Jed

In light some some of the legislation being mooted in Aust, this proposed legislation from USA is interesting, as legislation from US often seems to migrate here. Information on docking and collars are relevant. I thought the first paragraph was most interesting. Particularly as relates to choke and prong collars. Scary. I have bolded the paragraphs I thought interesting Red Alert – Wednesday, February 17, 2010 – AB-747—Windchill Bill AB-747 is a bill that covers domestic abuse as well as animal cruelty. We fully understand legislators that have the best interests of children in mind and applaud their commitment to protect them. However, this bill goes beyond the scope of protecting children and in the process could make anyone that uses any type of aversive training (i.e. prong or choke collars) method or whose breed is traditionally docked or cropped or those that have dew claws removed, or perhaps cause a nail to bleed when cutting too close to the quick, a felon if done in front of a child. We feel that this bill in its current form had input from animal rights organizations as the wording is such that even hunting with a child could cause a person to be prosecuted for animal abuse and subject to felony charges. The first part of the bill deals with changing State of WI existing statute 813.12 (3) which covers domestic abuse situations and adds “to refrain from engaging in or threatening to engage in the mistreatment of an animal owned or cared for by the petitioner” to the statute. We do not object to this. Our objections stem from the second part of the bill where they try and redefine animal cruelty and make those found guilty of being felons if certain acts are done in front of a minor child. As our current animal cruelty laws do not offer specific exclusions for livestock management, hunting, trapping, or docking/dewclaw removal/cropping of animals, we feel that the changes to the existing law will only open up those who deal with animals to persecution from animal rights individuals. Starting on Page 4, line 25 of the bill, this bill creates new and makes changes to the existing Animal Cruelty laws. As this bill deals with two unrelated sections of WI Statutes, the wording in 813.12 that specifically states “mistreatment of an animal owned or cared for by the petitioner”, is not applicable to the section regarding animal cruelty and therein threatens all warm-blooded animal enterprises in the State. Section 948.057 titled “Causing a child to commit a crime against an animal” is new. This section goes on to state that “Whoever causes a child who has not attained 18 years of age to violate s. 951.02 may be penalized as provided” and lists class F & H felonies. This bill changes the definition of cruel <Section 8, 951.01 (2)> from “cruel means causing unnecessary and excessive pain or suffering or unjustifiable injury or death” by adding the words “OR FAILING TO PREVENT”. If a person uses a prong collar, or an electric collar for either containment or training and it is done in front of a child, you could be charged with a Class I felony. If you dock, crop, or remove dew claws in front of a child, you could be charged with a Class E felony. If you hunt, trap, or slaughter animals for food in front of a child, you could be charged with a Class C felony. If found guilty, you could be subject to psychological testing and or participate in anger management counseling as well as not be allowed to have anything to do with animals for as long as 15 years. Also under this section of law, a mistreatment of animals conviction under this section does not require proof of intent or negligence. Just doing the activity is enough. AB 747 is a back door attempt to take away the rights of the individuals that deal with warm-blooded animals. Please contact your elected representatives and express your concern regarding this bill. The bill in its entirety can be found at www.dfow.net There is a public hearing scheduled for AB 747 on Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 10:30 AM, Room 412 East. The hearing can change up until 24 hours before this date/time. Keep alert. This bill is before Committee on Criminal Justice. This committee consists of: Representative Robert Turner (Chair), Representative Frederick Kessler (Vice-Chair), Representative Anthony Staskunas, Representative Ann Hraychuck, Representative James Soletski, Representative Sandy Pasch Representative Joel Kleefisch, Representative Donald Friske, Representative Bill Kramer, Representative Edward Brooks, Representative Keith Ripp Please contact the above