BlaznHotAussies

For such a short trip I wouldn't bother with taking water/food/etc. For details such as crate/puppy pack/toys you'll have to work that out with the breeder. What we normally do with puppies when we pick them up is put a collar & lead on, quickly give them a toilet break somewhere away from the main traffic area & go. I've never seen a dog or puppy that we've picked up be traumatised from the flight - I know when we picked up my dog as a puppy he was SO excited to see us and it's the same with most dogs in my experience. When we get them out of the crate (if it's a hire) we open the door enough to put our hands in & put collar & lead on before letting them out. Mostly just use common sense and you'll be right :) It's exciting!!!

Just scrolled back up and saw this - that is a really cool idea!!!

Sorry to be tongue in cheek. I agree that the breeder perception has to change. Some people don't want to see any different; you could show them immaculate kennels, dogs spending time indoors when the family is home, well-exercised and groomed dogs and there would still be something wrong with it.

Yes good thinking except that's not what they are on about that is specific to purebred dogs .How we keep them is already being dealt with and the CCs are working hard to be sure they have this bit covered the whole puppy farming thing is already in the mix for all breeders. Having a bit of paper to say your dog or its parents have been health tested and more education wont help in that area as with health testing you can still have dogs that get sick and suffer and they still make puppies that do too. It also depends what you are health testing for and guess what people who are breeding outside of the ANKC pedigree system are actually having their dogs health tested too and in many cases more than the registered breeders are. I agree that they can still get sick. But surely doing all available tests, carefully or not breeding from dogs who have allergies or have epilepsy & keeping open contact with puppy buyers is better than nothing (I know, I didn't mention allergies or epilepsy in the above post but I did see it mentioned earlier)? I think being open and honest with the public about health testing & what the kennel clubs are doing to improve general health is important. Many Aussie Shepherd breeders here contribute to a site called Aussiesdownunder.com and it lists health testing results as papers don't have those details. Pretty much all the breeders I know want to know of ANY health issues their dogs produce so that they can get to the bottom of it. I don't think anyone wants to produce an unhealthy dog, not only because the dog will suffer but its family will also suffer. There are only so many tests available... But what about the recent study that shows our dogs are dying sooner there are no genetic tests for epilepsy or allergies all you can see is that a dog doesnt have these things on the day .It can still get them and it can still produce puppies with them. What are the kennel clubs doing to improve general health? Where's the proof it's genetic? Especially allergies, how many dogs are fed shit food like Optimum and Pal and end up with flaky skin, tumours or other issues? Nature vs nurture. I think health testing is a good step and I know Aussie shepherd breeders are being encouraged to send through normal & affected (as in, showing symptoms) epileptic dogs so that they can try to find a common marker.

/End thread haha

Yes good thinking except that's not what they are on about that is specific to purebred dogs .How we keep them is already being dealt with and the CCs are working hard to be sure they have this bit covered the whole puppy farming thing is already in the mix for all breeders. Having a bit of paper to say your dog or its parents have been health tested and more education wont help in that area as with health testing you can still have dogs that get sick and suffer and they still make puppies that do too. It also depends what you are health testing for and guess what people who are breeding outside of the ANKC pedigree system are actually having their dogs health tested too and in many cases more than the registered breeders are. I agree that they can still get sick. But surely doing all available tests, carefully or not breeding from dogs who have allergies or have epilepsy & keeping open contact with puppy buyers is better than nothing (I know, I didn't mention allergies or epilepsy in the above post but I did see it mentioned earlier)? I think being open and honest with the public about health testing & what the kennel clubs are doing to improve general health is important. Many Aussie Shepherd breeders here contribute to a site called Aussiesdownunder.com and it lists health testing results as papers don't have those details. Pretty much all the breeders I know want to know of ANY health issues their dogs produce so that they can get to the bottom of it. I don't think anyone wants to produce an unhealthy dog, not only because the dog will suffer but its family will also suffer. There are only so many tests available...

if you think working breeders are interested in being flexible about producing dogs that work, think again. If you think all dog breeds are "extreme" again, think again. There is a word in many breed standards that people need to find. It is "moderate". Yep - reading through the Australian Shepherd breed standard and it's all "moderate", "well-balanced". RE: colour above. For many working breeds too much white is a fault. To me, that makes sense looking at it from a working dog perspective. The Australian Shepherd is a breed that originated herding cattle & sheep on the ranches in the United States. For a dog to be working out in the sun all day it doesn't make much sense for it to have a lot of white on its nose or face due to sunburn. Same with the standard calling for dark pigmentation around the eye rim. The standard also calls for a moderate, well defined stop. In some very well renown dogs their stop is probably more pronounced than it should be and while they look pretty, it isn't entirely correct (imagine a steer kicking out at a dog and where the hoof would end up if it went straight into a very pronounced stop as opposed to the correct, moderate stop).

