Jed

Have made a note to watch. Wonderful to see purebred dogs being promoted!! Well done

98% of dog attacks, either on dogs or humans, are perpetrated by ill-bred, nasty natured dogs which are neither cared for, nor trained by their owners. BSL is the greatest load of lock jaw nonsense ever pushed onto the public. While councils and governments are posturing and posing about "pit bulls", meanwhile not doing anything effective to stop DOG attacks, mid size brown and brindle dogs are free to attack at will. And nothing is done until someone or some cute dog is injured/killed, and then the councils run about like headless chooks and the media blames "pit bulls". It's cheaper for councils to do nothing about roaming dogs, and only pay attention when there is injury or death ... and the media is banging drums and blaming pitbulls. Meanwhile, in Vic, we have the same scenario we had in Q - councils are dragging off anything they vaguely suspect might be a pit bull, so they can kill it, whilst totally ignoring savage dogs. It's savage dogs they need to collar, not the other kind.

BEFORE the dog attacks. Go towards dog, with threatening posture, growl at dog in nasty voice. Throw stones if you have any. Take a walking stick, whether you need it or not, and whack the dog before it attacks .... a bit of pain always turns their attention. Whack it again if it doesn't work.a Take hairspray and spray in the dog's eyes and face. And .... unless .... the dog is a complete maniac this will work. Probably sounds harsh, but if it was my dog or another dog, it would be my dog all the way. If the dog has grabbed your dog, beat it. If none of the above work, tdierikx has some good advice. :)

RSPCA!! Who remembers Jane Speechly who was a member here for such a short time? Mantis, I know you do :laugh:

What a frightful situation. Poor doggies. It is not always litter mates who do this. I have a friend with an 18 month and 12 month old girl, and the 12 month old is trying to establish supremacy - same deal - lots of fights and bloodshed, and don't put your hand near them. We hope we can work it out. As a breeder, I believe the inherent temperament is bred into the dog, but it is how the breeder and subsequent owner raises and treats the dog which determines the outcome. Example - one of my lines of cockers is smart and sharp. They are also food driven, and if not stopped can be very food aggressive. Evey dog is the same. One lady owner couldn't walk into the kitchen if her lovely cocker was having his tea in there because he would snarl, bark and growl to warn her off. If she had continued, he would have bitten her I am sure. I talk to puppy owners about this and make sure they are on the job from when they get the dog. Some of them think it is quite funny, but being bitten when the dog is eating is not fun. When they train the dogs, they have no problem; when they don't, they can't get near the dog when it is eating either. Otherwise, the dogs are sweet, friendly, - everything they should be. A lot of things are the same whether good or bad - "in the lines" - and it is up to breeder and owner the manage that. Some people should not have the breeds they have (and I don't mean bull breeds), but unfortunately, they don't know their limitations, so the the breeder does not assess them correctly, there is a disaster in the making. Savage chihuahuas Maltese which snarl and snap Cockers who are food agressive And so the list continues. People like the ones described by the op probably shouldn't own a dog at all.

Get one of those plastic hair rollers which will fit onto his tail and tape it on with a suitable dressing. It will give some protection. Good luck

The purebred dog world, pre AR, did embrace pet breeding, and were proud to do it. Now only registered backyarders sell "pets". Will someone please explain to me exactly what kind of "self regulation" of the dog world they would like? "Everyone" says this is what they want, but although I ask, no one tells me. I am not being smart, I genuinely want to know. Does everyone except me understand what they mean? HW is correct, it is too late. This is the pick of my last litter. A lovely gold girl. A pet, doing what dogs do with their children. She could win anywhere. Her pedigree is full of imps and grchs, and famous dogs. A friend has just sold a litter by the best dog in the world - going by his wins, including Crufts wins - all as pets. We are happy to be backyarders. There comes a time (and an age maybe) when you really don't care any more.

No Corvus, it is exactly on the point. It is the members of these organisations who are driving this legislation. No one else. They are doing the same thing in US and UK too. Ingrid Newkirk began it 30 odd years ago, and she has a lot of followers. Because you don't believe it doesn't make it incorrect. I understand the man you work with at uni was keen to oversee the breeding of purebred dogs. And to make sure they were doing it his way. With Don Burke. Whether this is still the case or not I don't know but people usually don't change their ideology much. He was also studding his crossbred dog with no show or working ability out, because he was such a good dog. So I am inclined to put you into that basket. And I ask you too - what exactly do you want done with the breeding of purebred dogs to make you happy?