committee members as well as your own State Representatives and Senators and let them know why you are against this bill. Please plan on attending the public hearing. Remember, the animal rights groups will be well represented at this hearing and this bill will affect even those that don’t breed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100217/ap_on_sp_ot/dog_show Scottie Sadie wins Westminster after PETA protest By BEN WALKER, AP National Writer Ben Walker, Ap National Writer – Wed Feb 17, 9:48 am ET NEW YORK – Sadie the Scottie was fully expected to reach the purple podium at America's top dog show. She did, after two intruders turned the center ring at Westminster into their own platform. The heavily favored Scottish terrier won best in show Tuesday night and seemed to be an easy choice. Her team waited quite a while for this victory — it took a little longer, too, because of a startling protest inspired by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Shortly before judge Elliott Weiss picked Sadie, a pair of well-dressed women walked into the big ring at Madison Square Garden and held signs over their heads that said "Mutts Rule" and "Breeders Kill Shelter Dogs' Chances," the latter a slogan popularized by PETA. The crowd of 15,000 gasped at the sudden protest, booed the women and then cheered as a half-dozen security guards ushered them away without incident. PETA members Dana Sylvester and Hope Round were charged with criminal trespass, police said. They acted on their own, the organization said, but it supported them. The interruption lasted about a minute and came between judging of a Doberman pinscher and brittany. Moments later, 4-year-old Sadie climbed the best in show podium where one of the women had stood. "I thought it was well-controlled by our people," Westminster spokesman David Frei said, without elaborating. Frei, the host of USA Network's coverage, is a veteran of the show world and a longtime advocate of therapy and rescue dogs. Sadie was a big favorite coming into the show, which is for 2,500 purebred dogs. There have been previous PETA protests at Westminster, but none nearly so dramatic. During every day of the show, the public-address announcer at the Garden reads an announcement urging people to visit shelters and adopt their dogs. PETA contends the focus on purebreds leaves many mutts homeless. In a statement, vice president Daphna Nachminovitch said "euthanasia becomes a sad necessity." Sadie earned her 112th best in show ribbon. The last time a show dog came to Westminster ranked No. 1 in America and actually won was 2001, when a perfectly primped bichon frise called J.R. did it. "She was perfect," said Sadie's handler, Gabriel Rangel. "I couldn't ask for anything more." Also reaching the final ring were a brittany that recently had two litters, a whippet that can run 35 mph, a Doberman pinscher headed into retirement, a white toy poodle who overcame his anxiety around crowds, a Canadian-bred French bulldog and a puli that twice won the herding group. Her tongue out and her tail wagging, Sadie was right in step with Rangel. She is owned by Amelia Musser of Mackinac Island, Mich., and sports the champion's name of Roundtown Mercedes of Maryscot. Rangel kidded that his relationship with Sadie was like a marriage. "I'm happily married," he said, "as long as I say, 'Yes, honey.'" Sadie became the eighth Scottie to win at Westminster, second most to the 13 wins by wire fox terriers. She was the record 45th terrier to win in a show that began in 1877. Judge Elliott Weiss picked the winner. He'd already seen Sadie — he chose her as the winner of an event in North Carolina last September. Sadie became the first Triple Crown winner of dogdom. She took the National Dog Show in suburban Philadelphia in November and the AKC/Eukanuba National Championship in California in December. She also did well last year at the world's largest show — Crufts, in England, draws nearly 25,000 dogs — when she was judged as the best Scottish terrier. This was Sadie's third try at Westminster. She got spooked by strange sounds at the Garden two years ago, and last February had a potty accident on the green carpet. Dogs from 173 breeds and varieties entered this show. Sadie takes over as Westminster champ from Stump, the 10-year-old Sussex spaniel who'd come to New York as an underdog. Sadie was set to go on the talk-show circuit Wednesday and make a visit to Donald Trump. By night, maybe she'd see herself. "She likes to watch TV," Rangel said. "We have dinner together at the hotel and watch Animal Planet." .

