sandgrubber

Good to hear that one very stupid bit of breed specific legislation has been relaxed. Sure, greyhounds were bred for running down prey. So were all sight hounds. And there are greys . . . and dozens of other breeds . . . who find it good sport to run down a cat or SWF. I'm sure there are greyhound trainers who encourage the blood-sport aspect of the chase. The law should go after those trainers . . . not the dogs.

There are lots of things in the market that I think are overpriced, not to mention badly made, poor quality, etc. My response: Don't buy them. It's a market. People can charge what they want. Sometimes the price reflects production costs. Sometimes, rarity. Sometimes, a degree of monopoly. Sometimes it's smoke, mirrors, fashion, and hype. This is as true with dogs as anything else. I don't see why people get so exercised about this topic.

Actually Elina says: "Of course we have problems as well, but we have quite strict Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. I'd like to hear more about what the rules are, both for breeders and for pets . . . and how they are enforced. When I lived in Germany with a dog, I seem to remember there were quite a few rules and very high licensing fees. What was different was that people would tell you off if you broke rules . . . leaving much less for the equivalents of the RSPCA and rangers to do. The breed mix was quite different too. I'm in the US (California) now. It's more like Australia than Northern Europe.

Great story, but probably not true. All the 'ashes' I've seen come out of a crematorium had pretty good chunks of bone in them and couldn't be mistaken for coke.

Paul . . . could you please note where this was extracted from and provide contacts for Caroline Le Couteur. I think this discussion would be more productive if there were more dialog between the sides and less preaching to the choir.

There are many Lab breeders who have chocolates . . . including Driftway and Blackboy. Chocolate shows up in a few prominent Lab lines (eg, descendents of Master Mariner). A number of breeders have been working hard to import quality chocolate stock. I see no shame in charging more for chocolate pups . . . if you pay to import stock and/or do frozen semen AI to get the best quality stud, it's fair to pass on the costs. And if supply can't keep up with demand price will rise. What's wrong with breeding to meet market demand IF you don't sacrifice health, temperament, or conformation. It can be done . . . but requires working a little harder to find the right dog. I'd suggest just going to the DOL puppy ads. You'll find lots of chocos. Then weed out breeders who don't test, who show bad test results, and whose lines don't show quality . . . and if some of them are too expensive, give 'em a miss too. Another good strategy is to figure out what choco stud dogs you like (personally, I like Berolee William Trigg, IMP UK, at Blackhills Labradors in NZ) and check to see who has used them. People who take the trouble to use a really good dog are likely to be working toward quality.

I think feral is a great label for wild, loud, undisciplined, kids who show no respect for others and take responsibility for nothing. I've met a few of 'em. That aside, I'd like to complement everybody for not taking the denial route. I appreciate the absence of 'who says it's a Labrador, show me a photo, it may be an ill-bred one, my dogs will allow you to take a bone out of their mouths, . . . blah blah blah . . . yes, some Labs are resource guarders. Many are not. One more thing for breeders to keep in mind and to try and purge from their bloodlines. What an awful comment, I would never describe any child as a "feral".

"You don ' t stop laughing because you grow old, You grow old because you stop laughing!!!"

I'm confused. German friends of mine have told me that their kennel club (details lost in translation) disapproves of litters of over six pups, and that it is common practice to pick the best six and euthanise the rest early. Can someone clarify if this is an 'old' attitude that has been changed?

I think it's great that the Brits celebrate ugliness. This guy certainly qualifies!!!!! Personally, I think some breeds are ugly, full stop . . . and I tend to love them for it. Time for Australia, and the US (I'm a dual) start their own ugly dog contests As for whether this guy should be pts . .. I'd say you'd have to be a eugenicist/nazi to say advocate that unless he shows some health defect that dooms him to a life of pain.

I'd like to know too . . . and I'm sure others would. It's easy to distort and/or slander if the source is kept secret. How do you know this, lillysmum? I sent you a PM...this is not for general info on the board.

If you don't like what your council is doing, get involved . . . or at least talk to the people who represent you to find out what is going on. If the k9 community doesn't get involved, it's sure to get increasingly constrained.

