Steve

I guess it depends on how much you want the litter but I cant help but agree with you- I would also abort and cross them off the christmas list . Then its done and experience learned.

Steve....Firstly, Thank You for your post...the most sensible post I have read in regards to this subject but I wanted to comment on your saying "Therefore there is no such thing really as a carrier [ one which carries the bobtail gene but doesnt have a bobtail]" Secondly, I know most of you are going shoot me down for what I am about say and it doesn't really matter. The fact is I have a bitch that WAS born a FULL tail and does CARRY the gene....I have had her DNA certified, but I can't tell you what the status of her parents were yet they produced 5/7 NBT all alive...I have mated my bitch twice, with a known full tail born male and an unknown status import. With these two litters my bitch produced 9 in the first litter. The first born was still born and to the naked eye the most perfect pup, beautifully marked and a short NBT. Why it was dead, who knows. From this same litter at 8 days old I had one of the pups develop Septic Arthritis and had him put down. From her second litter she produced 8 pups and one died hours after it was vet checked. Why? Who knows. In the first litter there were 6/9 NBT, 3 full tailed...The pups that didn't make it were 1 NBT and the other full tailed. In the Second litter 6/8 were NBT and the one that died was a NBT. Her daughter from the first litter produced 7 pups, 7 alive 2 Full tailed and 5 NBT....again the sire's status unknown import. She was born NBT and is DNA certified. I don't know why my bitch carries the NBT gene, but she does and she produces NBT's with a full tailed sire and an unknown. Is she a freak of nature? Who knows! Wittnesses were present when she was born. Shoot me down.....it is what it is!! About 20 years ago my neice had a byb litter of boxers - no such thing as a borgi back then and 3 of the pups had bob tails - go figure. Thanks for that - thats very interesting I was of the belief it was a dominant thing. Still born pups can happen in any litter - hard to pin it on this one thing - without a hell of a lot of comparative objective studies. In fact I recently had a beagle litter with exactly the same scenario. Looked like a perfect pup but still born- might have been in the spout too long or a what ever - it happens. No bob tail gene there. In fact over the years Ive had dogs which aborted part or whole litters, pups born which seemed to be perfect and died a day or two later - hell Ive even had some stiff ones. Some which had big litters some which had small - did they have small because some of the embryos got knocked out by some lethal gene combination or for some other reason? Who knows ? Also had a boxer litter many years ago where one pup had to be PTS at 10 weeks due to deformed kidneys - I always blamed the idiot who sprayed the next door property with chemicals while she was pregnant but who knows. The reality is that not all puppies survive out of all litters I guess thats why they have so many and we need to keep it all in perspective. 80% of all human miscarriages happen in the first trmester some of these would be due to a meet up of lethal genes too. The other point is that this is a hot poltical potato some breeders hate the idea of bob tailed dogs and are motivated to beat it up and after umpteen generations are still yelling about crossbreeding and the whole PDE thing is looking for anything to tag any possible bad breeding practices for cosmetics.Animal rights flog into us at any opportunity. Fact is the more you can divide the people who are involved in the breeds the softer the target becomes. We need to be very careful when we wade into another breed's territory to offer critism or advice that we have a factual objective view and listen to the people who are breeding them, living with them and loving them. Do you seriously want me to believe that Dr C did all that work and took it down so many generations and that he would have allowed it to go to a registration point if he knew dogs were suffering because of this gene's insersion - nup - Im not buying it without more than Ive seen to back it up.

Look I think the stud dog owner is way overboard with theri demands but I dont think it does anyone any good to assume they did what they did with some kind of hidden agenda and a deliberate ploy to take advantage. It just creates bad feelings and makes it all feel worse than it is. The mating is done and there is therefore a relationship - like it or not .If everyone just stays nice and gives each the benefit of the doubt - understand it has happened because they didnt communicate effectively from the start there is a fair chance that Millie will get her prefix, and the stud certificate - though its doubtful she will get it until the pick pup has been chosen. Thats better than a long drawn out war with no winners.