Don't feed it, don't bin it. Phone them up, it shouldn't go mouldy. I bought some - um - Innova? Nutro?- something expensive, and it did the same thing. Phoned up, the rep came out, gave me a bigger bag, took the furry stuff away. Apparently a batch had all gone like that.

Oh, sceptical one. Just because it happened to Clifford ................... How many donations can they score off this dog? they'll read APBT's post, decide it was a pitbull after all and you can see from the photo how savage it is, and of course, it will have to have the green dream. Too bad, so sad Difficult to know whether it was a DIY desexing, (thought he was a lamb, maybe?) or some ratbag found the dog, or was having revenge on the owners ---- Fully sick

And I'm pretty sure wild stallions don't usually mate their daughters either. I recall reading a few articles on the effect of familarity/paternity on breeding choices in wild horses a few years ago to this effect. Yep, they do. the ones I've seen and heard about. Stallion chases the colts out of the herd, retains the fillies. They will breed around 18 months, so he sires foals to them - the cycle continues until one of the colts beats him up and takes over the herd, or he dies. Still happens on huge properties with a brumby population. In the territory, they would shoot the brumby stallion, and replace with a stockhorse for better horses, or genetic diversity. I've seen a few brumby herds, and it was pretty obvious that most of the young and middle aged horses were by the same sire, particularly if he was 10+. Weren't they worried about the Lake Michigan wolves, who were on an island, because of inbreedng, but have now discovered it isn't a problem. I posted it somewhere here a while ago. Dogs aren't wolves - I would hope that breeders doing line breeding were selective with matings. It's not the matings it's the quality of the dogs which is important. I think that any pet buyer who is worried about something like this should go elsewhere for peace of mind.

Happens after about 50 generations of brother/sister matings, according to the research I've read.

What's "FTPO"??

While I was there, I found this crap What a lot of bull. Taken directly from PDE - which even the maker had admitted was skewed. And here's MORE crap and codswallop. Where's their evidence? That's right, they don't have any, because it's mosty crap If the ANKC had any bottle,they'd sue their asses off. I'm too ticked off to go to the puppy buyers' page!!

Not sure about wolves - I would suppose the dominant male wolf would sire pups to his daughters. In horses, the dominant stallion keeps the mares in the herd, drives off the colts, and the herd composes his daughters and granddaughters, which he sires foals to. Happens in a lot of wild animal populations. As far as the dog goes - I would want to see the dogs, and know why the mating was done. With good dogs, it is often done, to continue a concentration of the blood, and you are not introducing new and unknown nasties. Linebreeding and outbreeding are two of the tools in a breeders tool chest. There is no right or wrong - what is important is that both these tools be used wisely and well. Most of our better breeders do use them wisely and well, to improve their breeds.

Another numpty council wanting to enact another numpty law. If councils enforced the laws they already have, the wouldn't need more, so ACO's didn't need to do anything at all. For a council which apparently doesn't respond to complaints unless they involve attacks to want to implement a law like this shows it is time for a new council One with grey matter. I also wonder whether it actually impinges on property rights? Surely you should have full use of your own yard?

The waiting lists ARE ridiculous. Steve took a hiding for posting what Dr Battaglia wrote some years ago. This was published in National Dog years ago, about labelling, and that was one of the downfall of registered dogs. Labelling breeders as "puppy farmers" if they had more than one or two litters a year, or byb if they didn't show. Additionally, we were told there were too many dogs, and it was OUR fault that dogs fetched up in the pound and were euthed. Numbers of breeders/dogs bred tended in the past to ebb and flow. Numbers continue to fall because of the above, as well as natural attrition. There is a "hard core" of breeders who have been around for decades. They continue, no matter what. There are also breeders who come and go - breed a couple of litters and leave. Problem is that now it is all ebb. The culture needs to change, Council registration models need to change - so many things need to change. I don't think they will, I just think it will get worse, and more will walk away, because there was one difficult regulation too much, or one charge too many which will spoil what used to be a good hobby for someone.

Breeding to improve the breed was inserted into the COE some years ago. I felt to pacify animal rights. It's up to each individual breeder to decide what "improving the breed" actually means. Breeding good pets which make their owners proud IS improving the breed in my opinion. It's always been my opinion. I get as much pleasure about hearing about Cody and the kids as about hearing of Jed's Winner getting his title. Most breeders 40+ breeding to improve the breed means selling dogs to people for pets, or sport, or work. We have always done it, there is nothing in the COE to prevent it. It is the younger breeders who have been swayed away from that ethos, seeing the change in the COE meaning only to breed for themselves. Improvving the breed is not just about breeding better dogs. It's about them being seen out and about, being pets, doing something, improving the image of the breed. How nice for someone to see a lovely dog at the park, and admire it, or want one. How much good does that do for the breed? I know my puppy buyers are so chuffed when someone admires their dog, or asks them about it Why should they not have the very best I can breed? Why should they not have the pleasure of owning the breed? Why should they have to settle for something else?

