Steve

This is a great idea, perhaps we should be pushing the state associations to allow for puppy buyers to provide feedback - The association could send out forms much like car manufacturers do when you get a car - asking for feedback as to the standard of the car dealer as well as for servicing. Even offering the first year free membership of the association to the new puppy buyer as an incentive, thus perhaps increasing membership for the future. Nowdays as membership has to have photo id means that unethical breeders would not be able to put in false forms to stack this system. Feedback ratings could then be given to breeders by the association - general comments from these then because available for the public to view. This would create a positive approach to breeders and Associations can then make recommendations to public - rather than trying to highlight the negatives. Sounds good - except that when you begin to gather good feedback for a breeder if they have been around long enough someone thinks they are unethical and want to complain because someone else thinks they are ethical and feel there should be no positive feedback because they have had a negative experience. When something goes wrong people are emotional and they don't always see things in a logical way - they have assumptions and expectations which they feel are not being fulfilled so they usually make a bigger racket about it when they feel the breeder is responsible for or hasn't shown enough caring when they tell them they have a problem. One example - a breeder sells a person a dog and all has been well. The breeder has been in reasonable contact which has lessened over the years but they are confident the buyer is happy with them and all is well with the dog. 8 years later the dog develops an eye condition which the vet says may be heritable.the buyer goes back to the breeder and the breeder feels they say all of the right things and without even asking for vet reports or evidence they pay back into the owners bank account half of what the original purchase price was. When the money has been paid back a complaint is lodged. The buyer believed that by the breeder only paying back half of the purchase price that the breeder clearly showed she didn't care. When the buyer was lodging the complaint she was treated with compassion and an understanding that her dog's condition and her sadness at that was impacting on how she was feeling and reacting So she was asked to tender written vet reports to ensure that the breeder really had bred a dog with a heritable genetic condition and what the vet felt was the consequences of that. Rather than coming back to tender these documents when she went back to the vet - the vet had told her she had misunderstood and that he had said the condition may have been heritable but there were known other causes and if there was no sign of it in the relatives of the dog it may have been caused by injury or nutritional impacts - and she had no supporting documents.Rather than apologise or say she had been mistaken she got mad at the vet and still expected we should judge the breeder because it may have been heritable and all of the things she had research told her this was true. The buyer still blamed the breeder because she "didn't care enough even if she didnt cause it " and there was nothing which could be said to make her see the breeder had paid her back money she didn't need to and that the breeder did care. Years later the fact that the breeder bred a dog with an eye condition which may be heritable and which the breeder did care about is still on the internet as evidence that she is unethical,bred a dog with a heritable condition and didn't care when her puppy buyer told her. This for most people reading it wipes out anything good the breeder may have done over decades and positive feedback from her other puppy buyers. Other breeders and the general public reading the accusations judge the breeder as being unethical and no one consider that the way it is reported is not all there is to be told and as far as the breeder knows it is the only dog they ever bred which developed the eye condition. This dog was bred in 2002 and the breeder is still being spoken of and judged for this and no amount of positive feedback from her other puppy buyers is adequate for people to stop calling for her not to recognised for anything good they say about her. Another example - A breeder scores her parent dogs and only breeds dogs with very low hip scores, eliminates anything from her breeding program which may cause a problem for future generations - over some 20 odd years she breeds almost 200 dogs and many of her puppy buyers provide positive feedback and in writing give her a pretty good rap - there is evidence she has good relationships with many of her puppy buyers even up to 13 years after the puppies went home.One sees this positive feedback and is mad because she has a dog the breeder bred and she also feels the breeder didn't care enough. So she threatens that unless the positive feedback is not removed she will go to the media to tell everyone the system of accepting positive feedback is a scam. Another a breeder does everything they can to find good homes for their puppies and