sandgrubber

Hard to do well. I live in the first county in California to implement a system where breeders need licensing, all dogs must be registered, and if you aren't licensed as a breeder, you are required to desex. Sounded like a good idea on paper. But living here, I find that the main effect is that no one registers their dogs . . . it's mountainous here, and if you don't live in town and have half decent fences, the effective law is do whatever you want, just don't irritate the neighbours. They do offer some heavily subsidized desexing services, and this does help keep down the number of unwanted pups. As for spey/neuter. . . . with some breeds, entire dogs and bitches are more likely to be broody than aggressive. Making everyone neuter because testosterone is a problem in some dogs doesn't seem efficient, especially when the supposed health benefits of neutering are questionable.

Sad. Why aren't these stories making the news? In my book, a dog killing a puppy in the puppy's own yard is almost as serious as killing a child. It certainly shows the same degree of owner irresponsibility, and could easily result in a child getting killed next time.

Well, huh? What are you saying? (not quite! no way! . . . or not-quite (adj) no-way (noun) . . . also: not-quite no-way what?) It would be great to see a copy of your dissertation proposal. Sounds interesting.

I kinda don't like people/groups using this forum to publish their own news releases. Could end out with a lot of commercial crapola being published that I don't want to read. Nuthin' personal.

Here's a link to the document Steve was talking about . . . posted by toy*dog on the parallel thread on puppy farms etc. (Posted 22 September 2011 - 08:13 AM) hey guys is this it? puppy farming the way forward

Interesting document . . . much better basis for a sane discussion that what we've been working with. Too bad there's no way to make it NEWS in a new thread and start a fresh round of discussion.

Sandgrubber the discussion papers was put out prior to the round table meeting which discussed the discussion paper and the definition was changed. The RSPCA and everyone of the groups who attended agreed on a definition and we all thought that was that and we were all working toward doing something about that. On the 22nd of August via email distributed to those who attended the round table meeting and other interested people including Oscars Law again RSPCA Australia clarified what definition we are using to define puppy farms. Quote Thanks for your further feedback. The RSPCA defines a Puppy farm as: A puppy farm (also known as a puppy factory or puppy mill) is defined as: an intensive dog breeding facility that is operated under inadequate conditions that fail to meet the dogs' behavioural, social and/or physiological needs. Hey Steve Thanks for the update. I like the definition as it's both terse and conceptually broad, but doesn't cut out people who raise puppies in the house, or in a barn, or don't meet some fastidious hygene standard. Interesting that it doesn't say anything about veterinary care, record keeping, or health testing. Can you please post some link to the full document produced by the round table . . . or re-post if you have already done so (and keep re-posting it each time you refer to it). Most of us don't read all posts, and forget much of what we read. )

to be biddable, ie, have a desire to please, a dog MUST be capable of something like guilt, ie, awareness that he/she has done something that will bring displeasure. Guilty looks are a different kettle of fish, cause they assume the human can read the dog's body language. Some of us aren't so good at this. We can't know whether the dog feels 'guilt' in a way equivalent to the way you or I feel guilt. But WTS, I'm not sure that the guilt feelings I get are the same as the guilt feelings you get. And I think it's established that some psychopaths feel no empathy and no guilt. basically, there is no way of knowing what another sentient being feels, within, or across as species boundary.

Great idea. I find lots of dog questions boil down to nothing, cause you can't get the facts. Eg, we get all upset about DD's, but I suspect there are a lot more plain old fashioned mutts . . . oops puppies from people who don't think of themselves as anything else. Putting pets on the National census would be great. One problem: How do you convince the politicians to make it happen?

Until Oscar's Law is defined and its practical implications clarified and discussed, I don't see how anyone can support it. On the other hand, the RSPCA has a lengthy discussion paper out on Puppy Farms, including case examples and better definitions. www.rspca.org.au/assets/.../RSPCAPuppyFarmDiscussionPaperJan2010.pdf It might be more fruitful to discuss this than voice distrust of the relatively rowdy Oscar's Law. Here's the RSPCA definition of 'puppy farm'. Would people be comfortable with this definition (emphasis on the bolded part)? What is a puppy farm? Puppy breeding establishments take many forms and can be seen to be on a continuum from extremely bad (puppy farms, exploitative hoarders) through to excellent (dog enthusiasts who put the animal’s health and welfare as the first priority). This paper focuses on the problems associated with the lower end of this continuum: puppy farms. Puppy farming is the indiscriminate breeding of dogs on a large scale for the purposes of sale. Puppy farms are essentially commercial operations with an emphasis on production and profit with little or no consideration given to the welfare of the animals1,2. Puppy farms are intensive systems with breeding animals and their puppies kept in facilities that fail to meet the animals’ psychological, behavioural, social or physiological needs. As a result many of these animals have a very poor quality of life. While most puppy farms lack any structured facility plan or design and provide husbandry on an ad hoc basis only, others are purpose-built and are specifically designed to house and breed large numbers of dogs for the purpose of sale. Both types of facilities can fail to meet the animals’ behavioural, psychological, social and physiological needs.