What Erny said. I would also contact the breeder - if they are reputable - for help. Being fearful is not a typical bulldog trait, as far as I know, and although it might depend on her early life with the breeder it does sound like much more than lack of socialisation to me. A dog with typical bulldog temp, even if it didn't get much socialisation as a pup should be better than that. If she was only in the kennels, and away from all activities, other dogs, etc. there could be some fearfullness - but I wouldn't think to that extent. Apart from medical issues, total lack of stimulation (which is quite hard to achieve) and a temperament fault are the things which occur to me. And that's why it is important to know if the breeder is reputable, experienced in the breed, and likely to do the best they can for the dog. I bought a cav pup - I think he was 6 or 7 months, from a very good kennel. He'd been running with his brother, and had been handled, but never been off the property, except for vacs. He could see the family though, and was handled, brushed etc. He wasn't lead trained or anything. He came home to me, and settled right in. I took him to visit a friend on a property a few days after I bought him - he interacted really well with the other dogs, sat under the table at lunch, was interested in everything but not frightened. He still wasn't lead trained. He's 7 now, been all sorts of places, frightened of nothing, a real gentleman, dad of lots of outgoing nice pups. Cavs are like bulldogs, they should not be fearful. So, I'd maybe talk to the breeder if you think they are going to be helpful and co-operative. Unfortunately, there are breeders and Breeders. Let us know how you get on? Very frustrating problem. I hope there is a resolution. And please do the vet checks - I bought a boxer years ago, and she was extremely fearful. We found out later that she had been seriously ill all her life, which had caused the fearfulness. Once she was cured, she improved. We thougtht it was that she had been in the kennel, but it wasn't. I've had a few dogs from kennels at +3 months, never had a problem.

I researched parvo in a couple of current (at the time) vet. medicine books. They both stated, from studies done, that dogs incubating parvo, those with it, and recovered dogs were contagious. According to that, there are no "asymptomatic" dogs. However, when they are inclubating parvo, there often aren't any synptome, which is why it is such a worry. Dog wanders about, looking great, shedding the virus as he goes. A few days later, he is sick. Where has he been? No idea. That's why it's good to keep dogs and particularly pups which are a bit flat or off colour out of public places, in case they are incubating parvo. Same thing applies to recovered dogs. They shed the virus for 14 days. And shouldn't go anywhere in that time, or mix with other dogs. I did this research about 7 or 8 years ago, and I did it thoroughly. What I am wondering is if the information re asymptomatic dogs shedding the virus came from a proper veterinary study, or a reference book, or it was information off the net? Some of which is not correct. I checked some websites, and they do not correlate with the research I read. So, of anyone has a reference, can they put it up please? Id like to be up on what the go is now, if it has changed. And - recovered dogs shed the virus for 14 days.

Sorry, KK forgot to answer this. 1% was a figure publkished by the rSPCA. I added the link once, no idea where it is now. I would imagine their rationale would be if it looks purebred, it is. Don't imagine too many turn up with papers at the pound, though some do. Suppose some crosses look like pure, classified so, some pures look like crosses, or they have no idea what they are, so they classify as they see it.

I wasn't replying to the seminar, I was replying to your post If you think a puppy farm in any way, shape or form fits in with "improving dog welfare" you want to get a grip. Calling it "commercial dog breeding" simply puts a label on a disgusting practice which causes immense suffering. DOGS are companions, they are not agricultural animals. "While not ideal" is simply spin for disgusting and barbaric. You can call it what you lilke, it's still disgusting ant totally revolting to anyone with any notion about dogs. Judging by some of the rubbish sprouted by some of those involved in the seminar, (not at the seminar), they have NFI what the ANKC's stance is. Of course there is an agenda. I've seen enough agenda's to know whether there is an agenda or not. And of course they are denying it - well, they would, wouldn't they? And I'm not the only one who thought that - why do you think there were 250 in the audience? I can tell you it wasn't to hear any words of wisdom from the puppy farmer. Most of the people who attended have forgotten more than the puppy farmer knows or will ever learn. If you are a puppy farmer, you didn't pass "GO" in the welfare stakes. If you lie down with camels, you get camel fleas. What I said in an earlier post applies to those conducting and at the seminar. If you are the religious ladies sewing group, and you have seminar, you do not invite Chopper Reid or the town prostitute. If you do so, your credibility plummets. Same deal. If you run a seminar on the welfare of dogs, and you invite someone to legitimize their practices, your credibility plummets. As it deserves to.

