oakway

Most of us raw feeders feed by eye. If the pup looks as it is not up to the weight you require add more, if looks to fat cut the food back.

I have never reared a litter on anything but raw. All my dogs are weaned onto a waw diet and stay on it for the rest of their lives.

It is supposed to be distributed by the Troy company in Aust.. I have not personally seen it on the shelves in Aust.. One member said it was now available but it was thought to be so much cheaper to purchase overseas so we have all continued to do so.

It has been withdrawn from the market because the company can not source one of the products used in its manufacture. I do not think a product that has been used for as long as this product has been by vets, the dog and cat people is likey to causing a toxic reaction in animals after all this time. It MAY have caused a toxic reaction if not used in accodance with the directions.

No change here and I put the Import on it straight away. Gaby has been on it through a pregnancy and no change there either.

Yes safe and sound at last. It sure is a long time when you import from the states. I am just wondering what the impact will be when the country categories change towards the end of the year.

Yes, Marburg and also Gerry King at West Moreton also known as Redbank Plains. Tim Rush at Yamanto.

Thanks, I'm just relieved that she's here at last.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/211840-rising-stars-for-2011/page__st__300 post 311

At last I have my Snooki (Italian Greyhound) at home with me and I am so ejoying her. A small black with white trim and only 14 inches tall. Also thanks must go to our own Wayrod (on this Forum) for her safe delivery. He even rang me to check on her safe delivery, hows that for service.

On Wednesday evening 7th December almost 200 Logan City Council resident members attended a very informative evening at our Durack function room. Hosted by Government Liaison Officer, Mark Sheppard, presentations were made which outlined the innovative new Laws which will benefit our Dogs Queensland members from 9th December 2011. From that date, members may apply for a Breeder Approval to keep up to 9 entire dogs irrespective of property size and to breed and sell progeny. There is no requirement for a planning application (at a usual cost of $2,500 non refundable) or neighbour approval beforehand. The approval application fee will cost just $200 (which represents recoverable Logan Council costs) plus a $25 per year renewal to keep the approval current. And those members interested in other disciplines have not been left out either. A “special purpose” approval can be sought which will allow a member to keep up to 9 obedience, agility, trialling or show dogs – a separate application form is needed and will be processed differently from the breeder approval scheme. Also, significant dog registration discounts have been extended to our members. Just $25 per dog, down from $50 previously – another great win for our members and a reflection of the confidence which Logan City Council have in our organisation and our responsible members. Dogs Queensland members who currently hold a formal kennel license have not been forgotten either. In addition to their licenses being protected as a saleable asset attached to their property, dog registration fees for those members have been reduced to just $15 per dog. Whilst it has taken almost 4 years to reach this outcome, we are confident that members will see the very real benefits which can accrue from a close working relationship with Government. Any member wanting more information about the Logan City Council Approval Scheme can find the necessary documents on our website home page.

Congratulations to the council for their forward thinking. It's about time.

Maybe the shop could keep a book where pure bred registered breeders could list their names and phone number or e mail address and the breed that they may have for sale.

My advise, go to a dog show and speak to the breeders there. At least there you will get a chance of seeing what may be available as future sires and dams. You may also get a dog a breeder that may be prepared to let one go.

You rotten lot you made my bladder cry

I agree. If the owner does not want to abort the bitch it's the only thing left to do. I doubt the owner would have a web site as they don't even hold a prefix.

I have re read your comment and may have miss interpreted it. If so my apologies. Do you mean sell them as un registered pets ?.

Becks it doesn't work that way in this country. As the owner at the moment doesn't hold a prefix they can't have a registered litter unless they lease the bitch or transfer her to person that is financial and holds a current financial prefix. We not only have to pay our membership fees yearly to our states controlling body but we have to pay a maintance fee yearly to keep our Prefix's current. To obtain a Prefix in this country can sometimes be a long and drawn out process.

