Steve

So sorry - sending you good thoughts.

You know what - over the years the times I've probably learned the most is when things go belly up . Its taught me to question everything and never to take the word of my vet or the drug companies which produce the product. You cant underestimate the knowledge wisdom and understanding that comes from experience and listening to other's experiences. No amount of study or looking at isolated studies where variables arent taken into account can ever equal that. Im so very sorry for what you have had to go through and how your puppies had to suffer - but Im sure at the end of the day it will make you a better breeder.

I think that supplementing ANYTHING on its own is a risk and much depends on the diet that is fed which will be affected by how the food is made, stored what is in it etc. The fact is that no one nutrient goes in without needing other things to help it absorb and assimilate - so for example if you supplement folic acid in order for that folic acid to absorb it needs other things to enable it to get where it needs to go. In order to do that it will use up more iron and more zinc as well as a couple of other vitamins - so while it makes sense to supplement especially in breeds known to have certain problems - what if we give a dog increased folic acid and it has a problem with zinc related issues - staffies and Huskis are two that come to mind and this affects the puppies or the bitch in other ways as increased folate means more zinc is used . Same with calcium - it needs a whole bunch of other stuff to get where it needs to be and diets that are supplemented with calcium result in higher blood calcium levels,so there is no need for the release of parathyroid hormone. As the pregnant dogis supplemented and maintains high calcium levels in her bloodstream, theparathyroid glands literally shut down and are no longer able to respond tosudden drops in blood calcium levels. At the time of whelping, bloodcalcium levels drop as the dog stops eating and begins producing milk.Since the parathyroid glands are no longer functional, or at bestless functional the amount of calcium available for uterine contractions may bediminished, and primary uterine inertia is more common. Duringlactation, calcium demands are hugely increased. Even if calcium is stillsupplemented in the diet, it may not be enough to balance the amount lost inthe milk. The net result is lowered serum calcium, lack of parathyroid hormone,and possible eclampsia. Calciumabsorption and utilisation also are affected by dietary concentrations ofvitamin D and phosphorus and a bunch of other minerals. Too much calcium in the diet canresult in a lack of parathyroid hormone. A lack of parathyroid hormone can cause hypocalcemia. Hypocalcemia can cause eclampsia and contribute to primary uterineinertia. So dietary supplementation during pregnancy and lactation cancause eclampsia and may contribute to dystocia. Anyone who is supplementing calcium to aid in increasing contracting - producing more milk etc is doing exactly the opposite to what will help. So if you are going to supplement anything - go everything via a balanced diet or multi vitamin and mineral dont just pick one or two because nothing works alone.While you may fix one deficiency you bugger up the rest. I give a blackmores vitamin and mineral specifically for pregnant and lactating women because it covers any loss of vitamins in how the dog food is prepared, stored etc and its what I took when I was pregnant just in case.

Well ,I will try to say this without causing a war. Some breeds - at least 3 that I am aware of have come to a point where interference has become so common its very difficult to ever get a natural mating , maintain a litter, or whelp a litter without interference. One in particular the stud dog owners don't like their boys having sex so even finding one which will try and mate naturally is pretty difficult ,the bitches often need progesterone supps to maintain the litter and breeders have to work their hearts out over the pups to keep them alive because they are such awful mothers. There is no such thing in that breed in particular of a dog which doesn't have HD to some extent. With all other species of animal we respect their peculiarities in their reproductive cycles but with the dog we are controlled on when we mate them. No other breeder of a fertile animal in any other species is told how to manage them. We want to use the science when it suits us but ignore it when it doesn't fit in with some other convention. Makes no sense. I usually have 12 - 14 puppies per Maremma litter, Ive never done a prog test on one , Ive done one AI to use an unrelated dog on one - and I have one coming up in the next month with imported semen . I've never had a C section with one or any tiny sign of a whelping problem and they are perfect Mum's . If I struck one now which didn't mate or didn't get pregnant I wouldn't use an AI to fix it. Strange view isnt it ? It is seen as acceptable for a breeder to use AI for no other reason than to try to increase litter size but breeding more litters to have more to choose from is frowned upon. Working Kelpies have sex without a problem, they maintain their pregnancies without a problem, they whelp without problems - the idea that this person should be advised to have a repo specialist to have puppies when they have the dog on site is in my opinion - nuts. Its a world of breeding dogs gone mad.