Gee, Centitout, that's a "model" puppy farmer, to spend $500. Most of them wont spend anything. They ring up pet owners who advertise adult, preferably registered dogs, portray themselves as model pet homes, with lovely children yearning for just that dog. Adult dogs are better, they work immediately, don't have to wait for them to mature. Take the dog, chuck him in the sheds with the bitches, and if he wont perform, it's a bullet and chucked out the back somewhere. When he is past it, same end. If they have enough bitches by him, same end. And they scour the papers again for another registered dog. Meanwhile, the pet owner, who needed a new home for the dog, believes nice Scampy or Buffy is living the life of Riley, going on outings with the kids, drives in the car, to the beach while he's locked in a dungeon, suffering every single day. Shame the presentation on dogs going from pet homes to kennels didn't touch on that. Would have agreed with the general ethos of the seminar.

SBT, you are oh so right. It's unfortunate that people who do evil are often assisted by those in positions of trust or respect. They legitimatise the evil, so the unknowing are deluded. One would assume that people who have written books on dogs, and written papers used by governments to make decisions on dogs, would know enough about dog psychology not to support puppy farmers. That they either do, and support them regardless, or don't know, in contravention to the respect they are given, makes me consider them as bad as worse than a puppy farmer. And that's pretty bad. I cannot tell you how bad that makes them, because I would have to use words which would have me banned from this forum, and I would have to use a LOT of them. I can almost (almost) understand people who run puppy farms. I believe they have little knowledge or dogs, and little understanding of them, that they believe keeping hundreds of them as agricultural animals is ok - if you don'r know much, you might think it is ok. However, people who have done studies on dogs -- such as veterinary surgeons -- have more knowledge that your basic greedy numpty puppy farmer - and know that what they are doing is wrong, yet not only still do it, but work to try to convince others that it is correct. These people are much much worse. Dog save me, and save the poor little dogs too. Steve I shall never hear it. When I want to know how to "build better dogs" I shall do as I have always done. I shall ask a proper ANKC breeder, maybe a judge, because I know any advice I am given will be relevant and correct, and more importantly, will not involve suffering for poor dogs. And I know by taking their advice, I will never do anything which deliberately harms a dog. And by taking the advice of people who have been breeding dogs for 40, 50 years, and bred heaps of champions, and more homely family pets with excellent health and temperament, I will know I am getting advice from people with runs on the board. Be pleased I didn't actually attend. There could have been a lot of hectoring and incoherent shouting!! I didn't go to the seminar, and I've not commented on it here to any degree - but there is no agreeing with a "model" puppy farm. And someone needed to say it. What a bloody oxymoron. It doesn't matter how much gold you wrap it in, it's still rotten to the core, in every single aspect. It's like an ethical burglar, or a model serial killer.

Mita - the full title of the seminar was "building better dogs - Using what we've learned about genetic and experiential effects to improve dog welfare" not "building better dogs - let's repeat what we already know and have known for years". From looking at the invite sheet, Kate was the only presenter who was not an academic researcher. Which is not what I thought would be at a university seminar. However, she was presenting something "new" in that she presented a model for commercial dog farmers, a model which, while not ideal, is much better than the reality of a puppy farm with cages and limited human contact. So it certainly fitted in with the idea that the seminar (improving dog welfare). STONE THE CROWS AND STARVE THE LIZARDS. THERE IS NO MODEL FOR COMMERCIAL PUPPY FARMERS. DOGS ARE NOT AGRICULTURAL ANIMALS FULL STOP THOSE PEOPLE CAN PONCE ABOUT AND POSTURE AS MUCH AS THEY LIKE (READ: TELL LIES) BUT THERE IS NO MODEL WHICH IMPROVES THE LIVES OF DOGS CONSTANTLY TORTURED BY THEIR LIVING CONDITIONS TO MAKE SOME SLEAZE BAG A QUICK BUCK. NO PROPER "ANIMAL WELFARE" UNIT WHICH HAD ANY UNDERSTANDING OF DOGS WOULD EVEN ALLOW A FRIGGIN PUPPY FARMER IN THE UNIT NEVER MIND PRESENTING A "PAPER" AT A SEMINAR. DOG HELP US ALL, AND PARTICULARLY THE POOR LITTLE DOGS. WHAT CAN YOU BE THINKING?

