ellz

How old was she when she was imported? Long airline journeys and stress can sometimes play a major part on bitch cycles. I had an American Cocker bitch who was in full standing heat when she left home and by the time we arrived at the stud dog's home, she was out of season. And that was only around 6 hours including flight and car travel in both directions. I ended up leaving her there and she came back into season about 3 months later.

She's playing you! She knows that if you are talking on that thing in your hand and she barks, she will get INSTANT attention. You've seen yourself what the response is if you shut her in another room so that is your answer IMO.

I had a Stafford bitch that was racist, sexist AND bigotted!! She only ever really hated ONE breed/gender/coloured dog with a passion and that was a red male Boxer. It could be any other colour or gender, even red bitches were ok. But show her a red Boxer dog and she turned into a snapping, snarling lunatic. I never knew why and could never get her out of it.

1. There is no such thing as an ENGLISH Staffordshire Bull Terrier 2. There is no sucht thing as a Staffordshire Terrier. The breeds are Staffordshire BULL Terrier and AMERICAN Staffordshire Terrier 2. It does not make you tough if you own one. Balls are grown and attached not purchased. 3. There is no such thing as a pure black Stafford 4. Staffords make very poor "guard dogs". They do however make very good "watch dogs" because they will happily watch a burglar walk away with your TV and DVD and more than likely hop in the car with them.

Tasmania is nice to visit but we don't have great dog show facilities. Our Hobart base is at the showgrounds which we are leasing from the RAS. We have good ring facilities outdoors with one permanent ring and room for two other outside rings. We have benching facilities that are functional but very spartan. There are canteen facilities but due to health regulations, these are only able to be used for basic canteen provisions so most clubs now engage separate food caravans to provide catering. We also have an indoor area that is completely enclosed and large enough for 3 rings for inclement weather. That's pretty much it. Other shows are held down south at council grounds at Pontville (shared by horse people). There are nice permanent rings set up with parking on three sides and room for gazebos and tents. There was a canteen/office area which was burned to the ground. Work is commencing soon on a replacement. There is a large shed nearby that is occasionally used during inclement weather but it isn't big enough for an entire show. Huon Showgrounds is another nice venue.....or it is now but not so sure what it will be like when the beautiful shady trees are removed. There are three lovely, landscaped permanent rings as well as a small canteen and secretary's office there but no provision for inclement weather. I've not shown at Campbelltown yet, but it is just a showgrounds at this point in time, no actual dog show facilities as such. Churchill Park in Launceston is part of a sporting complex. Haven't been to Devonport for a long time, there was never much there by way of dog show facilities. Ulverstone is another I haven't been to. flatchat can probably fill more in here, Ulverstone is I believe her club! There used to be a shed for benching in as well as the sheep pens that were well utilised as kind of separate "apartments" and quite useful for people with small children. Burnie has a couple of permanent rings and a large shed for benching. I do remember one show some years ago when the weather was particularly bad and the benches were pushed aside and one small ring was operating inside the shed. That was fun.....NOT!!!! Oh and Longford Showground has a shed and room for a few rings. So pretty much not a lot of dog facilities for show purposes. But if you want to talk about scenery.....well.....that's an entirely different thing altogether and we would rival just about any other place in Australia for beauty!

The thing about the breed standard is that it was written a VERY long time ago and has had minimal changes as the breed and knowledge has evolved. For example, the black/tan being highly undesirable came about back when it was feared that if it were allowed, it would take over and bring with it the type which came from the Manchester Terrier (one of the terriers used to introduce the "terrier" part of the original "bull and terrier" that was the breed). Now of course, it is understood that black/tan is not a colour, it is a pattern and it is a recessive so both parents must carry the gene to express it to their offspring. Therefore it could only have "taken over" if it was bred with a lot. The blue was introduced into the breed many, many years ago as well and it wasn't then understood that being a dilute, it would never carry the black pigmentation. The best a blue can ever have is dark slate eye rims, noses, lip and mouth pigmentation and nails. But the standard has never been adjusted accordingly. Why? Well lots of assumptions....either the powers-that-be don't want to accept lighter pigmentation or they don't want to accept the blue colouration. My own personal feeling is that any colouration that runs the risk of bring health issues with it, has no place. Dilute gene alopecia is common in blues, livers and other dilute colours in most breeds (including Staffords) so I think that to encourage it in the breed could see it spilling over into the other colours as well if the pedigrees are mixed too much. And from a breeder/exhibitor point of view....to be honest....I personally would have trouble working with somebody who was seriously dabbling in the colour for now. If the standard were changed and slate noses were to become acceptable, I'd still have reservations but would be more open to consideration of the colour IF the quality were apparent in other areas of the dog. And I have absolutely ZILCH respect for people who will deliberately breed blue to blue and sell ALL of the resulting offspring for more than pet price on MR.

