Steve

If you truly believe that then perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with the ethos of this forum I agree This is a pure breed dog forum, the only ethical reason to breed is for the betterment of your chosen breed IMO not to add to an already overpopulated world with more cross breeds that will likely end up dumped as they don't meet the expectations of their new owners. I understand you chose to buy from a non registered/ pedigree breeder and that's fine but ethical breeding is a lot more than how you treat your dogs/ raise puppies. I dont beleive peopel who breed cross breds are breeders - they just breed dogs - anyone can do that.

Well hello steve. Out of the five, three went exclusively to working homes. Lumen went to www.pondaestate.com.au where he keeps dogs off baby doll sheep, Gemelli is on farm at www.byronbeans.com.au and Heraldus is in Hawaii protecting goats www.diamondtlivestock.com Here's the link to their records http://webs.dogs.net...med-puppies.asp Florenza has gone down to Sunbury near Allarme Maremmas and Schaferden Kennells and is being shown and held for breeding. Spiritus is a companion dog in Brisbane. I always have many calls from people looking for a working dog. Interesting - small litter too. Obviously Ive placed them in working homes later as well as at 8 weeks and while the older ones still do what is expected of them it takes a while longer than it does those which start at 8 weeks or sooner here. I certainly see a difference with the ones which stay if they are introduced to the species they will be working with sooner rather than later.

Would be nice to know what he is accused of.

Yes but that's due to the way you manage them for that period of time and the sort of homes you place them in - puppy farmers who sell to pet shops wouldnt do what you do. And its still breed specific - some do better staying longer others dont . The puppies being discussed by the OP are already away from their Mum - I dont see any benefit for them in staying where they are any longer than they have to.

At the end of the day no study is going to replace what a good breeder knows or a rescuer who has had orphaned pups and pups with mothers to observe .Studies do a quick clip pf one variable. It comes down to knowing your breed, Knowing the kind of owners they will live with and how they will be expected to live and perform. It takes knowing that these things can impact on a puppy and treating them accordingly before they go home. But in all honesty Id like to think that you can assume someone who puts puppies in pet shops hasn't a clue about these things and if the pups are destined to live as pets it may be better to get them away from the breeder and into their new homes sooner rather than later. There have been some more recent studies [slabbert and Rasa] ring a bell on how well trained working dog mothers are able to train their puppies to work but thats when they are put to work with their Mums and not just hanging out with a litter. These are things which are important to me and something Ive looked at pretty closely but Ive also observed it here with my working dogs. If I put a pup with an older dog which is working sheep it makes no difference if the older dog is its Mum or not .[The studies were only done with the mothers] The older dogs teach the pup things and correct the pup if it if it steps out of line. If I put the pup with an older dog for periods of this kind of training at around 7 weeks the pup goes home with a huge advantage for working with that species over those who dont. Im lucky because I have several different species here with Maremmas working them so if Mum is working sheep I can still put a pup going to a chicken farm with an older dog which is working with chickens. I can do this because my dogs are well socialised with other dogs as well as the animals they work with .I can have several dogs working one mob in one paddock without fear they dont get on,I can swap them around and they accept the change in working partners. They are also well sociialised with humans - but none of this is by accident . Its because Ive done my own studies and lived with and followed up with the results . With my beagles I ask what environment they will be sleeping in and whether they will live with other dogs etc and that also determines how I manage them in the last week before they go home to prepare them for the life they will walk into. Fact is puppies dont necessarily need their Mum's at 7 weeks - by then unless she is teaching the pup how to work her job is pretty much done ,she is telling them to rack off and get their own food and the milk bar is turned off. they already know how to interact with other dogs and they need human socialisation or in the maremma case more contact with the species they will live with if thats not human more than anything. its better for the dog if the breeder knows these things and ensures they are covered but if the breeder is an idiot and has little regard for these things it just may be better to get em out of there and into new forever homes.

The only stuff Im aware of was Goddards which more about genetics and I dont have the time to go looking - University of queensland has done some too which point to early socialisation issues but the reality is that its always just been generally accepted and all training and puppy development is based on it . Dunbar, Volhard and most articles and books written on testing, puppy behaviour and development use this time line . These people use it and experience it , write about it and teach it .It is acccepted as valid and it only seems to be different among those who have simply assumed this is what is needed based on what they have heard via animal rights. It only became a different protocol after the CC said no placing puppies for 2 weeks after vaccination - necessary at that time - not necessary for that reason now. As a breeder and dog owner Im more interested in my own studies which go on before my eyes on a daily basis and what I see works best which addresses the variables I have to work with including the breed specific issues I have to consider. Im not trying to push this as the recently scientifically proven. Im simply saying that yelling about this is not going to improve our chances of winning points against puppies in pet shops because any body can see that there may be a valid argument for sending some home earlier.

