sandgrubber

It may depend on breed. In my experience, breeders in breeds where demand far outstrips demand, like Bostons or Frenchies, tend to be overwhelmed with puppy requests and may be very bad about responding to people they don't know. On the other hand, breeders of breeds where pups may be harder to place, like Afghan hounds, rough collies and setters (list based on personal acquaintance . . . may not be representative), may be looking to add names to their puppy-buyer lists, especially if they are relatively new to the breed and/or haven't owned a Gr Ch and gained prestige in the breed. Price may be a rough guide to the balance of supply and demand. Reputable breeders who charge high prices for pups are likely to be oversubscribed with puppy requests -- though this is far from universal.

The trouble with desexing programs is that the people who most need to use them don't. At least in some places, the number of dogs increases faster than the number of decent homes for dogs. Desexing is heavily pushed where I live (Florida) and subsidized desexing is widely available. Free for low income people . . . $80 for people with decent incomes. Pit bulls are THE garden variety dog. Walk around a semi-rural neighborhood and you'll see a lot of pits some chihuahuas and doxies, and an occasional hound or Lab. Pits tend to be very fertile . . . 10+ pups is common. For the most part, pups go for $100 to $200. Even at these low prices, people still view having a litter as a way of picking up a little cash, and the pounds and shelters are still full of pits and pit X's. It's regional. In the US, the South is generally a puppy surplus area, while the North and West import pups.

I'm no longer breeding, but when I was doing so (in WA) I did take deposits (around 10% of puppy price). Before I started requiring deposits I had a couple incidents where supposed puppy buyers simply not showing when the pups were ready and not returning phone calls . . . and in so doing, caused people further down the waiting list to look elsewhere and left me to run back through wait lists to another home for the pup. Without deposits, there are people who will get on the wait list with multiple breeders, and then back down from all but one. I always told buyers that I would gladly refund the deposit if they were responsible about keeping me up to date on what was going on, but if they mucked me around by simply changing their mind at the last minute, they lost their deposit. I ended out refunding deposits for various reasons including marriage break up, lost job, illness, and a murder in the family.

Breeders policies are all over the place! It's an individual decision that may be constrained by government or club regulations. Even where regulations are in place, some breeders don't conform, and you may have to go to litigation to get compensation. Many breeders are very generous and will bend over backwards to make things right. Some are pretty mercenary, and not flexible about returns, refunds, etc.. Unforseen circumstances is a big category . . . but, say, the breeder dies or gets ill and stops breeding. It's gonna be hard to transfer monies to a later purchase, and refund is likely to be a real headache. The best advice is ask before you buy, and get it in writing.

I can't use Advantix or Advantage . . . they give my old girl seizures. Our fleas have learned to deal with frontline and its equivalents as well as the Soresto collar. So far, Bravecto works wonders . . . full protection for both fleas and ticks in an area where both are awful.. No side effects. I tried to weigh Nextguard off against Bravecto and concluded that Bravecto appeared to have less chance of side effects and cost a little less . . . but these are iffy conclusions cause the evidence isn't backed by hard research. Anyway . . . haven't tried Nextguard.

Very dangerous website. That window, between 8 wks and 16 weeks, is where most parvo deaths occur. There is good reason for the multiple jabs that most vets recommend. Sure, if you live out in the middle of nowhere where there are no potential sources of parvo around, one jab at 16 weeks is adequate protection. Most of us don't have that protection, and when you buy a pup from a breeder, the breeder probably doesn't have that protection either. . LISTS of possible adverse reactions are meaningless without data on how frequent the adverse reaction is. Most are VERY rare. ...less probable than the chance of getting in a car accident when you go out your driveway. Arguments about yearly vs. three yearly are well supported by evidence . . . three yearly is adequate and annual is a waste of money as well as a tiny risk of adverse reaction. But you'll find this advice all over the place. Shultz's work on the rabies vaccine, which it was hoped would show lifetime immunity, has, so far, shown that immunity has begun to wane at 5 years. To my knowledge, equivalent tests have not been done for parvo. Risk:benefit studies often flounder on how you weigh the costs of a death . . . in these cases, a death with extreme suffering (parvo is a hideous disease). For communicable diseases, they also flounder on how to cost the risk of transmission to others . . . and the benefit of wiping out a disease in a community. No question. . . there are vets and clubs and boarding kennels pushing vaccination regimes that aren't supported by science. But I'd hate to see people walking away from puppy jab schedules to save money . . . with the consequence that distemper comes back and parvo becomes even more prevalent. Titer testing is no panacea. You can come out with an inadequate titer result when the dog is still immune, and the titer is generallhy much more expensive than a vaccine.

My guess is you've already tried the obvious: weight loss and gentle exercise.

