Steve

Baby browns come with brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers. Good luck with that.

If Tassie doesn't allow you exemption when another animal enters your property that is pretty shocking and my guy who pinged a hawk this morning to protect his charges would be a gonna and I was cheering him because he was doing his job.

Better but that still requires the dog to display a certain behaviour to be categorised and Id like to see a situation where the fact that its a dog is taken as a sign that how it is kept and managed should be given consideration before the behaviour is a potential threat or pain in the neck. The rest of my post pointed out how the French system married the two variables. Dog behaviour and owner behaviour in managing or mismanaging their dog. The French never separate them. Neither did my suggestion which described how it could also be done here. Especially in taking seriously and following up reported nuisance incidents. I also picked up the US research that mismanagement tends to be found among owners who don't register their dogs (no....not all....nor exclusively so....but the chances are higher). I spelled out, in the final paragraph, how following that up, seriously, could dig out numbers of dogs being mismanaged by owners in a worrisome way. And which could lead to more nuisance or serious problems. What we might lack here.....but the French have....is something in law which requires such owners to step up to learn about and then show competency in managing their dog. Though, I notice that the more recent Q'ld law covers the right (& importance) of designated authorities to intervene in an 'educational' way re owners' managing of animals. Yes I think I understood what the rest of your post was saying and in my opinion it is better and has merit but it still seems to me - correct me if I have taken it the wrong way - that it is only done when something either owner behaviour or dog behaviour in some way singles them out for this action. I would rather see everyone and every dog and the environment they are kept in assessed to try to eliminate more of the risk factors before they become a problem or obvious.

Better but that still requires the dog to display a certain behaviour to be categorised and Id like to see a situation where the fact that its a dog is taken as a sign that how it is kept and managed should be given consideration before the behaviour is a potential threat or pain in the neck.

Completely agree. If each council had x number of specialised dog rangers working in a proactive manner in the area then potential problems can be addressed. Unfortunately this wouldnt generate income like parking officers do. Imagine having knowledgeable dog officers who spend time at dog parks, actually walk through communities and make observations. That dog which rushes the old pailing fence everytime another dog walks past can be identified and the owners told to improve the fencing. The dogs which are the park bullies can be given 30 days notice to implement a training regime or be banned from the park. Use council registration fees to split the parks into 2 sections. Accredit local dog schools and the attendance (and passing) of the schools can be used towards cheaper fees. Go back to an annual registration fee so that those who have done the proactive training get heavily reduced fees. Have an anonymous number that people can register their concern about certain dogs and the specialised dog ranger can visit. The dog that spends its life on a chain will have improved quality of life - if the rangers are aware of the dog. At the moment if you were to ring council with concerns about a non socialised, frustrated dog the response would be 'has it done anything wrong?' Send the ranger there and find out why the dog lives on a chain. If its lack of animal husbandry knowledge then the officer can see that they are educated. If its because the dog is a social status and a vehicle for intimidation then the owners can be forced to make changes, or lose the dog. These rangers should be getting to know all of the dogs living in their specified area. According to council reps only about 15% of dogs in most shires in NSW are actually registered. Seems to me if there was a proactive focus rather than a reactive one we would see more registrations = more revenue and more fines = more revenue and surely enough to cover a wage. It would equal less disasters and less impact and cost for everyone. Would mean we could all enjoy our own dogs and their company when we take them for walks etc without the fear of being grabbed by a dog at large.

Agreed -

They can't or they don't want to? Can't. They are unable to create an enclosure to meet the specifications due to the way their backyard is constructed. Can we help at all with ideas? Unfortunately no. I won't go into the specifics but they can't comply on a very fundamental level, there is no way they could. If there was I'd already be assisting them to do so, as this dog being PTS is a sad waste of a life. This job can be very hard sometimes as it all comes down to human error but it is the dog that pays the ultimate price. But the results of not declaring the dog can be that another pet is killed (and it would be, the dog has history). It does need to be kept secure. And while the dog is not human aggressive, a person or child could certainly be injured while trying to intervene while the dog is in prey drive. My reason for bringing up this case is to show that while the dog is just 'being a dog' and is no threat to people, it still is in need of the restrictions that come with a PD or D label once it has shown it is able to escape and kill someone's pet. It's counter intuitive as we dog people don't think of a dog that kills a cat as 'dangerous', but in the eyes of the law they are. All dogs are just being dogs - its why the onus is on the owner to ensure that all of the what ifs are covered. The dog shouldn't have to be in a position in the first place where it is able to hurt another animal or human. If they couldn't contain it in the first place they shouldn't have had it. Sorry I think waiting until the dog has committed some kind of act which is considered against the law before anything is done is stupid.