has regular contact with the puppy buyer and they are confident that the dog is happy , the owners are happy and all is well. This is the second dog these people have had from the breeder with the first being 2 years old , they know the breed and they have been a good home and have a good relationship with the breeder.They have an agreement with the breeder that if ever they cant keep the dog they will return the dog to the breeder. Then the breeder is told the dog has been handed into rescue.the breeder asks why the rescue or the owner didn't contact them first and they are told the owner had said they had attempted to contact the breeder , left a message which was't answered .The breeder never received any such message and if they had would have gone to pick up the dog.The breeder asks for the dog to be returned to them but they are told the rescue already have a good home lined up and all is well. The breeder offers a donation but is told the dog is desexed , came in free of charge and they will take a purchase price ,no donation is necessary .the breeder still offers a donation and requests bank details which are never provided .The breeder asks that their contact details are provided to the new owner so that is there is a problem in the future the new owner can contact the breeder for support. Weeks later the breeder hears the dog didn't go to a new home and is still with the rescue person. the breeder requests that the dog is returned to them and they are told its not an issue that often dogs take a while to be placed and all is well - the rescue will not return the dog to the breeder - so the breeder advertises the rescue and the dog and they are concerned the dog is a burden for the rescue and the dog finding a new home Someone hears about the breeder's dog being in rescue so they decide to tell thousands of people via a face book page that the breeder has no care for where or how they place their puppies and don't care when their dogs come into rescue. No amount of feedback about how the breeder tries to screen their buyers or how many wonderful homes have been found over the years counteracts that - they are unethical. If anyone says good things about the breeder those who have judged them unethical because of what is written or they have heard will feel the breeder has no right to have anything good said about them. One breeder A has a system which works for them which is a little different to how another breeder B does things. Breeder B reports breeder A to the CC and if the breeder is found to not be guilty breeder b will still think breeder A is and they will tell all that the CC is useless because they know the breeder to be unethical. There are a couple of issues here - If a breeder makes a mistake , learns from it and tries not to make the same mistake again - how long should they pay for it? How long should they be judged unethical? Who is to judge what is and is not ethical and should the CC judgement be considered to be the final word based on what they are able to determine? How do you determine whether a breeder is working toward what they think is best for the breed if it is perceived to be a different method than someone else who thinks their way and their goal is best? How do you judge which really is best for the breed and the dogs they own? Should one poor report card wipe out the good ones? Should a breeder have to give up their privacy if they feel vulnerable or simply don't want strangers looking at their kennel "loungeroom" to prove they keep their house clean and look after their dogs? I have never ever, seen a flea on my dogs,my puppies are checked by a vet before they go home and the vet has never ever seen any sign of a flea. My dogs are checked bi annually by a vet - daily by me and never a flea. I live in an area which is not prone to fleas,I use natural preventatives and its simply not something Ive ever had to be concerned about . I sent a 16 week old puppy to Kalgoorlie and it had to stay over night in kennels mid way to pick up the adjoining flight . Im told when the puppy arrived home all is well and a follow up a week later the pup was great. 2 weeks after the pup arrives home I get an email telling me that they thought I should know the pup had fleas when it arrived.I went over every dog in my yard and there was no sign whatever of fleas and the new owner believed me and agreed the pup probably picked up a flea on the way home or since it got home but they could have just as easily not believed me and told people what a mongrel I am because I sold a dog with fleas. i've no doubt some people who would delight in making me out to be unethical would have used the fact that a pup I sent home had fleas to show I was unethical. Since then I've used a spot on for every dog as it is leaving my property even though I know I don't need to so if the pup gets fleas its long enough after it gets home for me to be off the hook. Is someone unethical because they decide to have a vet debark their dog rather than have to find it a new home or is someone unethical if they could have a vet debark their dog but choose to hand it over to rescue? Who will decide? There is usually 2 sides to every story. <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