+1

I agree , however, the agreement to lease the bitch has already been made and the mating has already been done. It appears though the SDO has agreed to allow Millie to use her own prefix which means she will need the service certificate but with no money changing hands the service certificate may not be handed to her until the pick pup has been chosen and in their possession. Signing the service certificate at time of mating and giving it to the bitch owner is two different things and still keeps the SDO within the regs. Fact is some stud dog owners do have conditions in place for people who are using dogs at stud - most in my opinion are unreasonable because I believe that the only issue for the sdo should be whether they think the dog is suitable and that it is registered and so is the owner. If the bitch owner doesnt agree they simply dont use the dog at stud.Where this one has blown up is because the conditions were not discussed and agreed upon and signed off on before the mating took place. These conditions - though unreasonable in my opinion, are probably quite the norm for the SDO and as the SDO they are entitled to place thiose conditions on. In all probability the reason these werent discussed pre mating is because they thought the dog would be leased to them and therefore it would be in their control anyway and not something which should concern or be approved by the owner. its only changed because the owner now doesnt want to lease the bitch but at the time of the mating she did. +1 All this discussion goes to show is, get it down on paper before ANY matings ever take place. Don't forget the owner of the bitch had a good deal going if she had kept her word and leased the bitch. All the bitches prior owner had to do was feed the bitch and pups(these were her conditions) and then she reaped the reward of the sale price for all the pups but one. Don't forget people the owner of the bitch IS the one responsable for all the fees no matter what either party may THINK, unless separate arrangements are made and recorded. There is a lot more to raising a litter than just feeding the mum and puppies. How about a minimum of 8 weeks work including losing sleep, then the costs of feeding, vaccinations, worming, microchips, vet bills including a caesar if needed. Then being expected to run on the litter for months until the SDO makes a choice. Not a good deal at all if you only get to keep a desexed pet and cannot even sell the others as pets until the SDO makes a final choice. There is no point in breeding a litter of pets, it is a complete waste of time. What if they want her to run them on for 12 months? More vaccinations and lots more food not to mention the work involved. If they can't pick at 8 weeks then they will not be able to make a proper decision until they stop growing and that could be a year later. Is the bitch owner supposed to hold them all that time? This is one of the most ridiculous lease agreements I have ever heard of. I have had several litters by leasing bitches with them staying with the owner. I have never had a problem because I am not greedy and do not expect them to do it all for nothing. The SDO owner in this case wants everything their way but don't want to do any of the work. No, thats not what I said. The owner of the bitch pays not the prior owner. The person named on the papers is the owner. So if the lease had gone through all the prior owner had to do was pay for some food. What sleepless nights, there Whippets, you don't have the problems with them, that some breeders do with other breeds. Unless their is an unforseen problem, and we all have to put up with that it goes with the terrority. If the bitch had ten pups and the breeder took one that leaves 9 to sell. What with the price of pure bred dogs that SHOULD leave the new owner with all pups transfered but one( to the prior owner) a good little nest egg with only the outlay of some food. Remember the owner is the person on the papers, and as the owner THEY are responsable for the care of the bitch unless otherwise stated in writing. The owner is the one named on the papers and if no other prior arrangements have been made in writing then they are responsable for all the fees. Go back and read the earlier posts. The agreement was for the bitch to be leased on paper only. She was to stay with her current owner who was to outlay everything, raise the litter and run them on for several months, then hand over a puppy when the SDO eventually chooses one. Only then can she sell the rest as pets. The lessee SDO was only going to lease the bitch to get a puppy under their prefix, they had no intention of taking possession of the bitch at any time or raising the litter. Only if it was put in writing.!!!!!!!!!!!! The owner of the bitch is legally responsible for all fees no matter where the bitch may reside. Isn't this what we are discussing the owners responsibilities. If the bitch had been leased the new owner would be responsible for the all fees unless they had a written agreement. The only way Mille can legally sell the pups is, if the the owner transfers the pups back to her. I have just done this with one of my bitches. I did not pay a cent the owner paid all it was their dog and yes the bitch only left my property to be mated. What sleepless nights ?, the bitch was in the house close to me and I never lost a nights sleep. I fed the bitch, and don't forget we as breeders are good at sourcing good food at cheap prices. The owner paid all fees, it's their dog. The litter never cost me a cent other than the food I fed the bitch and I like you, like to help people in the dog world. The only reward I have received is to see the pups winning in the ring. Also I never leased the bitch I transferred the bitch, it's easier that way. I also never had a written agreement. I am possibly like you, only do business with those that can be trusted, and yes, as you would have found, their is still plenty of us out here including youself that are willing to help. Also don't forget to some pups are a breeze and to others they can be a long hard grind. To me they are a breeze.