I havent looked at this for a while so Im a bit rusty so please correct me if Im wrong. From memory - dogs which have the bobtailed gene have a bob tail because the bob tail is dominant. Therefore there is no such thing really as a carrier [ one which carries the bobtail gene but doesnt have a bobtail] That being the case if the intent is to ensure there is no meet up of the double bobtail because dogs with 2 copies of this gene die pre birth surely all is well if they simply dont breed two dogs with a bobtail. Now last time I looked we were up to about 15 generations past introduction of this gene and Im not convinced any dog which is born from one or even two bob tailed parents is suffering any health related issues more than any other dog or breed or more than the breed did prior to its introduction. There are probably thousands of genes which when met up in vitrio cause death of the embryo including those which occur in humans which we havent tagged yet and anyone who breeds dogs long enough will face having a deformed or non viable pup which could be caused by all manner of things. Seems to me to be a bit of a beat up. Bringing in the hairless gene into the conversation is a bit of a red herring because in that breed's case - again forgive me if Im wrong - the dogs with a long coat cannot be used for breeding and have to put on lilited register. I would also like to say this sandgrubber - the place you are coming from in arguing that this gene was introduced for cosmetic purposes is not necessarily the case. At the time whether they were right or not breeders including me flet that it was going to be problematic for the breed to have to wear its long tail. You may not agree that they had a valid fear but I promise you that all of the people I met who were and still are breedingbobtailed boxers began doing that because they truly believed that thsi was what was best for the dogs of the breed and the breed in general. I chose to go the other way and not breed boxers at all after I bred one litter post ban because I believed I was breeding dogs destined to suffer . I cant answer for the motivation of the original matings but when that gene was being introduced to Australia it was already accepted on pedigrees and the breeders flet they were doing what was right for the dog and if any were caught up in the cosmetic side of it Ive never spoken with them. Would the introduction of the gene to other breeds be about cosmetics ? You have to be pretty sure you have it right before you dub all peopel involved in that being motivated by the look and not because they beleive its inthe breed's best interests.

I had a lab bitch come to stay here while the owner was ill. Ultra sound was completed just before she arrived and said no pregnancy. I went shopping one day and came home to find a new lab baby under the caravan in a hole with its Mum. I would get the whelping box ready - in case.

I agree , however, the agreement to lease the bitch has already been made and the mating has already been done. It appears though the SDO has agreed to allow Millie to use her own prefix which means she will need the service certificate but with no money changing hands the service certificate may not be handed to her until the pick pup has been chosen and in their possession. Signing the service certificate at time of mating and giving it to the bitch owner is two different things and still keeps the SDO within the regs. Fact is some stud dog owners do have conditions in place for people who are using dogs at stud - most in my opinion are unreasonable because I believe that the only issue for the sdo should be whether they think the dog is suitable and that it is registered and so is the owner. If the bitch owner doesnt agree they simply dont use the dog at stud.Where this one has blown up is because the conditions were not discussed and agreed upon and signed off on before the mating took place. These conditions - though unreasonable in my opinion, are probably quite the norm for the SDO and as the SDO they are entitled to place thiose conditions on. In all probability the reason these werent discussed pre mating is because they thought the dog would be leased to them and therefore it would be in their control anyway and not something which should concern or be approved by the owner. its only changed because the owner now doesnt want to lease the bitch but at the time of the mating she did.

Hopefully Dogs Q can convince him that he must sign the certificate. Have you explained the current situation to them? I would be taking everything into consideration right now and weighing up whether it is best to abort the pups rather than have to deal with this person any longer. I think you are lucky he never bothered to do the lease paperwork. But the stud dog owner allowed the mating on the premise that the bitch would be leased even if the paper work wasnt done there was still a verbal contract.

