sandgrubber

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

BUMP!!! Sarcasm (including my own) aside, this legislation is important. What are the liabilities? How do you deal with the a##-hole who chooses for 'mean' and socialises to create 'meaner' from mean. This legislation requires at least as much attention as the idiotic 'standard' that VIC is setting forward. fortunately, I'm not in VIC and don't need to worry about Victorian 'penalty units'. But if VIC dog owners want to get reasonable treatment before the law, they're going to have to read and understand proposed changes of the law.

'Improving the breed' is subtle and subjective. Proof is hard, especially with temperament, and "exact" can be misleading. You can, for example, get a low COI using a 5 gen pedigree, and a high COI if you go back to the days when the stud books were closed (ie, an exact COI that has high precision but no accuracy). The easiest 'proof' of 'bettering' the breed is simple tests, like hip/elbow scores, plus the frequency of Ch. or Gr Ch. on the pedigree. This may mean breeding for exaggerated characteristics and good hips/elbows/eyes, while ignoring temperament and harder to quantify health problems, like tendency to cancer or heart problems. Personally, I wouldn't choose a mate based on beauty show results and some bone X-ray results. I have a breeder friend who pts'd a dog she imported from top UK show lines cause he mauled a puppy (breed standards and reputation are strong against any sort of aggression). Anecdote, not proof, and not something you'd advertize. But it made a big impression on me. Now my soapbox: I wish pedigrees recorded dates of death as well as dates of birth. If I am looking for a companion, the most second most important assurance (temperament is #1) to me would be indications that the dog is likely to lead a long, healthy life. Sorry. The dog world doesn't keep records of mortality, much less morbidity. WTF. Most breeders work with the bitches in hand and try to 'improve' by choosing the right stud. I sometimes use working test results in choosing a stud. But it's risky. Sometimes going for retrieving titles (I run Labs) ends you out with high-strung dogs who have a beautiful water entry and have no problem with a triple retrieve, but who will drive you crazy if you try to keep them as house dogs. You have to also consider things that aren't quantified . . . is the dog a good bed dog? Does he have undesirable quirks, like resource guarding? Or sweet quirks, like loving children and being protective in a very good way. The breeder really has to meet the dog and do some research to come up with a good choice of studs. . . . and the bottom line is still subjective. IN SUM: It's hard to define 'improving the breed'. BUT we can work to make it harder for bottom feeders who keep NO records of pedigree, who don't socialise their pups, who don't do any health testing, etc. . . . I'm not convinced that the Oscar's Law crowd have ANY rational criteria for defining a 'puppy farmer' and are doing ANYTHING to improve the breed or X-breed, or mutt.

Good post. When I was a kid our family dog went wandering and hamstrung a calf. The owner was reasonable. No hysteria, just laid it on the line . . . you pay damages and get rid of the damn dog. Next time I'll shoot. We rehomed the dog and I'm sure my parents paid damages. The dog escaped and came home (almost 200 km), then disappeared. I think my parents had the dog pts, though they didn't announce it. It is totally unacceptable for dogs to go walkabout and run livestock. Some ID system is required, so the dog's owners can be held responsible. Owners of who allow their dogs to wander deserve harsh repercussions. Not sure I want to see urban/suburban folks carrying shotguns. Wandering pets are a HUGE problem, both town and country.

Off lead exercise like play is fine. No exercise works on a growing pup like appropriate offlead playing. You can play with your dog and you can let him romp around and practice your recall. Leash training for a few minutes is fine. Just don't pavement pound for half an hour or more everyday and bear in mind that exercise on sand stresses joints even more than solid ground. The beach is not a softer option. Being pounded by larger dogs in the dog park isn't either. A lot of puppy energy can be dissapated with training. 5 minutes of brain work is worth a lot of pavement pounding. Your dogs, your choice. I know a lot of folk that practice the "no on lead exercise before 6 months" guideline. I know a few that haven't and can think of at least 3 OCD issues resulting. One dog was gaiting off a bike aged 5 months If you want a veterinary back up, talk to Dr Billinghurst or Dr Zink. Growning joints don't cope well with unnatural stresses. Long periods of leash exercise are "unnatural". They'll also tell you that the fast track to joint issues is a fat puppy. Keep them lean folks.. enough to be a wee bit ribby. As usual, there are devils in the details. Gentle walking is different from pounding the pavement or jogging, and is not unnatural stress if you build up over time. Watch nature shows. The lion cub or fox kit stays fast by the den at first, but venture out for significantly longer walks as they get toward half grown. Free play that includes a lot of 'fetch' can be enormously destructive due to the large amount of sudden turning and the fact that many dogs are obsessive about retrieving and will go the point of exhaustion. I've seen siblings do a lot of damage to one another in free play, and some adult dogs will play 'dog tag' with pups beyond what is safe. If you can walk gently on grass or sand, make sure to provide opportunities for the pup to stop and rest if it wants (if puppy sits down, it gets carried, not walked), and build up gradually, young pups do well being walked. When I started breeding, I did the 'free play' only routine. But the pup or pups I was running on always wanted to come when the big dogs got their walks. At first, I allowed them to follow off lead, but our area got more built up and off lead became too dangerous. Talked with our vet about it, and he supported gentle walking with the advice that muscles need to develop along with bone. Opinions differ about sand. I had a kennel in an region where there was nothing but sand, and there were many greyhound kennels. Some greyhound people set it up so the pups had very long runs (50 to 100 m), on sand, and the pups did a lot of back and forth running. This didn't seem to cause joint problems. I don't know Dr Zink. Dr. Billinghurst has an awful habit of voicing opinions with anecdotes as evidence. Although I agree with many of his opinions about diet, I don't regard him as much of a scientist. I would, for example, never use a pile of sawdust for a whelping box, nor put raisins into a mix with oatmeal, egg, yoghurt, etc.. The vet who gave me advice about walking has seldom failed to come up with published scientific studies to support his opinions, and I take his advice seriously unless contradicted by strong evidence.