Lots of them are pre internet. Most references for studies date back to the late 50's. A Dr. JP Scott did studies on puppies development at the Roscoe B Jackson Memorial Laboratory and these studies are the foundation of all the modern training methods used today a puppy's development, Studies by Pfaffenberger and Scott also appeared in 1959 in the Journal of Genetic Psychology entitled, "The Relationship between Delayed Socialization and Trainability in Guide Dogs." Freidman, King and Elliot published in 1961 in Science entitled, "Critical Periods in the Social Development of Dogs." Or it could have been any of a long list of papers by Scott and his co-workers beginning about 1944 and culminating in the book published in 1965 by John Paul Scott and John Fuller, "Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog." This book, later published under a slightly different title, brought together more than 20 years of study of dog socialization processes done at the Roscoe B. Jackson Memorial Laboratory at Bar Harbor, Maine. The study was massive, utilizing hundreds of dogs-wirehaired fox terriers, cocker spaniels, African basenjis, Shetland sheepdogs and beagles. Scott was a leading animal behaviorist, one of only a handful in North America at the time; Fuller was a geneticist, more interested in the genetic potential for the occurrence of a behavior than in its development. Additionally there were many students working toward advanced degrees, post-doctoral students and student volunteers, all interested in animal behavior, most specifically in domestic dogs. Based on the results of Freidman, King and Elliot, Scott suggested two rules for producing well-balanced, well-adjusted dogs. The first of these is that the ideal time to produce a close social relationship between puppy and master occur between six and eight weeks of age This is supposedly the optimal time to remove it from the litter and make it into a house pet. Done earlier, the pup hasn't enough opportunity to form social relationships with other dogs, but would be very attached to people. At the other extreme, if exposure to people is delayed to 12 or more weeks of age, the pup will have a good relationship with dogs but will be timid and have less confidence with people. If puppies have very little or no previous human contact, seven weeks is conservative-six weeks would be a better age to get the pup The only case I can imagine with no people exposure today is a puppy mill. Given that these puppies are most likely to be the ones in a pet shop at this age then in consideration to what is best for the dog there is little benefit in having it stay in a pet shop with its litter mates any longer than it has to – unless it is going to a home which will have less human but more dog interaction. There is also valid argument to suggest that in many situations where dogs are no longer used for the purpose for which they were originally bred where they need more dogs in their lives than people and that many live as pets only especially ones coming out of pet shops that it may be preferable if they go home at 7 weeks rather than later. However, again I say there are many variables including breed specifics and how puppies are managed by a breeder [and new owners] to simple tell the world that all puppies should go home at any age. All of our puppies [and puppies of breeders who adhere to mandatory codes- including commercial breeders] stay with us until they are 8 weeks old and it appears we are stuck with it so it's up to the breeder to do the right thing to ensure the pup gets enough human and less dog interaction for that period. Can a breeder who has a couple of hundred dogs ensure every pup between 7 and 8 weeks gets this kind of human one on one? Does a breeder who breeds dogs for profit have the motivation to put in the extra human interaction? Would it be better for the pup to allow them to send them home a week earlier because they are destined to be someone's pet and they cant provide them with what they need for that week pre home placement? Should a puppy be in a pet shop with its litter mates at that time of its life waiting for some magical day they have to adhere to via regs or laws ? NO BLOODY WAY.

How many of these went to working homes ?

