sandgrubber

I hope, at least, they're giving the pups a good clean Christian upbringing! Not saying I like the idea . .. but I'd say a Church pup is likely to be a bit better than a DD pup bred on a puppy farm and sold through a pet shop. At least it will be clear who is responsible if the pups have genetic health problems or go to their homes with parasites and disease.

I let mine work such issues out on their own. Give them options, but let them make the decision. If you want to train the pup, rather than going natural, I'd suggest crate training.

I agree... I would not eat it but I do agree with your comments. The difference is the extent to which you feel compassion and empathy with the animal that's being eaten. If I kept sheep as pets, I would probably feel different about eating lamb, and I certainly wouldn't want to export any of my little lambs to the Middle East. My nephew went vegetarian after the pet pig ended up in the freezer. I have four chocolate Labradors, so brown dog wouldn't be my menu pick. I don't judge anyone for eating dog. I just wouldn't send a puppy to a place where dog is eaten without very strong assurance that the puppy buyers would recognise the adult dog as a sentient being (not a status symbol) and value it for life.

Vaccination is your best first line of defense . . . also avoiding places where dogs are walked (specifically, where dogs do their business).

Completed the survey. I think everyone needs to stand up for the idea that a dog should not be condemned to death (or confinement as 'dangerous') without a fair trial. I'm reminded of a recent local story where dog bit child and got the green needle. After the lethal dose was administered they discovered that the poor dog's ear was full of staples . . . it bit the kid only as a last resort in attempt to escape torture. Mindless slinging of the 'dangerous' label helps neither dogs, nor people.

Sorry to be humourless. I've been accused of being a BYB etc on DOL and it tends to depress one's senso fo humour. I don't see democracy at threat. But I wish to whatever one wishes to that people would provide evidence when they make strong assertions. I see both sides slinging a lot of . . . ok I'll be polite and call it mud. Until we have better reporting systems and decent prevalence data and a way to tie the disease to the pedigree, in my books it's all 'speculative' . . .or BS, depending on your level of crudity. If I read another study trying to make sense of 'incidence' X breed data I think I'll puke. Surprise, surprise, surprise. If a breed is popular and there are lots of pedigree dogs in the breed, the number of reported diseases is relatively high. If the breed is relatively rare, not so many genetic defects have been reported. TOTAL ABSURD POPPYCOCK. We need to understand what genetic diseases pose the greatest threat to what breed . . . and design strategies accordingly. I think it's great that Bateman came out strongly in favour of compiling prevalence data.

One my worst nightmares. My Labs love to pick things up. It's a worry to see that this one didn't have instinctual fear of snakes, or not enough to override the retrieve drive and soft mouth. Great dog. So glad he survived.

Done. I think this should be posted on the General Forum as it looks like they're proposing a broad erosion of a dog's rights . . . beyond BSL. Eg, a dog biting a child, because the child is torturing it, would be at risk under proposed rules. Dogs deserve some right to a fair trial before getting the death penalty, or a lifetime of home detention under the 'dangerous' label.

If you don't want to be accused of kidnapping but want to send a message, how about trapping the cat (in a humane trap) and putting a note around its neck saying that next time it gets caught you're sending it to the pound. Or simply taking the trapped cat next door and telling the neighbor to their face that the next time won't be so nice.

The relevant part of the video begins about 2/3 of the way through the posted video clip. Dying pink, orange, magenta and day-glow green . . . result looking like some child's toy. I wouldn't give a hoot if dye went hand in glove with quality care and upholding of health and breed standards, but I sort of doubt it. The business isn't just grooming. .. they also sell 'pedigree' dogs, at high prices. He notes that dogs are becoming a status symbol in China. So it's sort of a pet-shop that merchandises dogs + grooming saloon. Hard to see how such an enterprise can be supported without a good network of puppy farms . . . in a country where values also allow for the eating of dog and place a premium on accumulating wealth. I'm pretty open minded and not anti-Asian. But I'd have to see pretty good documentation showing that care standards are high and 'pedigree' means 'good pedigree, including relevant health tests' before I could be enthusiastic about the thing. A later segment of the show included interviews of people in a restaurant that specialises in dog. The customers report that 'brown' dog is best, followed by 'black', with white at the bottom of the list.

NOT!!!!!!

