Steve

Have to agree with Steve! Maybe we've been lucky but we've never had a bitch miss with a natural mating. Frozen AI - 2 attempts and 2 misses. I guess progesterone if you are not confident in timing. Is the stud dog owner experienced? Maybe leave your bitch with her/him for a few days. Good luck :) Years ago when AI's first started to become popular I had a very loverley Champion Beagle boy and we tried him over three different girls and got no mating so next time I thought Id give an AI a try . Took him and the girl off to the vet and as the vet was collecting him she sort of half hearted made a comment that his penis was deformed - the end bit didn't go hard which was why he couldnt penetrate the bitch when it was time to mate so I called the AI off in case it was something he may pass onto future generations .The vet didn't think it would and didn't see it as an issue. I did and while I would have loved to have some of his puppies for me he was telling me something when he wasn't mating and Ive never forgotten it. Ive also watched other breeds where Ai is the norm rather than the exception and I wonder if the incidence of HD would be the same if dogs which couldnt hold their own weight and tie because they had rotten hips were able to reproduce via AI when they couldnt mate naturally. So Im not anti AI but sometimes the dogs really do know best. I think dragging dogs off to the vet for testing stresses them and places them in a spot Id rather they were not in when their immune systems are lowered so the nose and lip thing has never let me down, its cheaper and less stress on the bitch. If you ffed them a small raw meat meal just before you want them to mate the arginine in the meat produces an instinctual reflex that makes em horny and pumps more blood to the penis too. Feed em meat - act like you're not watching and if they havent tied in 15 mins its not time - try again tomorrow. Easy.

dogs have sex - they have sex when they are ready - if they get pregnant they have puppies 9 weeks later. Its unusual for dogs who do have natural sex not to get pregnant , you don't need a specialist unless you have an out of the ordinary issue. You just need to let them do what they think is best .An AI should be the last resort and only with good reasons because often dogs don't have sex for their own good reason. In healthy dogs mating is a natural instinct and only occurs when its time - the sperm hangs around for a fair while and the system is designed to ensure maximum chance at a pregnancy better to let the dogs decide when that time is where possible rather than a test. You can test if its a case of wanting to be more sure of when if the male isnt there all the time but its a much nicer deal if you ask them each day and allow them to tell you if that's possible. Or you can - flare your nostrils and pinch the bulb end of your nose - notice the way it feels, then pinch the top of your lip and take note of the difference. When your bitch's vulva feels like your top lip rather than the bulb of your flared nose its time to mate. You dont automatically become a better breeder if you interfer any more than you need to.

15 years and 6 months and I love him

There is a plan to have all dog related issues made accountable by an outside agency - I was told this is part of the strategy a couple of years ago by someone who was part of putting the plan together . Looks like the candidate is the RSPCA Ive got 11 dogs here but 6 are working in the paddocks with the sheep and if I had to comply with this I would consider putting my old boy to sleep to bring it back to 10.

What criteria do they have to meet to be assigned this number? They need to outline to the public how exactly being allocated a breeder identification number ensures that the breeder meets certain standards and what those standards are. The criteria is all in the link .

megan - Im simply saying that people should take notice now assess it and make comment whether they think its a good thing or a bad thing. Most breeders i know would be upset about a charity with no outside accountability being given this increased responsibility and will probably like to see that is part of the proposal before they don't have a chance to look at it and make comment on it. Its not anti RSPCA .I would want to be aware of the proposal no matter who they were giving this responsibility to. If it were another out side agency I would probably have the same concerns.

All of their options are centred around 10 dogs . 10 entire bitches, - 20 or more entire dogs - these 10 dogs must be over 6 months to be counted so you can have a bunch of them getting ready to breed while you are breeding the first 10 or 10 fertile dogs, or 10 dogs.

