oakway

Why blame the breeder ?. I bet the pup did not DO it at the breeders. It's up to your friend to control and discipline their dog. Who is the boss the dog or the owner. Always remember they were bred for ratting are more inclined to be Terrier like than a Toy breed. And before anyone goes pointing fingers I know the breed very well.

Wouldn't a boarding kennel be safer for the dog while you are away camping. Not all camping areas allow dogs nor do other campers always want dogs around them. Some camping areas depending where you go could be severely tick prone. I have enough problems camping at dog shows with fleas and ticks and that may only be an over night show. If I wanted to go camping and enjoy myself I would place the dog in a good boarding kennel.

None of them even remotely look like a pure bred Lab to me.

+1

Well I am a breeder and I don't feed puppies on puppy food after about 8 to 10 weeks of age. Far to much protein in puppy food for some breeds. It's better to grow them slowly on adult food, along with a natural as possible diet of raw meaty bones.

I house sit for people, but I am in Qld. I am also a clean freak.

The only way you may be able to secure the dog is in concrete base pen with a secure roof. Nice to hear that you got your dog back after all this time.

As long as your pup has had vaccine for kennel cough you should have no problems. Although, always remember there are many form of kennel cough and dog is usually only protected from the deadly ones.

I start at this age with a small manicure grinder. You used to get them in the $2 stores and they run on batteries

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. Yes but there is a difference between not supporting them because we dont agree with their assumed motivation or where they sell their puppies or if their philosophies are different to ours and fighting a war about it. No one is saying if they are breeding dogs in rotten conditions that we should not say so and work against this. Stand back from this a minute and look at it objectively. On this forum there is a consensus that breeding ANKC registered purebreds dogs is the preferred method of producing a puppy and there is a bunch of assumptions which go along with that. The reality is that the only thing that a registered purebred breeder HAS to do and CAN do which is any different to any other person who allows two dogs to mate is that they can register the birth details on one particular registry unless they breed a select few breeds which have to be scored or screened for specific things before the puppies can be registered. However, even if I have to score or screen thats no guarantee I only use dogs with low scores or that I will breed unaffected puppies. Except in Victoria if I know the status of my dog's DNA I can still breed carriers or affected dogs to anything I want. Any argument we want to put forward and tell people about why buying a registered purebred puppy is better can be squashed except that they are more predictible and there is a greater chance of knowing the ancestry of the parents. None of what Im about to say relates to any breeder who doesnt treat their animals as they should be treated. Lets look at the things that most people on this forum have come to expect from purebred breeders. Where tests are available for a known recessive issue in the breed breeders can test for that - but even though its not politically correct here to say so - if I were breeding first cross dogs I could test for the same things if the issues are known in the 2 breeds Im breeding or not need to test if the issue is only known in one of the breeds. Is it more likely that a purebred breeder will test for these known recessive disorders which have tests available ? Probably but I promise you there are in my opinion, only a minority of breeders who do test even when they can. Even if they do test for the things which they are able to test for there is no guarantee that the dog wont get something which hasnt been able to be tested for or for things which show up even if the parents are tested and selected to try to avoid it such as HD. Some breeders know their parent dogs have produced puppies with problems but still continue to use them to breed with regardless of whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred dogs. Then there is much talk about how registered purebred breeders are better than any other if they test their dogs against the standard and other dogs of their breed by showing their dogs.This has become more of an issue than it was 30 years ago because registered purebred breeders who show their dogs now worry about who will take their dogs and breed them and they have become restrictive on who can take a pup with papers suitable for breeding - unless the buyer is going to be led by them, sign all manner of restrictive contracts and do what the breeders tell them to do its become almost impossible to buy a good puppy which the breeder would feel is good for breeding.So now anyone who wants to buy a papered dog which they may want tohave a litter with has to go to someone who doesnt really understand the importance of the whole selection for breeding stuff. If I wanted to buy a purebred puppy 30 years ago and I told the breeder I might want to breed a litter or two later on the breeder sold me a pup which wouldn't do the breed any harm if I used it for breeding and offered to give a hand finding a stud dog if I did decide to do that when the time came. It didnt matter that much if they didnt show the dog because it had good stuff behind it and it was one which had as much chance of winning as any the breeder kept to show. You may not get litter pick but you got a good representative of the breed which wasnt likely to have too much risk for genetic diseases. I might even buy my own male but I could tell the breeder what I had and that I might want to breed so they would sell me a male which I could put with my bitch and not do the breed any harm. Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed. Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals. Now they are low life puppy farmers -after all isnt it now a medal of honour to only breed a litter every couple of years and only for yourself? 30 years ago these people were seen as those who were less serious about the hobby and not regarded as being more knowledgeable or more elevated in status than someone who really put their lives and resources into the betterment of the breed by owning and breeding more not less dogs. Yet here, as soon as the discussion started, the assumption is that anyone who agreed with the basis of the article were wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder and support people who were treating animals poorly. Thats not what I got out of it at all. I saw it saying stop bagging each other out and rather than follow on like sheep re assess what you have come to believe are characteristics of a person who breeds dogs well just because they happen to be in one group or another which has been promoted as being something it probably isnt. Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better. :D

