asal

So would I. There is no way I would let a stranger into my home to determine whether or not I am a good dog owner. edit for clarity - ofcourse if I've built up a bond with a breeder over a period of time with the purposes of buying a pup they wouldnt be a stranger (but they'd know me well enough by then not to need to do a home check I would think) but if eg they lived interstate and made a request on a forum for any tom dick or harry to come through my home, I probably would no longer be interested in buying a pup from them anyway I wouldnt...I would think of the puppy being bred or puppy farmed to replace the sold one and I just couldnt do it. :D never thought of it that way.. so even puppy buyers are feeling guilty before proven innocent? weid, n not nice either way you look at it?

Hi Emileigh, i hope all goes well with your purchase..this is also my first pedigree puppy and i'm so glad to have her, she means the world to me, its like having a new baby that won't let you sleep lol. She is still currently getting use to her surrounding so the barking at night is very much new to me at the moment waking up every 30mins to her howling or barking. I hope to keep everyone updated on receiving my papers. Well i have the parents pedigree papers (copy). But fingers cross i will get mine also and i will make sure that i get it or else i will be taking it further... Its not right what these breeders are doing and hope that there will be new laws with purchasing puppies on pedigrees. Sounds lovely, can't wait until we get our little princess. Having so much trouble thinking up a name for her registration though. I am just not creative enough - and prehaps a bit fussy! Glad to hear that you are happy with your new family member regardless of the breeders incompetence and the lack of sleep. It really is like having a new baby. I am not looking foward to toilet training, I haven't had a puppy in 9 years so may be a bit out of practice and am sure I will be waking up to puddles around the house often . Best of luck with everything, I hope the papers come through soon. btw your pup looks beautiful, so wrinkly :D maybe that needs to be a new law too. no breeder can remain a member if they dont reply to a puppy buyer query within 24 hours? may as well make it all law, talk about guilty until proven innocent these days anyway, eh? I thought there was a good reason but not impressed how many automatically thought the worst of the breeder AS USUAL. cant wait for the day when there will be NO phone numbers of breeders because they all got jack of being guilty first.

As pet shops currently are, maybe this is so. Obviously there would need to be changes. Where is the evidence for this calim though? The question is certainly relevant, but if you look at the sources of dogs in pounds where stats are compiled, pet shops are not top of the list you will find. My view is that we just keep repeating a mantra without actually looking for evidence. The evidence when it is sought out, seems to point us in different directions as the AWL study showed that Steve refers to in this thread. It is a bit like the desexing debate of animals in welfare situations. After researching this thoroughly, I really can't find any evidecne that shows desexing programs stops animals ending up in shelters or prevents them being abused. In fact, several studies show that the numbers coming in to shelters did not change even after intensive desexing campaigns. Obviously, this is another area of discussion, but as a rescuer, I have spent several years repeating the same thing as everyone else "desexed dogs are safe, desexed dogs stop dogs ending up in pounds" without questioing anything. Is the same thing happening with pet shops? Should we start to view the situation in a different light as some in the rescue arena now are? Can pet shops become our allies when it comes to promoting the purebred dog? Is this a better way of dealing with the pet shop issue? I could be following a completely wrong train of thought, but I think we all need to go back to basics and look at companion animals, welfare and breeding in a fresh and bare bones light. ok havent read the rest of the thread, but when i was a kid, petshops were just about the only place u found a pup unless there was a roadside sign. and they grew up great dogs. its the attitude of people today thats the problem, the throwaway society is just that. the place to start is kindergarten. its a fact, educate them before they are 7 and you DO have them for life. where do u think all the greenie teachings started? i know my child came home spouting greenie from kindi. we need to start pet education early,

I'm really sorry to hear this. I'd be starting with a letter to DOGS NSW outlining your scenario, emphasising that YOU RELIED ON ADVICE FROM DOGS NSW THAT THE BREEDER WAS A MEMBER and purchased accordingly. I'd be asking them to intercede with the member on your behalf. I hope that produces some results. yes good idea. I hope to see you have your puppies papers soon.