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that if your dog goes missing you have to pay more to spring it from the pound if it's unchipped. Hopefully someone from rescue while be able to correct me if I'm wrong. Yep true - an owner is fined if their dog is not chipped . yep, for our area the council can fine dog owners with unregistered dogs (which requires the chip number - no registration without chip number) with up to AU$ 2,200! And yet we still have unregistered dogs. Just goes to show legislation and threats of punishment do not work For me the most important reason to register our dog is actually not to avoid punishment respectively fines, but to increase the chances that our dog can be found and safely returned if it would get missing so it is really more for the safety of the dog. I think it is also a requirement for getting membership in many dog clubs for obedience and agility training and the like. Eta: ...maybe it has also something to do with the wide spread 'no worries... should be fine attitude' when people embarking on a dog ownership? ...it is good to be positive, but sometimes it is even better to consider possible consequences... Not convinced about chipping. Years back, when I lived in WA, I had a couple pups, both microchipped, dig under the fence and go walkabout. They were very friendly, and wandered into someone's backyard all waggy like. The person took them in . . . had them scanned. The vet didn't find EITHER of the microchips . . . the chip had had migrated down the leg in both cases. I eventually found the pups by going house to house. If you really want to find a dog and it hasn't been killed on the road or stolen, you have a good chance of finding it . . . chip or no chip.

Three Labradors here, all bred by me, and all from very healthy lines. I doubt I top $500/yr for the three, unless you include the cost of Bravecto (flea and tick meds). With Bravecto it's closer to $1000/yr. My old girl (12 yr), thankfully, is still very healthy. The vet has pushed me to do blood panels for her, but the three times I've said yes they always came up showing no problems . .. so I stopped doing them. It's not just money . . . also costs in time and worry. I've taken to going to the wali-in mobile vet service at our local flea market. She's a good vet but offers limited services. Charges $25 for vaccinations and a basic health check. This helps control costs. Our local vet is absolutely awful about scheduling. I find I spend less time going to walk-in clinics than I do going to our local vet. Had a rather spectacular miss-diagnosis from our local vet (who has a great reputation) . . . not at all convinced that you get what you pay for with vet services.

I've done the same. I think the rails saved at least one, maybe several pups, in each litter. I don't know how many times I found a pup between momma-dog's back and the wall of the box . .. protected by the rail.(my girls averaged over 9 pups per litter)/

I was always told to count placentas and make sure they were all out (with natural dliveries). My girls averaged >9 pups. I don't think I ever succeeded in accounting for all the placentas, and I never had problem. I suspect some bitches are pretty subtle about cleaning them up, and I KNOW that I am not very alert in the days after a litter is born

...usually you can't advertise an AK-47 on eBay, gumtree or over a newspaper (not so sure about Fakebook so) - obviously there are some measures in place that makes shopping for this type of goods pretty difficult. Why not applying those measures to dogs?...Ebay already doesn't allow the sales of dogs (and other pets). Once you start controlling the sales in this environment, you will get the registration numbers up. I can't see that it would make it more difficult for people that want to do the right thing - for my own dog buying experience not much would have been different, beside that I would have had to send off application papers before we bought the dog. Craigslist, the GumTree equivalent in the US (it has unsuccessful progeny in Oz) bans pet listings apart from 'small rehoming fee'. It's a farce. Enforcement is haphazard, and mostly governed by users checking a box saying the ad is 'prohibited'. . Loads of pups are listed from BYB's (mostly pit bulls) for <$200. No allowance for breeders who are doing it right. Meanwhile, abundant listings for exotics (sugar gliders, hedgehogs, parrots of many sorts, reptiles of many sorts) and miniature pigs.

agree. If you want a small dog due to living in an apartment, being old and not confident with 20+ kg of dog, or having a small yard that wouldn't be fair for a big dog, you are hit with a choice between various terriers, daschies, miniature hounds, SWF's, and brachys, such as pugs, Bostons, and Frenchies. Temperament is paramount for me, and I find the brachy options very attractive from a temperament perspective (ie. having 'sweet nature'). Just wish there weren't the health problems . . . and a well bred Frenchie is hard to find and quite likely outside my budget range. It saddens me that there isn't a stronger movement to breed these breeds to temperament and health standards and ignore 'conformation' as judged by the show ring. Doesn't surprise me at all that demand is strong for these dogs. Just wish the supply side wasn't so full of profiteering breeders.And with daschies, I sure wish there was a strong movement to breed for temperament. I've met some mellow sweet daschies, and some that were more feisty and prey driven than a working vermin-hunter terrier.

Returning to the OP . . . I've come to hate the term 'ethical'. Too often it means 'doing things the way I think they should be done'. Given how widely attitudes vary about things like desexing, inbreeding (line breeding), selection for traits that will get a dog titled, etc., one person's ethical is often another person's BYB, or another person's torture breeder.