Hi Thanks for not taking offense . . . much improved. I agree with the original sentiment . . . puppies are great for bringing a smile and making the heart go pitter pat. I think it's the puppy farmers who most try to convince people that buying a puppy will bring happiness . . . and don't heed the responsibility that must go along with that joy. I know you're not one of them. As for stepping on toes. Sometimes its hard not to. But I think there are ways to select puppy buyers that aren't snobbish and still consider the welfare of the dog throughout its life. . . and that make sure, when you do make a mistake and select the wrong household, the people feel they will have the support of the breeder in finding a new home for the pup. Hi there, I have had that quotation on my DOL posts for a long time now but I might change it now. Thanks for the prompt. I see a lot of very sad people and situations and I see what joy that babies (of any kind) can bring. Every time I take a puppy out somewhere with me, I see faces light up. The same can be said of a kitten, or a chicken, or of a human baby. New lives do bring joy to people. I do not go around touting that everyone should buy a puppy. When I have bred and sold puppies ( in very small numbers) I am always very careful who they are sold to and I still hear from the buyers of those puppies many years later. But I do like to spread a little joy in a world that already has too much sadness. We cannot buy happiness (as an individual component) but if we commit to sharing 15 years of our lives to caring for a puppy/dog then we can indeed be buying 15 years of happiness and have many great memories to carry through after that. btw it is not a quotation that I have used anywhere else. I hope your Christmas season is full of joy and if you have any little puppies in your life at the moment, that they bring you much joy too. Souff

I agree that the owner is to blame . . . but I also suspect there are half a dozen . . . or more . . . people who watched the neglect and did nothing. Passive observers are not without blame. It's hard to get rid of negligent owners . . . but good if someone intervenes before the neglect becomes a matter of life or death for the poor animal.

Pitied, ok, but lets hope that most of them get stopped before they get to their first dozen animals.

It would be interesting to see the details on this. What is the 40% increase in demand for their services about? Is it an increase of dogs/cats/etc in shelters? more calls relating to cruelty? more nuisance complaints? all of the above? I am sure there are some overpaid stuffed shirts in the RSPCA. . . . as with most any 'Royal' charity. But is there a larger problem? and is that problem related to the call for mandatory desexing?

Santa Cruz County, in California, has had mandatory desexing since 1985. You can keep entire dogs here, but to do so legally, you need to get a permit and pay a bit more for registration. The whip is coupled with a carrot . .. heavy subsidy for low income people who want to do spey/neuter for their dogs/cats. This has had the desired effect of cutting back on pound populations. The legislation is widely ignored. Many breeders continue to do their breeding without permits. In poorer suburbs, it's not uncommon to see a stray (usually a chihuahua X) with conspicuous boy bits roaming the street. The county is cash-strapped, and the rules only seem to get pulled out when dogs are being a nuisance. It's not clear whether the mandatory desexing or the subsidised spey/neuter programs has been more effective in reducing impoundment rates. I think studies have found that subsidies on spey/neuter, combined with information drives, are more effective among poorer people. (But on such subjects you can usually find studies supporting both sides of the issue). It's important to consider why there is public support for such proposals. I think the main reason is irresponsibility among dog owners. One: People who don't have dogs, or who are responsible with their pets, deeply resent neighbours who allow their dogs to bark at all hours, do their business on the street, or terrorize people walking or cycling. Two: most people don't like euthanasia, and in some areas, seen from some perspectives, voluntary spey/neuter is not adequate to prevent large numbers of unwanted dogs. Btw, the quote at the bottom the previous post: "Whoever said you can't buy happiness forgot about little puppies." is part of the problem. Breeders MUST do more to ensure that they sell puppies only to people who will care for the adult dog as well as the cute puppy. I don't think it's going to be possible to keep mandatory desexing off the agenda in relatively progressive/green/upper middle class [or whatever group it is that pushes for such measures] constituencies without alternative ways to limit irresponsible pet ownership.

Such legislation can have an effect without being draconian. Santa Cruz County, where I live, is considered 'best practice' for mandatory desexing and pet shop control . . . at least in the US. The laws allow breeders and show people . . . working dogs could probably qualify as well . . . but you have to register with the county . . . and registration requires a letter from your vet saying you are keeping up a good health regime. You can pick and choose your vets . . . the one I'm using is for minimal vaccinations, likes feeding raw, etc . . . does titre tests in place of jabs . . . so the Vet letter is flexible; it just screens out breeders who can't be bothered with vets. As for pets . .. you still see quite a few entire X breeds in the poorer sections of town . .. enforcement is lax unless the dog is being a nuisance or neighbors complain. They also have lots of subsidised desexing. Despite weak enforcement, the legal regime has greatly reduced the numbers of pets in shelters . .. and cut the euthanasia rate way down. Oh yes . . . no live animals are sold in pet shops. That one is enforced, and easy to enforce. Yes but that makes too much sense, Steve.