HOw awful. So sorry to hear of your loss. If you're up for spraying your yard, look into Spinosad type sprays used for horticulture. They are used in vineyards for managing various sucking pests, and are also an ingredient in some tick remedies. In vineyards, they are accepted by organic growers, and can be used right up to harvest -- no one has been able to find any harmful effects on mammals.

In doing so, please weigh opinion by the bias and qualifications of the source. Some topics, such as vaccination of children, draw a lot of extremists who are repeating a bunch of garbage, over and over. They continue to cite articles that have been shown to be fraudulent and have retracted by the journal that published them. It's sad that access to thoroughly researched papers is often expensive, and people whose opinion isn't worth a damn is all over the place.

If I were a vet, I'd only do this if there were a DNA paternity test that showed both sire and dam were breeds other than pit bull. The US company marketing breed identification DNA stuff for mutts says on their FAQ: http://www.wisdompanel.com/service/faq/#38 Does Wisdom Panel® Insights™ test for "Pit-bull?" The term "Pit-bull" does not refer to a single or recognized breed of dog, but rather to a genetically diverse group of breeds. Pit-bull type dogs have historically been bred by combining guarding type breeds with terriers for certain desired characteristics – and as such they may retain many genetic similarities to the likely progenitor breeds and other closely related breeds. Due to the genetic diversity of this group, we cannot build a DNA profile for the Pit-bull. If a Pit-bull type dog was tested, we might anticipate that Wisdom Panel Insights test detect and report moderate to Minor amounts of one or more distantly related breeds to those used to breed the dog, it is possible that one or more of the following breeds might be detected at moderate to Minor amounts: the American Staffordshire terrier, Boston terrier, Bull terrier, Staffordshire Bull terrier, Mastiff, Bullmastiff Boxer, Bulldog and various small terriers like the Parson Russell. These breeds would be detected because some markers in these breeds have genetic identity at a minority of the markers Wisdom Panel Insights test uses to the breeds in our database. Some local communities in the United States have put restrictions on Pit-bull ownership. Mars Veterinary™ encourages dog owners and care providers to be fully aware of their local laws, which vary across the country.

They were #1 in AKC registrations in 2010. (They had been #2, after the Labrador).

A kennel should not smell like urine or impart a urine smell. In the years I spent running a boarding kennel, the stink turned up occasionally from un-neutered males who marked beds, walls, and occasionally other dogs. It always instigated a cleaning frenzy. We put a coating on all (brick) walls and floors to make them impervious to liquids. All kennels should do this. If you don't, the stink can penetrate and it's hard to drive it out. I wouldn't be upset. Urine is pretty harmless. But in future, I'd subject the kennel to a whiff test before boarding.

I have Labs who are innocent of any field training. It amazes me how strong their native 'birdyness' is. If one finds a dead bird, they bring it to me, and make no attempt to eat it. I don't much appreciate these, and they get mouthed and dragged around until I trash them. If they catch a rabbit or rodent (I encourage hunting rodents and lagomorphs), it's gone in a few gulps. Take them into a feed store where they sell chooks, ducks or pigeons, and they go to full alert. I had one old girl flush a chook, and escapee from some neighbour's yard. She grabbed it across the back, thus preventing wings from flapping, and brought it to me. The Springer Spaniel I grew up with had a habit of bringing us live, unharmed chooks from the neighbour's yard. Do all gun dogs do this? Do, say, herding or hound dogs do the same?

I checked. There were ~20000 dogs included in the survey. All were dogs whose owners chose to purchase ($70) the Mars product that uses DNA to determine a mutt's breed ancestry. I'd guess this imparts some bias . . . certainly NOT a random sample.