I agree , however, the agreement to lease the bitch has already been made and the mating has already been done. It appears though the SDO has agreed to allow Millie to use her own prefix which means she will need the service certificate but with no money changing hands the service certificate may not be handed to her until the pick pup has been chosen and in their possession. Signing the service certificate at time of mating and giving it to the bitch owner is two different things and still keeps the SDO within the regs. Fact is some stud dog owners do have conditions in place for people who are using dogs at stud - most in my opinion are unreasonable because I believe that the only issue for the sdo should be whether they think the dog is suitable and that it is registered and so is the owner. If the bitch owner doesnt agree they simply dont use the dog at stud.Where this one has blown up is because the conditions were not discussed and agreed upon and signed off on before the mating took place. These conditions - though unreasonable in my opinion, are probably quite the norm for the SDO and as the SDO they are entitled to place thiose conditions on. In all probability the reason these werent discussed pre mating is because they thought the dog would be leased to them and therefore it would be in their control anyway and not something which should concern or be approved by the owner. its only changed because the owner now doesnt want to lease the bitch but at the time of the mating she did. +1 All this discussion goes to show is, get it down on paper before ANY matings ever take place. Don't forget the owner of the bitch had a good deal going if she had kept her word and leased the bitch. All the bitches prior owner had to do was feed the bitch and pups(these were her conditions) and then she reaped the reward of the sale price for all the pups but one. Don't forget people the owner of the bitch IS the one responsable for all the fees no matter what either party may THINK, unless separate arrangements are made and recorded. There is a lot more to raising a litter than just feeding the mum and puppies. How about a minimum of 8 weeks work including losing sleep, then the costs of feeding, vaccinations, worming, microchips, vet bills including a caesar if needed. Then being expected to run on the litter for months until the SDO makes a choice. Not a good deal at all if you only get to keep a desexed pet and cannot even sell the others as pets until the SDO makes a final choice. There is no point in breeding a litter of pets, it is a complete waste of time. What if they want her to run them on for 12 months? More vaccinations and lots more food not to mention the work involved. If they can't pick at 8 weeks then they will not be able to make a proper decision until they stop growing and that could be a year later. Is the bitch owner supposed to hold them all that time? This is one of the most ridiculous lease agreements I have ever heard of. I have had several litters by leasing bitches with them staying with the owner. I have never had a problem because I am not greedy and do not expect them to do it all for nothing. The SDO owner in this case wants everything their way but don't want to do any of the work. No, thats not what I said. The owner of the bitch pays not the prior owner. The person named on the papers is the owner. So if the lease had gone through all the prior owner had to do was pay for some food. What sleepless nights, there Whippets, you don't have the problems with them, that some breeders do with other breeds. Unless their is an unforseen problem, and we all have to put up with that it goes with the terrority. If the bitch had ten pups and the breeder took one that leaves 9 to sell. What with the price of pure bred dogs that SHOULD leave the new owner with all pups transfered but one( to the prior owner) a good little nest egg with only the outlay of some food. Remember the owner is the person on the papers, and as the owner THEY are responsable for the care of the bitch unless otherwise stated in writing. The owner is the one named on the papers and if no other prior arrangements have been made in writing then they are responsable for all the fees.

