sandgrubber

To be pollyanna-ish . . . the good side of this is that it's obvious that the problem here is the owner, not the dogs. Hope he gets 10 years in the slammer.

Any dog with a few small children around is going to need watching. For the dog's sake as well as the kids. I was told about a family Lab who was taken to the vet to be PTS because it bit one of the kids. After the vet had killed the dog, they noticed that it had several staples punched through its ear. I've had a couple problems with Lab pups placed with families with young children. The biggest problems arise when the puppy is encouraged to think of kids as playmates and play isn't supervised. Games get going, like puppy chases kids, kids run and scream. Puppy thinks it's a game. Puppy has sharp teeth. This can go down hill rapidly. Labs have very high pain thresholds and generally, strong bite inhibition. Some have very little drive and very strong nurturing personalities. If you talk around, you'll find loads of people who had a Lab for a best friend as a kid . . . most of them get Labs as adults. A low drive mature Lab will be about as easy as it gets, for kids dogs. But puppies go through stages, and rules are required . . .no matter what breed of dog you have..

Dogs are like children. If you've got lots of money, you tend to spend a lot of money on them. If you're poor, or have several, you tend to seek economies.

No surprise, this is getting a lot of press in the old US of A. One of the things about having 50 states is there's one of everything . . . turns out that Ohio was absurdly liberal in laws allowing exotic pets. Don't think that's going to last long.

Bump!!!! BUMP. BUMP!!! BUMP!!!!BUMP!!!!BUMP!!!! I can't afford to fly from California to attend . . . but those of you with weaker excuses . . . come on . . . get out there. This is not an event that should fizzle. It's so, so, so bloody wrong that the law is having dogs executed for looking something like a pit bull.

The problem is, the market is flooded with BYB Staffies and crosses and some of these are crap dogs that takes extremely responsible management and training to keep dogs like this under control keep everyone safe. I would like to see BYB's wiped out and address the problem at the roots. Breed isn't the problem, it's the fools who breed dogs with aggressive temperaments mostly because as breeders they haven't got a clue what they are doing or breeding. Dog breeding shouldn't be a God given right to just anyone, dog breeding is a serious business that takes knowledge and dedication to get right, the quicker we leave dog breeding to people who know how to breed a good stable dog, the better off we will all be IMHO???. I'd say 2/3rds owner's fault, 1/3 breeder . . . but both contribute. Call if 50:50 if you want to fault the 'breeder' (or irresponsible person who permitted their girl to get preggers) for not placing pups in responsible homes. I remember a couple years ago the MDBA folks were pushing to get the 'breeder' recorded on microchips as well as the owner. The more I think about this (sometimes I think kinda slow) the more I think it's a good idea. If attack data starts to show that some idiot BY'breeder' (if you care to dignify them with the title) has graced the world with three or four aggressive out of control cr#p dogs, maybe the law can find a way to go after the breeder. They seem to be managing to blame pubs for serving drunks. . . I'd say it's the same general idea.

I'm all in favor of rescues, but they aren't all smooth. I had a family buy a Lab pup from me. They did a wonderful time with him, and had a responsive, sensitive, wonderful young dog. One day he broke into the garage and broke into some snail pellets that no one even knew were there. They found him dead. They hoped I might have an adult dog to place with them, but I didn't. I encouraged rescue, and found a rescue Lab in the Eastern States (none could be found in WA) for them. The husband flies a lot on business, and was able to bring the dog out as excess baggage. The dog was a disaster. One of those Labs with no off button . . . made worse because he had had no training in puppyhood. Three years old . . . never settling.. . no ability to concentrate. They did behaviouralist work with little success. The family eventually went overseas and chose to leave the dog with another family. The other family had problems too. The gift horse is the first horse whose teeth you should check. If someone is looking to rehome a pedigree dog you'd expect to pay, say $1000 for, and is charging an adoption fee of $100, there may be a problem they aren't telling you about. Perhaps temperament, perhaps health problems. Most rescues work out well, and I'll never hesitate to recommend rescue, particularly if someone either doesn't want to, or isn't set up to, deal with a young puppy. But don't jump in with your eyes closed.