Allegedly, the #1 circus man, P.T. Barnum, once said "no one has ever lost a dollar by underestimating the intelligence of the American public." I'd imagine the same holds in Australia. People go for 'cute' as defined by the media. They don't check objective measures, and thus don't realize that daschies come from hunting lines and tend to be strong on hunting/attack instincts, and also have a lot of health problems related to elongated spine. Likewise they don't note the many health problems in Frenchies . . . mostly stemming from being bracycephalic and (often) inbred. Conspicuous consumption also helps with the Frenchies. They're not cheap. So they brand you as someone who can afford expensive (and frivolous) things.

the thing that surprised me about this study was that only 23% of Labradors (and some flatties) had the gene. 100% of the Labbies I've owned were gutzers.

and everything else . . . mine are spending a few hours under the mulberry tree these days. It's dropping fruit like mad. They also graze acorns when oaks are dropping them ...not to mention eating from the compost bin. When I had a vineyard they ate kilos of grapes at harvest time. I have to cut back their food when they are getting a lot of calories from browsing. It would be great if the can develop a test for this gene, making it possible to breed away from it. If there were a good genetic test, it would also make it possible to test whether biddibility and insatiability are linked. I doubt they are. I've know biddible Labs who weren't highly food motivated.

Nailing old carpet over pallets is another cheap solution.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160503130342.htm A May 3 study in Cell Metabolism links a gene alteration specifically found in Labs and related flat coat retrievers to greater food-motivated behavior, describing the first gene associated with canine obesity. The variation also occurs more frequently in Labradors chosen as assistance dogs, and might explain why these canines seem more trainable with food rewards. ... Starting with an initial cohort of 15 obese and 18 lean Labrador retrievers, Raffan and her colleagues selected three obesity-related genes to examine, all of which were known to affect weight in humans. This first analysis turned up a variation in a gene called POMC. In more of the obese dogs, a section of DNA was scrambled at the end of the gene. The deletion is predicted to hinder a dog's ability to produce the neuropeptides β-MSH and β-Endorphin, which are usually involved in switching off hunger after a meal. In humans, common variants in POMC have been associated with differences in body weight. "There are even some rare obese people who lack a very similar part of the POMC gene to that which is missing in the dogs," says Stephen O'Rahilly, co-director of the Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Institute of Metabolic Science and a senior author on the study. In a larger sample of 310 Labrador retrievers, Raffan and her colleagues discovered a host of canine behaviors associated with the POMC deletion. Not all Labs with the DNA variation were obese (and some were obese without having the mutation), but in general the deletion was associated with greater weight and, according to an owner survey, affected dogs were more food-motivated--they begged their owners for food more frequently, paid more attention at mealtimes, and scavenged for scraps more often. On average, the POMC deletion was associated with a 2 kg weight increase. "We've found something in about a quarter of pet Labradors that fits with a hardwired biological reason for the food-obsessed behavior reported by owners," says Raffan. "There are plenty of food-motivated dogs in the cohort who don't have the mutation, but there's still quite a striking effect." The researchers found that the POMC deletion occurs in roughly 23 percent of Labrador retrievers overall, based on further sampling of 411 dogs from the UK and US. Of 38 other breeds, the deletion only showed up again in flat coat retrievers, related to Labrador retrievers, and weight and behavior were similarly affected. Notably, the POMC deletion was markedly more common in the 81 assistance Labrador retrievers included in the study, occurring in 76 percent of these dogs. "We had no initial reason to believe that the assistance dogs would be a different cohort," says Raffan. "It was surprising. It's possible that these dogs are more food-motivated and therefore more likely to be selected for assistance-dog breeding programs, which historically train using food rewards." But, Raffan cautions, the results could also be just a quirk of the data. "We haven't yet looked at puppies and asked if they're more likely to qualify as an assistance dog if they have the mutation," she says.

The breed standards are not responsible.They are the same as they were when the breeds were first presented and there are few breeds which have remained as the founders of each breed ever intended them to look . The interpretation of the breed standard is another matter because moderately short to me [a beagle breeder] is obviously different to breeders who are breeding dogs with heads like bowling balls. What is moderately short ? There is an argument which blames the judges because if a certain type with really moderately short muzzles begin to win then the theory is that all of the breeders who show and puppy buyers want to have dogs that look like the ones that are winning. However, if breeders didn't breed dogs with heads like bowling balls in the first place no judge could show a preference for them. We need critiques of the standards written which define such things and we also need a better definition of "betterment of the breed" because to me its pretty hard to justify how anyone is "bettering the breed" if each generation produced doesn't have a better [ rather than worse] quality of life. The breed standards may not be the problem, but they could be part of a solution. Eg., if 'moderately short' is defined in terms of, say, anatomical ratios, it becomes much harder for judges and the fancy in general to incrementally shift preferences to shorter and shorter snouts. I'm glad the Rottweiler head has not been favored in Labrador circles, but I could imagine an interpretation of the standard that would allow it to become fashionable. Subjective words like 'balance', 'moderately', 'powerful', 'deep', 'thick' etc. make standards vulnerable to progressive change in the direction of unhealthy extremes.