Yes there are - they come under prevention of cruelty to animals, mandatory codes etc but they are pretty disgraceful and I wouldn't want any animal I owned living that way. Problems of course are we all own different breeds with different requirements , we all have different life styles and live in different environments etc. in an ideal world we would all hope that breeders first and foremost are doing what they do because they love dogs but the reality is that some people don't love their dogs and even then there is no guarantee that loving them is going to equal not harming them or not neglecting them . Most parents who neglect or batter their children or their spouses love them too. So Id love to advocate for breeders to be able to decide whats best for their dogs on their property but Im not sure thats the answer either as Ive seen some stuff that is way outside what I would consider O.K. where the breeder thinks other wise. As I said its complex.

It really is quite a complex issue - people who own and breed few need to be punished for any animal cruelty crimes as well as anyone who breed hundreds - and whether they are good money managers isnt for me any part of it and anyone can say what their motivation is - though obviously those who breed hundreds impact more than just a few dogs and should be pinged per dog perhaps???? I live with my beagles at my feet and they live and sleep as part of the family. I have them whelping in my home and they are raised within the family setting with constant socialisation etc - my "kennel" is my loungeroom. I dont think that I should have to house them or manage them as a commercial kennel does but how can you allow me to do that and not someone who owns dogs and who lives in filth with them without caring for their basic needs adequately and neglecting them. Im also not convinced that current regs which seem to treat dogs as if they are in boarding kennels - where they usually only live for a few days and then go home is conducive to them being well accommodated and in their bests interests if they are stuck in concreted cubby houses or sheds all their lives either. Its difficult to try to justify how anyone who does have to comply with such regs and have their animals housed this way for anything more than a day or two can do it knowing that it must be a horrible way for a dog to spend its life. The current trend appears to be expect all breeders may own hundreds of dogs and therefore make them all have their dogs managed and living like they would need to if they were in mass production. I can almost see this as understandable but for the people who just want to own a couple of dogs and enjoy their company as members of their family that they also breed now and then doesn't seem to be the answer either.

I would say that breeding dogs is already seen as different to keeping farm animals. Its difficult to imagine the kinds of meddling and limitations placed on dog breeders being applied to breeders of farm animals. I can just see the sheep and dairy farmers around here being happy about a government telling them how to manage when and how and how often they should breed their fertile animals.

what's the point of drawing a magical line in the sand ? some people think a back to back is wrong, others know that it can be done and is not detrimental to a bitch when they are in excellent health. What should the magical number be ? Lord knows the canine councils have already done it and it doesn't stop someone from breeding a litter from an unhealthy bitch. Some very experienced breeders believe it's much better to breed a bitch more often while she is younger and then retiring her earlier as opposed to breeding a bitch less often and therefore breeding her when she is getting older and less fit. Problem is in the 'dog world' breeders can't be open and honest about certain issues with out being attacked by others who consider themselves the ethical experts. No point anyway as all breeders have to comply with state legislation which controls how often they can breed. If you have suggestions to make to the MDBA - best you contact the MDBA .

I have 8 kids and 13 with one on the way grandkids so I guess most would think I like kids - and I do if they are under control and respectful. I don't mind a baby crying or a toddler having a chuck as I see this as part of being a parent and most times out of control but throwing food at me, kicking my chair,pulling my hair, coughing on my sneeezing on me being able to run wild in a restaurant etc drives me nuts and I dont believe I'm any worse at being tolerant at that now than I have ever been. I dont want have to say hello to them or interact with them and go "aren't they cute" I've never appreciated parents who don't teach their children what is and is not good manners and appropriate behaviour in public. I don't even mind that much if its a one off and the parent pulls it in and it doesn't happen again but when its a constant and the kid doesn't give up I could belt them and their parent. I love dogs too and most of my life revolves around them but the same goes I don't want to have to come home wearing someone else's dog fur on my pants,any more than I wants someone else's kids sticky fingerprints on my clothes,or having them come over "arent they cute' to say hello to me and get a pat when I'm at a coffee shop.I don't want to have to sit with my bag behind my back because the dog likes the smell of it.I dont want to have to be worried about the dog running toward me off leash to race through my picnic is going to do. It would appear that some dog lovers suffer from the same affliction that some parents suffer from - because they love them and tolerate their poor behaviour they simply expect that everyone else will too. They somehow believe they have more rights than anyone else but I don't think its any worse now than it has ever been. Some parents and some dog owners have always been idiots and not socialised their kids or their dogs and not taken control when they should.