Please direct me to the text of Oscar's Law. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it rubs me the wrong way to see people rallying around a 'law' that hasn't been written, acting like vigilantes, and doing little or nothing to work within the body of existing law to protect animal welfare. Eg, why don't they take first steps like seeing that NSW pet shops enforce the laws re. age of pups, space requirements for animals, training of staff, keeping of records, vaccinations, etc., etc. -- pet shops are public and can be inspected without trespassing. Why don't they support the duly constituted authorities in enforcing animal welfare laws that pertain to dog breeders and campaign for councils to do more on enforcement? Until they clearly define 'puppy factory', I think caution is required . . . no matter what is in their FAQ. Btw, the beagle-ish bitch with the huge dragging teats on the Oscar's Law website is also a cover girl for the Vic RSPCA. I've seen bitches go quite baggy on their first (large) litter and firm up after. I have Labs . . . so the legs are longer and they don't drag. Some girls have big boobs and produce lots of milk. This girl is older. I find it more distressing that her legs are short than that her teats are big. To the contrary, I think the use of this photo as evidence of abuse displays ignorance of dog breeding on the part of Vic RSPCA and the Oscars Law folks. If they'd shown the same girl curled up with 12 pups, she might have been a cover girl for the joys of motherhood. they also say this on the FAQ page: What is the difference between a registered breeder and a puppy factory (and how will I know)? A registered breeder is registered with the Australian National Kennel Council and must meet certain requirements. A breeder will usually specialise in one breed and is also likely to be involved in showing that breed. A puppy factory will not be registered with the ANKC. Many claim to be registered, but they are just a 'registered' business! The ANKC only registers 'pure breed' dog breeders. All designer dogs are cross breeds. A breeder will be happy for you to visit them to meet the parents and the pups at their own premises, in fact most will insist. Puppy factories will not. If puppy factories who meet the legal requirements of minimum standards of care will not let you see their breeding facilities - they know that you will be horrified. A breeder will know about their breed, they will be happy to answer your questions and are very likely to have plenty of their own. If you are suspicious, go home and do some research. ETA; there are quite a few reg breeders that quite happily follow oscars law and were even at the rally. just saying....

I only know half a dozen US shelters. They whelp pups only when they end up with a preggers bitch in rescue . . . all are fanatical about desexing anything that goes out their doors. I've never heard of a shelter allowing a bitch to be bred. I think the numbers are more testimony to the horrible frequency with which people buy pets and either can't keep them, or are unwilling to keep them cause they cause problems of one sort or another, or allow them to wander and can't be bothered with paying the pound to retrieve them. Sad, isn't it.

I hope this group succeeds in the concrete efforts mentioned . . . better enforcements of anti-cruelty legislation and end to sales of puppies in pet shops. The 'end puppy farming' slogan remains a worry because it feeds into a moral crusade. As a breeder, and pedigree dog enthusiast, I find it frightening that the second paragraph on the Oscars Law website reads: "You can help fight the genocide in Australia's pounds, promote rescue organisations and shelters as the first option to adopting, and change the way Australians gets their pets. Adoption is the intelligent alternative to impulse buying. No puppy factory whether it is 'clean', 'model', 'state of the art' or otherwise is the answer for mans best friend." I'm all for shelters, and do donate to them. I encourage adoption. But I view shelters as mopping up after failures in the system . . . not a desirable first option. It sounds to me like some faction of the group is against all dog breeding, ethical or not. There is a third alternative to impulse buying and adoption from a shelter . . . good breeding, and planned dog ownership. Millions of families save to own their own places with a good back yard precisely because they want to have a dog. A large fraction of these want a pedigree dog of a specific breed and will shop around for the right breeder and wait months or years to get the pup they want. I have nothing against mutts. But I don't want to live in a world where all pups born do so in a family home, often with no knowledge of the background of sire and dam and no health testing. I don't see why they can't start with pushing for the enforcement of existing laws and advocacy of clear cut objectives, like forbidding sales in puppy shops. Even more frightening that the text for the supposed "Oscar's Law" isn't available for comment.

This is old, but I can't see it has been discussed before America's most popular dogs revealed in first ever dog census Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373428/First-mutt-census-reveals-Chow-Chow-dogs-popular-mixed-breeds.html#ixzz1YPSiYHkx clipping a few highlights . . . it's an interesting study . . . read the whole thing! When it comes to breeds of pooch, not everything is as you might expect. More than half the dogs kept by owners the U.S. are mixed-breed and the most common breeds are not necessarily those most often found in mutts, a survey says. German Shepherds are popular both as purebreds and mixed-breeds, but the third-placed mixed-breed Chow Chow is only the 63rd most popular purebred. ... The poll revealed that shelters are the most likely place for people to get mixed-breed dogs (46 per cent), followed by friends, relatives or neighbours (18 per cent). Dry dog food is the most popular feeding choice for mutts (65 per cent), ahead of mixed wet and dry food, wet food and raw food or scraps. Nearly half of owners (48 per cent) said their dog slept with them. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373428/First-mutt-census-reveals-Chow-Chow-dogs-popular-mixed-breeds.html#ixzz1YPSZa7ow I find it interesting that DD's are not big, and shelters/friends/relatives/neighbors are the main sources of X-breeds. Lovely that almost half sleep with their dogs . [Though it would be good if people stopped confusing survey and census ]