I'd suggest paying some attention to the nuts and bolts of terms like "raw" and "natural" as defined by the law and in practice. I find this blog helpful for learning to ask the right questions: https://thesciencedog.wordpress.com/category/pet-food-2/ They use a lot of hype to sell dog food!

I doubt that the cost of testing ivermectin for heartworm treatment exceeded two months profit. The tests they do are of a something of a sham anyway. They aren't required to test all breeds, and testing on laboratory beagles isnt going to tell you about genetic mutations that are concentrated in collie breeds. If you spend a bit of time browsing the big pharma economics writings, you'll find that pet meds are considered an very high profit part of the business.

IMO the most interesting line in the Norwegian KC announcement was "The Norwegian Kennel Club wants to establish an endurance test for the brachycephalic breeds – this work is well underway" Brachy form isn't the problem, it's the associated loss of function. If someone can regain the function and keep the face baby-like, no worries. Sure there are related problems that need to be addressed, such as eyes that have a tendency to pop out of their sockets and bitches that require Ceasarians. But somehow, I suspect, if you breed for a dog that can take a good walk on a hot day, a lot of the other problems will begin to drop away. If not . . . making it necessary to register BOAS surgery, eye problems, Ceasrians and other dysfunctional aspects of the 'type' that wins shows could do a lot of good. Defining 'moderately' in millimeters or in terms of ration of length to width seems arbitrary. All I care is that the dogs are healthy!

I wonder how other KC's are going to react. I presume that if the Norwegians start outcrossing the pedigrees won't be recognized in Oz/UK/USA/etc. Will the Swedes and Finns join along? Germans? If they meet their health objectives without outcrossing, I'll bet there will be a lot of people looking for Norwegian pugs to import.

http://web2.nkk.no/e....b7C_wlHMWm.ips Focus on brachycephalic breeds Published 11.04.16Last updated 11.04.16From veterinarians, concerns are frequently raised regarding suffering and reduced functionality among the brachycephalic breeds. The fact that a shortened nose creates a predisposition from problems are by now well documented. The Norwegian Kennel Club has for a significant time focused on the problems regarding respiratory issues and problems with temperature regulation for the brachycephalic breeds. The Norwegian Kennel Club's work has so far consisted of the following: Spreading information and raising awareness among owners, breeders, breed clubs BSI (Breed Specific Instructions regarding exaggerations in pedigree dogs) – this includes both providing general information to judges as well as incorporating BSI as a part of the education of judges), to prevent exaggerated dogs being awarded Breed standards have, in general, been modernized in recent years. However, there are still descriptions in several standards that will make dogs predisposed for reduced functionality and health problems In 2015, the NKK sent a letter to the Norwegian Food Safety Authority, encouraging them to make registration of surgery to improve respiratory function for brachycephalic breeds mandatory. The Norwegian Kennel Club offered to manage the register of dogs having undergone this type of surgery. The Norwegian Kennel Club has no information of which dogs, or how many dogs, are currently being operated on?. The Norwegian Food Safety Authority declined the suggestion to register these operations. The Norwegian Kennel Club is currently part of a working group for dog welfare, with several other animal welfare groups in Norway. This group has worked extensively over the past six months on concrete suggestion to improve the health for these breeds The Norwegian Kennel Club wants to establish an endurance test for the brachycephalic breeds – this work is well underway Recently, the Norwegian Kennel Club board voted unanimously to intensify the work to improve the health for the brachycephalic breeds. The intensified efforts will begin this spring, and will include the following: The Norwegian Kennel Club will raise the issue during the Nordic Kennel Union meeting in April 2016 The FCI will be contacted to ensure dialogue with the countries responsible for the breeds in questions. The Kennel Club may also be contacted directly regarding this matter, as they are responsible for several of the brachycephalic breeds. The dialogue with the various countries will include: Outcross projects, with the intent of improving the anatomy of the exposed breeds, without reducing the genepool Extensive revision of the breed standards with descriptions predisposing for health problems/reduced functionality Revision of breed standards for breeds where even shorter noses are likely, or who are close to being at risk (nose/skull=1:2) The Norwegian Kennel Club will establish a voluntary register where owners can report that their dog has been operated for respiratory problems. This will be registered in DogWeb, the Norwegian Kennel Club health database, open to the public. Letters with information regarding surgery may also be sent to breed clubs and breeders Statements from the owner(s) of parents that these dogs have not undergone surgery for for respiratory issues will be registered when the litter is registered. Profile photos of all dogs being shown at dog shows will be taken and registered.