My mums are all caring and clean and hover over their babies but there are many variables which have a huge impact on the outcome. Puppies that are kept with their Mum's post 7 weeks and are always underfoot and in human company have a different outcome to puppies which are with their Mum in a kennel where they get less human interaction or not with their Mum post 7 weeks and are under foot or not with their Mum and get little human interaction. Puppies which are with their litter with Mum and without Mum are different, Puppies which are isolated from their litter at 7 weeks are different to those which renmain with the litter post 7 weeks. The best advice a breeder can give a new owner is to start the way you intend to continue. Every household and every family have different variables and the best outcomes occur when the pup knows what is expected of it and the normal day to day functioning of the household it has to live in. At around 7 weeks these things start to make an impression on a puppy so it begins to think that what happens now will happen for ever. its already learned how to act like a dog ,know its place etc as its learned these things pre 7 weeks with its Mum and its litter but post 7 weeks it has to learn what humans expect of it and the closer to 7 weeks you can do this the easier it is for the pup and the family. Thats not saying that waiting another week is a bad thing its simply saying if the pup goes home at 7 weeks it isnt a bad thing either. So when you come to discuss puppies in pet shops being sold at 7 weeks much depends on how much human interaction they are getting, how many other puppies they are locked up with what sort of new homes they will go to etc before there can be a determination on whether going to a new home at 7 weeks is somehow cruel .In fact the reality is that it may be better for the pup in a pet shop with little socialisation and too much interaction from its litter mates walking through its own poo etc to go home sooner rather than later. Its also impacted by what breed the puppy is. In my breed - Maremmas which work by bonding with the animals they live with the sooner they are exposed to that the quicker they are able to be trusted to do their job. Breeders who dont have to comply with regulations as I do send their puppies to their new homes as early as 4 weeks because the theory is that working Maremmas dont need to know how to act around other dogs and they dont need to be socialised with humans as much as pet dogs do. Im too soft to send mine out that young even if I could and I also beleive that working dogs still need to be handled and socialised by humans too. I take deposits and treat each pup differently depending on what the pup is going home to I set up situations around here which replicate where they will be when they go home and begin moving them into that at 4 weeks by 7 weeks they are separated from their litter and know more of what to expect when they go home. Im not doing a pup any favours by having it in my lounge room in airconditioned comfort if its going home to 24/7 living in a paddock with sheep in 40 degree temps. If Mum is working with sheep ,chooks,etc I send the pup out into the work place with her and dad as these guys train the pup on what is and isnt acceptable behaviour around their animals in quick time and that also helps the pup as it moves into its new role when it goes home. As a breeder I ask questions about where the pup will live and sleep and what it will do in its day to day life and begin preparing it for that in the 7th week .thats why when someone buys one as a pet which will sleep inside and have lots of cuddles I get to treat it as my personal snuggle mate for that last few weeks while the others hang out with the sheep. My point is - if we are to derter people form buying puppies in pet shops or non registered breeders and if we are going to state a good case against them being there in the first place we need to get past the propoganda and argue with facts. Whether we should allow breeders to make their own informed decisions on when it is best to send their puppies home rather than over regulate and compel us into doing things which dont necessarily have the best outcome for our pups because now and then a breeder might want to move their pups out quicker is another subject. When we get emotional and argue because it makes us "so sad - because the poor babies still need their Mum's at 7 weeks" fact is they dont - its easy to argue against - even right down to the wording of the canine control's codes of conduct - puppies cant go home until they are 8 weeks "in order to allow the 6 week vaccination to cut in" These days most breeders dont vaccinate at 6 weeks and the vaccines only need a day or two. If we are serious about turning it around and stopping the sale of puppies in pet shops there are lots of things which can be used against it and make a good case but when it is influenced by emotional assumptions and easliy disproven comments people simply stop listening and then everyone who is agaisnt the sale of animals in pet shops is tagged as rednecks and not worthy of being listened to.

the probelm is we have become educated by animal rights which in my opinion impedes our ability to go looking for what really is best for our breeds and our dogs rather than simply assume it is the right thing based on what everyone else thinks. especially when no one can really say why they think except that its what everyone else thinks. Fact is puppies dont need their Mum at 7 weeks and we need to stop behaving like sheep and assuming the current beliefs and regs etc shouldnt be challenged. If in fact our only motive is to have the best outcome for the dogs we should take a closer look at what we think and why we think it. By the way in case Im accused of in consistency - I am against puppies being sold in pet shops but if we dont get it right and give valid reasons which are not so easily dispelled no one is listening.

I'd be interested in those citations Steve. Go to google - its every where. We have known its better to have puppies away from their Mums and moving out at 7 weeks for decades. Pre 7 weeks they need the socialisation of the litter and Mum to help them to learn about how to be a dog and get on with other dogs but 7 plus weeks they are good to go. We have been restricted in that because of the initial vaccination protocols - not because anyone thought it was better for the puppy or the family as far as settling in and socialisation with humans and training is concerned.

Some years ago I purchased a scanner which did only read one brand of chip and was useless to me as my vet used a different brand. This one reads em all.

I dont remember exactly but it was super cheap I bought it from Sway. You should spot it on her website. Works like a charm.

Microchipping has been compulsory since around 1996 in NSW and Ive only recently acquired a scanner .We found all different ways of ensuring we didnt get the chips and the pups mixed up including painting some part of them with different dots of nail polish, coloured ribbons, shaving a spot etc .Some worked better for some breeds than others. In my case if the mothers spots the nail polish she will yank the pup's fur out to get rid of it, the collars get pulled off via other ltter mates and their Mum etc .Shaving is O.K. if its only a short wait between chipping and going - thats why I bough the scanner. Mind you Ive had girls in one place that should have been boys too - not my muck up but the vets.