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/AnimalIndustries_AnimalWelfareAndEthics/Regulation-of-dog-breeders-draft-Regulatory-Assessment-Statement.pdf This is just a start - remember RSPCA has no outside ombudsman. A prescribed organisation, such as RSPCA Qld, would be responsible for dealing with registration requests and keeping the register of breeders. Registered breeders would be assigned a breeder identification number (breeder ID). Breeders would be required to display their breeder ID (if applicable) at points of sale or in advertising for sale or supply. On-sellers, such as pet shops, could choose to display the breeder ID (if applicable). It would be an offence to knowingly display an incorrect breeder ID for a dog. Some of the information about registered breeders (e.g. breeder ID, name of registered breeder, and town/suburb of address where dogs are bred) would be made publicly available. Interest groups would likely encourage Queenslanders to buy only from registered breeders unless they could check for themselves the conditions under which a puppy had been bred. <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

Read it and make your submissions http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/AnimalIndustries_AnimalWelfareAndEthics/Regulation-of-dog-breeders-draft-Regulatory-Assessment-Statement.pdf This is just a start - remember RSPCA has no outside ombudsman. A prescribed organisation, such as RSPCA Qld, would be responsible for dealing with registration requests and keeping the register of breeders. Registered breeders would be assigned a breeder identification number (breeder ID). Breeders would be required to display their breeder ID (if applicable) at points of sale or in advertising for sale or supply. On-sellers, such as pet shops, could choose to display the breeder ID (if applicable). It would be an offence to knowingly display an incorrect breeder ID for a dog. Some of the information about registered breeders (e.g. breeder ID, name of registered breeder, and town/suburb of address where dogs are bred) would be made publicly available. Interest groups would likely encourage Queenslanders to buy only from registered breeders unless they could check for themselves the conditions under which a puppy had been bred.

Sadly, Tralee appears to having continuing issues with those who disagree on any topic. And apparently turned yet another topic into a "look at moi" party. Getting back on topic.. Steve, they did actually say how many staff they employ and there's just no way dogs could be getting the care they need. They may well pass RSPCA inspection but is that an indication of quality? I doubt it. Guidelines need to reflect modern understanding of canine health and behaviour- Tasmanian laws relating to dogs are prehistoric, at best. I agree with you but the point is they believe they are the good guys and so do the media and the government and the majority of the public. When we present what we want to eliminate - puppy farms most here seem to mean large scale commercial farms but that isn't what it gets translated to. If any of us believe that it isnt in a dogs best interest to live in a commercial breeding establishment which complies with laws and regs then we need to be very clear about that which we are against as when it comes down to doing something about it that in the eyes of the real world, media and government that isn't puppy farming. All we see is more and more laws which advantage large scale breeders and disadvantage those who only want a litter now and then. No one or no group is protesting against large scale commercial breeding of dogs which are kept inside the regs and laws - even though they may think they are - they are protesting about puppy farming. We may all think that is the same thing but they are two vastly different things when it is time to regulate and outlaw something. Until we deal with this the end result is what we see here - legitimacy for commercial breeders who have the codes and regs under their belts and holding a commercial breeder up as a role model. Agitating against puppy farming gives commercial breeders with a piece of paper more legitimacy and it happening everywhere - in effect the end result is there is a higher demand for their product generated by a government who gives them a tick .

I cant see a code of conduct for their members do they have one?

Well, this is plainly ridiculous. Good luck with your one person crusade. No one will know what you're talking about. Yep.