Maybe this is heresy . . . and not to contest the validity of asking these questions. But I worry about the larger picture. Hereditary cataracts, apart from PRA seem to be difficult to diagnose because its manifestation is often (usually??) mild. The dog may end out with poorer vision, but seldom goes blind. Sometimes there is no detectible problem. Dogs function well with partial vision impairment, and there's no indication that cataracts are painful. Non-genetic testing is expensive, and not definitive. It requires regular examination by a specialist . . . for those living in rural areas this means long drives. Genetic tests may be or may become available . . . in which case many of us will need to decide whether to apply them. Something like 1/3 dogs dies of cancer. In humans, it's well known that there are genetic propensities to various cancers. To my knowledge, there are no tests available. I haven't seen a lot of statistics about the incidence of hereditary contract. I'm under the impression that it's one percent of less in the breed I'm most familiar with. I am all for health testing . . . but it's going to be the undoing of pedigree dog breeding if we end up with a long list of diseases for which we are expected to test, and mixed breed breeders have no testing obligations. If we are obliged to do all the tests the geneticists develop, and prioritization follows the lines of what the geneticists are able to come up with, rather than what ailments are most serious for dogs, it's going to get ugly. How important are these tests? Are there higher priorities?

Can anyone enlighten me on this :confused: eg, chicken carcasses, spoiled milk, bones. Sure dogs eat those things, but I struggle to believe any breed was developed to consume waste specifically I try to listen sympathetically, even to idiots. My guess is the joy with which dogs eat the stuff humans throw out played a role in the early domestication of dogs . . .and has strengthened the bond between our two species for eons.

This guy has never met a JRT (or any other small working terrier) if he thinks the APBT is unique in being willing to take on a larger opponent.

Can anyone enlighten me on this :confused: eg, chicken carcasses, spoiled milk, bones.

I don't know how many puppy buyers I've told . . . if you want a really good Lab, especially a bitch, go for black . . . people will pay more for a poor quality chocolate than a good quality black. As for yellow girls, no breeder ever has enough.

I sense that the differences here have something to do with (a) markings . . . . puppy buyers take these seriously . . . often more seriously than they should . . . (b) whether the breed and lines include both high and low drive animals . . . in which case the breeder is likely to be able to pick out the higher drive pups and would be irresponsible to place a high drive pup in a home that won't be able to handle it. I have gotten one or two high drive pups in 100+ pups. If I were breeding BC's and some were to go to herding/agility while others go to pet homes . . .or a guarding breed where some dogs were going into security work . . . or Labrador lines that include very high drive hunters . .. , I would feel a greater need to prescribe who gets what pup. Given a high drive puppy with a darling eye patch that really appealed to somebody's kid -- which isn't going to happen in my breed cause they're all solid colours -- it would be irresponsible not to intervene.

Here's the main part of the changes (taken from the link Tempis Fugit provided . . . thank's TF). I've bolded the sections I think are most interesting. I'm not sure whether they're all new. I like the inclusion of age, strength, size, medical condition, training, past history, etc. before breed in the definition of "manage a dog dangerously". I think the law would be better if there were a lesser but still serious punishment for people who manage a dog dangerously without causing death or GBH . . . Consultation Draft 5 Insertion of new s 334A Chapter 29— insert— ‘334A Dangerous management of a dog ‘(1) A person responsible for a dog who, by an act or omission, manages the dog dangerously causing the death of or grievous bodily harm to another person through an attack by the dog commits a crime. Maximum penalty—10 years imprisonment. ‘(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the dog is a government entity dog and the person responsible for the dog is acting within the scope of engagement or employment by the government entity. (3) In this section— government entity means— (a) the State, the Commonwealth or another State; or (b) an instrumentality or agent of the State, the Commonwealth or another State. government entity dog means a dog— (a) owned by a government entity or a person engaged or employed by the entity; and (b) used for a purpose under an Act of the Commonwealth or a State. Examples— • a corrective services dog under the Corrective Services Act 2006 • a drug detection dog, explosives detection dog or police dog under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 manage a dog dangerously means manage a dog in a way that is dangerous having regard to all the circumstances including— (a) for the owner of the dog—the way the owner manages the owner’s proprietary rights in relation to the dog; and (b) the age, size and strength of the dog; and © the past conduct of the dog, its training and its temperament; and (d) the current medical and physical condition of the dog; and Consultation Draft (e) the breed of the dog; and (f) whether the restraint of the dog, if any, was appropriate in the circumstances; and (g) for the use of a dog to protect persons or premises—whether the use of the dog was appropriate in the circumstances. person responsible for a dog means a person who has control or custody of the dog, including an owner of the dog.