Some of these we have still not received back their bios and questionnaires so HURRY UP! Master Rescuer of the Year 1. Jennifer Scott - Peiradise 2. Heather Robey – Adelaide All Breeds Dog Rescue 3. Linda Burgess & AnnaFaulkner - Senior & Silky Rescue 4. Anne Millard - Ex PugRescue Sydney 5. Heather Harrison – Y PPUPPY RESCUE 6. Sacha and Lance Packer – Great Dane Rescue 7. Matt Stevens - Shar Pei RescueInc Best Canine Rescuer of the Year 1. Katy Joscelyn - Special Dog Rescue 2. Leanne Mcguiness - RADAR 3. Amanda Warwick -New Beginnings 4. Raelene Stewart - ACT Rescue and Foster Inc (ARF). 5. Kathryn Clowry – Irish Clan Cocker Spaniels 6. Lisa White – Friends of The Hound 7. Pam Adams – Soul Companions 8. Elizabeth Miller – Best Friends Rescue Group 9. Cassandra Gordon – Shar Pei Rescue Inc 10. Anima lRescue Queensland 11. Victorian Collie Rescue 12. Barbara Trytko – Alaskan Malamute Rehoming Aid Australia 13. Nicole Burford - Hawkesbury Pound Best Canine Foster Carer 1. Bianca Brook – YPPUPPY Rescue 2. Kelly Halstead - Adelaide All Breeds Dog Rescue 3. Carol Atkins - SharPei Rescue Inc 4. Natalie Bruellke – Najdek - No Kill Rescue 5. Heather Howard – Animal RescueQueensland 6. Raelene Stewart – ACT Rescue andFoster Inc (ARF)

its difficult for anyone to be critical as each person and each case has to be different but I have to admit when I see something like a kitten which was set alight on a railway station being kept alive and suffering burns for months with calls for donations it does bother me.

Im curious to know why you would be concerned about breeding a line of bitches which are late starters? My girls - beagles and Maremma don't come in until they are 14 to 18 months old and I prefer to mate them on their first season .I prefer that than have to allow them to go through a season before they mate because they are too young. In my experience seasons are dictated by the weather - if it is really rainy then bitches know that when they have their puppies there will probably food around to feed them .Really long hot dry summers will often give longer gaps between seasons. My vet didn't agree with this as she said dogs living in human homes get a constant supply of food and their environment isn't really affected as it would be if they didnt have humans to look after them. So me and a couple of others started to take more notice and the vet came around to our thoughts too . We even tried putting sprinklers on the roof to act like rain to see if that made any difference. Cats only breed if there are a certain amount of daylight hours so you can actually manipulate a breeding cats by always having her in the same controlled environment and artificial light.

The only real threat you have in Australia for young puppies is Parvo and you can buy a killed parvo vax and give that yourself. Then at 16 weeks go a live C3. There hasn't been any distemper in 29 years but generally most agree we should still give em a shot.Its probably an acceptable risk if you don't.Kennel cough is pretty useless in my opinion and I don't ever vaccinate for it. If your puppies and not any others vaccinated with that batch or not all of your puppies reacted this way and are having a reaction you have to assume its an immune system issue in your pups and that needs to be noted and considered when anyone is deciding on a mating in future .It's info you need to share for other breeders to be aware of in the hope that they can breed puppies less likely in the future to have a bad reaction. Keep in the back of your mind that even though these puppies reacted this way which is something you could see that there may be things going on with the other's immune system which has shown its self yet so you need to keep good notes on this litter for years. So if you are keeping a pup from that litter for breeding you need to ensure you choose one which has had no reaction what ever to the vaccine for a start. This is advice given to us from Jean Dodds when she was in Australia. There are also some other things you may be able to learn from what has happened to try to head off anything similar again but you will need to take a long look at the bitch and her mother, her immunity, vaccination status, whether she was having heart worm meds, what worm meds etc ,diet of the puppies, your worming protocol and which drugs were used ,what other things they may have been exposed to, you need to look at the history of immune system issues in both parents,their parents and their siblings and relatives and a bunch of other things to try to spot anything that starts to tell a story if you want to take it to that length. Some years ago I took a litter to the vet ,all were checked, temps taken etc before the Vax went in .As I was leaving one was gagging and I said to the vet "that puppy is being sick" Her response was a smile and "probably sick of being in the crate" By the time I got home 2 were dead - 40 min drive in air conditioned back seat. the other 6 were fine - never missed a beat. Anaphylaxis.