Ive got Maremma and they are here to guard my property - if a strange cat comes onto my property and they didnt ping it - Id be asking whats wrong with my breeding program. Completely different if I dont keep them contained on my property and they visit the neighbourhood cats in their own backyards and give them a serve. edited to add - if they did this it would be my fault for not keeping them contained and I should be punished for that and made to ensure they can never get off my property again .That's why dogs have no rights because they are my property and I am responsible - they have no right to do what comes naturally any old place they want to because they are not able to be responsible. The dog [property owner ] is so why do BSL laws keep placing the responsibility on the dog to not show its instinctive behaviour? Nuts.

Its a step in a better direction than we have had but the focus is still on the dog and waiting for it to display certain behaviour and in my opinion the focus needs to change a bit. Everywhere I know of it is a legal requirement to have your dog registered with your local council. If council were doing their job and ensuring everyone was registering their dogs and calling in to see what fencing was in place and checking the level of owner stupidity they would be able to direct certain management issues to be put in place before the dog is in trouble , at large causing a problem or biting someone. If they had done this in Victoria where the child was killed in her own home ,the dog would have been registered , the dog would have been in an environment where it couldnt escape and it couldnt do what it did. Im not interested in killing the dog or fining the owner after the event - I want the event prevented. I want to be able to move around my neighbourhood , walk my dogs and my kids without concern that some idiot has not ensured their dogs are not able to bother me. They should be taking the dog home the first time its out on the street free of charge and giving the owner a serve about consequences and checking the environment is suitable and that it wont happen again. Owners should be directed to either get a better fence and have to attend education classes on the requirements of being a responsible dog owner or loose their right to own the dog.We should also have a reward system in place which will help to promote positive behaviours and make those who are not doing the right thing socially unacceptable. I saw Peter Higgins on the telly this morning saying he wants all dogs and their owners to have to do obedience training etc on a compulsory level. Sorry, I can never see this happening either nor can I see that as being a solution.

You need to consider how the bitch pup was managed when she was a baby to get the answers.Or even further back to her Mother. You can actually test a bitch for worms in early pregnancy and still have the little buggers cross the placenta and infect the pups because the test and the wormers dont pick them up once they have settled in other organs.they are only good for one part of the life cycle. The idea of worming every two weeks is to get them before they get to other organs and sit dormant waiting until hormones activate the life cycle I dont see worms in puppies of bitches I have bred but years ago I bought a bitch from Queensland where the breeder was bit slack about it and I had a hell of a time of it. You always have to assume there may be worms there no matter when you have wormed your bitch or how you have managed her as it only takes one to slip by and set up the lifecycle to go again.

Would be nice if their downturn in sales could be linked to lack of support for their practices of selling live animals . That may at least slow down any other company thinking selling live animals will make em rich.

Well if some want to live in a world where all they want to do is accuse those they oppose of stupidity and lying etc as has happened here when PP explain they dont buy from puppy farmers go right ahead but that doesnt change the fact that they think they dont and the people who count - those who are legislating dont either. PP say they dont buy from puppy farmers and they believe they dont but be my guest stay there and accuse them of deliberately lying and that will take us exactly no where toward ever finding what is needed to stop dogs suffering. Not my problem any longer.

Roundworm and hook worm work by the lavae sitting around in the bitch and "turn on" crossing the placenta in the last couple of weeks of pregnancy and they also sit in the mammary glands so puppies can be infected before birth and they get it via the milk. Its all about how the Mum was managed when she was a pup and it is also affected by how many litters. Sometimes the first litter will have a higher worm burden than the later ones. You can test the bitch prior to breeding and whelping and she will show clear of worms but the lavea is waiting to cause a problem and the meds don't clear it out of the placentas in that part of the life cycle. So if you have a bitch pup with round worm or hook worms she will usually have worms when she whelps. This one explains it. http://www.marvistavet.com/html/body_roundworms_in_dogs___puppies.html

Thats because you dont understand that its isn't MY definition - its the definition which law makers and those responsible for the various codes etc use. We attended a round table meeting with many many other dog related groups including the ANKC, AVA, PIAA, AAPDB,RSPCA several states etc and there was a consesus drawn on what the definition was to be used Australia wide of a puppy farmer . I didnt much like it but it wasnt MY call. The fact that other people havent taken that on board and that their definition is different to that which has been agreed upon has nothing to do with me however, every time I bring it up as a way of explanation as to current events it falls on deaf ears and somehow or other turns into MY definition or some crap about me supporting puppy farmers.Rubbish. It simply explains why nothing will ever progress as long as this continues with most of the world believing a puppy farm is different to the other half and why when they deny buying from puppy farms they believe they are telling the truth based on the agreed upon definition.