Very interesting. Thanks Pers. Article on purebred pups from breeders vs pet store puppies was also intersting. Another tick for breeders.

Cavaliers are prone to developing syringomyelia. The cause is not known, and there is no cure. Basically the dog's head hurts all the time. So, there is no reason for not banning them which is what the Dutch parliament did. 2% of Cavaliers are affected in Aus, more overseas. Many other toy breeds develop SM too, but there is no publicity about that. Edited to say - Unfortunately, Steve, AR divided the dog fancy 20 years ago so it would not be as strong, or as difficult to overcome. And of course we have our differences too. Once there was no shame attached to not showing. There was no shame in having 3 or 4 litters a year. The only criteria was that the dogs were well cared for. There were no puppy farms either and registered breeders tended to not worry about byb.

PS - Inez, I cannot understand why, when the statistics are out there, the proposed legislation is out there, the new regulations are out there, people will not believe this is happening. Scottish Fold cat breeding is banned in Australia. The Dutch parliament tried to legislate to prevent the future breeding of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels .... Cavalier Spaniel owners from around the world protested, and breeding is now allowed to continue.

And that, intrepid reader, is why there will be few or no purebred dogs in Australia in 10 years. No one is going to ban dog ownership, that is not vote friendly. What is happening is that legislations which is not suitable to registered breeders is being mooted and as it succeeds, more breeders walk away. Check out the legislation in Vic. I know personally two show breeders who have been told they may no longer whelp pups in their house, they must adhere to the regulations, and build kennels for whelping, with concrete floors and septic tanks, and put in proper applications. One has been told she may no longer whelp pups on her property at all, altough she has been doing it for 30 odd years. They have 4 and 6 dogs. The dogs would never live in the kennels, and the cost is beyond both of them, and they don't want kennel dogs Councils are in Vic reducing dog numbers allowed - most shire seem to have a limit of 2 or 4. The rules mooted for NSW would be laughable, if it wasn't so serious. It does not matter how wonderful purebred dogs are,or how wonderfully breeders breed them, the aim is to get rid of them. I very much doubt that the Queen, PM etc are even aware. These changes are being brought in in the name of "animal welfare Corvus They are Anmal Rights. Peta, AA, who have committee members of most of the organisations framing laws,or reporting to government. Of course they arent going to carry banners around, and they are not visibly trying to prevent "pet ownership" - they a re trying to drive breeders out so there will be no pets. Corvus,you obviously don't read the publications these items feature in, and you don' speak to the people who will be primarily affected. Ingrid Newkirk In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether. Newsday, 1988February 21 I dont use the word 'pet.' I think its speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship enjoyment at a distance. The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223 And that is where "companion animal"came from, to replace "pets" or "dogs and cats". The connotation for companion animal is very different frm pets And because I don't see bloodshed in Syria doesn't mean it doesn't happen Buyers are buying Maltese x Shih Tze or Poodles because there are in sufficient purebreds to fill the market - just 305 Maltese were bred last year compared to 1,854 in 1986 Dog numbers generally have dropped drasrically, and continue to drop, from 15,503 pups in 1986, to 9,207 last year. Yeah, I know about the other reasons for leaving, and natural attrition - but there should be a relative increse in new breeders breeding. Not happening. 10 years

PETA made it obvious since 1989 (and maybe before that) that their intention was to prevent people having pets. The fastest way to do that was to get breeders out of the way. However, if anyone said that, they were dismissed as "paranoid" by pet owners and breeders alike. I have been warning about this for years, made no difference. Most breeders over 50 know the hobby is going down the gurgler. Unfortunately, the canine councils don't recognize this or don't care. Qld is a bit more active, as they nearly foundered when AWL wanted to enact a law to desex all dogs. Fortunately, the membership rose up and objected. Lots of breeders do not believe what is happening. When someone is nabbed by the RSPCA, it "must be their fault", when people are prevented from breeding by council by laws they "must have been doing it wrong anyhow to come to councl notice"> And they are happy for everyone to be nabbed and prevented from breeding - except themselves. There was someone who wouldn't sign a petition put out by DogsNSW, because they thought DogsNSW did not have correct laws to prevent registered breeders mass breeding. The registered dog fancy will disappear because no one in it believes that anyone would want to stop it and they are too busy arguing with each other to stand up for the dogs. Pit bulls and tail docking were the trials for the more draconian laws. Very few who were not involved would stand against the laws. AR won by a country mile, so they were emboldened to continue with their stated aims. They have tried this in US and 90% of the time the breeders or the AKC cuts them down before they do too much damage. ps Inez - all those numbers do not use the forum, and the minority on here are dog breeders. Most are pet owners

