Sheridan

Grumpy can get Mini off the couch by walking up to me sitting on one end of the couch and turning his head to look at Mini sitting on the other end. She'll get off immediately and he'll get up.

The lighter the voice I use with Grumpy, the more cooperative he is.

Hmmm....except maybe a breed that fades when clipped as per poodles. Silvers start out black. Reds can turn apricot Having a wheaten from pup to around two is like having a different breed each week but a mastiff, though?

Actually, I would be a bit stumped if someone who has gone to the trouble of getting aa pedigree dog asked what colour it was going to be when it was fully grown.

Not much different to here then.

They sold a pet on main register.... Dogs on main register can be pets, too ...

Had Grumpy at the vet today. Vet didn't think Grumpy's muscle tone was too bad at all. He's suggested that to keep an eye on him and that if I think he's getting worse, we'll discuss cartrophen injections.

I believe there was actually a dog tail tax in England, introduced at the same time as the wig tax. Fundraiser for the Napoleanic wars.

The dog tail tax.

Funnily enough, my preferences in regards to your are exactly the same, except that if I had to rely on a breeder who shows, the pickings would range from slim to none.

field spaniel sussex spaniel clumber spaniel west highland white terrier glen of imaal terrier black russian terrier bull terrier borzoi

Yet people adopt dogs from the pound, have no idea of their background, and don't have these sorts of issues.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker.

No one is saying they want to be "stand with" or be "lumped with" bad or unethical practice.They are hoping that good practice can be universaly sought by various groups in the ways that suit them and work for them.That they can clearly see problems within their own groups and work to clean them up.Take personal responsibility for seeing their own group is beyond reproach before pointing the finger at some one else. The above example may not be a "puppy farm",but it is certainly my idea of a BYBer.Are they unethical? Should we be pushing for laws to make it impossible for them to breed dogs at all because their ideals are not ours? Should THEY be forced to stand with the puppy farmers in their corner? There are no clear definitions of Registered,Ethical breeders,BYBers or puppy farmers yet. You can criticise all you want and no doubt find justification with generalizations.Just don't be suprised that they do the same with their criticism of the pedigree show breeders. There are some pedigree show breeders that should be condemned alongside the puppyfarmers and the BYBs who keep their dogs in conditions that I have described in this thread because they're little more than puppyfarmers and BYBs themselves. I just find it astounding that some people in this thread are unwilling to condemn such people whether registered, puppyfarmer or BYB. So you are saying you will continue to label people puppy farmers and BYBers and with no clear definitions of what those terms mean. but they re all bad. Show breeders will be lumped into their own category.This allows you to condemn whole groups indiscriminatly while some of the worst can "stand with" you? Wouldn't it make more sense to condemn ignorance and poor practice period and admit that it exsists amoung all groups of breeders? Seems to me your arguments would be given more credence. Um, why are you accusing me of standing with the worst? Unless you think that ethical registered breeders are the worst? Cos I'm with them. Perhaps you mean someone else in the thread.

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups. Incorrect. It depends on the mode of inheritance and this is unknown in many diseases. Txs Sheridan. I will need to investigate this more I'll give you an example from my breed. My first wheaten died of an inheritable disease. His sire and dam tested clear all their lives. The sire, at least, was necropsied and there was no sign of the disease. Both or one of them must have carried it but even breeding to another breed doesn't prevent it.

In my mind this statement would have room to include health testing. Doesn't optimizing chances of good health mean..."I've done all that I can". Which would mean..."I have health tested"? Or is that just me? It's all getting way too complicated for me. I read the article to mean people of equal values, bagging on others of equal values. ie. Registered Breeders doing the right thing, bagging on other registered breeders doing the right thing. It never entered my head to include puppy mills into the mix. But then I've had personal experiences of breeders who are all doing the right things, slagging off another breeder/dog based on heresy or personal opinion. And not on the facts of the matter. Very interesting knowing two breeders at loggerheads, both doing the right thing, but neither one willing to concede it. So I would assume that is way my head went that way with the article. And I would have to agree. Breeders really need to start standing on a united front. Not telling anyone who stands still long enough what the other breeder is doing all wrong. Educate the public on the right way of doing things without using other breeders as test cases. And then let them make up their minds who they are comfortable buying a dog from. Which breeders? All breeders? Including the unethical registered breeders and the puppyfarmers who keep their dogs in deplorable conditions and BYBs who don't health test? Do you want to be in a united front with these people?

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups. Incorrect. It depends on the mode of inheritance and this is unknown in many diseases.

I'm yet to see anyone who's missed the assumed point of the article; only people who think the point isn't valid or think it hasn't been made by that article. I think some people who have accused others of missing the point are missing the point. I am particularly sad for those who are openly supporting bad breeders.

There are a number of registered breeders I know who do this and I'm not the only person who knows them who thinks they ought to be locked in a room together to have it out. Thing is, you can't stop people from bad mouthing each other but not criticising those who are puppyfarmers who keep dogs in bad conditions or BYB who don't health test isn't going to stop people from bad mouthing each other and it actually validates puppyfarmers and BYBs.

Since you have first hand knowledge of this abuse you need to report it. Can you please let us know you have done this. Nice try but no prize. Deflecting your own lack of condemnation of people who keep dogs in deplorable conditions just makes me wonder. Sheridan if you know about abuse you need to report it. I can say it a few more times if you like. How very sad.

Since you have first hand knowledge of this abuse you need to report it. Can you please let us know you have done this. Nice try but no prize. Deflecting your own lack of condemnation of people who keep dogs in deplorable conditions just makes me wonder.

The dog on the Beneful packet is a wheaten terrier.

No one is saying they want to be "stand with" or be "lumped with" bad or unethical practice.They are hoping that good practice can be universaly sought by various groups in the ways that suit them and work for them.That they can clearly see problems within their own groups and work to clean them up.Take personal responsibility for seeing their own group is beyond reproach before pointing the finger at some one else. The above example may not be a "puppy farm",but it is certainly my idea of a BYBer.Are they unethical? Should we be pushing for laws to make it impossible for them to breed dogs at all because their ideals are not ours? Should THEY be forced to stand with the puppy farmers in their corner? There are no clear definitions of Registered,Ethical breeders,BYBers or puppy farmers yet. You can criticise all you want and no doubt find justification with generalizations.Just don't be suprised that they do the same with their criticism of the pedigree show breeders. There are some pedigree show breeders that should be condemned alongside the puppyfarmers and the BYBs who keep their dogs in conditions that I have described in this thread because they're little more than puppyfarmers and BYBs themselves. I just find it astounding that some people in this thread are unwilling to condemn such people whether registered, puppyfarmer or BYB.

all dog breeders? even the puppy farmers? so in your opinion all breeders are important and all make their contribution. I will make it easier for you to answer and only ask one question. do you really include all dog breeders in your above statement What you want is to make me judge and cast blame on other dog breeders. You want to make me say I think some breeder is a bad person. Just the idea that I wil not do this seems to really upset you. I am not going to speak about other breeders in meaningless negative general terms. This is where we are different and what the topic is all about. I actually thank you for your participation as I think this has driven home the problem very well. And again, you're okay with being lumped in with the puppyfarmer who breeds a bitch every season in deplorable conditions and then throws her away? It's amazing that this is okay with you, that you're unwilling to judge such a person because it's meaningless and negative and general. Amazing.

I'd go for a Whirl of Wheatens Yes!