Its a bit of a worry actually that the motivations of the couple were taken into account - this is something Ive been arguing against pretty strongly in any situation where new laws are being discussed. if you arent perceived as being greedy you get a lesser fine and penalty and you're right regardless of why you do it - you do it and the dogs suffer . they have 250 odd dogs keep them poorly but get a reprieve because they were usining what they did to feed themselves rather than live a life of luxury???? Ive seen some of the most dreadful cruelty and neglect in situations where the breeder will be adamant they are only breeding for the show ring, or only breeding for the "betterment of the breed" Since doing Pacers we have seen some doozies who breed because they just love puppies, to buy some new bedroom furniture etc Now while I think it s appropriate to take into account other things when setting penalties Im not happy that people can plead against a penalty or feel they will be exempt or treated differently for being neglectful and treating their animals poorly if they dont appear to be breeding for greed. Dogs should be protected no matter what the motivation is - no matter how many they own and while ever we judge people on their motivation rather than their actions I cant see us moving ahead.Its why calls for laws which only target large scale breeders who are perceived to breed commercially wont cut it. especially if they breed commercially but dont manage to rake up large cash flows. makes no sense to me. disclaimer - this is not me supporting commercial breeders it is me saying that dogs are treated poorly by people regardless of their motivation and sometimes those who are motivated by money - greed do a better job in looking after their animals than those who have a few do. Consequences and penalties should be judged on the action not the motivation. if someone wants to take my post and put it on a face book page to discredit me and have people calling for me to bleed and burn and die please don't change it as was done last time or take parts of it out of context.

For a while I kept a waiting list - what a pain.You end up with up to 100 names which you have already had to do a primary screen of ,then when puppies are born and you start to go through them most if not all are sick of waiting and have gone elsewhere .You cant just write recipes for puppies , you dont know what sex you will get or what markings in most breeds and when people put their name on a waiting list they start to think they have a chance at a puppy - most times they are disappointed if that doesn't happen. Now I only consider putting someone on the list if they already have one of my dogs .I've found some of the best homes ever from advertising in places the RSPCA say don't look and those over the years who have been a pain have not come from these ads. I know breeders who have sold their puppies to pet shops without papers in order to avoid advertising in places like this in case their peers see them as slack for breeding a dog without already having a home for it and again the advice from the RSPCA on how to buy a puppy disadvantages the small breeder who doesn't breed often enough to want to have a steady stream of puppy buyers rather than simply advertise when they have them. People who advertise and are involved in the sale are being responsible for finding them a new home and much better than the alternative where they just expect someone with puppies should be found by esp and left unable to find homes for them - creating un wanted puppies. the breeder still has the final say and te buyer has the option of looking before they buy if they want to. There are unintended consequences to many things the RSPCA decide they want to include and it simply demonstrates that they haven't consulted with or have much of an idea of what hobby breeders do.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/dogs-seized-in-puppy-farm-raid-court-told/story-e6freoof-1226287096375 RSPCA and animal protection officers seized 246 dogs in the first prosecution of a commercial puppy breeding business in Queensland, a court heard yesterday. Authorities were in the District Court appealing the sentences handed to Ruth and Kenneth Schloss in the Magistrates Court last May. Ruth Schloss, 55, pleaded guilty to one charge of cruelty to animals, one charge of breaching her duty of care to animals and one charge of failing to comply with an animal welfare direction without reasonable excuse. Kenneth Schloss,63, pleaded guilty to one charge of cruelty to animals and one charge of breaching his duty of care to animals. Ruth Schloss was fined a total of $9000 and ordered to pay $10,000 compensation, no convictions were recorded and a prohibition order was made that she not acquire any dog for a year or more than three dogs for two years. Kenneth Schloss was fined a total of $6000 and ordered to pay $10,000 compensation. No convictions were recorded and similar prohibition orders were made against him. The appeal was on the grounds of appeal the magistrate erred in fact in finding that not all of the dogs, seized were subject of the charges and the sentences were manifestly inadequate. It was alleged the magistrate placed too much weight on the circumstances of the couple, and too little weight on general deterrence and the injury caused to the animals. The court heard the husband and wife ran a dog breeding business named "K and R Puppies" near Kingaroy in the Burnett region. In September 2009, a search warrant was executed on their property, following which 246 dogs were seized and taken into the care of the RSPCA. The search and seizure of the dogs was a complicated and expensive exercise. The RSPCA set up a temporary veterinary triage and processing centre and the operation lasted three days. Five dogs were sent away for emergency veterinary treatment and two died. The cruelty to animals charges were in relation to 14 particular dogs. The animals were caused pain due to the couple failing to seek or provide appropriate treatment for their veterinary conditions. They were also alleged to have failed to provide treatment with respect to particular dogs for dental disease and ear infection or control of parasites, particularly fleas and ticks. The couple were also alleged to failed to provide appropriate accommodation or living conditions with respect to all of the dogs. The court heard originally dairy farmers the couple bred dogs as well and this business gradually grew. They found themselves with 246 dogs, the breeding enterprise was too much for them to manage properly. After examining the couple's finances and the magistrate's reasons, Judge Bradley dismissed the appeal to increase the penalties. "This is a case of disturbing cruelty to animals, the couple grossly breached their duty of care. The conditions demonstrated on the video are most concerning, and the evidence of the suffering of particular dogs is distressing. "This is apparently the first prosecution in Queensland of persons involved in a commercial dog breeding enterprise. Clearly, general deterrence is an important factor. "It was a commercial enterprise, and the number of dogs involved is quite shocking," Judge Bradley said. She said, however, it was a case of neglect rather than deliberate cruelty, and the breeding and sale of the puppies was engaged in more out of need than greed.

