'm aware. Unless you have some numbers no one else seems to have. These arguments can't be settled without it because obviously there are deviations and diseases and health issues in both pedigree dogs and non-pedigree dogs. Where there are people saying they have only seen problems in non-pedigree dogs there are others saying they've only seen problems in pedigree dogs. And those who have seen a lot of problems have seen them in both. I think it's irresponsible to make statements with such certainty when they are in reality uncertain. of the known diseases and hereditary conditions that can be tested for, why would you think the odds in pedigree dogs as opposed to those without would be the same?

it may not mean much coming from a vet, but it was said that my dog was one of the nicer GSD's they'd seen in a long time (no reg breeders where I am- I had to fly my girl up)- I had a lengthy chat about bybing (and how I dead against it) with the vet nurse prior to leaving my girl for her op and after I picked her up. She told me about all the dogs they treat from eye operations (ectropion) to joint problems- some 'purebred' some mongrels. She said that our GSD was a real pleasure (and surprise) to have in the surgery as they see (her words) a lot of problem dogs and she'd often wonder if the people who bought the dog had done any research prior to getting their dog and where from. You are at better odds getting a dog of known lines and testing, than you are a byb mutt or 'purebred'

Yes well put. There are many potential problems with desexing, and as best as I can tell Pyo & Mammary cancer are the two BIG risks with not.We have flip-flopped again, and are seriously considering a little bitch. for us, the biggest risk was an accidental pregnancy- not because I keep other entire dogs (I don't) or couldn't keep my dog in (she's never escaped), but because I couldn't keep other dogs out (6ft fence) and there was no way I wanted to raise a litter of "mutt puppies" for more pound fodder :/. It was a very hard decision- and one I am still coming to terms with- but at the end of the day I am happier knowing that it will never happen to her. To anyone that hasn't had this happen- never assume it won't- To keep an entire bitch you must make sure they are never alone during their heat- which can last a month or more-

Show it to me? Show me evidence that shows that anyone who is not an ANKC registered breeder that is breeding dogs is doing it in a completely random manner. I find that one in particular very hard to believe. They are at least picking the breeds they want to use most of the time. Show me the evidence that none of them health test. Maybe they have had different experiences, different upbringing, and different beliefs and education. How many random bred dogs does someone have to buy before they run out of luck? How many pedigree dogs? Rhetorical questions. Of all the byb's I've asked , NONE have health tested their "breeding dogs" None have seen the "need" for it. as to selecting conformation- SOME had no clue what that even meant, while others didn't care. If a person wanted to breed, but couldn't give a hoot about formal registration (ANKC ect) but still health tested and assessed temperament and Conformation- then they are not byb's in my book- but the kind of breeder who cares about what they produce (though I doubt you'll find many of these) as doing "right" by the dog is going to cut into their profit margin- and they may as well become a registered breeder. There's a couple of facebook pages that I ask every BYBer the relevant health questions pertaining to their breed and ask if the parents have been tested. I've asked countless BYBers and not one has said yes, the majority say there's no need to and that they are $500 puppies not show dogs. YES!! No need to health test they are not show dogs, and most don't have a clue what health problems there are or that many of them can be greatly reduced or prevented through proper testing and selection of breeding stock. The one that cranks me off the most is the response " my vet health checked them, so they are fine" ... Sorry don't mean to be a smarty-pants but that is exactly the response I got from a few registered breeders when enquiring - just thought it ironic. I am not a breeder, but thought that you couldn't register a litter without the submitted results (breed specific mandatory testing) of the sire and dam?

Show it to me? Show me evidence that shows that anyone who is not an ANKC registered breeder that is breeding dogs is doing it in a completely random manner. I find that one in particular very hard to believe. They are at least picking the breeds they want to use most of the time. Show me the evidence that none of them health test. Maybe they have had different experiences, different upbringing, and different beliefs and education. How many random bred dogs does someone have to buy before they run out of luck? How many pedigree dogs? Rhetorical questions. Of all the byb's I've asked , NONE have health tested their "breeding dogs" None have seen the "need" for it. as to selecting conformation- SOME had no clue what that even meant, while others didn't care. If a person wanted to breed, but couldn't give a hoot about formal registration (ANKC ect) but still health tested and assessed temperament and Conformation- then they are not byb's in my book- but the kind of breeder who cares about what they produce (though I doubt you'll find many of these) as doing "right" by the dog is going to cut into their profit margin- and they may as well become a registered breeder.