My bitch was never to leave my keeping or my property, that is why he brought the dog to my property for the mating. I was to handle the whelping and litter, meet all costs and work. The dog owner said he did not want a percentage of sales but would pass on any enquiries he might get for puppies. He only wanted first pick of the litter. He said he had no experience with whelping a litter, whereas I have worked in a veterinary field that including a lot of dog work. I took that to mean he did not expect to handle the litter. Yes I understand that but not physically handling the litter and not calling the shots on what should happen to pups under his prefix is different..Again I say you both have different assumptions which has caused the problem.there is no reason what ever why he would have expected that you would require to see or hold the service certificate as it is he who is repsonsible for signing and placing it with the CC.

Millie if you have leased the bitch then what happens to paper work and what ever restrictions put on the pup etc is usually something you have no control over .Ordinarily you would never see a service certificate because its the property of the person who has responsibility for the bitch at the time - the person who has leased her. The person who's name goes on the prefix which the bitch is bred under normally has total control of the bitch the litter and where the pups go etc. these people may niot have considered discussing these things with you in the expectation that the bitch would be leased to them for this period and basically what happens isnt something you should be concerned about. Again this is about you assuming things would happen in a certain way and they have assumed differently .It should have been discussed at length and written up so each of you knew what was going to happen. Now you are mad at each other, you think he is wrong and changed the goal posts and is ripping you off, He assumed you would know. He thinks the same of you and believes you have changed the goal posts and want to interfer and control something which isnt your place to do.you assumed it would go one way and now it hasnt you are concerned. I dont think he's ripping you off I think he would be surprised that you are upset about it because he never would have anticipated that you would expect this to ever be in your possession. Normally I would advise for the certificate to be signed on the day but in this case effectively the stud dog owner and the owner [ leasee] of the bitch are the same people - whole new ball game.

Ill also ad this story because its a recent one. I sent home a maremma pup to its new owner, Id been educating them on the breed for about 6 weeks and they came here to pick it up and stayed for about 3 hours with more info being given. 2 weeks later - pup is now 10 weeks old I get a phone call to tell me there is something wrong with the pup's joints - he has had a second opinion and the vet wants to Xray ALL of the pups joints . i look back on this an ask if my reaction was one which showed enough concern and compassion but I was feeling gob smacked and Im not sure it was. Anyway it turned out the pup had been taken to an off leash area and played with much bigger dogs - "wrestled and got skittled a bit but he had the time of his life and limped a bit for a couple of hours. " - remember this is a Maremma pup and only 10 weeks old. Usually at this age we lock them into very small areas and they have very limited exercise until they are around 5 months old due to the bonding process. Anyway the big complaint was that he couldnt get up onto the couch which the owner and the vets were convinced was because he has something wrong with his joints. I was very nice and explained that no Maremma pup at that age would be expected to be able to get up onto a couch of this height and most breeders dont even want them climbing stairs!!!! Maremmas dont normally jump at all - they are not like labs etc. But the owner had mates who had dogs around the same size as this pup and they could get up onto the couch.He had been around dogs a fair bit and he knew what was normal and this pup wasnt normal. I have sold him a dud. Not much I can do they have decided to get all of the pup's joints Xrayed - insurance will cover it . If there is something wrong I will compensate because the pup is so young and it so soon after going home. All came back clear but Im not sure my reaction to it all fitted the expectation.