Did anyone catch the 'dog' segments on Paul Merton In China 6:10pm Sunday, 17 Jan 2010 Documentary CC PG I was at once grossed out and amazed to see all the 'pretty' punk dyed poodles. Worst of all was hearing that the guy had forty some dog grooming parlours (sp?) and was planning to hit 60 by the end of the year. No way am I exporting to China!!!! Not to mention the follow up segment where he goes to the restaurants specialising in dog meat dishes.

Thanks for the notice. So sorry to hear it's bad. Here's hoping it doesn't travel North.

Inbreeding depression is reduced viability (eg, low litter sizes or low survival rates offfspring) arising from inbreeding. Zookeepers worry about it a lot when they select mates for rare animals. Whether or not it occurs in pedigree dogs has been a subject of discussion on DOL. Note, the report also mentions the opposite effect. To quote: "When animal breeders wish to produce pure genetic lines, as they sometimes do, for example in laboratory animals, they will mate brother with sister generation after generation. Most lines die out due to the exposure of deleterious recessives that are normally hidden. However, any healthy lines that survive are likely to have lost many of the deleterious recessive genes they started with, a process known as genetic purging." hush your mouth, surely nothing good can come of :D shock horror, inbreeding The purpose of the quote was to show that the report gives a balanced, non-dogmatic position. Island biogeography is FULL of plant and animal populations that start from a single founder, and hence are highly inbreed. Eg, most of the native species in the Galapagos or the Hawaiian Islands descent from a few individuals that happened to drift to the island. Many of these are healthy and robust. Extreme inbreeding can produce healthy popuations, though, as I understand the academic research on the subject, it is more likely to lead to failed lines. My own bias is strongly against ANY dogma. Biology is wonderfully complex, and many 'rules' have exceptions. There may be cases where close inbreeding would be useful to rescue a rare breed with high incidence of some genetic problem.

It's not the electronics which will inject any scientific rigor into this enterprise. Do these folks....RSPCA UK, Sydney Uni & RVC ever talk to, or look at work, from other places? Denmark already carried out a useful study re cause of death & longevity, across purebreeds & crossbreeds. Interesting results there....a little bunch of pure breeds, trumped all the others. What is really funny & quite against the current bandwagon....the strangely shaped little dachshund with its long barrel body & short legs, came out in the top group. Now it could be worth doing similar studies to see if this is replicated in other countries with other genetic pools. Following on from this, then it's likely not a simplistic equation....that pure breeds have been developed into a state where genetic conditions, uniquely, abound. Which is why there's such good research IMO coming out of some of the top US university schools of veterinary medicine. Another issue that give me the scholarly chills.....is the RSPCA UK's bloke's reference to 'consumer pressure' as driving the project. Now that's a surprise....I'd expect it to be science, if a university is involved. Consumer perceptions about ideal dogs, should in itself be something to be critically studied. Not accepted as truisms. No wonder then that some riders on the bandwagon seem to be talking the language of advertising. I have seen the press do more damage than the RSPCA, and I wouldn't take any press release at face value. I would have to see the details before I concluded that this study wasn't about both pure breeds and F1/crossbreeds/DD's. As for scholarly chills . . . sounds like you haven't had a good bout with post modernist intellectuals who tell us that science is all value based . . . no one is objective . . . and that improvement comes from putting our biases up front for examination. Vet research is often funded by drug companies and pet food companies, so much veterinary research requires skeptical reading. I am much happier with 'consumer preference' as a driver, if it means complaints from puppy-buyers and voiced opinions of pet-owners, than I am with 'science' as established by some multinational conglomerate.

In my experience in Australian academia, the inclusion of a variety of stakeholders is widely advocated in forming advisory panels, and you don't get your grant funding if you don't get a broad mix on your advisory panel (especially for CRC's). Eg, a business advisory panel will have a few representatives from labour, a childcare advisory board will typically try to include interests of owners, parents, workers, and local government. I was working on bushfire research . . . we sought land owners, fire fighters, aboriginal representatives, tourism operators, research scientists, ecologists, local government, state government, national government . . . the whole kit and kaboodle. I see no problem with including a zoologist, geneticist, reproductive vet, a gene testing company rep, someone from a welfare organisation, or whatever on a dog breeding advisory panel if they have experience and credentials relevant to the problem. If I were picking a panel I might insist on a statistician with broad experience cause I see a high frequency of people drawing generalisations (on both sides) based on flimsy data and personal bias. I think it would elevate the debate if people could unite behind statistically defensible studies.