Does this explain why my boys and sometimes the girls seem to be horny after eating? Im guessing Not unless there is a bitch on heat somewhere close. However arginine causes the blood vessels in the genitals of both male and female dogs [ and humans] to relax and more blood flow to them

I am happy to give it a tick if and when they introduce an outside accountability process for any group or any one charged with enforcement which doesn't have to go through the system- in this case deedi - to get there. How can this be a problem and why would anyone oppose it ?

DEEDI isnt an outside agency such as an independent ombudsman. This is akin to having the Police minister running interference for his officers and why we now have an OUTSIDE accountability processes in place. Being accountable to their own department is hardly the same as being able to be easily looked at by an independent ombudsman.

As I understand it, only those with less than 10 dogs will not be compelled to register and an ID number will be voluntary. Points of sale will require an ID number which negates any choice for the larger breeders, if they are to continue to sell their puppies. This I believe includes advertising points of sale. Breeders with less than 10 dogs are under the radar - which is the point I'm trying to make. The requirement for breeder ID to be included on microchipping papers ought to bring a lot o non ID'd breeders in, but there are still a vaste number of puppies which are not microchipped - hence the point of advertising or sale ID requirement. Obviously, as with every system there will remain a small number of breeders who manage to bypass, but it should still have an impact. yes you have me - in fact it is a definite absolute done deal that if only those with over ten dogs have to advertise and sell this way that its not possible to police any of them - if its going to have any impact at all it has to be all breeders and those small breeders who elect not to advertise this way or be registered will be in less demand than big commercial breeders due to how it is presented. registered with a number equals better.it creates demand for commercfially bred puppies over those small scale breeders. Still the issue for me is that they are handing it over to an outside agency before they implement accountability processes.

The problem - as you see it - is what you have stated. Those that choose to focus only on a negative campaign against the RSPCA, who are not perfect admittedly, but I don't see any other suggestions as to who could adequately police the legislation - are of course, free to be tunnel visioned as they choose. But it is not achieving anything proactive so far a I can discern. I just hope that enough less single focussed people view this post with a more proactive view and focus on the issue of putting ALL breeders in a position of responsible and accountable breeding practices. THIS is the purpose of the legislation. You all have the ability to express your concerns at the website for the State Government as noted in my first post - I have brought the matter to notice - you have the chance to have your say where it will count, and any concerns can be expressed on that site. I've done my bit, the rest is up to you as individuals to do something proactive - or not. Not true - I have no issue with the RSPCA and I am in no way negative about them . My issue is with state laws which enable ANYONE or ANY group to behave as police without outside accountability.

The problem lies in the accountability of the charity charged with enforcing the legislation and in what will be done with the information which they, as a charity collect. If they or anyone can interfere in what a breeder chooses to do in their breeding program they can interfere in ours and they have already started telling us about what we should and shouldnt breed and do.

THIS!! I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this. Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders. Actually its about accountability for those who are charged with policing all breeders. Breeders already have accountability if the laws which are already there are policed.

Note what Mr Mills says about prosecution. Submission No 21.pdf Then Hansard Feb 2010 - file too big to attach. CHAIR: Whatcomplaint or appeal processes are available to people who disagree withdecisions made by RSPCA inspectors? Perhaps you could relatethat to the current issue at hand with the Waterways Wildlife Park. How do they deal with it? Is itreasonable to say that they might feel a bit overrun by the process: being inspected, having a second inspection and havinga lot of officers on site? Do they have adequate opportunity to defend themselves in this situation? Mr COLEMAN: Dealingin any animal welfare matter, be it one animal or a thousand animals, is generally highly emotive. We understand and appreciatethe fact that when an RSPCA inspector knocks on someone's door, that in itself can incite emotion, andunderstandably so. We are very proud of the fact that when our inspectors investigate the thousands of calls theydo each and every year, around about 1 per cent of all of those calls end up as a prosecution. There are manyinterpretations, if you like, of that percentage or statistic, but the fact is that our inspectors on 99 per cent ofoccasions are able to work with people and negotiate with peopleand find anamicable solution to what started out as a legitimate complaint without itnecessarily being a prosecution. Do I understand, or can I understand, when people areconfronted by a number of inspectors or a number of law enforcement officers? Yes, I can. Inthat regard, in terms of an appeal process, clearly, there are discussions that need to occur. The inspectors arewell versed on their investigative procedures, including the rights of individuals, one of them being that they donot have to talk to the officers if they choose not to. If a person chooses to talk first and foremost and thenproceeds to provide responses to questions by the officers about the animals, again we respect that person'sright not to talk to us but, again, if they do, we make decisions and provide direction on some of those responses. Ifan individual considers they have been dealt with unfairly, we have a grievance procedure in place. That personcan elect to make contact with the office of our chief inspector. If that cannot be resolved, it getsescalated to my office. If that is not resolved, it can go as far as a complaint direct to ourboard.