The media is not alone. I've never heard a DOL'r, faced with the hard decision, say "I had to kill my dog".

Awful. But handled without hysteria. If only the urban/suburban dog problems could be handled as sensibly.

Reminds me of an old bloke I know. The ranger coaxed his dog off his property and nabbed it. He was so mad he went to the pound that night and let all the dogs out. Probably 30 years ago outside Perth. Not to recommend the practice...but that's how hotheads behave.

Except in this case they don't check for the quack!!!

The tendency of dog lovers to jump on one another is a large factor in the dog community's ineffectiveness. Hang together or we'll all hang separately (Nathan Hale).

I'm sure he'll say it was a bull breed dressed up as a Lab ;) Not funny. Breed misidentification is widespread for all breeds. Do you automatically trust the media when they say Labrador and distrust them when they say pit bull. . . . or for the matter, a Jack Russell cross. The NCRC did both 'spot the pit bull x' and a 'spot the lab x' posters. I flunked the Lab test, and I'm a Lab breeder! See http://nationalcanin...identification/ . . . the links below will download a couple posters Can you guess the mix of breeds in these dogs? Which are "pit bull" mixes? Can you guess the mix of breeds in these dogs? Which are Labrador Retriever mixes? The reporting on this story is inadequate to form an opinion. We don't know whether either, or both dogs were on leashes. We don't know what, if anything, the owners did to head off or cause the attack. We don't know whether either or both dogs were DA.

I have another ......lining crates for pups to piddle on :D Not to mention fish wrap, dunny paper, and making paper mache. Unfortunately, a lot of papers are in this category. I would be ashamed to advertise in a paper that puts out such rot.

Sounds confuzzled. Some SA concil allocated a few thousand bucks to pay for voluntary PTS of dangerous dogs, expecting a dozen or so dogs to show up. I doubt it's $1k/dog. More likely, cost of a basic euth. job.

You might be able to get an Australian firm to custom make the food you require, especially if you can find others who need the same. Advanced Pet Care in Naval Base, WA does custom formulations. I have no idea of their minimum lot size . . . I'd guess it's about the equivalent of a sea container. They ship all over Asia, etc., so if you can convince them that there's $$ to be made, you may find a supplier. I doubt you are the only person who has the problem. Alternatively, try posting again in this forum. You may find an individual who is happy to cook up 10 to 100 kg of some special mix for you at (wild guess) $5/kg. Lots of Australian dog breeders, kennels, pet-shop suppliers etc. make their own special mixes.

If the 'breeder' can't provide proof of vaccination or sustain the claim of 'pure bred' by providing papers, I'd say good on the courts. He or she deserves a kick in the wallet. I see this as a highly efficient way of ridding the dog world of shonky breeders.

news.com.au appears to have pretty low journalistic standards. I suggest refraining from further discussion until State Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh introduces new offences to the Crimes Act in parliament. I'm tired of kicking dead horses.