Trouble is,we all are the same.Ethics aren't excluse to ANKC. As long as ANKC breeders can't see that,a broader view of ethics acceptable to all interests can't be reached. Every ones too busy trying to point the finger elsewhere and theres no Body to represent all interests equally. Whether breeders like it or not,there is a whole industry associated with dogs in the community and we are part of it. Edited to add, and affected by all legislation we ask for, or don't study very carefully and and comment on. Yep but I don't think everyone is too busy pointing the finger - there is lots going on behind the scenes. Its just stuff you cant talk about here.

What fascinates me is that the QCCC has said out loud they are going to hand over their member's data - data that was entered years ago up to now to the RSPCA and there hasn't been a whimper. not that I expect there to be much there that can create a problem for breeders but surely its a matter of principal - who can and who do QCCC simply hand over their members data to without any requirement on them to do so? You also have to ask about the warning to those who are breeding more than average too. You would think if they are dong anything that needs them to be warned on that they wouldn't be members - surely a part of membership especially when they get exemptions for policing state laws is to comply with all legislation and the assumption is all registered breeders are. It would appear some are not and needed to be warned they may have a problem - or that when its changed they will have a problem they don't now.

Yeah well if that's the case they should police them and fine those who don't pay - and keep the fees down for those who do the right thing.

Not sure how a company could be expected to re send and replace when there is no evidence the parcel didn't arrive. How can they know the person didn't simply say they didnt receive it? though I would want to see proof of postage which is easy to do.

What about the dog who jumped the back fence before the owner could get to the vet to desex - nil intent - shit happens.

Its not only that - there are a lot of breeders who haven't up till now been micro chipping - if they hand over the records of what puppies they have bred and match it to puppies which have been chipped over the last 12 years that's a lot of breeders exposed. Im safe Ive never sold a pup since day one that wasn't chipped but a huge amount of breeders haven't been doing it.I know two who have recently walked away because of the new rules in NSW to put chip numbers on pedigrees Some of them register an extra dog in a litter too so they can beat resting them - papers are everywhere for dogs that don't exist. Some may argue that this is what they need to do to pull it into them all doing the right thing - but the introduction of chipping to register a pup with them has done that. Many breeders have more dogs than they should according to council and wont be happy about the mob charged with policing them is also being given their info. The other thing that interests me is the warning to their members who breed higher numbers - First they say they are not breaching any regs but then say quote "Despite the best efforts of Dogs Queensland, it is unlikely that some of these breeders can avoid being caught up in any future Queensland Government Puppy Farm strategy. It may be a good time for these breeders to consider their breeding strategies and be mindful that compliance with State Government imposed regulations may be inevitable" What does that mean ? Does this mean that those who breed higher than average numbers and are seen to own too many dogs which they havent notified because they have died etc will be in a sticky position and be under the gun / How are the mongrel mob who have been breeding thousands of puppies each year commercially etc being made to be as accountable ? Queensland just told their members they are going to hand over their details to the RSPCA and yet there is no legal requirement on them to do so. One step closer to having an outside body overseeing the breeding of purebred dogs. Since 1998 – The year when we began to make it compulsory in some states to register all puppies and introduced the limited register we breed - Australia wide - approx 26,000 less puppies per year now than we did then. Approx only 12,000 puppies Australia wide in approx 100 breeds were placed on main register in 2011 and were able to be used to breed registered purebred dogs. If registrations drop at the current rate in 20 years only ahandful of puppies will be registered If breeder numbers drop in the numbers they have in the last 5 years in 3 years time there will be less than a thousand left Australia wide.