Why else do they want the info ? If they are going to wait for a legitimate reason then why not do so after someone has been reported? Their stimulation to date has been no different to councils however, if they have access to who is breeding dogs etc then they have already said and so has the legislation proposal that they will be alerted to potential puppy farmers - so they will enter people's property out of the blue in case though both of us know in reality the bad puppy farmers wont chip and wont register and wont advertise. So the only stats they will have is on those who follow the law.

I wouldn't expect any business to simply hand over details of clients to me - why would I expect that a pet shop should have to do so? Surely whether they have to keep these records and who they have to report that to is about regulation on pet shops. How will the introduction of these regulations change the fact that I couldn't walk in and demand details on a pet shop's supplier? if you mean should the RSPCA or council or anyone else have access to that info how will there be any difference ? They will still buy from whomever they want in amounts they want and if they sell a sick puppy they will still be accountable and come under consumer laws as they do now - why introduce a system which assumes everyone may be breeding illegally and selling truckloads of their pups to a pet shop when nothing as far as buying and selling to a pet shop is changed? Dont pet shops have t sell puppies with chips , dont breeders have to sell puppies with chips ? if you want information on which breeders sell puppies to pet shops why not make pet shops keep this info and report it as part of their business licences? the Cc's already know which of their members sell to pet shops what are they doing with that info? Registered breeders are traceable to the CC's they belong to but since when are they traceable by any other agency and addresses and private info traceable to anyone else to access unless they choose to be ? If this were the case then NSW breeders who were registering their puppies via Dogsnsw and who haven't been chipping their puppies would have been done in by now .instead they have had to introduce a mandatory requirement after a decade of it being law to have chips on pedigrees . If I want to breed cross bred dogs or a breed in development or unregistered dogs as well as registered purebred dogs how am I be made accountable and traceable for puppies which are not registerable by the CC?

My apologies I assumed because you used the word we that you were speaking on behalf of a group rather than from a personal start point. I also agree that to date council have been disgraceful at policing laws and I tend to agree that the RSPCA is probably a good candidate but I will not support this until such time that there is an outside accountability process in place which allows a system of perceived fairness and an ability to be more transparent about their dealings and behaviours - just in case now and then a zealot gets in or influences something they shouldn't. I will have to think about why those who choose to breed dogs deserve to loose their right to privacy and free enjoyment of their property and assumed potentially guilty before they are reported - why do you say there are no requirements of of practice on breeders when the POCTA acts and mandatory codes and council by laws cover such things . If I could see some new requirements on breeders practices covered in this proposal I may understand but to date based on your link and what I have seen nothing in that regard will change.The requirements are the same as they are now.

I can see that your only objection is about the fact that all breeders aren't included and I admit I can see the validity in that based on the fact that Ive seen many breeders registered and unregsitered who have 10 dogs or less who treat them appallingly and keep them in horrible conditions . there are 4 options - which one does your group which Im assuming is QCCC feel is preferable for acceptance? Im also assuming that you have a nice feeling about the RSPCA considering a past [assumed] affiliation but why is it necessary for this to be placed under their control? How is this more beneficial to the dogs than for it to be simply policed now.

but this isnt true all breeders in Queensland come under the same state legislation and all have to microchip their puppies - how ill this legislation impact at all on their breeding programs or anything else they do which isnt already covered by codes and laws .All the have to do is not advertise a specific puppy to dodge it just as they are now. I agree that any breeder who doesnt comply should be prosecuted so why arent they prosecuted now? There is nothing in this legislation which goes anywhere near breeding programs so where are you coming from? Who will decide the breeding program and what someone can breed how did you get to this - what am I missing?