The AVA has taken a strong stand. They did so in testimony to the committee that was formulating the legislation and continue to take the same stand. http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria Dog groups haven't capitalised on this stand. According to the incredible Herald Sun, the AVA continues to hold the same position. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/wrong-dogs-to-suffer-under-law-australian-veterinary-association/story-fn7x8me2-1226139938587 Having stated that breed cannot be determined visually and DNA tests are unreliable, the AVA cannot recommend that its members do breed determinations. They don't seem to be forbidding vets from doing so . . . so finding the 'right' vet may become like finding the right doctor was for avoiding the draft during the Vietnam War.

Btw, what is considered profit? Is someone 'breeding for profit' because the puppy revenue is more than the immediate costs of putting out a litter? Is the breeder allowed to earn a living wage from breeding, training, and showing dogs . . . and maybe even break even on the many investments required to do a good job breeding dogs? I don't think 'profit' is any better criteria for determining animal wellbeing than the Vic 'standard' is for deciding what dog is likely to be vicious. There people who plow money from their breeding programs back into building up their kennels. Does it make them 'evil' that they eventually build up quality facilities, quality stock, and good reputations and their investments pay off? Conversely, there are plenty of people who would show only red if you put an accountant to their books, but who treat their dogs poorly and don't invest the revenue they take in from puppy sales in upgrading their kennels. I doubt anyone in DOL would stand up for the breeders who breed for profit alone and treat their bitches like caged hens or sows in a factory farm. There are breeders who care little for health testing, who feed low grade food, who don't socialise pups, who have filthy premises, and on and on. Few if any would condone selling through pet shops and a vast majority would favor laws banning petshops. But I think some excellent breeders have good reason to fear attempts to outlaw 'puppy farms' . . . cause many of the campaigners for such laws know nothing about dog breeding, and we all know, politicians go along with some pretty stupid things when it comes to dogs.

Extracts from the article posted above . . . which looks at the laws of evidence as related to breed determination. The article is in the Online Journal of the Queensland Bar Assn. Issue 25: April 2008 written by Stephen Fynes-Clinton: Subject to some minor qualifications in later judgements , the seminal contemporary summary of the requirements for admissibility of expert opinion evidence is that by Heydon JA, as he then was, in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705. At 743-744, His Honour stated:- "In short, if evidence tendered as expert opinion evidence is to be admissible, it must be agreed or demonstrated that there is a field of "specialised knowledge"; there must be an identified aspect of that field in which the witness demonstrates that by reason of specified training, study or experience, the witness has become an expert; the opinion proffered must be "wholly or substantially based on the witness's expert knowledge"; so far as the opinion is based on facts "observed" by the expert, they must be identified and admissibly proved by the expert, and so far as the opinion is based on "assumed" or "accepted" facts, they must be identified and proved in some other way; it must be established that the facts on which the opinion is based form a proper foundation for it; and the opinion of an expert requires demonstration or examination of the scientific or other intellectual basis of the conclusions reached: that is, the expert's evidence must explain how the field of "specialised knowledge" in which the witness is expert by reason of "training, study or experience", and on which the opinion is "wholly or substantially based", applies to the facts assumed or observed so as to produce the opinion propounded. If all these matters are not made explicit, it is not possible to be sure whether the opinion is based wholly or substantially on the expert's specialised knowledge. If the court cannot be sure of that, the evidence is strictly speaking not admissible, and, so far as it is admissible, of diminished weight." The keeping of "pit bull terriers" as domestic pets is restricted generally by State laws8, and entirely prohibited by many local governments in their particular areas9. . . . The Council, of course, does not know and cannot know the breed of dog in question as a fact, at least in the absence of an admission by the owner11. A number of local governments have sought to bridge this gap by developing their own breed identification process, and by presenting witnesses to the courts as experts in this field, and therefore qualified to give evidence of opinion as to the breed of the dog. . . . The methodology which these witnesses employee involves comparison of the physical appearance of the dog with descriptions of physical features in a document called a "breed standard", assigning a score of zero to three against each of the descriptions in that document, and coming up with a final score where some number of points (typically 46 of the possible 66) leads to a conclusion that the dog is of the breed alleged. These witnesses have been accepted by the Magistrates Court on at least one occasion, . . . The problem with all this is that, as revealed by the evidence in a subsequent case in which the matter was squarely raised13, the area of expertise which might be described as "breed identification by application of breed standards" appears to be non-existent.

Jeez! I hope that little dog doesn't let that man off the leash! He looks dangerous!:D