It goes both ways I think. There are proven ailments and conditions that only attack dogs which carry certain dilute colour genes. Common sense would say that these should be removed first.

Any particular reason for the colour being undesirable that you know of? one theory I've been told, is that the black and tan and black, will dominate most other colours and eventually we will only have black/ black and tan bulldogs. Pretty similar to why black/tan Staffords are highly undesirable. Much of the fear factor came about prior to the genetics knowledge of today where it was feared that tan points would take over. Now of course, we know that black and tan is a pattern, NOT a colour and that it is a recessive and only two dogs that carry the recessive can express it. Black isn't an issue in Staffords, the problem we have with black is that genetically Staffords cannot "do" what others see as pure black. Even the blackest black is still a black/brindle.

Hate to tell you this but you will be hard pressed to find a blue that conforms to the standard for one major reason. The standard clearly states NOSE BLACK and genetically this is impossible for a dilute. And blue is a dilute. Nobody can force anybody to charge a specific amount for their puppies, no matter what colour or quality they are. Just as nobody can force a person to register puppies of any breed, colour, shape or kind on Limited Registration UNLESS they are of a colour that is specifically disqualified in a breed. And even then, because Big Brother doesn't hang over your shoulder when identifying and registering a litter, it is still largely an issue of ethics and morals. As a word of advice, very few responsible, reputable Stafford breeders will deliberately breed for blue colouration. If one happens to appear in a litter, most reputable breeders will put it on LR and most won't charge an inflated price for it. It isn't hard to recognise the breeders who intend to try and "trade on" the colour. They are usually the ones whose prefix mention Blu, Blue, Bloo or a million other derivatives of the word blue. Personally, I would suggest avoiding these like the plague. Not only are they quite obviously "specialising" in the colour but realistically, blues are not of the same quality as other colours USUALLY so they are highly unlikely to be able to produce quality puppies themselves, no matter what colour those offspring may be.

But the assumption is then that the RSPCA will actually follow their own brief. And I think many of us here can tell stories of how well the RSPCA can move the goal posts when it suits them. And then, there is no legal recourse for their target because the RSPCA are apparently LITERALLY "beyond the law". That is what is the saddest thing about the RSPCA. An organisation which is in a position of power, with the capacity to do good things...but more often than not....doesn't.

Actually, if she was born March 8th, she is almost EIGHT months old...not 9 months.

True...but the way I read the OP's post is that the bitch isn't even 6 months old yet if she is going to be 7 months old in 6 weeks time! :D

Don't let breed misconceptions fool you LizT. My American Cocker puppy Bad Alice didn't get her name because she was sugar and spice and all things nice, I can assure you!!! :D

I'd love to make a profit out of breeding. But these days, I'm hard pressed to satisfy RSPCA requirements for suitable housing for my dogs. They actually don't approve of breeding dogs sleeping on beds or couches, they prefer kennel runs of specific size....odd as it may seem. I'm sure my dogs would rather sleep on my bed or on the couch rather than on a trampoline bed in a pen somewhere....not that they have been consulted mind you. So, whilst I only have one pen and one converted bay in a machinery shed, I'm limited in the numbers that I can keep. So therefore, I'm limited in what I breed and sell and bang goes my chance of a profit! I've had my say, so unless somebody says something that stirs me from my stupour, I'll pack up my fife and soapbox and leave the floor to somebody else.