Not so, and you also have the option to disagree with what people tell you. Commercial means profitable. And herein is the dilemma. We all know that puppies cannot be raised properly for some financial return. However, the government will extract taxes from commercial breeders. Therein is the task ahead, ie, showing that if it is done properly, breeding cats and dogs is not a profit generating enterprise. It is a useful defintion because it also gives us the criteria by which to judge others. Namely, "Did you make a profit?" Large scale breeding of cats and dogs can only be conducted properly under the auspices of some recognised charity. Small scale breeders are charitable by definition. So I would have no problem with commercial breeding done properly and used as a tax concession. So, if the motive of the government is not increased revenue, but the ultimate welfare of our animals and an increased sence of humanity throughout the electorate, then I say; let if fly. But then, pigs might fly too. Px Commercial doesnt mean profitable however, in order to apply for an ABN and register as a business and pay taxes you have to say you have the intention of making a profit. What breeder in their right mind would admit they made a profit ? The minute they do they are a puppy farmer - why should there be shame in a breeder making a profit anyway? We may not have making a profit as a main motivator but we cant judge a person and what they do based on what THEY SAY their motivation is either . Many people couldn't continue doing what they do for the betterment of the breed if they didnt make a profit to put back into what they are doing. I know someone who gets $7000 a puppy and they breed 4 litters of around 10 per year - they own 7 dogs. Now they may say they put it all back into the dogs but how will we prove that and what do we do if someone doesn't mean to make a profit but does make a profit ? How does whether or not someone makes a profit determine how they keep and treat their animals? How do we assume that because someone breeds more than someone else that their motivation is to pay the mortgage and not to put back into the dogs.If we put back 100,000 into building a nice shining new kennel block and show a loss does that mean all is well ? No one knows what my motivation for breeding my bitch is unless I tell them and Im being honest. they may not agree with my why either. The very minute we cross the line and say its O.K. to judge a breeder by their motivation rather than their actions purebred breeders who breed for the show ring or a champion are first on the hit list and there are a lot more powerful people waiting to flog us than there are those wanting to pay out on registered commercial cross breeders. Then we work through them who could say what their motivation is for breeding a dog which would pass muster by everyone ? None of us. Therefore any attempt at legislating against a breeder for what tehir perceived motivation is has to be lost.

I am not now nor have I ever thought or attempted to imply that the problem is insurmountable or that it leads to a blind alley. If I thought that I wouldn't come here and bang my head against a wall and be accused of all manner of stupid things. Identify the problem - What is the problem? Is it that some people breed dogs commercially or it it that some people breed dogs in poor conditions? According to those who are responsible for introducing laws and regs etc the problem is people who breed dogs in poor conditions - they define puppy farmers as people who keep dogs in sub standard conditions. Nothing no part of what they legislate against is about why a breeder breeds or how many .It will remain a situation where stopping large scale commercial breeding is in surmountable while ever they continue to stick with defining commercial breeding as puppy farmers. Now if you feel the problem is commercial breeding then you need to be clear you are against commercial breeding as well as thise who keep dogs in poor conditions- puppy farmers according to official definition or every time you start to bang your drum no one hears the commercial breeding part. Its just ground hog day again.

Well you see for a start everyone breeding intensively becomes a registered breeder and those who are breeding intensively are not the ones they want to wipe out because their definition of a puppy farmer isn't someone who breeds intensively or commercially. Someone breeding 500 puppies each year gets the same credibility as a registered breeder from any recognised Canine Association. So it is mandatory for intensive dog breeders but voluntary for smaller scale - so how will they determine which is which when they are advertised ,how do they decide at what point is it not intensive ? So the smaller scale have less credibility because they are not registered ? Microchipping has been mandatory in NSW for around 13 years and still people don't chip puppies and most coming through pounds are not chipped - whilst I agree that adding the breeder details is a good move for having the ability to gather stats etc I don't hold much hope that this will help much to prevent people who breed dogs in rotten conditions. I spoke to a NSW CC registered breeder last week who has never chipped a pup and was complaining as now she has to in order to register her puppies. Does anyone really think that BYB and people who breed dogs in rotten conditions will comply? They bought this in as a pilot in the Gold Coast shire and 8 months later we found that not ONE ad had the numbers required to advertise, when we challenged the council we were told they had no way and no one to enforce it These registered commercial intensive breeders who have to advertise their ID number at point of sale and on ads will soon force puppy farm operators out of the market????????????????? they will force small breeders out of the market which gives them more demand. pet shops can easily buy from these registered breeders and claim they only buy from registered breeders and not puppy farmers and they can easily buy puppies by the truckload for any one who gives them an interstate address. then the large scale commercial breeders spend more money ontheir nice registered facilities and need to breed more puppies to pay for it - and Queensland has effectively done what Victoria has done - become commercial breeder heaven and the government actually increased the demand for their product