before you get cranky with her and i dont blame you either. surely you spoke to her by phone before you picked up your puppy? call her, tell her what you do know and ask. is the delay because of problems she has health or emotional? can you assist in any way as you soo wish to get your puppys papers. honest, all courts do is bleed you of your money, have a friend in that mess right now. its soo sterile and money sucking. any chance of a visit to talk to her? i get depression really bad so i know how much it can paralyse you, a month or months can dissaprear and leave u wondering, "what happened" despite the best of intentions. she might be in a similar boat, or simply have other problems that have messed things up. maybe i shouldnt air dirty laundry? but for example i have purebred horses that some of them are 17 years old and never registered, only discovered this year why i couldnt bring myself to do it, was subconsiously afraid that to do so would remind my ex i was still alive, and thus unfinished business and come after me. took a doc with a ph degree to discover why and all those years wasted. the stringy incident was just another nail in the distrust of the subhuman race, there are many with this silent nightmare, since i began talking about it to friends the number who have said, yes i know, is suprising. dont bounce, aint worth getting her back up, be nice, be pleasant and be concerned for the breeder. and hopefully she will get her renewal done and dusted and your papers on their way. best of luck.

so so true, greyhounds are amazing. my daughter in laws brother has them and Honey is just soo precious. she is always soooo the lady. and the most beautiful lounge ornament ever. cats? cats are dangerous critters, ask honey, Salem stalks in, Honey retreats to the safety of the lounge, n can have all her dinner. the only things fluffy that Honey plays with are her fluffy stuffed toys. even more amazing she knew she was racing the other dogs, not chasing that stupid fake rabbit, like the others . she won 3 races and in one of them the hare slowed, honey didnt even give it a sideways , she was too busy overtaking the other dogs, and in that race the hare as well, and flashing for the finish. she would run her heart out to win. literally, she had to be retired because she would push herself past thepoint of exhaustion to get in front and stay there. her career ended on the vets advice she was pushing herself too hard to win. she would be a wreak after the race she was so exhausted

That is right. If people bred for colour as a priority, the dogs would quickly lose ability as the gene pool would be restricted. well in the breeds where colour is more important than ability, the blues and chocolates usually never get to live long enough to open their eyes.. so the gene pool is restricted by the survival of only pups of the accepted colour regardless of what ability the now dead pup/pups may have had. cuts two ways, colour bars and predjuice dont they?

That is right in a way. The problems start when people start breeding specifically for a dilute colour like blue. Litters are not identical, each pup has it's own combination of inherited genes. Not every pup from every litter will be worth breeding from, regardless of the pup's pedigree or colour. The chance of a blue dog unexpectedly in a line not known to carry the colour is low. The likelihood that this pup will be of really excellent quality is even lower. But people who breed exclusively blue staffords will use dogs that are not of good quality, just to produce the colour. Once the 'rare' colour gains popularity, and people breed for colour as a priority, other important traits can be lost. In animals and breeds where colour is never important, you do not see a deterioration or change in type in certain colours. It only happens in animals where a colour is more important to people than the breed. JUST noticed you have greyhounds, a good greyhound is NEVER a bad colour is it. LOL

if its a flue fawn, yes it will be two blue genes and blue nose on a cream or gold with a blue haze that sometimes is barely discernable and on others very obvious, eg, a brindle all the black hairs would now be blue and quite noticable. what puzzles me, is if a good line has the blue crop up, if the dogs were good, then the appearance of the blue in a pup should make no difference to the conformation of the pup. blue is not linked to conformation its simply a dilute of black. so by rights if two outstanding blacks did produce a blue pup it should be the same conformation as a black from the same litter? certainly generations of outstanding border collies had been hiding the gene along with chocolate for over 100 years and ive seen the odd cropouts and they were identical in type to their littermates. bit like saying a pearl foal will never be anywhere as good as its non pearl siblings, that too is a recessive colour gene. for example this is a BLACK filly with two pearl genes. not a particulary pretty breed but looks conformationaly like her companions so i dont think the coat colour influenced her conformation? http://www.horse-genetics.com/pearl-mare-clarice.html here are quarter horses with the same gene http://www.garrakapark.com.au/stallions.htm

The ANKC for one......(although they don't specifically use the word "unethical" but given that the following appears in the Breeders' Code of Ethics then a reasonable assumption could be made IMO). 11. A member shall breed primarily for the purpose of improving the quality and / or working ability of the breed in accordance with the breed standard, and not specifically for the pet or commercial market. THATS WHAT I thought. do you realise the creaters of the pet only breeds in particular maybe? the toy breeds were by todays standards, unethical???? see now what i mean? they are attacking the very people who created what they are registering today?