Assumption much asal!!!!! Sorry, but aside from the fact that I find it incredibly difficult to read your posts due to lack of punctuation and capital letters.....a lot of what you say is absolute crap based upon your own misconceptions and pre-conceived ideas of dog breeders. sweetie, just talk to your own vet. thats not assumptions, the rate of bitches who have never had a litter naturally is amazing and some are generations of such mums. one breeders bitches wont even feed their pups past day 10 so they are hand fed from then, thats not assumptions. has been breeding for decades that breed. imagine a newbie starting out with a bitch pup from such lines. they will be wreaks trying to understand why the pups are hungry. another friend out coonabarabran bred their bitch and discovered she couldnt deliver so had to drive 200 km to nearest vet. to learn 4 generations of ceasers behind her. does not look like assumptions to me anyway DARLING, I've been breeding purebred dogs for 24 years and I know for a FACT that I don't tolerate consistently problematic lines and I do not take over from mother nature without a VERY good reason. I would also suggest that very few breeders enjoy having to spend a lot of money on sections that could be avoided. I would also hazard a guess that asking some vets may not be a good idea because some of them LOVE recommending unneccessary sections because it is a lovely source of ready revenue. So, until you are a dog breeder and KNOW for a fact what goes on behind closed doors, you should probably just keep your assumptions to yourself because each and every time you put your fingers to your keyboard, you show yourself to be a nasty, spiteful person with a lot of opinion and very little real knowledge about certain issues. We all KNOW you've had your issues with the RSPCA but to be honest, you are sounding more and more like that organisation and the gardener every day and that is of great concern IMO. Ellz - Asal is a breeder and in some breeds its true that problems have been allowed to occur and not selected against. Some breeds have definitely suffered because things like whelping issues havent been seen to be something that should be taken into account. But that is NOT the case with ALL breeds and ALL breeders as asal is saying Steve. I'll bet all of us can name at least one breed or breeder who doesn't give a toss, but that is not ALL breeders...you only need to read through many of the caesarian threads in the breeders forum..... And I stand by what I have said about vets as well. Many rub their hands together with glee at the possibility of performing a section, particularly an after hours one. I'm sorry if it offends people, but asal seems to me to be a very bitter person with an axe to grind against dog breeders and if she is one herself, then that is even more scary.

Exactly! And because there is no legal comeback against their allegations and because they are not responsible to anybody, normal check and balances to ensure fairness and staying within legal guidelines simply doesn't apply. Basically, if the RSPCA say you've done something, unless you have a lot of money for defence and a damned good argument, you're screwed.

Surely that alone rings alarm bells....and rather smacks of a puppy mill? And the problem with this is???? Aside from the fact that most here find it MORALLY reprehensible, it does not make it illegal. Do you honestly think that if they were doing anything wrong, or are as visible as implied that the RSPCA would NOT be aware of their existence already? ASSUMPTION again. Wasting RSPCA time on a suspicion which is not only a waste of valuable resources but could potentially cause unneccessary distress to somebody who just MIGHT be doing absolutely nothing wrong. Simply having a sign outside your property or a property that isn't maintained in the manner in which you feel is satisfactory does NOT give grounds for a complaint unless you are sure there is something to complain about. If you're THAT keen to find something to dob them in for, then why not enquire about a puppy. That at least gives you legitimate grounds to be on their premises and seeing exactly what it is that you are speculating about. Have any of you who say it is fine to call the RSPCA on a whim or suspicion actually have ANY idea what it feels like to have the RSPCA land on your doorstep? Particularly after a complaint from somebody who has no idea what is happening behind closed gates? Well, I can tell you now....I have and it isn't nice. Even if you have done nothing wrong (which I hadn't and have in writing), the RSPCA arrive ready to find ANYTHING that they can ping you on and I mean ANYTHING!! Aside from the stress of having them there and wondering if everything you say and do will be used against you, they invariably arrive at times which are highly inconvenient. It's not that there is anything to hide, but from past experience, even the most legitimate person has to be on their toes and accompany the inspector around each and every animal and each and every item that is animal-related. It is a COMPLETE pain in the behind and not something that I would wish upon anybody! We weren't......were you?