But there isnt any evidence to say they compromise the welfare of their animals. We assume they must because they own so many and because they breed so many but clearly they think they are doing a crack up job and are complying with regs and ensuring their animals are well and healthy. Breeding dogs for profit in any state in Australia is a bone fide legal activity and there isnt anything to back up that even if NSW state regs were n there that they wouldn't be complying. All that article tells us is that they breed their dogs and their motivation is developing a new breed for money. 50 brood bitches x 7 puppies each per year = 350 puppies per year. No evidence there that they are over breeding them - even if you agree that more than one litter per year is over breeding them. No evidence they dont employ staff to groom them and play with them,no evidence they don't vet them ,No evidence they keep them in poor conditions. They [place them themselves and dont sell to pet shops ,they don't have a bunch sitting around with no homes to go to because they bred for demand. The real world is seeing they are the good guys and that article helps to promote them. Its the same theme every time the subject comes up. If we are protesting commercial breeding then we need to be clear about the fact that is what we are talking about because when we call commercial breeders puppy farmers the rest of the world doesn't. Then of course if ever we finally get it and see that the definition used for a puppy farmer isnt quite what we thought it was and we do want to start yelling about commercial breeders that brings with it a whole new set of challenges and its a fight we are unlikely to win.

Agreed. Commercial farmer heaven now - squeezing out the little guy.

Well if it was the one I saw there was nothing in it worth mentioning.Big non event

So would that let those off the hook who are not registered as primary producers ? How do you decide if someone's motivation is only for money ? Is there a magic number?

I agree It should be straight up animal welfare not a different set of regs and laws for breeding animals.

I've already qualified my initial post with this comment. The discussion needs to be moved forward and not around in circles. State legislation/ mandatory codes etc are virtually non existent in SA and WA .I could show you some example which would curl your hair which are seen to be perfectly O.K. according to that state's regs. until such time as the laws and regs are changed nothing can be done and sadly when it is done it regulates breeding which advantages large commercial breeders - as they attempt to regulate them not abolish them. In the real worlds big commercial kennels are seen as legitimate businesses - evidenced by where the Pm's dog came from.

:laugh: :laugh: :p Well tickle me pink! I suppose over two thousand years counts for nothing for "a breed in development." Only in the USA. They have to americanise everything and cannot be beholden to anything or anyone. Well the Italians recognise it as breed. FCI Standard N° 201 / 26.3.1998 Otherwise, there wouldn't be any and that's all I need. Px Yes me too - but in the US its not a recognised breed and not likely to be for a long time yet. People breeding them over there are seen to be skuzz buckets as we see those working on non ANKC recognised breeds. there is usually a bigger view.

Ground hog day define puppy farm? Hi Steve, My definition of a puppy farm is any one, and I mean any one, who produces puppies en mass for consumer demand as a means of generated income, be it hobby, or a business, I have no differentiation between puppy produce farming, kitten produce farming, piglet produce farming, or any other livestock farming. Yes I know but you see I keep saying over and over what your definition of a puppy farm is wont count because that isnt the agreed upon definition of a puppy farm which is used when drafting codes and laws and regs. As long as we all have a different definition we will go no where . What I would like to call a puppy farm is not what the official definition is either but how do I make a difference if Im fighting for what I think a puppy farm should be defined as ? While ever we dont stop and all agree to one definition its a lost cause.

You do understand that inthe USA the Maremma Sheepdog is considered to be a breed in development nad has not as yet been accepted for registration and its not even accepted on their foundation registry? its not all black and white and the ANKC isnt the only registry which gets to say whether something is a breed. Some breeds dont want a bar to do with the ANKC and actively go after ways other than them to gain recognition. Not that I am in any way defending these particular breeders.

The law is irrelvant in the context of negligence in animal welfare. Ethics over-rides law every time. And agreed mimimum standards cannot be deemed to lack foundation just because it is politically expedient for one state to do so. Afterall, this is the frontline of our efforts to promote our dogs interests. This is where the trenches have to be dug and a stand against such 'ludicrous' logic has to be taken. Px So who will decide which states laws are best ? Who would vote that the one you are familar with is the best or that we didnt need a bit of one and some of the other. think it through its a state issue not federal.