As has already been noted in this thread this particular issue is almost impossible for a breeder to avoid. Depending on which science tree you go with one or more of many things can impact . Some big name Canine nutritionists believe its about minerals and enzymes and vitamins some even include looking at the bitches diet and the pup's grand mothers diet others believe its about immunity. The reality is that dogs are living beings and it doesnt matter how hard a breeder tries there will always be the potential for things to turn up. To put it in perspective, Part of the problem here is that you purchased your pup with certain expectations and made assumptions which the breeder probably had no idea of. If they had they could have explained to you what would happen if your dog developed something like this. When you get the diagnosis you are emotional, looking for someone or something to blame and coping with your disappointment and when the breeder hears he news they are hit upside the head and never expected this and have no planned reaction either. I guess the question is what do you expect from the breeder now this has happened/ I had to deal with a complaint recently - Breeder had sold a pup 4 years ago and recently it had developed an eye problem which the owner said the vet told them was caused by a genetic condition. The owner had gone back to the breeder who paid 50 % of the original purchase price. The owner complained because "the fact the breeder had only paid half of the purchase price was evidence they didnt care" So I went through the steps to investigate the complaint and requested a written vet report to tell me the condition was genetic. The owner came back to me and told me the vet had "changed their mind" and was now denying saying it was a genetic condition. The problem was that on the breeders website it said they would guarantee against any genetic conditions devoloping in the dog for its entire life. Pretty brave - But there was no detail about the required steps or what was or was not included .The buyer assumes it means what it says but in reality its a mine field. As soon as a breeder hears the news their first rection is to take a long look at why this happened - is it something they did or perhaps the dog has been fed a crap diet or been over fed, raced around and fallen in rabbit holes etc The buyer is ticked off - you promised that the dog wouldn't get this and that if it did you would do ---- What? Then they think that to try to get out of doing what you promised you blame them when all along you said it would be your fault if that happened because you guaranteed against it. Then what - who pays for a second opinion, do you replace or refund or pay for repairs, do you ask they return the dog or that it has to see your vet for the second opinion, who pays for transport for the dog to come home etc , is there a time frame? If the dog was purchased fro breeding and now cant be used for breeding is there a different guarantee and does the breeder or the owner get to decide what eliminates it from being able to be bred? Clearly in this case the buyer has a different concept and expectaion to what will happen from the breeder - which can be eliminated if everyone assumes the other person needs to have everything spelled out before the pup is sold. All of my pups go home with an insurance policy and anything Im not aware of or which hasnt been picked up by my vet at the vet exam is covered and that really does answer the question. The breeder can only sell a dog which they believe at the time of sale has every chance of being ft for the purpose for which it is purchased . If the breeder wants to add a further guarantee it needs to be articulated and put in writing.

Pay the money watch the sex , sign the form.If you want a litter pick pay for it . Lots can and does go wrong with power hungry stud dog owners and a lot can happen ebtween the mating and the puppy home time.

Correct me if Im wrong but in thIS case it was because this guy said it and he distributed it as the owner of the newsletter. If someone defames someone on a site owned by someone else - who is guilty the owner of the site or the person who made the comment or both? Can the site/blog owner be held accountable for what someone else says as a newspaper can be if it is published? Or are they only able to be sued for libel if they say it?

I believe that if those people dumping pets in pounds to go on holiday had the opportunity of taking those pets on holiday with them (I guess I mean dogs mainly) then maybe the problem might be reduced a bit - the same with being able to rent with dogs/cats. Australia is generally a really unfriendly place for owning dogs, perhaps if we were allowed to let our pets participate more in our lives publically (sp? It doesn't look right!) the dumpage rates might not be quite so high? I read an article a few weeks ago in the Sydney Morning Herald - promoted by the awarding of a dog with the VC (or doggy equivalent) for braveness in the line of duty - but somewhere in the article she quoted figures which showed that here in Australia we PTS around 250,000 cats and dogs each year in pounds/shelters. In England however the figure is 25,000. How does that compute, given the huge difference in human and animal numbers between the two countries? Could it be that there in England a) they don't sell pets in pet shops and b) dogs are allowed in all sorts of public places...? Just putting it out there - I really have no answer to your questions Leema! Some people dump animals to go on holidays but around this time of year people who are in financial hardship suffer more and feel they have no option too . A neighbour used to look after animals for people once now its boarding kennels and pet sitters etc - perhaps if we could encourage people to join a buddy system where they looked after each other's animals when each went away that would stop some who dump them to go on holidays? This system worked really well just after the bushfires where people were too frightened to leave their animals at home while they went to work so we had others who didnt live in a high risk area looking after them while they were away from home. Those peope were repaid by the peopel they had helped by various means including looking out for their animals when they went away. It works. Pacers helps to set these systems up. Great idea. A bit like a babysitting club for families! We mind children in our home for local families and if we need a babysitter the favour is returned with no cost to either family other than a house full of kids, a few grey hairs and some fun! yep except with dogs you dont have to actually take them into your home unless the issue is similar to the post bushfires thing . christmas time and having to visit the relos, cover christmas bills and presents and boarding kennels including ensure the dog's vaccinations are up to date etc is often a contributing factor in the dog has to go .You dont have to agree with it or even understand it but accept its happening without judgement and try to find a solution.One is a neigbourhood buddy system which also doubles up as a safety net in case you have an accident on the way home or if there is a natural disaster etc.