Problem is tsill the same- what you think is a puppy farm isnt what they think is a puppy farm - as far as they are concerned a puppy farmer is someone who isnt breeding via the permits and registrations required to be legal .If they only buy from licenced breeders they are of the belief they are not buying from puppy farms. Every single time this comes up we go through the same discussion . Until we are all on the same page as to the definition of what is a puppy farmer its all a blank wall.

Any time a puppy is sent to a pet shop or a new home without a vaccination there is a heightened risk it will get Parvo regardless of whether it is bred by a puppy farmer or anyone else.

Why would you get shut down if there were or were not evidence of Parvo ? Parvo can theoretically happen to any breeder especially those with black and tan dogs known for their low immunity to it and if they do as demanded by animal rights and allow members of the public to be on their premises and inspect where the puppies live etc with puppies who are not yet vaccinated. Parvo is endemic which means its literally everywhere and all puppies need to be vaccinated against it but they cant prove that the Parvo even came from the breeder - it may have been picked up at the pet shop or when in transit . If we really are considering what action needs to be taken to protect the puppies from suffering from the terrible thing and not just interested in a witch hunt on a breeder who sells to a pet shop we should be advocating for all puppies to be vaccinated at least 5 days before they leave the breeder,that's at least 5 days before they are taken in by the pet shop or new owner and then no puppies would go home with Parvo or pick parvo up in transit or at a pet shop, or at the local park.

Clean every thing up asap, get sick dogs out of there. Make it look all clean and pretty for when they come so you don't get shut down. Yep - except would they get shut down if they had Parvo?

But its still all about what is dodgy .They use their criteria as those breeders who are registered with council and hold kennel permits. These particular breeders do = for them they are not buying from dodgy breeders. The RSPCA have been there , they have their permits, no evidence of Parvo so I assume it wont go anywhere until next time or the time after etc.

If puppies had to be vaccinated 5 days prior to leaving their breeder regardless of where they are sold to including a pet shop Parvo wouldn't affect pet shop puppies and no more pet shop puppies would suffer because of Parvo. Seems simple to me.

30 puppies to the store over 6 years - breeder or not unethical for selling to pet shops or not there was still no evidence of Parvo - what now?

Who are you, and why would I do that? In fact, your question just doesn't seem to fit the original intent of your first post, so... Who are you? What is your intent with this thread? It becomes clearer with every post. In answer to your question: Not many. My vet often thinks I'm seeing the other vet in town. He comments on how "robust" my newborns are, then later the young pups, how "rock solid" their patellae are; he'll check this and that knowing there's no point because it's all okay. The hip scores will come back lower than breed average. Hearts are good into old age, when the dogs will die at about age 13 or 14. BTW, heart clear until 7 can be cause for celebration. If the murmur is detected at 7 years, the dog may have another 7 or 8 years left yet. It may not even die from the heart condition. Stop scaremongering. Your slip is showing. You're starting to sound a little paranoid. It was a genuine question which fits exactly with the intent of my original post; which was to find out whether it was possible to really safeguard against genetic disease when purchasing a Cav and to understand the extent to which genetic illness is present within the breed. The reason I asked you if you would disclose that information is because I'm genuinely curious as to what your intepretation of a healthy breed is. I also don't understand why you would find that question offensive. It's breeders not disclosing information about genetic issues they've had that leaves me resorting to a public forum to really understand the extent of the health problems within the breed. I don't think genetic issues are really going to be able to be remedied unless we become more transparent and conversant about them. Secretly, what I really wanted you to say was "I've had none in my lines". Then I would investigate you as a potential breeder from whom to purchase a puppy in the future. Though, I am glad that you haven't had many problems. It gives me hope. I understand people are defensive in the wake of 'those' documentaries, but I really don't think that attitude helps. I don't see why breeders can't just admit there are issues within a breed and that they're doing everything they can to rectify them without getting angry about it or feeling vilified. Maybe I'm missing something from the other side of the fence here. I don't think a heart murmur at any age is a cause for celebration. Sure seven is better than three, but at any age it's not ideal. But sometimes having it before in your lines may be a good thing for today. If a breeder has seen it before and made moves to eliminate it surely that's better than taking pot luck and hoping that because something hasnt shown so far that it wont show. Sooner or later something shows. Some of those things are preventable some are not .My point is asking a breeder if they have ever seen it before in any dogs they bred tells you about zilch especially if hey only have a litter a year or if they are new to the game, dont keep in contact with puppy buyers etc. This will take you nowhere. Id prefer to hear someone say Ive seen it and this is what Ive done to try and be sure I never see it again. Every breed, every dog may potentially get sick , with purebreds you get a bit of a head start because you know what to look for, what to work against and for and what to test for. Look for a breeder who has lots of healthy older dogs in their back yard - this will tell you more than any list of questions will.

