Steve

But this isnt about reading about a dog which is not purebred or is purebred - its about asking people what breed or breed cross a dog is - the repercussions for purebred dogs by people calling something a breed or breed cross is potentially huge and its ALWAYS just a guess.

People desex their animals because they are their animals and have a choice in how they manage them - no one makes them prove they cant keep them in and prevent a pregnancy or have them wandering looking for a bit and showing what they have done to prevent it before they are able to have a qualified vet do the procedure. And desexing has numerous potential long term health negatives. If someone wants to debark their dog and has to go through so much crap and prove its upsetting the neighbours and shwoing what they have done to prevent it in my book there isn't much difference to demanding they show cause as to why they would opt to have a dogs organs cut out over their vocal chords shortened. The only difference here is that barking is seen by councils as a lesser offence than having an unwanted litter - if councils decided all dogs have to be debarked to prevent barking complaints there would be no difference except that debarking has less risks especially long term than desexing. Dog ownership has become so over regulated that people are no longer just simply able to discuss with their vets and work out what is best for them and their dogs and that leads to neighbours being upset , owners feeling desperate and like criminals for wanting to have the op done and dogs becoming homeless. In the main this came about because animal rights decided it was a terrible thing and that breeders where debarking dogs themselves - supposedly by shoving pipes down their necks and hitting it with a hammer- what a bloody crock .No one has ever been able to ever site one single instance of this happening either by the way Just back off and let owners make the best decisions for their dogs based on their circumstances even if someone else doesn't see it as their last resort. It shouldn't be any one else's call other than an owner and a vet. Why make it so hard for an owner to simply make a choice for their dog? Wow - is that tirade directed at me? I am hardly abusing the OP :laugh: Just my opinion of what I would do. I am sure I have seen many threads where the long term health benefits of desexing are discussed so I guess everyone else is wrong and we are actually harming our dogs by desexing is that it?? No it wasnt directed at you personally but there have been many many threads here speaking of the potential adverse affects of desexing and it certainly isnt a situation where there are no issues o consider. it should be a decision we all get to make based on what we believe is best for us and our dogs depending on our circumstances and education. If someone wants to debark their dog or desex their dog it shouldn't be something they need to discuss with anyone other than their vet.

Nice idea, but would get mighty hard and laborious to follow once the thread has a number of "wotami's" on the go at the one time. Maybe a new sub-forum then? no, this is a purebred dog site. Agreed.

And by the way - its all about how you look at things - many might say yanking a dog around the block twice a day by a lead around its neck because they dont take action to live in areas where the dog gets enough exercise without this is pretty shocking too. Yet society says we are bad owners if we dont put this thing around their neck and make em pound the pavement. Who does what for convenience?

People desex their animals because they are their animals and have a choice in how they manage them - no one makes them prove they cant keep them in and prevent a pregnancy or have them wandering looking for a bit and showing what they have done to prevent it before they are able to have a qualified vet do the procedure. And desexing has numerous potential long term health negatives. If someone wants to debark their dog and has to go through so much crap and prove its upsetting the neighbours and shwoing what they have done to prevent it in my book there isn't much difference to demanding they show cause as to why they would opt to have a dogs organs cut out over their vocal chords shortened. The only difference here is that barking is seen by councils as a lesser offence than having an unwanted litter - if councils decided all dogs have to be debarked to prevent barking complaints there would be no difference except that debarking has less risks especially long term than desexing. Dog ownership has become so over regulated that people are no longer just simply able to discuss with their vets and work out what is best for them and their dogs and that leads to neighbours being upset , owners feeling desperate and like criminals for wanting to have the op done and dogs becoming homeless. In the main this came about because animal rights decided it was a terrible thing and that breeders where debarking dogs themselves - supposedly by shoving pipes down their necks and hitting it with a hammer- what a bloody crock .No one has ever been able to ever site one single instance of this happening either by the way Just back off and let owners make the best decisions for their dogs based on their circumstances even if someone else doesn't see it as their last resort. It shouldn't be any one else's call other than an owner and a vet. Why make it so hard for an owner to simply make a choice for their dog?

I get upset about this because if something goes wrong the breed that is supposedly resembling the most is blamed - not just in the news but also at the vet and the community. Lida has a new data base which is being heavily pushed as the answer to knowing the incidence of health issues in each breed where vets enter details and the breed the dog resembles gets tagged with it . This does registered breeders no good because we dont know if the data coming out is in anyway even nudging accurate and it doesnt identify who is breeding them but its us that have to answer for it and test and change our methods and breeding [programs. In my opinion the council system is floored and we would be better off to do something about allowing a dog to be identified as a bloody cross breed full stop.If they don't allow you to write in breed unknown its time we pushed and explained the possible consequences of this practice . In fact whats the point in us begging for more accurate stats if the bloody breed is a lucky dip and in reality because of that accurate stats are not possible? Sorry I get why people want to have an idea of what breed and they probably need some start point when you advertise them etc but what about the consequences for the breeds? Advertise them as breed unknown - medium sizes , short hair,long ears blah blah blah instead of a beagle cross and don't you ever dare call one a Maremma cross - even if it is.

Have you got a link to the actual study so I can have a study of it myself?

Its long been suspected that the drug companies made the infection rate out to be much higher than it is If you take a good long look at the whole life cycle thing it makes you realise that the risk especially in a healthy dog isnt anywhere near as much an issue that we have been pressured into believing, compromising our dog's immune systems and spending stacks of money However, the results may have been impacted by the drought - it may be a little higher since the floods - but we all should look at the life cycle , our own variables and make informed decisions.