Well, Ive always looked warily at small dogs ever since reading the Cordoba study. Just joking. This is why it puzzled me that a university would ask her to present, re a model for producing pets. There's lots of sound research which points to the human factor in how dogs' personalities are developed. That should have pride of place in any scientifically sound rationale behind any system of raising puppies & young dogs. Gawd help me.....the military dog people provide a brilliant model based on that. Now if only every puppy destined to be a pet could enrol from birth to 12 months up at Amberley. Just joking again. And there's already useful assessment tools & guidelines re personality & behaviour (just check out Davis Uni Vet School info on that). Of course, there are heritable aspects involved in personality. Another reason why sound selection for breeding decisions are critical. Incidentally, 'show' people would have a vested interest in breeding towards a sound temperament. For the simple reason, the showing of dogs requires extensive socialisation around people & other dogs. Answering the bolded piece - because my dear, they have an agenda, which has nothing to do with published studies or truth. It consists of hyperbole and spin. They are not interested in the truth, or published research. I have had a few dogs from people who were the ultimate show breeders. One came from "the winningest kennel in Qld" according to the ads, and in fact. Another came from someone who lives to show. Every dog on the pedigree is a gr. ch. All my dogs are pets, and those two are two perfectly satisfactory, charming, trainable, kissy pets. WoofnHoof Published RSPCA figures show that purebred dogs comprise less than 1% of dogs in pounds. Their figures also show that purebred dogs are the easiest to rehome. So that shoots that argument down in flames. As to the warmbloods. You are arguing off the subject. The warmblood is a x between hot and cold blood. And you are talking sport horses. As someone who wanted a kangaroo dog would use a greyhound, a pointer, a pit bull - or whatever he thought would do the job, so people who want to compete at high level use the crosses which will produce a performance horse. If you want a mixed breed dog, get one. That seems to be what you are arguing for. Thoroughbreds are used for racing. Arabs are used for endurance over thoroughbreds. Clydesdales are used for farm work and pulling heavy carts. Hackneys are used for harness when something more flashy is required. Quarter horses are used for short races, and cutting. Spikes Puppy In fairness, they are the same ones who do not treat owners of pedigree dogs from another state/another kennel/a competitor's line nicely either. It's a people thing. They are the same ones who see someone who is obviously at their first show and not speak to them or point and giggle. It's a people thing.

Spikes Puppy Yep, and how can the breeder do that when the pups have been raised in a shed with heaps of other dogs and rarely handled? How would they know what the individual temepraments were? They wouldn't. I wonder sometimes if that is why dd are dumped. The corollary is that I have bought a few pups sight unseen - but have heard the breeders assessment of them. Or dogs that have been chosen as pick of the litter rather than specific temperament. They have been fine, and I was and am happy with them. Conversely, the very best dog I ever owned very definitely chose me. I decided not to buy her (not quite what I wanted) and she went to the fence and howled and cried and carried on when I walked back to my car. That continued when I was out of sight even when the breeder picked her up, and she struggled to follow me. When I retured, she stopped crying, and struggled to come to me. When I put her down, she sat on my foot, and was quiet, when I walked away, the unholy noise began again. I bought her. She wasn't a show dog, but she produced some champions and she was the very best dog I ever owned, or will ever own, I think. As far as discussing the standards here with non breeders, I sometimes fail to understand why they don't grasp the concept of the standards, and conformation as applied to dog breeds. Yet they appear to understand it as applied to horse breeds. Draught horses may be cow hocked - the additional leverage is handy when they are pulling, and they wont be going fast - walking or trotting usualy, mostly walking, but they need exceptional pulling power. They have straighter shoulders, thicker necks, thicker gullets and long, powerful quarters. Cow hocks are not required in riding horses because a horse with cow hocks doesn't go as well in the faster paces, and because the hock is off centre, there are potential problems because of the additional strain. Draught horses have placid temperaments usually, amd riding horses are not so placid - because the extreme placidity in a draught horse (cold blood) would not be suitable for a riding horse (hot blood). Can it be so hard to grasp that if horses bred for different jobs have different conformaton and temperaments, dogs bred for different jobs are exactly the same. You might want a longer neck in a saluki, to balance him, and so he can look around when he is running, (I hope) but you don't want a particularly long neck in a retrieving breed, because he needs strength in his neck to be able to carry game, maybe for long distances, and if his neck is overlong, that strength wont be there. The Shetland Pony originated in the Shetland Isles, a bare and cold place, without a lot of feed. The ponies were used as general purpose farm animals, pulling logs and rocks, pulling carts, being used to ride from a to b - as transport. So they were multi use. Every feature in the Shetland standard describes a pony which, although small, is strong enough for multi tasking, and placid enough to pull a cart without kicking it to pieces and strong enough to carry a man or a load of firewood, hardy enough to survive the winters, and thifty enough to survive on minimal grass.