I believe that if those people dumping pets in pounds to go on holiday had the opportunity of taking those pets on holiday with them (I guess I mean dogs mainly) then maybe the problem might be reduced a bit - the same with being able to rent with dogs/cats. Australia is generally a really unfriendly place for owning dogs, perhaps if we were allowed to let our pets participate more in our lives publically (sp? It doesn't look right!) the dumpage rates might not be quite so high? I read an article a few weeks ago in the Sydney Morning Herald - promoted by the awarding of a dog with the VC (or doggy equivalent) for braveness in the line of duty - but somewhere in the article she quoted figures which showed that here in Australia we PTS around 250,000 cats and dogs each year in pounds/shelters. In England however the figure is 25,000. How does that compute, given the huge difference in human and animal numbers between the two countries? Could it be that there in England a) they don't sell pets in pet shops and b) dogs are allowed in all sorts of public places...? Just putting it out there - I really have no answer to your questions Leema! Some people dump animals to go on holidays but around this time of year people who are in financial hardship suffer more and feel they have no option too . A neighbour used to look after animals for people once now its boarding kennels and pet sitters etc - perhaps if we could encourage people to join a buddy system where they looked after each other's animals when each went away that would stop some who dump them to go on holidays? This system worked really well just after the bushfires where people were too frightened to leave their animals at home while they went to work so we had others who didnt live in a high risk area looking after them while they were away from home. Those peope were repaid by the peopel they had helped by various means including looking out for their animals when they went away. It works. Pacers helps to set these systems up.

Why are so many being PTS is something I have opinions on but it would take assumptions for me to have a go at that. But Pacers have been working with a lot of people who are staring down the barrel of having to surrender their animals for a variety of reasons and Im more knowledgeable on the facts surrounding that. Lack of money due to unexpected events which have changed their ability to cover food for the dogs as well as the kids. Lack of the ability to find pet friendly accommodation Becoming ill , accidents, being incapacitated etc. Some people will go to extremes to keep them ,others have already done what they feel they could possibly do and others havent as yet tried that hard to find another solution. Lots of things impact on that - such as whether they have kids to consider or whether its just the owner and the dog. Fact is there is a fair amount of pressure for people to simply give up the dog by a variety of human welfare groups and quite a few animal welfare groups. Lots of people who are under extreme stress cant see or dont know what their options may be. Most times if you can reach out a hand before they make the big decision you can help them and most times given options and choices they decide to work with you to try to keep them or in some cases to be involved in choosing a new owner and ensuring the dogs are in safe hands rather than a pound. Most times you can help people to accept some temporary help as a bandaid and then work with them to help them to find longer term solutions to ensure they dont hit the brick wall again. So whilst I agree that there are some irresponsible people who dont care - see them as disposable and dump them etc there are a lot of people making a lot of money and gathering a heap of "Im an angel" type feelings from the system as it is too. It seems to me there is a difference between those which end up in pounds which are put there deliberately by their owners and those which are not. By helping the owners, providing temporary feed and accomodation for their animals,counselling them to help them to find long term solutions etc we have been able to prevent hundreds from being surrendered by those who felt they had little choice. Our "angels" [ foster carers] dont get to feel that they are saving dogs which have a gun to their heads which have been in the pound but they do know they have saved one from getting there in the first place. We have been able to offer advice on how they can ensure their dogs always stay intheir yard, dont bark and upset the neighbours, training etc all different options and choices with support that most never considered or knew about. So there needs to be a refocus on what has been because what has been isnt working. As always in the dog world one group who cant imagine themselves being in the place someone else is in makes judgements and assumptions on all manner of things and because they cant see the dumper as a potential person who needs empathy,education, and support they look for various other reasons as to why we have too many dogs in pounds and judge that based on what they know. Clearly some cant be helped but we are showing that a hell of a lot can be and a lot more could be if we had funds to do more. One of the options for voting maybe should have been because owners dont have access to support and help and education before they get to that point.

