sandgrubber

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

Ditto others warning not to put the stuff where it can be licked. Also watch out for dogs that lick one another. I recently had a girl go into horrid fits from licking a spot-on flea/tick med of her grandpuppy. It might well have killed her if I hadn't contacted a cluey vet, who said, 'hose her down, soap it out, pronto. The reaction stopped immediately when she was hosed down.

If there's a shortage, I don't see why they don't just place an order. Jeffers appears to have rabies vaccine in stock.... http://www.jefferspet.com/vaccines/c/10025/start/16/

I think Aussies should pressure to legalise home-dosing of dogs for KC,as in the US. I've seen KC go through a boarding kennel half a dozen times, and I've seen baby puppies get KC from the vaccination. In my observation, KC is a bit like human 'flu' or 'cold' viruses. Sometimes the thing that's going around is horrid -- you're sick for a week or two. Other times you dread the feeling that you're getting ill, and it's over the next day. Vaccinated dogs sometime succumb ... unvaccinated dogs sometimes don't get it, presumably because they developed resistence naturally by being exposed to related viruses. When a mild strain goes through the a boarding kennel, I think it's a bonus ... some free training of immune systems.

I have a pinot noir vineyard. My dogs munch grapes until their mouths turn purple and their poohs have little round contours all over the place. I've never heard any of the vineyard people I know have trouble with their dogs eating grapes. Billinghurst, in Give Your Dog A Bone, gives recipes for healthy dog diet that include raisons. I'm sure that raisons and/or grapes are toxic to a few dogs, just as some people can't take peanuts. Most dogs seem to do just fine eating grapes and/or raisons.

Sources, please. Black is the dominant colour in Labs. I have never heard that they are prone to bone or hamangiosarcoma cancers. I have seen studies saying that golden Cockers are more aggressive than other colours.

The sad thing with Labs is that the yellow is judged pretty evenly throughout the 'gamut' but any chocolate that is not 'nice dark chocolate' seems to be knocked back by judges. Mousy brown (liver, no?) or red-tinted from being in the sun is likely to be knocked back. Whatthehell, they're a working breed, you shouldn't have to raise 'em under shade cloth to end out with a colour that can get titled.

I think it's a fine name . . . good poetry. .. for a Chessie. I think of the Chesapeak Bay as being covered by a tawny brown matt for much of the autumn through spring. It also covers (from left to right) Light Deadgrass, Deadgrass, Sedge and Dark Sedge in Chessies. Urgh, "deadgrass" is not a nice name. :D

I've found that the 'someone is killing me' yelp starts to become common in week 6 with Labrador pups (or the bloodlines I've run) but only lasts a week or so. I imagine -- perhaps incorrectly -- that they start developing some sense of empathy in week 7 to 8. I should have said 'screaming' not 'yelp', but the software doesn't let me correct as I go.

I've never heard of health problems with non-solid colours (eg,brindle). I think its mighty sad that the snowflake Lab seems to have gone from rare to extinct. Colour is so trivial compared to the other things we're supposed to look after in the breed standard. 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.

There isn't a good solution for this one. You can aversion train your dogs. You can create habitat that's unfriendly to snakes. You can avoid walking except when the temperature is below 20 C and stay away from snake habitats. You can create smallish areas of snake proof fence. But the risk doesn't ever completely go away. The problem,btw, isn't snakes. It's venom. Now that I'm back in California, I am once again delighted to see snakes cause they eat the bloody gophers. But in our area there are no poisonous snakes.

No discounts here. Most of my puppy buyers make a lot more money than I do, and they don't need a discount.

I had a similar event when a puppy broke into a garage and ate snail bait that the owners didn't know was there. They were great owners, and I think they made an honest effort to puppy-proof, but they messed up in one critical detail. I helped the family find a 2 yr old rescue dog.