I think that breeders need to show more "behind the scenes". There's this perception that breeders keep their dogs outside in dank, dark, miserable kennels 24/7 and bitches are left to raise their puppies in the darkest of all the kennels. (ok so a bit of hyperbole there...) When in reality most registered, reputable breeders have their dogs inside when possible & bitches whelp in people's lounge room or bedroom etc. Puppies are raised in the home and care is taken to place them in loving homes. Unfortunately it's difficult to invite people into the home when puppies are young, despite that being a fantastic way to show the public what really goes on, because of the fears of spreading disease etc. I also know that a lot of breeders/show people have crates & kennels for their dogs and honestly I think they've been given a bad rap from AR groups. Kennels & crates have their place as if you've got more than about 3 dogs of medium size it's hard to manage them all. Also there's a plain lack of knowledge out there...I said that my dogs are health tested etc. and the person said it's just a bit of paper riiiight... (I know, I know, playing chess with pigeons...)

Yes. Sheridan's is an accurate precis. FFS I'm trying to save your sorry 'victim' butts, poor you and poor my my breed. Guess you are on your own. Suggest you start by explaining how you are saving poor us in language we can comprehend. With you there. I find it incredibly difficult to read mm's posts. I can comprehend basically everyone else's posts, even the longer ones, but there is another language in mm's posts which just don't seem to sink in. I've even read a so-called explanation and it made no sense. I don't really have much to add to this conversation but I would suggest the reason the owners of Greyhounds are suggesting they'll have to put their dogs down is because the money they were getting in prize money etc. was going toward feeding their dogs. Maybe I'm just a farmer's daughter but if I don't have a use for an animal (including enjoying their company), it has to go. With the tide of Greyhounds being out of a job, there will most likely be many needing homes & not enough homes - would it be better if people end up on the street just so they can feed their dogs?? Or perhaps it's a sensible choice to put the dogs to sleep rather than risk it ending up in a bad position due to a rushed rehoming process. If it were me and they really do take it to a ban I would simply put them all to sleep if the only other option was the RSPCA. Think they have overlooked the fact that having a vet kill your dogs is still perfectly legal and just because the bleeding hearts will feel better if there are RSPCA "helping" doesn't mean the owners are going to let them take the bow for taking them on. Agreed. I saw somewhere that the RSPCA has put down the same number of dogs as the greyhound industry in NSW. It works out to about 5000 dogs per year.

Yes. Sheridan's is an accurate precis. FFS I'm trying to save your sorry 'victim' butts, poor you and poor my my breed. Guess you are on your own. Suggest you start by explaining how you are saving poor us in language we can comprehend. With you there. I find it incredibly difficult to read mm's posts. I can comprehend basically everyone else's posts, even the longer ones, but there is another language in mm's posts which just don't seem to sink in. I've even read a so-called explanation and it made no sense. I don't really have much to add to this conversation but I would suggest the reason the owners of Greyhounds are suggesting they'll have to put their dogs down is because the money they were getting in prize money etc. was going toward feeding their dogs. Maybe I'm just a farmer's daughter but if I don't have a use for an animal (including enjoying their company), it has to go. With the tide of Greyhounds being out of a job, there will most likely be many needing homes & not enough homes - would it be better if people end up on the street just so they can feed their dogs?? Or perhaps it's a sensible choice to put the dogs to sleep rather than risk it ending up in a bad position due to a rushed rehoming process.

This is incorrect. You do not require membership of your state Canine Control to own an ANKC registered dog. You require membership to exhibit it, compete in dog sports or breed. Sounds like miscommunication rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Most pedigree dog folk refer to "registered" as being ANKC registered (ie has a registered pedigree). ONLY the owner of a dog can life time register it with council. When you think about that for a moment, you'll see it makes perfect sense. If you don't care about the pup's papers being in your name, life time register the pup on the Companion ANimal Register and don't worry about transferring the papers. But DO make you you transfer the microchip details to your home - very important if the pup goes walk about. Ok so as I'd never seen that before I read through the rules & regulations of DogsWest - here it is: 106.5 Transfers may be accepted from non-members of the Association on payment of theprescribed fee. Good to know

NSW Companion Animal Register is different to ANKC Registration. I'm in WA so am not entirely sure, but I think the Companion Animal Register would be similar to Council registration that we have over here and would be necessary for ALL dogs, pedigree or not. ANKC registration only refers to pedigree animals or Associate registration for non-pedigree performance dogs. Registered ownership of the dog is mostly used for dogs going to show or performance homes. Most pet owners don't want to become a member of their state's membership body (ANKC) so your breeder probably didn't think of it being a problem for you. As far as I know it's not possible to register a puppy with anyone but the breeder as the owner, plus it would require all puppy buyers to already be members and to become a member you must have a dog (hence becoming a member & transferring the puppy at the same time). With every animal I have bought and sold (horses & dogs), transfer & becoming a member with the relevant society or registry has been my responsibility. It's nothing to do with honesty and principles, it's just how things are done and if it's not what you were expecting it can be a little bit confusing. I'm sure the breeder thought she had explained it well enough but she may not have realised what part you had a problem with.