Nope, in NSW it is the responsibility of the OLD owner to lodge the change of ownership paperwork, and you can get fined for not doing it. ETA: Link - Section 31 No I meant papers with the CC not council regs All of my chips are in the new owners names but my CC regos there would be a hell of a lot still in my name because we cant change them over on their records.

If this were to happen in NSW Id be done like a dinner as here we cant change the owners details over - its up to the new owner to do that . Good luck Queenslanders did you know these details were going to be passed onto the agency afforded the responsibility of policing you when you signed up? Nothing to worry about if you are doing the right thing anyway.

http://www.dogsqueensland.org.au/Members/Dog-Blogs-2012.aspx Quote - There are two other URGENT items of business of which members need to be made aware: 1. Despite two requests via the Queensland Dog World magazine over the past 12 months (for members to update their data), it would appear that our Dogs Queensland registers still have details of “deceased dogs” appearing against individual Queensland members. Just one example would be as follows: There are 24,719 QLD registered dogs on file BORN PRIOR to 2000 that are NOT marked as deceased. It would be highly unlikely that very many of those dogs would actually still be alive today. The same would apply to dogs younger than 12 years of age that are deceased. Please contact the Dogs Queensland Office if you require assistance in identifying any dogs that remain incorrectly on your records. The State Government will not be able to differentiate – all dogs that appear against a member’s name will be considered to be alive and as such may be counted into the Puppy Farm management scheme. We know of members who have owned in excess of 50 dogs over the period of their “dog world” participation and yet none of those dogs (some showing up as 20 – 30 years of age) still appear on our registers. Updating dog register details is easy – you don’t need to send in original pedigree certificates (these can be kept on your files for nostalgia purposes). All members need to do is photocopy the certificate of registration and pedigree, mark across this photocopy the word “DECEASED” and then post these photocopies into the Dogs Queensland office with an accompanying note providing your name and membership number. 2. The other issue is one of litter registrations and the number of puppies being bred by some of our members. It may come as a surprise to many of our responsible member breeders to realise just how many litters are being registered by a small percentage of our members. Whilst these breeders are not breaking any specific Dogs Queensland rule, it does raise serious questions about their compliance with our Code of Ethics – in particular Clause 2 e which states: I agree not to breed from a bitch or a dog in a way that is detrimental to the dog or the bitch or to the breed. I further acknowledge that I shall breed only with the intent of maintaining and/or improving the standard of the breed and welfare, health and soundness of my dogs and I shall strive to eliminate hereditary diseases within my dogs and from within the breeds. Despite the best efforts of Dogs Queensland, it is unlikely that some of these breeders can avoid being caught up in any future Queensland Government Puppy Farm strategy. It may be a good time for these breeders to consider their breeding strategies and be mindful that compliance with State Government imposed regulations may be inevitable.