Boxers do fret. Mine are even a nightmare to send out to stud dogs. I have never rehomed one, for that very reason, but others seem to rehome them without problems. GR's would have been bred to stay close to the owner when working. I wonder if being happy to work for someone else is simply that the dog knows he is doing his job, and is happy to do it. He recognizes a boarding kennel as a non-working environment, and is unhappy because he thinks his owners have left him forever? 1 of my cockers is not good away from home - too bonded. I could walk anywhere wiith her off lead and she would be close to me, it's bred into her. The other will cop a couple of days, and then howls non stop. He was away for a few weeks once, with the other dogs, and was happy. I think maybe it is because of the way dogs perceive things. We used to mind a labrador for friends when they went on holidays. He was as happy as could be for about 10 days. Didn't want to escape, a model guest. On the 11th or 12th day, he would go home (about 8ks) to wait for them. We would go and collect him, he'd escape by means unknown, and turn up at home again. I have always believed that when they go into boarding kennels, they don't think they will see their owners again. I've had a few experiences which reinforce that. Bitch sent to the dog, away for a week, so intent on escaping from proper kennels and runs, they kept her in the house in a trolley, allowed out on lead. Next time, 12 months later, she didn't try to escape at all, and happily played with the kids in the back yard. But - she jumped out and met me down the road when I returned for her. We understand them so little in some ways. deerhound lover I don't have a problem with people wanting a crossbred. Some do, and for good reasons. But - I don't see that as any concern of mine. I don't have any concerns with people wanting to own beagles, or terriers. Every breeder, of whatever, should assume the same responsibilities to the dog they bred, and the person they sold it to. At present, the majority of pups sold in this country (ie, dd and x breds) have no health tests, and are bred by people who have no idea what they are doing (accidental crossbreds), and those who seem to have little idea, and don't care much - (dd breeders). Many of those who sell through pet shops do so because of the volume they produce, and the difficulty of selling all the pups locally, but also because they do not want to assume any responsibility for those dogs they produce. If the pup is sick at the point of sale, they will take it back and refund, but none want to assume responsibility after sale. Many pups are shipped interstate to pet shops.

That's right, Brooke, 6000 happy buyers from last year alone - what a great recommendation