Since when has breeding to the recognised breed standard been identical to "breeding for show"? :D Since when has it been considered "not the done thing" for ethical breeders and exhibitors to love their dogs? Many show dogs ARE pets most of the time. Most ethically bred registered pups will spend their entire lives as pets. That doesn't mean that their breeders wanted to take short cuts to make some money on the side. I really don't understand your logic asal. :D Why should "pet" buyers have to settle for shoddily bred dogs anyway? but who said that anyone that bred and sold their dogs for pets not show is unethical??? so using that logic, if a show breeder was caught treating their dog as a pet, then couldnt they too be classed as unethical by those who believe this? just following the logic along its path, same as the hunt to eliminate backyarders has created the path to Judy Guards nightmare? the path started 30 years ago and look where its got Judy. The insanity of facing 42 charges she wouldnt be facing if her dogs had been debarked in vic. instead of nsw? its not the issue they were debarked, its the issue of where they were debarked if that isnt insanity gone troppo what is it? if thats not following a path to an insane but nightmare reality what is?

Because it is essentially counter-productive. We as breeders are supposed to breed TO the standard, FOR the standard and with the betterment of the breed in mind. Taking two dogs, simply because they are dilutes, and breeding them isn't going to satisfy the ethics of the responsible breeder when to date, dilutes cannot fit the breed standard. According to the ANKC Code of Ethics, breeders must NOT breed for the pet market or any other commercial purpose. Doesn't of course mean that it doesn't happen, but I for one will not be sacrificing the health of my dogs and taking the risks associated with a litter lightly enough to JUST satisfy the pet market. I breed when I want something for MYSELF. I breed to keep not to sell....BUT....it just happens that unless I have a very small litter, I will normally have a few very GOOD quality puppies left over for placing in suitably qualified pet homes. Some of these may be better quality and better SHOW prospects than the supposed show prospects bred by other breeders, but that doesn't mean that I want them in the show ring though. I just don't intend to ever breed ONLY for the pet market and I certainly don't want to breed with an aim in mind to breed something that might be sought after as pets when it has no place EVER in my future plans for breeding and/or showing. think i can see your difficulty. only breed for show. so can be seen to be ethical. soo you cant let anyone realise you actually like your dogs and treat of feel they are pets or run the risk of by association with having any as a pet and therefore unethical? its hard isnt it? Ummmm...asal....I'm sorry but I really don't get your drift. :D was trying to explain to the eyes of someone else, who saw you playing with your dogs and enjoying their company, to them you are a pet owner..... yes hard to explain.. ... what do peta want to stop? pet ownership... soo whats fine to you is anthema to someone with the peta view any help?

My guess is that the idea of producing pups for their colour alone would be an anathema to those breeders. The time, effort, cost and potential heartbreak of breeding means that decent breeders are more interested in producing quality dogs of any colour than ensuring that today's public can satisfy their uneducated colour choice for the flavour of the month. They'd probably also be interested in avoiding the health issues associated with producing dilutes - I call that ethical breeding. :D exactly and so the weimariner breeders would have been facing court today.. actually if that comment that is now illegal has been passed doesnt that mean they now will be? Weimarner breeders didn't go to Court in the good old days - they WERE the law. :D Breeding should be lawful (and ethical) if they DNA test for anything they can, hip and elbow score and don't breed dogs with known health issues IMO. and thereby is the catch. no mammal, plant, in fact no reproductive existance is not without its faulty genes. and a healt issue is not detectable until it happens? soo since theres nothing on this earth than can reproduce without a percentage of health issues there is no way any but wild stock can reproduce without the breeder being held liable. and thats a fact. n not a very funny fact is it?

Because it is essentially counter-productive. We as breeders are supposed to breed TO the standard, FOR the standard and with the betterment of the breed in mind. Taking two dogs, simply because they are dilutes, and breeding them isn't going to satisfy the ethics of the responsible breeder when to date, dilutes cannot fit the breed standard. According to the ANKC Code of Ethics, breeders must NOT breed for the pet market or any other commercial purpose. Doesn't of course mean that it doesn't happen, but I for one will not be sacrificing the health of my dogs and taking the risks associated with a litter lightly enough to JUST satisfy the pet market. I breed when I want something for MYSELF. I breed to keep not to sell....BUT....it just happens that unless I have a very small litter, I will normally have a few very GOOD quality puppies left over for placing in suitably qualified pet homes. Some of these may be better quality and better SHOW prospects than the supposed show prospects bred by other breeders, but that doesn't mean that I want them in the show ring though. I just don't intend to ever breed ONLY for the pet market and I certainly don't want to breed with an aim in mind to breed something that might be sought after as pets when it has no place EVER in my future plans for breeding and/or showing. think i can see your difficulty. only breed for show. so can be seen to be ethical. soo you cant let anyone realise you actually like your dogs and treat of feel they are pets or run the risk of by association with having any as a pet and therefore unethical? its hard isnt it?