What can they do about it other than check they are following the stupid codes and laws ? We called for more laws and we got them and big places like this which are selling to pet shops cover all of the requirements and get their licences. They tick all of the boxes and show their paper work and keep on pumping them out and moving them to the easiest market. Chances are they don't have PARVO on their property because if they did puppies would be dead before they get to going to the pet shop and adults wouldn't live long enough to produce a puppy - its more likely they are not vaccinated and pick it up enroute or when they get there. Parvo can get in via a million different methods and you don't have to have puppies living in filth or over crowded to have it turn up. Its a risk every breeder faces but pet shops which take puppies are at greater risk due to the exposure to the pathogens via environment and the public which the pups are exposed to before they are vaccinated. In my opinion its time the focus was placed on the legislations and regs regarding pet shops.They shouldn't be able to buy puppies which are not vaccinated at least 5 days before they come in and they should have a quarantine situation, necessary vet exams before they can be offered for sale etc and a heap of other things which breeders are now legislated into having.Until the pet shops are given new codes and new laws all it does it make it an easy cheap option for breeders who are pumping them out in their hundreds. You can sell them unvaccinated , unchipped and remain anon if you sell to pet shops but have to do it all if you sell them privately according to state codes and laws and its time those things were considered as a huge impact on the entire process. Puppies in and out should be recorded and the DPI should be given reports on where they are coming from to ensure they have the people who are supplying them on their books and matching up numbers etc .Puppies sold to pet shops should have chips in paid for by the breeder before they are handed over rather than having exemptions so chips dont go in until time of sale with the pet shop paying.Puppies sold to pet shops should be vaccinated at least 5 days prior to the sale to the pet shop paid for by the breeder and not left to the pet shop to do. Shouldn't be such a hard ask if some of the focus and responsibility is placed on the place of sale rather than as it has been. Its pretty bloody obvious that we are not going to over night stop pets being sold in pet shops so regulating so they have to spend more money, comply with more regs to purchase, hold, keep, offer for sale etc would make it a less profitable and less attractive option for breeders and hopefully cut down on numbers and the suffering. We can beat it up and sensationalize it all we want try to use it against this particular breeder but the fact is any breeder can get Parvo in their homes or kennels and there are many small breeders who visit this forum who have also had to deal with it. In fact I received a call from someone on this forum only last week to ask for advice on this and it was their first litter in 2 years. These puppies may have been infected any time between the kennel and sale time but its almost unheard of for puppies which have been vaccinated to die from Parvo. If we had a law which said the Pup couldn't be handed over within 5 days of being vaccinated it would eliminate the risk of people buying infected pups and suffering at point of sale.

Clearly some of what they showed was disgusting and breaking CURRENT laws which would see them prosecuted now. No amount of banning will stop dickheads like that.We cant seriously be thinking that we should ban the whole thing " in case" some do that .Why weren't the people who were doing that charged with animal cruelty ?

Whether we do have a litter back to back every now and then isnt the issue - fact is we have to have control of what we do and the decisions we make concerning our bitches dictated by laws and reg, codes none of which are determined by science but now we also have to have some insurance company dictating when we can breed. Its pathetic but as usual we will do as we are told and still give them business and our puppy buyers details. I'm very happy that we now have another insurance company which is offering free insurance to our puppy buyers but even if we didnt I think its time someone said bugger off and stopped allowing less breeder decisions being made without protest.