I wonder if all the cross-breds that pass through the RSPCA doors will be subject to similar testing before rehoming .. to give a clear indication if the problem is really a 'purebred' dog problem, or just a 'dog' problem in general .. bet they won't be ... Actually, comprehensive data on prevalence would be a great thing!!!! As more genetic tests become available, I want to be able to say 'no' to those tests that have less than, say 0.5% prevalence in my breed. It would be even better if the data were in some sort of open registry, cause even 2% occurrence can be ignored if it can be tied to specific lines . . . and lines you have steered clear of. You're only doomed if you lie down and play dead. If they are following the recommendations of the Bateson Report, if I read it right, the reporting will be done via vets when the dog comes in for care, and will apply to cross breeds and mixed breeds as well as pedigree dogs. I may be wrong. But the devil is in the details, and I think we need to see the details before passing judgement. Also, if they are departing from the recommendations of the Bateson Report, which is good in recognising that puppy farm problems may be at least as bad as those of pedigree dogs, I think it's worth observing that and rubbing their noses in it.

I'm tired of kennel zone in Perth Metro and am thinking of relocating. I only recently realised that some (many?) WA shires are pretty nice about making exceptions to the two dog rule for registered breeders. The Rangers want to know and have the right to inspect, and they may charge a registration fee of some sort . . . but some seem happy to have a four or six or eight dog household on a rural lot in their jurisdiction. Would be interested to know of people's experiences with different shires in WA . . . thinking, in particular, about south of Perth, near-coastal, but not necessarily on the coast. Eg, Harvey, Waroona, Murray, Bunbury, Busselton.

I find that, with an all black, or all chocolate litter, most puppy buyers can't tell the pups apart. If they pick a pup on one visit, they'll pick a different pup on the second visit. Exception being if there's a runt . . . the runts are often very popular. If I get someone who can justify their pick, eg, they want to show and they like the conformation of one pup better than another, I respect their right to pick. Otherwise I nudge people toward the pup I think suits them best. Temperament is hard to call in a half-hour visit. Often the most boisterous pup will have eaten a lot and be acting placid, while one of the calmer pups will be doing zoomies. I point this out to puppy buyers, and by-in-large they seem happy with the pup they get.

Inbreeding depression is reduced viability (eg, low litter sizes or low survival rates offfspring) arising from inbreeding. Zookeepers worry about it a lot when they select mates for rare animals. Whether or not it occurs in pedigree dogs has been a subject of discussion on DOL. Note, the report also mentions the opposite effect. To quote: "When animal breeders wish to produce pure genetic lines, as they sometimes do, for example in laboratory animals, they will mate brother with sister generation after generation. Most lines die out due to the exposure of deleterious recessives that are normally hidden. However, any healthy lines that survive are likely to have lost many of the deleterious recessive genes they started with, a process known as genetic purging."

I've begun working my way through the first few chapters of the Bateson Report. I find it interesting reading, though sometimes at odds with points of view that seem to dominate DOL discussions. For example, Ch. 3 which deals with Inbreeding has some interesting references on inbreeding depression in wolves based on field studies in Scandanavia. I have heard people on DOL forums deny that there is good evidence for inbreeding depression. Discussion here seems to be going right for the recommendations. Would others like to move discussion of the concepts and evidence in the text to some other forum on DOL?

That is the problem. It would take several years of veterinary schooling -- after all the basic science, biology, etc. that they do before vet school -- to cover all the things a vet really should know to be in general practice. Perhaps students get more than 10 minutes on genetics & breeding, but they certainly don't spend many hours on it, and many get more time on dealing with owner grief over pet death, or on bird lungs, than they do on dog breeding. Some vets go into vet school knowing something about dog breeding . . . some will pick it up when they do resident training or when they go into partnership with a more experienced vet who has done the yards, and some won't learn because it's not their area of interest and few of their clients are breeders. Having a Dr in front of your name doesn't guarantee that you know everything!

Here's Jarrah and her daughter Monica with Jarrah's 10, nine day old, pups. Both girls have milk. Jarrah gets milk and helps Monica with her litters too. Anyone else have girls that share pups?

Poor dog. Here's wishes for a maximum conviction for the owner. Would be interesting to know what else he's in the frame for. Clearly, a violent person with a lack of empathy, in need of whatever correction the correctional system can offer, and a hefty fine and confinement if the correctional system can't correct. [Too bad cruel and unusual punishment isn't an option.] My guess is the 'sympathy' vote will find a caring home for Boof. Poor puppy deserves it.