I hate having a bitch in heat and an entire male being insane for the entire time. Lucky he's a show dog or I'd be lopping those balls off tomorrow!!! ...when my other bitch slips away for a visit to the dam the day after I wash her

My mum breeds Birman cats. (Registered with COAWA) With her most recent litter she had someone who appeared very interested in a kitten and said they would transfer the deposit (I think it was $100) on a certain date. Two weeks after said date (it was during harvest/lead-up to Christmas so mum was too busy to chase them up before then) mum messaged them asking if they were still interested and they had some problem with the kitten (all of a sudden they weren't happy with it being desexed prior to going home with them despite it being law). So that was 2 weeks of mum thinking she had a home for a kitten and having to re-advertise. Due to that, mum now requires a non-refundable deposit to discourage impulse purchases and time-wasters. But I'm sure if it's a legitimate reason such as above most reasonable breeders would refund it even though it's not required by law AFAIK. It probably depends on how many times a breeder has been burnt as to how willing they are to refund.

This year has been a shocker for vet bills. Mostly voluntary Dogs X-Rays $300 x 2 Hip/Elbow Scores $120 x 2 DNA Swabs (Consult) $30 x 2 (My vet is awesomely inexpensive) DNA Tests $175 x 2 Along with my SIL I whelped a litter out of my two dogs (her prefix) and costs there were about a total of $650 for the litter of 5 including raising a cleft palate pup. Horse $220 for a cut on her chin (to be fair, $75 for travel & $80 for a tub of Prednoderm which will last me a long time :D ) I did up spreadsheets for all my animals. My chooks were the cheapest at $700/yr for feed/worming/the odd bag of shavings/meds Dogs were most expensive... Even the horse wasn't as expensive when I included all the possible memberships & shows (PHAA, reining stuff, a few shows & a clinic or two)

Have you reported them? No...who do you report to & what information do I need? Im not sure of the exact laws re chipping and puppy sales in WA but your local council is first stop. You will need as much info as possible to help them identify them and get them Ahh. So their local council? (They're not local to me) And interesting I thought I read the other day info from a microchipper that they have to be done before leaving the breeder... Will have to try find it again & re-read.

Have you reported them? No...who do you report to & what information do I need?

I think the general public just doesn't care. Just in the past few days I've seen so many people selling & buying puppies whether they're microchipped & vaccinated or not. Despite it being ILLEGAL to sell puppies without microchips. And even when they're told about it they don't want to know. And apparently registered breeders are the ones who don't care about their dogs and it's just about the money

LOL .if you did that to one of our dogs - they would take that as : GET HIM!! and be off like a speeding bullet ! Hahaha, I have actually encouraged my dogs to chase them (the cats are pretty fast) but have rethought that, considering when I got scratched and bitten by one we were doing away with it got infected On a tangent, my childhood dog, a little Silky Terrier X Maltese, used to come on walks with me around one of the paddocks and there was a section full of rabbit holes. Often we'd get to a certain distance from them & she'd see movement & perch down on her haunches until I said "Get 'em!!" and she'd shoot off! Was the cutest thing, she never caught them

My FIL hates how my dogs are...ok...fairly feral... They don't walk with their nose on my heel, they sit in the cab of the ute with me, I give them cheese sausage from the Cafe, they're allowed in the stables and they're often either in the house or in the yard (not in runs or tied up). I do remember one of my dogs doing something at their place, maybe staring at a (literally feral) cat intensely and my MIL did the "Sst" *poke* thing like CM does pretty unnecessary.

My dogs are allowed in our bedroom only if we say (because it's carpet) and we have to invite them onto the couch so that a blanket can be put down before they hop up. Oh and there's also the back gate - if they want to come with me to hang out the washing they can't push through the gate because 3 dogs plus human holding a washing basket doesn't fit at once so they have to all sit (or stand if they're a show dog) while I go through the gate then they're allowed through. I'm extra mean, whoever pushes through before they're allowed gets left in the yard while everyone else plays (no idea if they connect rushing through with being left and they probably don't, but it seemed to work for the next load of washing!). The other stuff to do with "who goes first" like where the dog is on walks is just waffle to me, I'd never enjoy going for walks if my dogs all had to walk behind me - I love watching them run around chasing rabbits & sniffing around.

Holy crap And there's been 4 offers!! Kinda disturbing. Doesn't even cost that much to raise a foal to weaning...

What about a Pointer? My BIL has one, she's fairly dopey but very sweet. Pretty sure she's from working lines & the exercise you outlined would be adequate if you had similar. I'm just not sure about play styles and whether it might be too rough for an Iggy... Another breed I would suggest is an Aussie but they have a lot of hair and like to play rough.

That's a fair point. An example recently for me personally was an ad on Dogzonline and said "As an ethical responsible breeder all puppies leave here desexed"... Personally I wouldn't hold that as the most ethical due to those hormones being good for growth, but unfortunately the world we live in means that everyone else has to pick up after those who can't be responsible for their dogs & get them desexed/manage them entire.

I'd like to point out that I did in fact post in the spirit of forum discussion. What got me into trouble is laughing at Maddy's post and since then I've been belted. Even my rescue has been dragged in. You know me better than to think I won't respond to that kind of shit. I thought that was in very poor taste too. very uncalled for. When someone is 'losing' an argument they usually stoop to insults.