Below is the rules for aquiring a prefix. This process may take many months and MAY also require the member of Dogs Queensland being a member of Dogs Queensland for a cetain period of time before applying.???? It does not automatically give you a prefix as the ones you submitted may be rejected and the whole process starts again. This means the pups could be at least 6 months old "or more" before you would be able to register them. Also should your membership to Dogs Queensland have lapsed and a time frame "is" required before sitting your Open Book Examination I would also add that to the time before you could register your puppies. If you should wish to go ahead with the whelping my only sugestion is contact the stud dogs owner and ask if there is a mutual party that you would both be agreeabe to leasing the bitch to and get all down in writing. Prefix A registered prefix shall be part of a dogs name and must always be used when registering a dog bred by the owner of such prefix, and no further or other prefix shall be added in respect of such dog. 58. On payment of the fee set out in the scale of charges, a member may apply for the registration of a prefix. Such application shall be made on the form prescribed by the CCC(Q) and must be accompanied by a completed Open Book Examination based on the VCA Guidelines for Breeders Booklet. All prefixes must be owned by individual members or a partnership of members. No prefix will be issued to a business or company name. 59. The use of “apostrophes” at the conclusion of a prefix (e.g. Example’s) will not be allowed. 60. The CCC(Q) reserves the right to object to, and reject, all or any of the names applied for as prefixes. 61. A registered prefix shall not be transferred without the prior consent of the CCC(Q). A jointly owned breeders prefix may be transferred between members of immediate family or from joint to either party owning the prefix upon receipt of such application accompanied by the written permission of the party surrendering their rights to the prefix. 62. No member or other person other than the member in whose name a prefix is registered, shall use such prefix in any way and in particular, no member or other person shall be entitled to use a registered prefix or part of a registered prefix as the whole or any part of his business name unless such prefix is registered in the name of that member. 63. Should there be any inconsistency with the application of Rule 63 then Prefix Rules 57 to 62, to the extent of such inconsistency, will apply but in all other cases Rule 63 will apply. a. The holder of a breeder’s prefix (“the transferor”) may only transfer the prefix to another person (“the transferee”) in accordance with the provisions of this Protocol. b. An application to transfer a breeder’s prefix must be submitted to the CCC(Q) on the approved form, specifying: (i) The prefix to be transferred; (ii) The name/s of the transferor/s; (iii) The name/s of the transferee/s; (iv) The nature of the relationship between the transferor/s and the transferee/s; and (v) The circumstances leading to the proposed transfer. c. The application form must be signed by the transferor (or, if more than one, each of the transferors) and the transferee (or, if more than one, each of the transferees). d. If the transferor (or, if more than one, any of them) is deceased, the application form may be signed by an executor or other legal personal representative, or by the next of kin, of the deceased transferor. e. By signing the application form, the transferor/s and the transferee/s must agree and acknowledge that: (i) The transferee/s are taking over the whole, or the greater part, of the breeding stock previously used by the transferor/s. (ii) The transferee/s intend, in good faith, to continue the breeding programme of the transferor/s; and (iii) The transferee/s will use their best endeavours to ensure that all puppies produced by the transferee/s are of a standard and quality as least as high as that of puppies previously produced by the transferor/s. f. Except with the approval of the Committee, a transfer will only be approved in the following circumstances: (i) A transfer of a breeder’s prefix to a transferee who is a lineal descendant (that is, a son or a daughter, or grandson or granddaughter) of the transferor; or (ii) A transfer of a breeder’s prefix to a transferee who resides permanently as a member of the same household as the transferor. g. In the case of a breeder’s prefix held in joint names by persons who were previously in an intimate relationship (whether married or de facto, and whether of the opposite or the same sex), the prefix may be transferred into the sole name of one of them if: (i) Both parties consent; or (ii) One of them is deceased. h. In the case of a breeder’s prefix held in a person’s sole name, the prefix may be transferred into joint names where the parties are in an intimate relationship (whether married or de facto, and whether of the opposite or the same sex). i. Save in exceptional circumstances, and with the approval of the Committee, a breeder’s prefix may not be transferred more than once in any period of twelve months. j. Despite any other provision of this protocol, the CCC(Q) may refuse to approve a transfer if the Committee is of the opinion that: (i) The proposed transfer is contrary to the spirit of this protocol, or of the Rules of the CCC(Q); or (ii) The proposed transfer is likely to result in purchasers of puppies from the transferee being misled or deceived regarding the quality of such puppies; or (iii) It is otherwise contrary to the best interests of the public, of the CCC(Q), or of members of the CCC(Q) generally, that the transfer be approved. k. The Council, in its absolute discretion, may in special circumstances approve the transfer of a breeder’s prefix in circumstances which do not otherwise comply with the provisions of this Protocol.

I agree , however, the agreement to lease the bitch has already been made and the mating has already been done. It appears though the SDO has agreed to allow Millie to use her own prefix which means she will need the service certificate but with no money changing hands the service certificate may not be handed to her until the pick pup has been chosen and in their possession. Signing the service certificate at time of mating and giving it to the bitch owner is two different things and still keeps the SDO within the regs. Fact is some stud dog owners do have conditions in place for people who are using dogs at stud - most in my opinion are unreasonable because I believe that the only issue for the sdo should be whether they think the dog is suitable and that it is registered and so is the owner. If the bitch owner doesnt agree they simply dont use the dog at stud.Where this one has blown up is because the conditions were not discussed and agreed upon and signed off on before the mating took place. These conditions - though unreasonable in my opinion, are probably quite the norm for the SDO and as the SDO they are entitled to place thiose conditions on. In all probability the reason these werent discussed pre mating is because they thought the dog would be leased to them and therefore it would be in their control anyway and not something which should concern or be approved by the owner. its only changed because the owner now doesnt want to lease the bitch but at the time of the mating she did. +1 All this discussion goes to show is, get it down on paper before ANY matings ever take place. Don't forget the owner of the bitch had a good deal going if she had kept her word and leased the bitch. All the bitches prior owner had to do was feed the bitch and pups(these were her conditions) and then she reaped the reward of the sale price for all the pups but one. Don't forget people the owner of the bitch IS the one responsable for all the fees no matter what either party may THINK, unless separate arrangements are made and recorded.

If the dog owner presumed the whole litter would be his, why ask me for PICK OF LITTER? Because thats all they wanted ONE puppy it appears as though they would have been happy to register all the other pups to you as long as you complyed with their wishes.

Dear OP, You agreed to lease the bitch to the owner of the stud dog. If you had kept your original agreement it would have been their litter not yours and if they did not want the puppies sold without being de sexed it is their choice not yours. It does not matter if the bitch says with you, if the bitch was leased it is what the owner of the bitch wants. The bitch becomes their property and what they say goes. My best advice to you would be get the bitch aborted as soon as possible if she proves to be in whelp. Under the circumstances now, if you want the service certificate signed you may find yourself with a very large 4 figure stud fee. Also just to set the record straight I have NO idea who the parties are that are being refered to in this discussion and have no wish to.