Time we all just stopped and realised we are all different , we all have different needs and desires and for each group to get on with what they have to do to ensure their dogs are well loved and well looked after. I cant live with just any dog and for me being responsible is ensuring any dog I bring into my home is going to have minimal negative impact on me my lifestyle and my family - that way everyone and the dog is more likely to be happy. So Im fussy about its needs and characteristics.If someone else doesn't see this as an issue and they believe they can live with any dog regardless of its needs [and I know some people can] and management issues - all power to them but I'm not prepared to take that risk for me , the dog or my family. If that's being a snob who cares? I also happen to believe that if I bring it in as a puppy I am more easily able to have it quickly knowing what the rules are and how we shall all live together happily ever after. If someone else wants to bring in some adult mutt and they think they have the energy, time and motivation to do it all form there all power to them. But a girl has to know her limitations before the dog comes in - if not she has to live with the consequences for a decade and a half .One of my dogs lived with me longer than my kids did - she lived to 22. That's a long time to have to compromise on how you really want to live for the sake of the dog. Nup not me. Im too selfish.

What so we are supposed to guess why its in rescue ? Nothing in the Newcastle Herald sheds any more light on this. Some people complained, the council investigated and they couldn't find evidence of anything wrong. The RSPCA investigated and couldn't find anything wrong. Please explain if there are any gaps fill them in.

I only have 2 sets of PJ's both small ones - one pink one red. There are some larger coats though if anyone is interested.

Thank you! We sure could use it - we have a raffle going with 6 prizes and only 3 people have purchased tickets - its like pulling teeth.

I dont think we can stop PR's Julie, though I do believe that council need to made aware of the issues. There are particular 'rescues' who HP will not work with. The pics and notes on DOL are designed for experienced rescuers as a guide only. The dogs then go into care and are assesed, vetted rehomed responsibly. Only on Saturday I was asked to introduce a small breed dog to two families with young children. I had not previously met the dog though realised very quickly that he was unsuitable as he had rear end issues. I made that clear to the families, they were very grateful, and I then informed the staff. I have a good working relationship with council and believe that they will be very concerned with a number of issues involving PR's. O.K. so how are they getting them out then? Are you saying PR rather than someone else is actually getting them out ?That HP is seeing them as a rescue or do they usually release dogs to private people as well without temp testing and without screening? I thought they were just putting people in touch with pounds - or are you saying they are actually having dogs released to them with council assuming they are doing the work that is required to temp test and screen homes?

Nic - if PR just go away is the issue of pounds releasing dogs with out proper temp testing and without desexing and without caring about who they go to still the same? Its just hard to see how they can do what they do if the pounds aren't allowing it to happen. If you stop them how do you know another group doesn't do the same thing tomorrow or that private people take dogs out when they shouldn't be let out? Or am I reading it wrong?

Mutt , mongrel, heinz.

yep they have the perfect system but sooner or later someone is going to have to be accountable if a dog is put into a home and bites someone or another animal. If its the pound that knows the issues and with holds that info before letting the animal go they are it and anyone who is saying the dog has been temp tested and is no threat is in the firing line if the dog isnt what they tell the new owner what it really is. So perhaps the main issue isnt pound rounds and it is rather the peopel wh are just letting dogs out without caring what they are capable of or where they go. It is for this reason I cant see that NSW can hold off much longer in introducing laws to control shelters and pounds , private rescue etc. Much as I hate the thought of new laws - how else can the community be protected ?

And in the process making it harder for genuine Rescue to do what they do best. There's a reason some pounds do not want or like to work with Rescue - and it comes from bad experiences. This is leading up to one monumental bad experience. It takes rescue back years and puts all of the hard work and promises about how rescue wont place dogs in homes without being sure they are good to go on the line.

Yep its coming alright - problem is we have to wait until someone gets hurt and mad enough to do something about it first But I cant see how they are going to avoid it if things remain the same.

Pacers had some donated by meg last year to use as fundraisers but we held off until winter to sell them as no one wants them in the summer time. If you take some measurements Ill see what I have here in the way of PJ's if you like.

Hope they all have good insurance.

What size ?

Yep but then the states have their own ideas and white boxers don't get any papers. but that doesnt affect the OP as limited or no papers means no breeding - it really is that simple

I meant ANKC-registered purebred dogs, when I agreed with Sheridan. I put it in the context of having good experiences from dealing with ANKC-registered breeders who do well. As to the comment that Kennel Association breeders put too much emphasis on 'looks'. Here's the mission statement of the registered breeder who bred one of my pet dogs: My goal is & I feel dedicated to, breed with healthy animals, only breed with animals that have good temperaments, and frame them as close to the breed standard as I can, to give lives to (breed label) puppies that have the best chances for a good long life and a loving home for the rest of their lives. Notice how health and temperament come first? Also the emphasis on the dogs being loved as companions in homes. This breeder comes from Sweden and her dog won Best of Breed at the 2012 Crufts in London. A far-sighted and discriminating Australian ANKC-registered breeder had already imported a couple of her dogs.....which included my lovely natured girl. Yes Mita - you are preaching to the converted and over the years you have told us how wonderful your breeder is and I've met some of the best breeders in the world who would never select how a dog looks over health or temperament but so far I haven't seen anyone telling the world why they do show their dogs, why they think testing them this way is important and what it is that makes it so much of an issue to be breeding to a standard. Discussing examples is all well and good but its the system - the show system , not purebreds or even the registry which is under attack and they are showing their own examples .

Mita said I'm with Sheridan that purebred dogs should be promoted in a sound and realistic way Maybe - Except this time it isnt purebred dogs which are being attacked - that org has both purebred and non purebred breeders. It is the way they are being bred and selected for by those who are accused of placing too much emphasis on the way the dogs look - show breeders working to a breed standard. Just as the RSPCA and PDE and Mcgreevy etc are and the momentum has only just started to build.