Male mammals need testosterone - think it through. If you took the gonads away from a male child what side effects would be expected? Old men have greater health issues as their testosterone levels drop - Some stats have placed male animal which are desexed before puberty at a 73% increase in HD. Its a bit different for females and in my opinion they are better off if not used for breeding to be desexed as they can actually draw estrogen from places other than their ovaries and there is a risk of various health issues. The point Im trying to make is that if its my dog I should be given the facts for and against.i should be informed of possible consequences if I do or dont and when is the optimum time frame.As an owner I should be able to make my own informed decision which is suited to my style of living, my family and my dog. Take a look at the links I posted earlier - the studies are there including a recent one which shows that bitches which are not desexed live much longer than those which do. I wouldnt allow a breder to take away my right to make the choice for my dog and I don't see why puppy buyers should be treated as idiots and potentially irresponsible in order for some breeders to "protect them " The other issue for me is that if someone wants an entire dog they will simply tell lies - if you leave the decision open to allow the buyer to become educated ad make their own choice there is no reason for them to tell a breeder lies so you can then decide if they want to sell them a pup based on the truth and not just what they know you want to hear. I to believe that owners should be informed of all potential health issues and outcomes but I do feel that there is an element of alarmist here. Male mammals clearly don't need their gonads to live long healthy lives. Take the horse as an example. The vast majority of male horses are desexed at either weaning or six months of age, some later because they are quite unmanageable as entires and desexing quickly changes that. The gonads are not the only sourse of hormone production. Yep but it shouldnt be something someone else decides for you or gives you no choice on. Get informed - look at all the pros and cons and decide what suits you and your dog best. Im not saying dont desex Im saying full disclosure.

Do we over medicate our dogs - yes absolutely definitely. Are there alternatives to using commercially prepared meds - yes absolutely . Herbal and naturally occuring chemicals can and most definitely do work but sorry guys in my opinion based on my experience and qualifications in herbal medicine Homeopathy just simply doesn't work. Go ahead muck around with it and give it a go but if the consequences of it not working are potentially serious I certainly wouldn't gamble on them. Don't assume either that those things which do occur naturally which are good to go for humans are also O.K. for dogs. If you want to control a potential risk from parasites or viruses you need to assess what the risk factors are for your dog in your geographical area, research the life cycle of the parasite or virus and the drugs and chemicals which are recommended and make informed decisions.

Male mammals need testosterone - think it through. If you took the gonads away from a male child what side effects would be expected? Old men have greater health issues as their testosterone levels drop - Some stats have placed male animal which are desexed before puberty at a 73% increase in HD. Its a bit different for females and in my opinion they are better off if not used for breeding to be desexed as they can actually draw estrogen from places other than their ovaries and there is a risk of various health issues. The point Im trying to make is that if its my dog I should be given the facts for and against.i should be informed of possible consequences if I do or dont and when is the optimum time frame.As an owner I should be able to make my own informed decision which is suited to my style of living, my family and my dog. Take a look at the links I posted earlier - the studies are there including a recent one which shows that bitches which are not desexed live much longer than those which do. I wouldnt allow a breder to take away my right to make the choice for my dog and I don't see why puppy buyers should be treated as idiots and potentially irresponsible in order for some breeders to "protect them " The other issue for me is that if someone wants an entire dog they will simply tell lies - if you leave the decision open to allow the buyer to become educated ad make their own choice there is no reason for them to tell a breeder lies so you can then decide if they want to sell them a pup based on the truth and not just what they know you want to hear.

The question has to become - what is best for the dog.Some breeders will believe its better for the dog to be at risk of health issues created by desexing than to be at risk of having a litter. The assumption is the pup has been bred with the betterment of the breed in mind - should the dog carry conditions which make the "betterment of the breed after it is born a priority over its health? Should we put the health risks for dog we bred a lesser priority than the greater good of ensuring there are no unwanted litters. Each of us have to ask these things but at the end of the day I'm voting for informing buyers of the truth - pros and cons and allowing them to make the decisions which are best for them and their dogs just as I expect to be able to do with my own dogs.

Gets the breeder off the hook anyway I guess with such a high incidence of HD and joint problems in male dogs which are desexed young they cant blame the breeder - unless of course they felt the breeder gave them no choice.

I recommend they desex them if they are pets at around 12 months and so far they all have - however a couple over the years that desexed and appeared to be great owners threw them away. Just because an owner decides to desex doesn't make em responsible any more than not desexing makes them irresponsible

Depends on how you look at it - do you control what happens to your dogs on the off chance someone will breed with them when they said they wouldn't or do you put a higher priority on the welfare of the dog and allow the owner to make their own choice/? No right or wrong answer as so much depends on the breed. Id rather give my puppies the chance at better health over trying to do to a puppy buyer something I wouldn't tolerate for myself.