Congratulations Sheila, very well done :)

Just because you sacrifice something doesn't mean you feel negatively about it or are not receiving appropriate benefits/pleasures from having your pets. Read my post again please? You have misunderstood it, I think

Inez Have you ever seen a lagotto? They are a medium sized retrieving breed. According to the last article, the dogs were on Council's "companion animal" register as American Bulldogs, which I thought they could have been. Maybe a bit smaller than some, and maybe the second one into the truck was a boxer, but really, who knows? They were 3 savage dogs which escaped their premises and attacked someone. They could have been anything over about 10k. They formed a pack, and behaved badly. I think Cattle Dogs are still on the top of the bite register. Hope the poor jogger heals well. So sad.

I think if you feel dogs are making you sacrifice other things, and you are not receiving appropriate benefits & pleasure from dog keeping in exchange, it is time to change something.

Iuse it and am happy with it.

How appalling. Poor gentleman. There seems to be an inverse correlation between the desire of people to own dogs which could potentially kill someone, and their reluctance (or inability) to train them to ensure that they do not kill anyone. People had been phoning during the afternoon about these dogs, but no one came until there was a death.

There was a test on one of the current affairs show, and I think the results are on youtube, where they tested all the "popular" harnesses, and dog crates, and they all failed. Quite frightening,really. Sorry, no idea how to find it again. :)

Love it, Tarope. Sail_Away (quoting the RSPCA) I am sure the legislation will be akin the proposed legislation in NSW and Vic, which actually advantages puppy farms and disadvantages hobby breeders. Maybe RSPCA Qld has someone on board with the smarts about how to legislate.

Steve Neither would be the ideal. I don't think we have to accept small breeders with no compassion either. I have seen places like this too, and it isn't a choice of either/or, it is a choice of none. And none of us knows the damage done to bitches (and dogs) kept in these puppy farm conditons, but everyone who has "rescued" one speaks of untold psychological damage. Because we have no method of qualifying psychological damage, we are inclined to dislike filthy physical conditions more, when in fact, immaculate puppy farms may cause more damage to the bitch and to the pups. I had 2 keesonden from a puppy farm. The lived in a 3x3m building, and they had a decent sized run to play in. They did have green water, and they did have a lot of faeces around them. They were in a frightful way - neither knew it's name, both ignored any commands, one was always standing on your heels, one was always as far away as possible. They were bonded to each other. They had no interest in people at all. They had never been handled, played with or patted. One had been clipped off, and that was it. They no concept of "play" with each other, or with people. They didn't understand toys. They darted off every time they heard a normal "house" noise, they were terrified of the car and had to be manhandled into it. The only saving grace was that they had been bred by a good kennel, and they had excellent temperaments. And Sandgrubber, ostracizing large scale breeders is fine with me. They are causing dogs and pups to suffer, they are breeding dogs which are not easy for novice owners. And I agree with you about the use of stud dogs without temperament according to the standard. Luckily most breeders do seem to use dogs with good temperaments.

Totally wrong way to raise puppies --- or keep bitches. Poor little souls Dogs are not agricultural animals, and those raised as such suffer. The laws should be changed, but as the politicians have nfi and are being advised by animal rights, any changes will disadvantage registered breeders. They seems unable to make legislation against this type of hell. The main reason owners dump adolescent dogs is because they are difficult to train and difficult to live with. If pups have little socialisation until 8 weeks, they are going to develop these problems and be dumped. Ths is just so wrong on so many levels. Steve That makes neither the places you have seen nor this place correct. We all need to lift our standards so we can see that this is wrong And he would be selling to various Pets Purgatory stores, and the large puppy barns (forgotten their names) which advertise in the Courier Mail .... one at Everton Park, one at Stafford, one at Underwood.

Those photos would make anyone with an ounce of humanity weep. How frightful. Imagine the kind of tool who would buy that? "Council approved" Sellng to pet shops Yes, there certainly is something wrong with this country

On facebook today