I would personally like to see the same legislation for all breeders, particularly unregistered, whether accidental or intentional, regardless of the number of entire dogs owned. If you actually read the information, you will see that responsible registered breeders remain under the jurisdiction of their canine control council, apart from requiring an ID number from the State Government. They are deemed to be responsible already. It is not just about registering puppies, it is also about operating breeding programmes responsibly, and introduces health testing requirements as well as standards of care for breeding dogs and puppies. It seems that so far, posters on this forum are too stuck on issues of 'power over' to be able to see the proactive move towards stamping out BYB and puppy farms. You can have your say, direct to the horses mouth, by following the link I've provided. Ok. Im interested - go slowly - So how will this affect breeding programs and health testing or standards for breeding dogs and puppies. I see nothing in this proposal which will change anything which is already required in this regard. Are you saying that what ever agency is given the responsibility of keeping the registration details will also become involved in counselling or enforcing their own conditions on how an animal is chosen for breeding? Based on what is presented even if only one thing happens - that the RSPCA is charged with keeping these records and policing the regs and laws already in place whether someone has more than 10 dogs or how they want to sell and advertise their puppies everyone who has a litter will show up anyway as all puppies sold in Queensland have to be chipped. They would show up on current council records So whether or not anything changes these things could be policed and people prosecuted now - why do we need anything new?

Hi yarracully. :) I understand you were replying to wags. However, in your zeal to attack the RSPCA you have overlooked important parts of the proposal. So, your point about power being misplaced is a misrepresentation. The inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 will be independent and their power will be raised to Law Enforcement, an outside agency. Unfortunately this makes the remainder of your critique redundant. The new legislation may in fact redress the abuses of power that have occurred in the past. Regards Px Tralee these comments are not anti RSPCA they are anti state law which gives a quasi police force powers without out side accountability. If a police officer is accused of corruption or misuse of power there is an outside accountability process which is independent with no bias or political stake in covering such things up and until such time that there is the equivalent for any agency given such powers whether that be in animal welfare or any other arena that has to raise red flags. Try and understand this is proposed legislation in QUeensland and reference to a NSW protection act is useless.

So which option is it that you are advocating for that you think should be accepted and amended to a lower number of dogs ? From what I can see This proposal doesn't change anything as far as how people who breed or own dogs are required to do so now or have I missed something ? It has nothing whatever to do with how they are kept its about how they can be sold. Its about who gets the info and how that info is used . Surely if we are to advocate for all breeders to come under this rather than only those which have more than 10 fertile dogs there is no incentive for people to keep less rather than more dogs,there is no incentive for them to sell their puppies personally rather than sell them to a pet shop without the need to advertise them. So the assumption is that when the RSPCA pick up that someone is breeding dogs they will then turn up and check the dogs are being kept in conditions which comply with the laws and codes - guilty until proven innocent type of system based on how many or how often you breed a puppy and that the group of registered breeders you are speaking for believe this to be in the dogs and their best interest? Whether or not the system will ever be corrupt the reason that no other system is like this is to prevent it from being able to have the ability to be corrupted so easily. A charity which advocates for law changes ,which is charged with policing those laws and prosecuting any breaches is able to be corrupt to a much greater extent than any other in this country. More power than a police force and less accountability . Why change it from councils and state government to RSPCA ? Every single day in the news there are stories of government officials and police officers who mis -use their power and are found guilty of corruption even with outside accountability and no matter what there will be people who are in any system who will bend the rules, hand over info or who don't play fair .So suggestions of misuse of power may be a little pre-emptive but what is the alternative - say nothing , give it a tick and go in faith ? Advocate for more laws, more power position especially when you add to the mix passion against the people they are policing and then without outside accountability because only those doing the wrong thing have anything to worry about right? Purebred registered breeders may be exempt from the fee but they will still be watched for how many dogs they own and breed by those collecting the registration data just as anyone else is - and they are more likely to be the ones chipping and what they breed being registered. But of course all purebred registered breeders only have the numbers they tell council, all of their dogs are registered and they only ever keep their dogs according to mandatory codes don't they ? So why wouldn't we want breeders with less than 10 dogs to come under such legislation.? We wont mention that there is a pretty good campaign building and that in some areas of the RSPCA they actually think that purebred registered breeders especially those who show dogs do more suffering to animals than back yard breeders do. They think we are the naive and irresponsible but we will continue on in the naive belief what we do is seen as being special and bleat on and advocate for more legislation which of course will not impact on us? Come in sucker.

So, would you let the dog tell you what its sperm count is? I'm not sure about stress and the Vet. If that's happening its time to change Vet. Can't the Vet come out to the property, after all a mating in situ with a fresh, uterine AI would be best if that's what the client wanted. My question is when would the AI be done before, after, next day? Nice tip about arginine but if it is an additive, its not instinctual. ;) Regards Px Its not an additive its an amino acid occurring naturally in meat which if the dog were eating an evolutionary diet would be in the mix .Without the aringine they still have the instinct and they still mate - its just usually a bit quicker after a feed of meat.