Cats have had to be kept in and microchipped in NSW for 15 years - no one has policed it and its difficult to see its made a scrap of difference . Around here feral cats a re a big issue - they are killing machines as they hunt in colonies. The idea someone would want one as a pet or desex and allow it to live here still is not my ideal. I see little difference in that and having a pack of wild dogs living on my property.

There is no doubt that dogs especially beagles world wide suffer for science. Those with low drive and docile temperaments are well suited to being managed easier so they are often bred and selected for these qualities rather than high drive.High drive beagles make horrible pets too. You have to take the word for it that they have never seen grass or the sun and because of that we assume their reaction is because they are not aware of what it is they will be walking on but they are in good nick and obviously well socialised with people and each other and there could be nummerous reasons as to why they didnt just bing out of their crates. Ive had some which are too precious to walk on wet grass and when its wet will poop on the concrete path so they dont get their feet wet and that had nothing to do with whether they had seen grass before. We went a couple of years without the kids or the dogs seeing rain and around here grass might mean a bindi patch or a dozen cat heads in your feet if you go too far afield. In drought no one - nothing is familiar with grass. There are a lot worse things that can and do happen to beagles in research and those ones have clearly been shown human kindness and socialisation. The sad puppy eyes cant be counted on either because thats how we breed them. I just think they have said certain things and emphasised that particular scene when they could have just as easily written it up to show how great these dogs are and how well they have been treated and looked after and how well they quickly adjust to the change in conditions and circumstances.

Thank you Even Better.

Anyone can say anything as long as it's the truth. Obviously the RSPCA won the case because there was proof the information published was false. Last time I looked Libel laws dont need evidence that what is said is true or false.

O.K.- I missed it. But for the record I think its a good thing and now the RSPCA have gone that way Ive no doubt other victims of libel will follow suit.

No one here is making any claims - false or otherwise that I can see - its a link to a newspaper article which is factual and saying someone was found guilty of libel.

Most beagles which come here via transport for a stud service etc hesitate like that - new people new place etc.Might have something to do with other dogs around too I guess. Mine are not in cages and have grass but if I take some of them to the vet etc they wont just jump straight out when I open the crate door. They do when they come home.

Looks like normal beagle behaviour to me. Clearly they have been loved and handled and want to be in human company - per haps the humans lived in the cages with them.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/newsletter-ordered-to-pay-rspca-100000-for-libel-20111130-1o62n.html Newsletter ordered to pay RSPCA $100,000 for libel November 30, 2011 - 1:12PM An online newsletter editor has been ordered to pay $100,000 in defamation damages to the RSPCA after claiming it was cruel and needlessly destroyed animals. In the NSW Supreme Court today, Justice Megan Latham ordered Mal Davies, the editor of SOS-News, to pay the damages relating to an article on March 19 this year. Mr Davies took no part in the proceedings, in which the RSPCA sued him, claiming the article contained six false defamatory meanings. Advertisement: Story continues below The article referred to a 78-year-old farmer, Ruth Downey, failing to get special leave to mount a High Court challenge in relation to animal cruelty charges. The defamatory meanings included that RSPCA NSW was a cruel organisation in that it executed healthy cows for no reason and that it killed Ms Downey's cows in an inhumane way. The judge said claims that the RSPCA acted cruelly and for significant financial benefits of its directors, rather than for its stated objectives, clearly had the tendency to lower the organisation's reputation. As well as $100,000 damages, Justice Latham made orders including that Mr Davies be restrained from publishing any matter substantially to the same effect as the article. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/newsletter-ordered-to-pay-rspca-100000-for-libel-20111130-1o62n.html#ixzz1fDyAUnNi