Thanks for the up date. Hope all goes well.

I don't think they work. To my mind if they have worked, as we are led to believe for centuries, why do we need the modern medicines of today to cure us. Wouldn't we all be taking the alternative.

I am wondering if all is OK.

You could always try and retrain with Show Stacker's they can be a great training aid.

You beat me to it. I beat yas all !!! fifi So ya did fifi, that will teach me not skim over replys but read them through thoroughly. :p

You beat me to it.

You can always do what I do......take the pup to bed.

Can't agree - different can be bad though it isn't necessarily so. I will NEVER stop standing up for those dogs who are mistreated in the name of breeding. And that includes the dogs that are born with health issues due to ignorant dog pimps. I understand the point that there are some differences that are based on subjective feelings only (like only breeding with show champions) and these should not be used to call other breeders unethical or whatever. But you can't just blanket say, all breeders are doing ok and should be supported. Ok I think we are mixing up people who abuse animals and breeders calling another breeder who does something different as 'bad' Ok you have a breeder who does not show. You have a breeder who does not test for performance. Who is the most ethical? Yoou have breeder who believe the physical form will follow function, you have a breeder who believe form must lead function? Who is unethcial? You have a breeder who wants to breed cross breed, you have a breeder who want to breed purebreds, Who is more ethical? None of these actitives in themselves make the person unethical, they are simply different ways at looking at dog breeding. However there are a lot of people out there who will call any of these folks unethcial because they have an opposing point of view. Does that make sence? It makes sense to me.

Jaxx'sBuddy that is not correct what you have written ...no where did any person oppose an accredited breeder scheme in Queensland. We opposed the form it was in. We all wanted one better to keep out puppy farmers.

I have never given this guarantee on my children. My beed has no health test.?????????? Nothing mandatory although you could make a case for hips and heart as a precaution. I know Whippet breeders that test hearts. No DNA testing for Whippets. No DNA testing for Italian Grehounds. Lets face it you can test for what ever you want. I know and hear what you are saying. :D

I have never given this guarantee on my children. My beed has no health test.??????????

I took the original post to exclude dogs in hell holes. Plenty of people around the world breed dogs for a living and the dogs not live in hell holes. The British have been doing it for centuries. If they hadn't, we may not have the breeds we have today. Do you really believe that they were wrong ?. Different maybe but not wrong.

What has been written is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. :D :D

+1 I have never had a Grey come back as good as it was before it dropped a back muscle. Most vets would never have seen a dropped back muscle if they did not treat racing Greys.

Any reason an AI was not done by the studs owner last time ?