So sorry you are confussed. One person's puppy farm is another person's prestige kennel. If you define anyone who makes a profit breeding dogs as a 'puppy farmer', I refuse to condemn puppy farmers. And there are some 'puppy farms' that I greatly admire. Doing a good job breeding dogs is demanding work, and those who devote their lives to it deserve to make a profit. Importing quality stock, maintaining breeding standards, keeping quality facilities, properly socialising pups, screening puppy buyers, etc. is expensive. Hobby breeders who subsidise their efforts from the income from a well-paying job cannot carry the whole burden. It might be nice if there were a landed gentry who carried all the costs of sustaining and improving breeds as part and parcel of being noblility, but these guys are long gone. I am happy to jump on any breeder who doesn't do health testing, uphold basic veterinary standards, allow dogs to exercise, consider sire and dam's temperament in doing breeding, maintain critical hygene standards, and generally act in an ethical fashion . . . regardless if they are a pedigree dog breeder, elite kennel, BYB, alleged puppy, family breeder, hobby breeder, or whatever other terms you choose to use. The lady in question has been campaigning for a long time and doesn't seem to have much success in stopping 'puppy farms' or the practice of selling pups in pet shops. I get the feeling she's dodgy, and has done more harm than good.

I live in the US now, but I owned a boarding kennel in WA and also bred dogs for many years. No question there are some horrible puppy farms. No question also that there are some horrible pedigree breeders, and some horrible BYB's. True in the US as well as Australia. There are rural areas all around the world where dogs are farmed, much as pigs are. I would like to see abuse of dogs ended, and support exposure of the low-grade puppy farms, wherever they are. There have been some shocking doco's on Amish dog breeding farms in Pennsylvania, which are permitted by law. What I don't support is tarring everyone with the same brush. But to the best I can determine, some in the animal rights crowd call many breeders 'puppy farmers', including breeders that a majority of DOL people would regard as quality breeders. Some segment of the animal rights crew would shut down all breeders who have more than a certain number of dogs, and in general, make life very difficult for large kennels . . . including many excellent breeders who maintain standards of hygine, veterinary care, health checking, exercise, etc that are well above average. They tend to be more accepting of the practice of having a litter or two out of the family dog, whether it be pedigree or X-breed, with or without health checks. The animal rights crowd is diverse, as are dog breeders. I do not mean to tar THEM all with the same brush. But I am bothered that the story about Oscar, as presented in the news article, is self-contradictory, and my attempt to verify the story made those contradictions look worse, not better.

If you want a cast iron guarantee of no HD, buy a young adult dog that's been scored. If you want a puppy that's less likely to get HD, choose a breed that scores low for that issue. If you want a Lab, research research research, buy one from generations of low scoring dogs and keep it lean, don't stuff it full of puppy kibble so it grows slowly, don't let it run around like a mad thing and dont walk it on lead until its six months old. Even then you're not guaranteed a clear result but you improve the odds. please see: http://www.offa.org/stats_hip.html For the record, on average, 11.9% of Labradors record HD in the OFA statistics . That's the percent that show up as bad hips in X-ray readings. Most of these will lead normal lives, though quite a few will get stiff in their hindquarters when they get old. At 11.9% affected, Labs rank #86 of 160 breeds reported, ranked from worst to best. Many familiar breeds have worse HD stats, including all the mastiffs and bulldogs, pug, SBT, AmStaff, Shih-Tzu, Beagle, GSD, Rotti, ACD, Golden Retriever, Akita, and (yes, PF) Poodle. The percent of Labbies with excellent hips was 17.9, placing them in the top quarter of all breeds scored (37th of 160 from best to worst; poodles rank 72nd). There were more Labradors scored than any other breed, and only breeds with 100+ scores were listed, so the statistics are unlikely to be a fluke of the numbers. I don't know why Labbies have such a bad reputation for HD. All the Lab breeders I know are careful about hip scores. I do know that the incidence of HD diagnosed by vets and disproved at a later time through X-rays and specialist diagnosis is pretty high. OCD is, statistically speaking, a worse problem with Labs than HD, but even with OCD, they are in the middle of the pack, and not, by any means, a problem breed. Of course, there is room for improvement. Puppy buyers should look for pedigrees with low incidence and talk with breeders about HD and OCD . . . you will find many breeders can give you scores going back a few generations, as well as scores for dam and sometime's sire's brothers and sisters. Also, listen to quality Lab breeders, like Zenchel, and ignore Poodlefan, who seems as intent on defaming Labradors as some people are in defaming pit bulls. Not walking on lead until six months is poor advice, as it will deprive the pup of many or most opportunities for socialisation. Of course, you need to do things in moderation . . . no different with a Lab than any other breed. Labs do have a propensity to eat too much . . . and moderation in feeding is especially important. I know one person who has ruined hips and elbows on a couple Lab pups by running them on lead beside a bicycle on pavement. . . sometimes going several miles. When I was breeding Labs I walked my pups on lead but off pavement from about four months, starting slowly. They were doing a few km by six months. The average hip score in my pack was below 4 (total of both sides) and old age arthritis hasn't been a problem. Muscles need to develop along with bones. Jarring is bad . . . stairs, jumping off the bed of a pickup truck, mad fetching, especially on pavement, etc. can do harm.