My experience with councils is that they often require people to do things yesterday. They also realise that this happens. Don't throw out the envelope so you can show the postmark. Even if there was no attack, dogs roaming free in public areas isn't ok, and could be valid reason for a nuisance order . . . I think the best thing you can do is make it clear that you won't allow a repeat . . . and don't allow a repeat. Six months isn't that long. In effect all you got was a warning. Sounds fair to me.

It will be interesting to follow what comes of this. I'd guess it's a disaster for a few breeds ....but may save other breeds from evolving into types that cannot whelp freely.

Not extinct. I know or know of several excellent breeders who have mentors and are passing on their standards. So long as this is happening, excellence will continue to exist. I'd guess that excellence has always been rare and old fashioned people who can't see all the fuss and just put a dog they like over a bitch they like have always been the majority.

If there were as many suspected murderers as there are people who don't pick up the pooh, I doubt civil rights concerning DNA testing would be respected. In some places dog pooh is more than an excuse ... it's everywhere. Most of our human excrement is treated and disposed of in ways that don't create public nuisance. There are people who systematically take their dog or dogs down to the local park every day and let them relieve themselves. No picking up. Some wait until dark so they don't get caught. If they took their kids to the park for the same reason, you can bet there'd be an uproar. I don't think that's because of the poop but more like an excuse used by those who don't like dogs in general to have dogs OUT of public parks and beaches. I am in full agreement that people should pick up after their dogs but it annoys when I see dog people being so petty in turning on their own in wanting people fined for not doing as they should ........especially when they themselves add to the thousands of tons of human effluent that is pumped out into the oceans each week. In regard to the DNA testing for offending pooping dogs.......amazing isn't it when a suspected rapist or murderer has rights that says he is allowed to refuse being DNA tested ...but an owner of an offending pooping dog has no such rights. Crazy world we live in hey ! :D

I heard a lovely interview with the manager of a large (300 unit) dog-friendly apartment complex. They had no end to problems with people who didn't pick up after their dogs. Then the went the DNA testing route. In the last three months they have only found six poohs on the premises, and all the owners got fined. (US National Public Radio . .. I can't find a transcript). I don't think it's practical at the shire level....but perhaps someday they'll change from microchips to DNA profiles for council registration. When that happens, it could be a greats system. There are two reasons people don't pick up after their dogs: (1) they are lazy and/or irresponsible; and (2) they don't get caught. If there was a good chance of getting a nasty fine for not cleaning up, I think a lot more people would carry and use pooh bags.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLG3794252008091 (Reuters) - An Israeli city is using DNA analysis of dog droppings to reward and punish pet owners. Under a six-month trial programme launched this week, the city of Petah Tikva, a suburb of Tel Aviv, is asking dog owners to take their animal to a municipal veterinarian, who then swabs its mouth and collects DNA. The city will use the DNA database it is building to match faeces to a registered dog and identify its owner. Owners who scoop up their dogs' droppings and place them in specially marked bins on Petah Tikva's streets will be eligible for rewards of pet food coupons and dog toys. But droppings found underfoot in the street and matched through the DNA database to a registered pet could earn its owner a municipal fine. "My goal is to get the residents involved, and tell them that together, we can make our environment clean," said Tika Bar-On, the city's chief veterinarian who came up with the idea for the DNA experiment. Bar-On said the DNA database could also help veterinarians research genetic diseases in dogs, investigate canine pedigree and identify stray animals, replacing the need for electronic chip identification. "The sky is the limit on how far we can take this," she said. So far, Bar-On said, residents have "reacted positively to the programme and are cooperating because they want their neighbourhood to be clean". She said Petah Tikva would consider making it mandatory for pet owners to provide DNA samples from their dogs if the trial programme is successful. (Editing by Robert Hart) .

I noticed an add for 'majestic tree hound' pups in our local paper. Seems they are a new /old breed depending on how you look at them, recognized by NKC. They look like lovely dogs. Are they in Australia? Maybe not . . . treeing isn't so useful for Australian big game :D see. eg, http://www.nmtha.com