Doesnt make any difference - the law says what has to be done. It has to be done. You dont get to choose based on anything else. Last maremma litter I had the puppies were chipped as usual at 7 weeks. They all look so much alike that as Im getting them ready to send them home I scan them with my scanner to be sure Im matching up the right dog with the right chip and transfer papers etc . 3 of the 12 puppies which I saw with my own eyes microchipped didnt scan as having a chip .Because one Was on its way home and I could identify what it was by process of elimination I sent it out with an explaination to the new owner that I was concerned it wasnt showing and to take it to their vet asap to ensure it wasnt just my scanner. The two boys I took back to my vet and the vet couldnt pick the chip up either so they re chipped now for the second time free of charge . The female showed no chip when she was taken to her vet after she went home and was also re chipped. Makes me wonder how many Ive sent home with chips that dont functon before I got the scanner . The vet seemed to think it was something wrong with the batch or something and they did check just after they went in and they definitely worked immediately after implanting. - Dunno. I also had a couple of cats chipped and they developed infections and their bodies expelled the chips like a core of a boil. chips are good but not foolproof.

Im so sorry this has happened for you but the problem is you cant see inside them and puppies die soon after being born with or without C sections for all manner of reasons - without further info you probably will never know and anything you may think you come up with is a guess.

Very true! I just wondered if keeping her papers under the breeders name would mean they would still have some kind of legal ownership over her? Yes, they could have a claim if it came to a dispute. You also need the papers in your name if you intend to compete in any form of obedience or dog sports. ^^^^ This if i were you id get it done asap, i know it dosent happen often but there has been cases of (not so good) breeders taking dogs back because they still have the papers in thier name. I know its unlikely but are you willing to go to court if it dose? added to that if you decide to compeat with your dog it needs to be in your name, i know someone who didnt decide to compeat untill the dog was nearly 6 yo by that time the breeder had unfortunatly passed away and it was a very hard task getting it all sorted. Breeders cant take the dog back if the pedigree papers are still in their name as long as all of the other papers are not still in their name. Microchip, council regos and sales receipts squash any claim.

i find this rule rather finicky. For instance if I wanted to name my papillon {prefix} El beshiva, but i can't because thats too similar to the prefix of a border collie breeder in NSW's. Like what impact does that have on the breeder? Agreed. And it appears to be up to the prefix owner to police this, not the admin people processing the registrations. There'd have to be hundreds of dogs with some version of "heaven sent" in their names, it's obviously not affecting any breeder, so why have the rule in place if it's going to be ignored by the admin staff? My prefix is Mainstreet, it's not been used yet and might never be, but I would expect there are dogs with some version of my prefix in their names. If another Border Collie breeder named one of their dogs something that looked VERY similar to my prefix, something that could be misconstrued as being my prefix, I'd jump up and down until it was changed. I don't want to be acknowledged as the breeder of anything other than what comes out of my yard. Other breeds I don't care. A quick check of the prefix and it's easily noted that I breed Border Collies and no other breed. Agreed except that you may want to branch out into another breed one of these days and personally I dont want any dogs of any breed walking around with any name that may make someone think I bred it and have to look twice to be sure I didnt. For a breeder their prefix is like a designer brand and anyone seeing the name Levi for example anywhere in a name assumes its made by the same people who make Jeans - its a good system and protects breeders from having their designer brands being affected by someone else. No biggy for a pet owner it is for us.

The latest science tells us its better for a pup to go to a new home at 7 weeks and breeders usually sold their puppies at 6 weeks until about 20 years ago. The reason the state CCs put regs on was because back then the manufacturers of the vaccines told us we needed 14 days for the vacs to cut in. It had nothing to do with what was best for the pups or the Mothers but about immunity. The new vaccines only require a couple of days and I believe that recently in Victoria it has been agreed that puppies will be able to go to new homes at 7 weeks and this will be written up replacing 8 weeks in mandatory codes. Of course that was determined by vets and breeders but since then animal rights has had a winge so it may be stopped. most breeders these days wait a bit longer than 6 weeks any way to vaccinate them. if they are sitting in a pet shop at 7 weeks Id prefer them to go to a new home now than have to sit there with little socialisation and love for another week just to make some statement which as I say has been proven is not necessarily based on science or what is best for the pup anyway. There are many things which have become accepted in this country regarding management of breeding dogs and puppies which have been pushed by animal rights which bring results which are detrimental to the dogs and puppies rather than what is best for them and hopefully slowly things may change if mandatory codes and laws are based on fact and proven science rather than what has become accepted with no basis.