Puppy farms, by in large, are large scale commercial breeding establishments. That does NOT mean ALL commercial breeding establishments are puppy farms, nor does it say that neglect is the only way a large breeder can be a commercial success. Nor does it say that small scale guarantees adequate care. Wouldn't you expect the same results from small scale money-loosing operations IF they kept dogs in environments which provided little human interaction or other stimulation? The basic problem is that keeping a dog confined in a jail-like environment for several years produces an unhappy beast. Someone who keeps 8 dogs confined to a garage, does no walkies, and only tends the dogs' needs after they come home from work is going to end out with the same problems. There are people like this in the show circuit, and most would be considered failures from a commercial perspective.

Yes, you should be looking for health first and foremost. Or you could keep an eye on this page: http://www.rescuealabrador.com/dogs-available-for-adoption Scores AND temperament AND conformation AND knowledge of the lines. The breed will go down the gurgler if we select by hip and elbow scores alone. Unfortunately, some of the more important health aspects, such as prone-ness to cancer, bloat, and heart problems are hard to quantify. And Labs generally have great temperament, but there are a few of 'em out there that I wouldn't have a bar of because either they don't have an off switch, or they aren't biddable. Also, the difference between 0:0 and a 2:1 hip scores simply be how the dog was positioned for the X-rays, or who did the reading and how they were feeling on the day. In my years in WA there was a group trying to do Lab rescue, but I think they gave up cause they rarely found any dogs to rescue . . . the demand for Labs is far greater than the supply . . . between toilet paper adds and Guide Dogs you have a huge built in PR campaign.

this just to save me writing it all out again Yep, me too - took the words right out of my mouth! In a litter of 10 with pretty uniform temperament, I often doubt my own ability to pick 'the best' puppy for the particular family. Why not let them feel that they got the 'best' pup . . . or the one they chose. Yah, there may be one or two pups that stand out, and, say, seem like they might be better for a more active home. But I go for predictable temperament, and I often think my attempts to choose amount to playing God.

It varies regionally. WA prices are high for Labs, and for most breeds. Well known show breeders would have long wait lists at $1500, and may raise prices because they can. For a Main Register Lab with a great pedigree and excellent health stats, $1500 is cheap. Prices are lower in the US these days, probably cause everyone's broke.

I have been known to encourage people to think the puppy chose them . . . and if the puppy they fancy is suitable, I let it be. But if I sense a temperament mismatch . . . or a 'pet' home takes fancy to a show quality pup, I intervene. Sometimes the puppy that 'chooses' you is the pup who didn't get a full belly at the last feed and is hoping maybe you have goodies . . . while the pups who sleep it out are sated. I have also noticed that if you switch the neckbands or do not provide easy identifying marks, most people can't tell which puppy they picked out (or which puppy picked them out) from week to week. (This is particularly true with black and chocolate Labs . . . where you can't tell pups apart from colour alone).

Many dope dealers consider themselves businessmen. Does this make all businessmen dope dealers? Puppy mill operators may call themselves commercial operators, and indeed, they may be commercial operators. That does not make all commercial operators puppy farms. Ground hog day again. According to the agreed upon definition of a puppy farm by RSPCA Australia and all other groups who attended the round table meeting on puppy farmers Puppy farmer does not equal commercial breeder. . Puppy farmers can also be people who breed for other motivations including for the show ring.

The key words are 'suffering', 'cares for them properly'. I'm not a shrink. It's not my business to diagnose people's compulsions. But if their dogs/animals are suffering, as an animal lover, I feel an obligation to report it.

but just visiting . .. :D "Emmett will be VISITING AUSTRALIA for a limited time . . . " Hope people use him . . . he's lovely.

The Majority of dalmation breeders were against introduction of low uric acid genes via outcross/backcross. The Majority of boxer breeders would have stood against the introduction of natural bob-tailed genes via outcross/backcross with the corgi. Does it make the breeders who have accepted the introduction of non-defective or bobtailed genes unethical? Sometimes, by my reckoning, the majority gets it wrong. I think live and let live is a better dictum.

I've been looking for a chocolate factored or dominant black Labrador stud in the US. I'm finding more chocos than blacks . . . and most of the blacks seem to be yellow factored. And more yellows than anything. It's like people with a BBEE don't bother putting the dog at stud. Australia seemed to be going the same direction. I've heard lots of complaints about the rise of chocolates. But no one seems to be noticing the decline of the blacks . . . So sad! I love to see a glossy black coat . . . and black is the orignial and the dominant colour.

wonderful! but no substitute for bringing in dogs . . . so that kids can cuddle and touch as well as watching