My guess is that the idea of producing pups for their colour alone would be an anathema to those breeders. The time, effort, cost and potential heartbreak of breeding means that decent breeders are more interested in producing quality dogs of any colour than ensuring that today's public can satisfy their uneducated colour choice for the flavour of the month. They'd probably also be interested in avoiding the health issues associated with producing dilutes - I call that ethical breeding. :D exactly and so the weimariner breeders would have been facing court today.. actually if that comment that is now illegal has been passed doesnt that mean they now will be?

I haven't forgotten. Others who don't give a damn about how breed standards were shaped by the dogs' original function have. To suggest that breeds developed for hunting should be bred with no concern for their original function is a perfect example of that. The ONLY people giving any recognition to Parson Russell's ideal are those breeding working Parsons and those breeding registered ones. You have only to look at what's become of the JRT in the hands of those who don't give a toss about breed standards to see a dog that wouldn't have a hope in hell of running with hounds.. flat feet, weak pasterns, east west fronts, luxating patellas. Next person to tell me that JRTs just 'skip' may well get a swift slap up the back of the head. Yes, they wanted to recreate the dog in the picture. They offered the prize for that at a dog show. Where you got the idea that it was for any reason other than the pleasure of the person who offered the prize money for doing it escapes me. How much snake avoidance would the lap dog of English royalty and the aristocracy require do you think? The breed wasnt' developed in a country renowned for its venomous snakes. It certainly wasn't developed to live outdoors in this climate. are u forgetting there were quite a few who did and have until they were finally recognised as a breed? n that was in my lifetime.... so there have been a lot of generations of breeders who never bred or selected for a show standard, because there wasnt one.. :D they still maintained his dream to the best of their ability. dont denigrate the majority because of the minority surely? as for the cavalier my understanding and yes possibily im an idiot like u suspect, its still going because people liked the doggy in the picture, and missed it who had known they existed in a different form to what they had morphed into. did that make them unethical? and who makes the decisions as to who is ethical and who is unethical and to be despised? are they a race born with this ability

Actually I think it is. Type may vary according to "fashion" but faults and disqualifying faults don't. How any ethical breeder could DELIBERATELY breed dogs outside the standard defies logic. For a start, its a potential genetic dead end. Of course if you have a huge set up, lots of breeding dogs and don't give a toss about ethics "breeding to the tastes of the market" is a piece of cake. Its not like you'd actually show your dogs now is it? curious you immediately presume to breed a pet you would "deliberately breed outside the standard" why would anyone do that? last i saw a weimariner coloured whippet could not be passed off as a weimariner???? on colour alone? if they dont adher to the breed they arent the breed last i looked anyway, n its though enough putting good to good and not getting a percentage of :D anyway. isnt that why so many are pet homed and the breeder actually keeps the "pick" of the litter because they dont come out like identical peas in a pod?

Actually I think it is. Type may vary according to "fashion" but faults and disqualifying faults don't. How any ethical breeder could DELIBERATELY breed dogs outside the standard defies logic. For a start, its a potential genetic dead end. Of course if you have a huge set up, lots of breeding dogs and don't give a toss about ethics "breeding to the tastes of the market" is a piece of cake. Its not like you'd actually show your dogs now is it? what you are forgetting, parson jack russell did not write his standard in his head to please a show world that in those days didnt exist, neither did almost every breed registered, they came before the chicken......oops showworld... they did not breed or select for a "show" standard. they selected for what they wanted. subtle difference but a very importand one. and many people had many different ideas, enthusists drew up a standard to help all have a guideline. but it never ceases to amaze how many different interpartions of the written word is possible too and every interpretator thinks THEY AND THEIR VERSION IS RIGHT. makes it confusing n tough to figure out the maze of differing opinions. breeding with the pet market in mind was exactly what was done in the case of the manufacture of the cavalier king charles, they wanted to recreate the doggy in the picture...n the ultimate lap doggie. pretty much succeeded, pity the snake and rate hunting drives still there. makes it a nightmare if a snake gets int your backyard... cattle dogs are much smarter in that regard in avoiding being bitten although too many still do. but cavies? all in and bite? what bite? oooooo mum i fell sick. so thats one trait pity it wasnt selected for snake avoidance instead some where in the dim past save a lot of tears

With a one in four chance of producing dilute colour alopecia in some breeds Sandra, I'd suggest its illegal in Victoria NOW! what a hoot. so now if you get a blue gene alopecia pup you can be charged????? I have had two or was it three with it?, and apart from looking like they had been poodle clipped where the coat is short, they had absolutely no skin or health issues. sooo some idiot is now made it illegal for a recessive gene to show its dial now? do this mind blowing genious realise you still will get it when ANY dog and its partner are NOT SHOWING it but carry it? get real! no politicians dont need to live in reality land do they they just make laws regardess of whether they are idiotic or not

"And I don't think there's anything wrong with registered breeders who are trying to improve dog breeds making a bit of money on the side by breeding to the tastes of the market, whilst incorporating their own values and standards." good point actually, particularly since breeding for the show fashions isnt any different really? is it?