Most people dont bother to change the details over - simply because it makes no difference.All you do is give the state CC money. Whether it is registered in your name on the ANKC registry makes no difference to ownership as this is taken by the chip and the local council, receipt papers etc. Unless you intend to do something with your dog via the ANKC which requires a registered pedigree being in your name there is no benefit to you to do that. I gave up allowing puppy buyers to name puppies for pedigree purposes years ago as there is no guarantee that what they choose is what they will get - out of every litter several get knocked back because its similar to someone's prefix etc and then they get upset because it isnt what they asked for . In states where the breeder isnt able to transfer the ownership but the onus is on the puppy buyer I cant imagine that many would see the need to pay money to do it.

Its hard to give an opinion on what his punishment should be when we dont know all of the facts which would justify a conviction. Never walking on a lead or not having toys, almost dying after the dog was in RSPCA care having puppies ,the photo etc doesnt tell us what would give a magistrate the ability to place too much on him. If people are going to be charged and found guilty of a crime of cruelty for not putting a lead on a dog or providing it with toys there will be a hell of a lot of people with charges on them. Words that tell us a dog has never been out of shed or never blah blah blah dont help either. Just because you see dogs in sheds doesnt mean that tells how long they have been there or how often they are out etc. The only person who can know this is the owner and not someone who is on the spot for a short period unless the owner says so. Keeping dogs in sheds isnt in itself a crime anyway and it depends on conditions inthe shed and size of pens etc anyway. Ive no doubt there must be more as the RSPCA wouldnt seize the dogs without strong reason and vet evidence the dogs were in poor condition or treated cruelly and if it wasnt pretty bad and not fixable - though Id like to know why the magistrate didnt award costs. I would like to know more of the facts.

And again it is the UKKC who think nothing of the rest of the world. The world will either accept it and move on or potentially not recognize countries that accept UK stock. Then also we will also probably even have bigger issues with councils who will be able to question a breeds purity. I wonder and this is my biggest concern, are the UKKC going to insist on mandatory health testing of any unregistered dogs they accept in our breeds. Yes it does appear that testing will need to be done - if its mandatory for the breed. Quote every successful application will be admitted to the register with three asterisks next to its name. Asterisks will be applied for three further generations, in order to identify the fact that there is unknown or unregistered ancestry behind a dog. Applications will need to be accompanied by a letter of explanation of how the applicant acquired the dog and will then only be considered on the proviso that the dog: a) is verified by two Championship level judges appointed by the Kennel Club who should agree that the dog is representative of its breed b) is DNA profiled c) has relevant health tests (equivalent to that required and recommended under the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme) for the breed. Breed specific health requirements under the ABS can be viewed at www.thekennelclub.org.uk/breedhealth To ensure that only genuine applicants apply, strict requirements have been put in place that will need to be completed before an application is finally approved by the Committee, and in addition there will be an administration fee of £100 per dog. Every application will be considered on a case by case basis. Whilst the Kennel Club is keen to open up its register, it should be noted that there is no guarantee that dogs so registered (and their progeny) will be accepted for registration by overseas registering bodies. That will depend upon their local regulations. Application forms are available direct from the Registration Office on 0844 4633 980 Notes to Editors If a dog of unknown origin is accepted on the Breed Register, the dog’s registration will be annotated by three asterisks to indicate unverified origins. If it is bred from and mated to other fully registered dogs of the same breed (with no asterisks next to their name), their progeny, the F1 progeny, will also be annotated with three asterisks. If the F1 progeny are bred from, and mated to other fully registered dogs of the agreed breed (with no asterisks against their name), their progeny, the F2 progeny, will be annotated with two asterisks. F2 progeny mated to fully registered dogs of the agreed breed (with no asterisks against their name), will produce F3 progeny that will be registered with one asterisk. The F4 and subsequent generations will have no special annotation. http://www.collienet.com/kennelclub_announcements.htm#unreg

Last time I looked there is a clause in about how quickly you have to do your regos.

I hear you but this is a fault in the system and likely to be a bigger issue in future. Now the UKKC has opened its stud books any dog could have genes which are not purebred if its coming from the UKKC registry into this country. The point Im trying to make is how long after the insertion of an outside gene do we remain concerned about it? fact is we know about this one gene in particular and can test for it.

there are great breeders in both registries but the reality is that you get what you select for and some have been selecting for drive for generations others havent - some have been selecting for both. Personally if I were looking for a working dog I would be going after a dog who has parents and close relatives which work - if the parents are also proven to be good representatives of the breed according to the standard even better.