I agree with Espinay - the responsibility should be the breeders, not the pet shop. The pet shop is an onseller. This brings us back to my original idea about microchipping with breeders details, all dogs in pounds be given back to the breeder to rehome. If pf were forced to do this, and take back unhealthy dogs, or refund for unhealthy dogs, they would lift their acts, and probably cut production. But of course, if you are a puppy farm, the ideal would be for the pet shop to be responsible. How on earth could the pet shop be responsible, or rehome the dogs? Spikes Puppy Ah, but ask yourself whether the winning dogs are correct according to the breed standards? Or to your vision of the standards? We need a point of reference, Spikes Puppy, and that is the standard. The standards are the blueprint, understanding them and translating them into living flesh in the whelping box is the difficulty. Some dogs win because they are great showmen, because they have great handlers, or because the judge is fault judging, or has a bit of a thing about some item. Some dogs win because they are simply great dogs. Shows are fun, winning is fun, but I think anyone who seriously aspires to breeding should not be influenced by winning dogs - without being able to judge themselves whether the dogs are dogs they want to use. The best and most winningest dog in town is not the right dog if he is going to throw some fault we already have in our lines. There are some winningest dogs who deserve it, and who throw good pups. There are NO perfect examples. We push the standards here because our audience here often has absolutely no understanding about the standards, what they are, or why they are, or purebred dogs, and why they are so. Personlly, I put a lot of faith and belief in my breed standards. And the more I understand them, the more faith I have. When you understand the standards, I think you are a bit more laid back about shows. "Yep, he is a nice dog ... but". Often too, we show what we have, not what we'd like to have! But we are off to a good start - we have dogs to breed with which are within the standard. It's up to us to do our best with what we have. That's why we strive to buy better dogs, to import better dogs, to breed better dogs. The stats show that the winning dogs produce better pups - it's a matter of selecting the right winning dog. And you keep learning. A breeder/judge said to me last year "and some of them don't have chins." CHINS?? Bloody hell. I must be hopeless, I'd never thought about CHINS. I had a look at my dogs - all with chins. I went out and looked at other dogs, some didn't have chins. Now, I'd never worried about chins, because I've always had dogs with good chins. When I thought about it, without good chins, they are probably not going to have correct flews, or correct jaws or tooth placement. So I had a sly perve into the mouths of the dogs without chins. Yep, I was right, wrong teefies! And I'd never noticed, I'd simply thought to myself that they didn't have correct heads, and gone no further. I'd been selecting dogs with good mouths and good flews, never thinking about CHINS, and the ones I'd used and the pups I'd produced did have chins. And I think mine with chins should beat those without chins Also, adhering to the standard does produce better pet pups. I've mentioned Cavalier coats before. The cocker standard asks for something like "coat not too profuse". This is so the coat doesn't drag the dog down in the water when he is swimming with game. I have noticed that a cocker with coat not profuse is easier to groom, less inclined to knots, and generally easier for the pet owner to cope with. Judges often prefer profuse coats, and of course, you can work wonders trimming and shaping a profuse coat. One man's opinion on the day. I've said this before. I know someone I consider a great breeder. Difficult, obsessed with winning, but with the gifts that do make a great breeder. A very well conformed bitch, although at the bottom of the height standard, began winning. She was winning because of her conformation, but some of the newer breeders decided "small" was the way to go. Soon there were pygmy dogs everywhere. Little fine dwarf things. This breeder would take her up to height dogs into the ring, and they'd be last. Because they were the only big dogs in the ring, so the judges thought they were incorrect. They'd look up and down the line, 6 dwarves, 1 big one. Hmm, 6 against 1, the 1 must be wrong. The dogs continued to win under specialist judges, of course. The choice was to breed small to win, or continue with the standard. The breeder went with the standard, rode out the losses and came back on top after a few years. What the breeder actually said was "be blowed if I'm going to breed those little things which couldn't do what they were bred to do, I'll sit it out" That was a good lesson for me. It's not about 1 dog or 1 owner, or 1 kennel, it's about the lines and the breed over 10, 20, 30, 40 years. It's easy to see that with hindsight, but not when you begin. And the standards have been the same for 100, 150 years. Some have had minor alterations, over that time, but none have had changes which change the dogs to any great degree. Breeders do that, by their interpretation of the standard. Sometimes their interpretation is incorrect, but things seem to balance themselves out over time. Apologies for raving on so long

About 5 years ago a Mini Foxie escaped at 3pm on Christmas Eve. His owner searched. Someone 2 streets away said they caught him, phoned the pound, and they came and got him. Pound dogs in that area are sent to RSPCA at Dakabin. By the time the owner found out, it was too late to do anything Owner arrived at the RSPCA at 7am on Christmas morning, banged and called and waited till lunch time. No one came. Went back at 3pm, waited till 6. Still no one. Dogs were inside Did the same on Boxing day, and the two following days which were holidays. First working day, arrived at 8am Was told his dog had been held the statutory 3 days and euthed. How fair was that? He was an older gentleman and too traumatised to complain, although he did write a letter to Pine Rivers Shire Council