ellz

I honestly wish that I could say that I were that fortunate. The only dog that has bitten one of my children and left a mark was a Cocker. Sadly, whilst my boys can be pains, they are generally quite dog savvy and on this occasion they did nothing to provoke the bite. What made me even crosser than the bite itself was that the owner didn't give a toss!

:D Thanks CW EW. You're actually not the first person who has said that. He's such an amazing character. He sort of becomes "breedless" and just becomes plain old "funny, lovable, occasionally cute dog". ;)

And... watching you.... Sleeping beauty.... A little bit of light reading before bed....

Oh doG, where do I start? Heeeere stick...niiiice stick....please come to Woger! Got it! Loch Ness Stafford Love is having a dog who laughs at all of your jokes....no matter how bad they are! MY ball!! Beware of flying pigs.... Considering....

It won't cause genetic deformities in dogs unless there are already genetic issues in the pedigree. A very close in-breeding cannot introduce anything "new" to the pedigree. It will only reveal what is already there, but may have been hidden. This could be deformities and/or weaknesses or it could be assets. It isn't however a "desirable" breeding and should be left in the hands of those who know what they are doing and preferably know the strengths and weaknesses of the bloodlines that they are dealing with. A breeder doing such a mating, would probably have an idea of what they are aiming for, or are going to achieve and it may be the quickest way to prove (or disprove) their theory.

Whether or not your friend could breed would depend upon whether an flags had been put on the bitches registration with the controlling body. If a copy of the agreement has been lodged with the controlling body, then she probably wouldn't be able to register a litter without a court order. If it were me, for my own conscience' sake, I'd rather try and work things out amicably first, then perhaps do things legally if the relationship had soured to that extent. Having said that, I leased a dog to somebody on the mainland and to save myself the angst in the long run, despite the fact that I would have won the dog legally if I had had the resources (and heart) to go through the courts, I agreed to a sum that was a LOT less than the dog was worth and just signed him over. I regret doing it and sadly, may people will never know the truth about what happened, but at the end of the day it was simpler just to sign off and walk away.

A dog being on LR is only a deterrent to honest would-be breeders. They cannot register the progeny but it won't stop them from breeding from the dog if they wanted to. A spey/neuter agreement will again only deter the honest people. If somebody wanted to get really bolshy, they could refuse to honour the agreement and the breeder wouldn't have a leg to stand on because legally, a contract has to be fair to all parties. And basically, once a person has sold something, they have no further right to it, agreement or no agreement. For example, if I purchase a fridge from Harvey Norman, they can't force me to not put bacon or ham in it once I get it home. By law, the shop offered the item for sale for a certain price. I agreed to pay that price and if they agree to me paying it, then we have an agreement and I can take it home with me. They can't then stop me from putting whatever I like in it, even if I have signed a piece of paper to say that they'd rather I didn't. After all, I have the fridge and how are they to know what I do with it?

Would love to oblige, but I take WAY too many photos of my boy and have a terrible time deciding which are my favourites!

Sadly, I did this. A really stunning dog from my first litter went to a great obedience home on LR. The agreement being that when he was older, if the owners were interested in showing, the dog could be evaluated by a trusted person who lived where they did and if all checked out, then he could be elevated to Main Register. This was done. Some time later, I sold the couple a bitch from the repeat breeding on Main Registration. To my absolute horror and disgust, I discovered some time later that they had let full brother and sister produce a litter.....ALL of which were sold on Main Register. Never, EVER again!!! My puppies that are sold on Limited Register now STAY on Limited Register. If they're too good to be on Limited Register and in a pet home, then they stay with me. It's as simple as that!

Yep, even my laid back Woger can be incredibly full on. But naturally couldn't recommend a better breed with children/families! ;) I always meet people who look at Banjo and say that breed is high energy/needs a lot of exercise but I'm like no not really but that could be just him . I think if you ask me in a years time it might be a different story with my new pup, he's already more full on than I remember Banjo being as a pup :p . My first Stafford, Reginald, spoiled me. He was as laid back (read.....just plain LAZY) as it was possible for any dog of any breed to be! He used to get his exercise from following the sun from place to place in the backyard. Then more recently came Koda. She is EXTREMELY high maintenance and to be honest...a pain in the behind. But her son Roger, although much more laid back in personality, still needs lots of physical exercise to tire him out, or he's also a pain in the behind. Lovable, cute, an absolute darling but still a pain in the bum unless he's asleep!