Surely that alone rings alarm bells....and rather smacks of a puppy mill? Sure, puppy mills are legal, but it certainly doesn't hurt for the RSPCA to be aware of their existence and to keep periodic checks on the welfare of the animals kept there. Without marching into the premises, Heavy Paws, or anyone who cares about the welfare of dogs and cats, would have no idea if animals are sufferering there or not, particularly if the premises looks a bit 'feral'...so getting the RSPCA to check is a very sensible option. If the owner has nothing to hide and the animals are kept in good conditions, have adequate food, water, shelter, vet care and exercise...then exactly what harm is done by them being checked out? Honestly....I wonder if some of you are just posting to start yet another argument? You've said it well. There is no real harm in alerting the RSPCA as to the possibility that things may not be up to par. I would have personally preferred to sight the place first but even without doing so does not merit being crucified as is happening around here! Gosh, sounds to me like there are a fair few people breeding large scale and keeping their dogs penned and resenting any approaches from the RSPCA. I rest my case.

You are the one that is not getting it; how many times already have I stipulated that I would have approached these breeders BEFORE making any complaints? sheesh.... Maybe once, maximum twice, in amongst all your protestations about over breeding and too many dogs. It took you what....10 pages or so before you "got" what people were up in arms about.....and to be honest, I still don't think you DO "have it".

Assumption much asal!!!!! Sorry, but aside from the fact that I find it incredibly difficult to read your posts due to lack of punctuation and capital letters.....a lot of what you say is absolute crap based upon your own misconceptions and pre-conceived ideas of dog breeders. sweetie, just talk to your own vet. thats not assumptions, the rate of bitches who have never had a litter naturally is amazing and some are generations of such mums. one breeders bitches wont even feed their pups past day 10 so they are hand fed from then, thats not assumptions. has been breeding for decades that breed. imagine a newbie starting out with a bitch pup from such lines. they will be wreaks trying to understand why the pups are hungry. another friend out coonabarabran bred their bitch and discovered she couldnt deliver so had to drive 200 km to nearest vet. to learn 4 generations of ceasers behind her. does not look like assumptions to me anyway DARLING, I've been breeding purebred dogs for 24 years and I know for a FACT that I don't tolerate consistently problematic lines and I do not take over from mother nature without a VERY good reason. I would also suggest that very few breeders enjoy having to spend a lot of money on sections that could be avoided. I would also hazard a guess that asking some vets may not be a good idea because some of them LOVE recommending unneccessary sections because it is a lovely source of ready revenue. So, until you are a dog breeder and KNOW for a fact what goes on behind closed doors, you should probably just keep your assumptions to yourself because each and every time you put your fingers to your keyboard, you show yourself to be a nasty, spiteful person with a lot of opinion and very little real knowledge about certain issues. We all KNOW you've had your issues with the RSPCA but to be honest, you are sounding more and more like that organisation and the gardener every day and that is of great concern IMO.

To be honest, the way you're going, I'm surprised you've made it thus far!

It's fact unfortunately. They don't like dog shows and they don't like breeders.

Assumption much asal!!!!! Sorry, but aside from the fact that I find it incredibly difficult to read your posts due to lack of punctuation and capital letters.....a lot of what you say is absolute crap based upon your own misconceptions and pre-conceived ideas of dog breeders.

Personally I think where the lines become crossed is over the usage of the word "quality". There is one school of thought which says that you can only define "quality" as being a superior representative of the breed, as in having it evaluated against other members of the breed in the show ring. The other school of thought is that the word "quality" could apply to any healthy, happy, well-reared puppy that is free of genetic defects and disorders and bred and cared for to the best of the breeders' ability. The issue that I have with the former, is that dogs in the show ring are NOT compared to each other, they are compared to the written standard for each breed so therefore it isn't necessarily a requirement that a dog set foot in the show ring PROVIDED the breeder is able to interpret and apply the current standard for the day HONESTLY to their own dogs. And the latter should be a given no matter where or how a puppy is born and bred. I show because I enjoy it. And also because it gives ME an opportunity to see how my own interpretation of the breed standard shapes up to other people's. It also gives me some "bragging rights" because Joe Q quite often DOES give a damn about how many ribbons the family of their puppy has won and being in the show ring and "visible" also means that there is some transparency in what you do and how you treat your dogs and your ethics (or lack thereof) overall.

And having a very popular breed has its downside too. EVERYBODY knows what a Staffordshire Bull Terrier is (or seems to think they do anyway but that's a whole 'nuther story! ) and most people seem to think that they should have one. But the reality is that reputable and responsible breeders screen very carefully and despite there being lots of people wanting a puppy, it can actually be very, very difficult to find GOOD homes for Staffords. Too many dickheads and not enough brains!