Edge

Ceaser Milan is much like any animal training expert, they have taken old school methods that people have used for 100s of years and branded them. Pat Parelli and Monty Roberts are two horse trainers who have done the same thing. They are very good at "reading" an animal and identifying issues, but their methods atd certainly not new, nor "created by them" just developed slightly and branded. They are exceptional marketers and business people and they profit the most from people who really have no idea. If you watch many experienced dog owners (horse owners) they do what these trainers do everyday, not because they are a follower but because they can read their animals and know how to deal with issues Sergey/before they present.

If you do a search here for rspca, many threads will show up. Thanks Cody - I feel somewhat stupid for not thinking of that myself.

On topic though, I think the coin boxes are slowly dissapearing because less and less people are shopping with cash. Which is why more and more sales assistants are now required to ask for donations. Growing up we would get loose change from mum for those life sized guide dog coin boxes.

Is someone willing to explain why the RSPCA is getting such a bad rap (or so it seems through social media). I've had very little to do with them and was just wondering why it seems so many people have issues. If there is another thread that has well and truly covered this I more then happy to follow a link.

Personally I think all rescues (of any species) seeking donations from the public should be registered and regulated. Sadly it seems some see rescue either as an easy income or a way to get a hero status. Pop up facebook rescue groups calling for donations seems imo to be on the rise (some dog, but in particular equine). Ultimately after the initial glory and donations the hard work and dedication required is lacking and they disapeaer with regular rumours of RSPCA rreports etc. In these situations most of the animals would have been better off euthanased. It's pie in the sky stuff with effective regulation and I totally agree that it won't stop those breaking the laws bit it would at least give the general public a guide

Our greater concern was worm transfer from rodent to dogs - I upped there working regime for that period.

We live on a property and had a serious serious mouse and rat plague issue. We had always, always avoided baiting, bit the issue was becoming unbearable (not to mention my BC and two dachies having a glorious time taking upto ten pests in a day). After consulting the vet we finally decided to bait. There was no other option - advice received was that the trace amounts that killed rats and mice would not affevt the dogs, even given the amount they were consuming. Dogs are all fine.

Thanks for all the responses. As I have said previously I appreciate all oppinions provided based on what info I felt I could give. I think the point made about applying pressure to pedigree breeders regarding compensation is a very interesting one, as well as the possibility that vets may form oppinions based on pedigree breeding or not. There is a wealth of information on the net from many varied sources, when reading multiple articles it can be quite confusing if not down right contradictory. Particularly when it comes to the question of hereditary, congenital, or otherwise. I personally had no idea how many conditions were heriditry in many breeds until I started looking for info on this particular case. Its also interesting to find from a variety of personal experience blogs from a variety of breeders that there is no hard and fast rules in regard to refunds etc (i personally think that there a very few cases that would warrant refund - but that's easy for me to have an opinion because I'm not a breeder). Having previously considered breeding previously I had never considered the mine field of dramas breeders experience - many well beyond their control. It has certainly given me a huge serving of food for thought.

Thanks sandgrubber. Certainly not a troll, just never had a question worthy of posting prior to this occassion. I've read good things and bad about breeding contracts - but had never considered breeders giving health gaurentees to certain ages. That concept seems a bit weird to me given there are so many variables in a puppies life once it leaves the care of the breeder. But again another point I hadn't considered

I always thought that no matter what you want a dog for there is the same risk involved and the same bond formed. Would intended use really make a difference? I was considering breeding with one of my girls (via all the proper channels) but as I said previously she had issues with her first season which resulted in desexing, putting an end to that. My intention played no bearing on wether I went back to the breeder (pedigree) I just accepted.

..and that's how I took it :) It is an interesting general query . Thank you.

I'm honestly sorry that my query has caused so much angst. Appreciate the time taken by those who respond, and understand and respect what others have said. I accept that there are many variables which does make it difficult to form opinions, but like I said not my story to tell. It was a query asked out of pure personal fascination and that is all.

Totally agree with you Rebanne.

Very valid points of which I hadn't considered.

I feel no need to defend myself and all assumptions are wrong. The details on breed and condition were deliberately left out because it is not my story to tell. I do not own the puppy nor am I the breeder (or as initially stated any breeder). I had heard the story and thought it ridiculous that someone would seek compensation. But then I have two dogs myself both of whom have their own "issues" which I have never ever considered contacting the breeder to ask for replacement, compensation or anything. I accepted when I purchased them (some years 5 and 6 years ago) that they were both living animals and sometimes things go wrong out side the control of anyone. The first ones issues became evident in the first 12 months, the second became evident at first season. I came here to ask the question because it appears (from reading various threads) that there seems to be some very knowledgeable, experienced owners and breeders. I wouldn't ask on any FB forum for obvious reasons. Personally for the sake of my query condition and breed are irrelevant, my main reason for asking is I firmly believe just because it is something I wouldnt do (or would, for that matter) doesn't mean it's the right thing or the accepted thing. Thanks to all those that responded.

Thanks so much for the responses - confirmed what I had thought, but does lead me to another question. At what age does a breeders responsibility end. For example pup leaves at eight to ten weeks - and develops a non heritable condition?

Hi, I'm a long time reader first time poster. I would be very interested in people's oppinions on the following scenario: Puppy purchased from pedigree breeder with everything done correctly and above board. Puppy was required to travel long distance so had additional vet check and was certified healthy tp travel with carrier. Pet arrived at new home. Time passed (approx 14mths) puppy has developed condition. There is no evidence to suggest it is a heritable condition (although it is in other breeds), there is also evidence to suggest that cause of condition could be (amongst other things) caused by trauma. Is the owner entitled to compensation? If you were the breeder what would you do? (background: I'm not a breeder in any way shape of form, nor do I own the puppy, just a scenario I heard about around the way and wondered what other people would consider is right).