Yep, even my laid back Woger can be incredibly full on. But naturally couldn't recommend a better breed with children/families!

Wouldn't actually agree with this. In my experience, Cockers have always been on the higher end of the energy scale and not always reliable with children. Ellz - i was just speaking about my experience with my two. I compare them to our friends dogs eg. boxer & border collies, and then my OH's mums maltese, and i would definately place our cockers in the middle of the two spectrums. Fair enough. My experience probably spans a little longer than yours and with a wider variety of dogs..... My current American Cockers are laid back compared to the English Cockers I have known and loved and they still give my Kelpie a run for her money!

I do....Fang Greyhound has quite a reach if he thinks he wants something! :p

I've had both American Cockers and English Cockers and NEITHER would fit the sedate bill IMO. They're too busy and curious to be low or medium energy in my experience. On the other hand, my GAP greyhound can be so laid back, you'd swear he was slipping into a coma! They're not ALL tall and "big" dogs. They fit into a surprisingly small area when they wish to. And most seem to be happy with a few good exercise "spurts" per week. And best of all, they'll do it on their own...you don't have to hold their paws! :p

:p I was thinking groin! pffft....I'm not that kinda girl!

As high as my bum usually!

I would say a greyhound could be suitable for some homes. They're not always a large breed of dog. Aren't high energy (most are sprinters not stayers and are content with short, sharp bursts of exercise) and are generally terrific with kids.

Wouldn't actually agree with this. In my experience, Cockers have always been on the higher end of the energy scale and not always reliable with children.

I've never bred for pets. I do understand the rationale of some, whereby at least if "good" breeders breed for pets then it is taking away the business of the BYBers and millers....but I don't think I could ever see myself doing it. I'd far rather do what I do now.....breed for myself and then what I don't keep are available for companion homes. But definitely not vice versa. Too much hassle, too many risks to gamble my girls for pet homes IMO.

pffffft you should know better! That would take away from the high drama of the question! :p

Many people aren't aware that a bitches body tells her, each and every season that she IS pregnant, whether mated or not. This is one of the reasons it is safer for the bitch to desex her early in her life. Otherwise, her uterus takes a battering and it gets harder and harder on her with each season. Bitches who have phantoms or false pregnancies have hormonal imbalances that aren't switched off if she doesn't conceive. Not every bitch that has a phantom will do it again. And just because a bitch has a phantom doesn't automatically mean that she is fertile either.

Are you aware that you do not have to BE a member of the AKC or other registries in the USA? There is no requirement whatsoever to be a member anywhere to breed or exhibit animals there. The rivalries between the registries is not, in all cases, people refusing to get along. There are more serious issues such as the UKC allowing dogs that are on Limited Registration with the AKC to be re-registered and exhibited and bred from, even if they have disqualifying features. They require no proof, no anything from the breeder and will register almost ANY dog that has a uterus or testicles. They have demonstrated no morals when it comes to upholding the AKC and its registry and breeders, yet the AKC is expected to just turn the other cheek???? I have trouble demonstrating faith in such organisations and I would certainly require a little more moral fibre before I could completely trust the UKC and many other of the smaller, boutique registries that are popping up. I just can't see the relevance between the ANKC and PETA or the RSPCA. The whole point is that it is the ANKC and the state controlling bodies and associated breeders/exhibitors vs PETA and the RSPCA. And yes, the writing is on the wall and there really is very little that we (collectively) can do about it in the long run.

It's the infighting, ellz. No one can seem to get their act together You are very right, just like Ells statement about coat colours, stupid stuff in many instances to fight about but that is dog breeders for you. But be clear Ellz that ANKC also bans certain colours that have a very long and documented history in the breed and they refuse to change the standard to the country of origin to allow these colours. So it is on both sides, no group is free of silly ideas. Sorry but not changing to the country of origin has little to do with the ANKC. That is the responsiblity of the parent clubs of a particular breed within Australia. They have the responsibility of proposing the change to country of origin and if it is not done, then they only have themselves to blame.

Precisely why I've never allowed my children to join the RSPCA whenever there is a membership drive through schools. I do NOT uphold RSPCA values and therefore my children don't because they are minors.

Yes I hear you. So true. I'm a bit "on the fence" on shortstep's comments about other registries. It is the "other" registries which enable Pitbull owners/breeders to register their dogs "legimately" to circumnavigate BSL laws. They also allow registrations in some breeds in colours which are not historically acceptable in some long-established breeds. How is this constructive? How can it be seen to be legitimate?