Odd they dont mention its linked to the blue gene? reading that you would only think the fawn/lilac colours are affected?

know where your comming from there. alergies so bad the doc did tests, n to my horror get told im allergic to dog dander, cat dander, cattle and horse dander... like what on earth is dander....???? manure... well now i know, ive still all the offending critters. but wear a mask when cleaning up said dander. and as for clipping, i dont see why you dont clip him? having a double coat doesnt mean he cant be clipped, it just means it will take twice as long for the clippers to wend their way through the jungle. a friends samoyed was doing the same for their son. so instead off off with his head, it was off with his coat and no more problem. as for summer with out a heavy coat... happy doggie as for a pug its amazing how much hair will come off .. at least give it a try for both your sakes..

it is equally funny, that when the same faults pop up in ch to ch matings with NO dilute to dilute matings, the silence of blame is deafening... and it happens suprisingly often but those breeders are simply unfortunate, not unethical... i do have a sick sense of humour, the more i see of the human race the more illogical i see it is

Not in my book. If the creators of the Wei set out today, to create a great working dog and it just so happened that the best examples of their working dog were dilutes I personally wouldn't have an issue with it. Others no doubt think differently but if you are breeding dogs which are good at their intended function, healthy and have the correct temperament then what colour it is is irrelevant to me. It's when the colour comes first in this equation that it's unethical IMO. trouble with your thinking is there are a great many people who totally belive mating a dilute to a dilute is totally wrong and no reason can justify doing so. so even if the breeder said they were putting the best to the best regardless of colour, do you really think the 10 seconds experts would stop baying for their blood? i know i think not. look at the politicion asked to intercede in Judy Guard's behalf? not a finger will be raised to help her by that lot who drafted such a stupid law in the first place, let alone use half the brain they were born with and either rescind or alter what was obviously so easlily used to destroy an innocent person. but being animal related its another instance of guilty until proven innocent, and in her case she has already pleaded guilty so he or any of the others who have put her in this dreadful position will admit they got it soooooooo wrong. admit a mistake and fix it. why? cant they do it? so a breeder putting dilute to dilute? no reason on earth comming from their mouth will stop the puppy farming, and breeding for colour, catcalls

He would have been put on Limited Registration and sold to a suitable companion home. Once I decide where I stand on juvenile desexing, then this may also be done....but not at present. Teeth and jaw problems can be a real nuisance because in many cases, there isn't a lot that can be done until the 2nd teeth come in and the jaw settles. That's one of the reasons many breeders will not guarantee a mouth in a baby puppy show prospect...they can move so much during development and can LITERALLY become a bad bite overnight. EXACTLY. but your lucky you are not in nsw, I was hesitant to sell on MR for showing, told the person, there is no way you can accurately assssess an 8 week old pup and that the selection was entirly their choice, since i knew from expierence i have discovered the pet i sold has ended up the best instead of the "pick" I kept, can i go back to the pet buyer and say I made a mistake you have to give me back their pup and take the second grade, i made a mistake and this is the pet pup? interesting isnt it? I cant do that, i HAVE to live with my mistake and either keep mr or mrs second grade or rehome the now pet pup. yet the buyer can say, I think this pup is the quality i want, then accuse you of being unethical when the little bugger does the same thing to them as your pick did to you. its a totaly weird world... why cant the breeder demand an exchange when its the other way around????? fellow exhibitors told the lady with the dog she bought that MR is a guarantee of show quality and demand a return, even friends advised me take it back. so the buyer today takes no responsibility for their choices around here anyway, even in that case had already told the breeder they were expienced with how puppys can change and was prepared to accept it on that condition. once it stopped winning all bets were off. very different mindset now. the breeder is responsible regardless, so forseeing the future should be another talent any aspiring breeder needs to have among their accomplishments , one, who told the owner of the pup, mr is a guarantee of show quality, advised me to never sell a pup on mr unless its already has its adult teeth through. as you said . so right. I now understand why so few will mr now.