Steve

i thought they bonded with the whole flock.... i don't think they make good pets, especially in the suburbs. They make great pets - in the suburbs as long as you understand the breed and live with it as part of the family.

when i'm not there, the chooks are in their run and he is outside. i'm worried about tethering as although there is plenty of areas he can't get to, the chooks can still get close enough for him to "play with". Well if you have him outside and not with the chooks when you are not there that isnt going to help much in what you are attempting to do.

if it was papered I wouldnt touch it for stud services - and not guarding and doing what ist doing because its not the same animals isnt the same as what is going on here. Clearly the dog hasnt been trained not to play with the animals its bonding with when it was younger and until that is done anything else is a wasted effort . The best way to do that is to tie the dog up where it is with the chickens but where he cant play with them while you are not there. When you are there correct him if he runs after them or attemps to play with them in anyway. It wont just happen in a few days it takes weeks in a dog this age.

Have you tied him up so he cant get to them when you are not there? Bonding him and teching him is going to take you up to 12 weeks - whats the point of putting a muzzle on him when he will simply do what he's doing when it comes off?

The bloody joke of it is that if she doesnt do the right thing by the dogs she owns the RSPCA will come in and take them off her but she has been able to do what she did and get nothing more than a slap with a piece of paper. Makes me sick.

Is this a papered dog?

Which breeds in your opinion have changed Marion1? I have been showing dogs for 35 years and yes I could name one specific breed(that we used to own) that in my opinion has changed in size as such,ie, has gotten smaller in size over the years, but other than that breeds of 35 years ago look very much like the ones being bred today. There are still good and bad examples of every breed out there now, as there was 35 years ago. There are healthy dogs and unhealthy ones in every breed. And this has been the case for many years. What does change are breeders views and how their interpretations of the standard are applied to the breeds they own. With these differing interpretations, comes differing types of the same breed. Good and bad. If these specimens are shown then it is also the judges interpretation of the standard which may mean that the dog gets awarded or not. I was told many years ago that in each and every breed, you can just about bet good money on the fact that there are some superb examples of each breed sitting somewhere in a persons backyard, that does not get shown. 30 years ago alot of breeders then certainly did not breed just for the money. They bred for the love of the breed, to preserve breed type as close to the standard as possible and to show their stock off to the world. Looking at photos of breeds of dogs 30 years ago or more every breed still had breed type then, as they do now. For without breed type you dont have a breed. If pedigree dogs of today were solely bred just for pets then we would have no need to retain standards, as they would be totally unimportant. In my opinion that would be such a wrong thing to do. Take the likes of the British Bulldog for example. If it wasnt for the advent of dog shows then the BB would of become virtually extinct when the barbaric sport of Bullbaiting became outlawed in 1835. And just for a little bit of history for those who are interested the oldest breed Club in the world is The Bulldog Club Inc. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: im not really getting the joke here??????????????? you must be having a good day steve lol dont panic toy dog its just that steve always thinks my posts are highly amusing. Do I give a damn? nup. It is quite funny actually Do I ? Who are you? Cant say Ive ever noticed you much before - have I ? if so I dont remember you being so funny but surely you were joking???????????

it appears to be a couple of litters from a couple of dogs - one whole litter which went home was sick and developed Parvo a few days later and were not vaccinated. Nothing saying she owns more than two or how often she breed only those two or that she makes a profit from it. She sent home sick puppies and her punishment is a signed statement via the court - its a joke and if thats all that happens to someone who sends home non vaccinated sick puppies then until they get busted and have to sign an agreement via the court what is it in that which will prevent everyone following suit until the court issues a warning?

I don't know what you guys on on about. Breeds are constantly being modified, as long as you can still make out the breed, what is the problem? Here is an example of modified breed I saw this morning.LOL http://www.ibelievei...y-handwash-dog/ http://terriermandot...7/pug-loaf.html Forget that, I would like you to respond to my previous posts regarding bringing in heritable diseases if stud books are opened. Why won't you respond to it? that image has been altered you can tell becuase the front forelegs disappear and you can see extra lines been added on its back as well. I've been mucking around with images and photos for about 15 years now. if that dog was to stand up because the forelegs are so close to the back legs it wouldn't be balanced at all no dog could ever be built like that. The face looks like its been ramped up as well to me. they've altered the image to advertise whatever they're advertising Toy dog- its a loaf of bread. ;)

As a breeder I recommend only a C3 - Fact is the kennel cough vaccine only does some strains and the risk factors for an ordinary family pet are minimal. Too minimal in my opinion to warrant giving another chemical. As an owner you should listen to your vet and make informed decisions based on what you think are the risk factors and what is best for your dog. If you decide that the risk doesnt equal the need for the vaccine then its your right to say no thanks. If that isnt taken with a good grace and you are made to feel bad about making your own decisions - go to another vet.

Basic consumer law says they cant sell sick animals - if they do they can be fined and consequences can apply via consumer law . What good does a precedent do us which says if you muck it up you will have to sign an agree with the court ? So everyone gets to muck it up and because there is now a precedent you get out of jail free and have to sign a piece of paper ! A better precedent is to do what they can do make em pay money.

To me its saying - if you find one thats bad enough we will make them sign off via the court that they wont do it again. What are we doing to stop it happening in the first place?

just picked this up. Im so sorry for your loss - thinking of you Julie

What consequences ? Having to agree in writing via a court to do what you should do anyway ? What happens to her if she does it again? Why do we need to wait until they do it and have to go through this process to be able to protect the dogs and the consumer?

Work to be done on what exactly? What do they think is wrong with the Labrador as a breed today. I am really interested in their take on this. The Labs I rub shoulders with still work, compete in dog sports, are excellent family dogs and sometimes grace the show ring. I don't from where I sit see any great need to alter much. What I would change is the people that own the ones I see through my work, a different mob of dogs altogether, that often seem to end up in homes that tend to over feed under exercise and expect a super family dog with no training. Mostly overweight and soundness issues arising from that, and often skin complaints due to poor diet. How does one group get it so right and another so wrong? Genetic influence or demographic? Some breeders are saying they feel at least some of it may be genetic and I dont have enough knowledge to dispute that. According to many sources some dog breeds are genetically prone to obesity and labs are one of them. I have a tendency to respect that breeders with decades of experience and with PHD's in science related fields may know what they are talking about before I dismiss it . I would expect they make their judgements based on what they know of the lines and the pedigrees and they see patterns which may be able to be worked on. Where is the harm if they can or they want to give it a go?

http://www.perthnow....u-1226089858416 Surely anyone who sells a dog whether they breed it or not and regardless of whether they are a BYB or commercial breeder etc would need to sell healthy animals or face laws which are already in place. The fact that they have placed extra on this one seems to say that everyone isnt required to do so in WA and only this one has had to agree due to her history. Im not sure this is a good thing. Need to think on it.

This over simplifies the issue as well. 30 or 40 years ago there were still dog shows. Lets look at how we breed less and less each year - and why. Lets look at even though we breed less and less we allow less and less of them to go out with breeding papers and why. Lets look at why some breeds cant reproduce any more without our intervention - and why. Who is saying working dogs or herding dogs are any healthier than any other dog? lets look at how we make it so hard for someone to simply breed a litter of purebred puppies and why There are about 500 other things which are in the mix here.

Not much difference between using a popular sire because he "looks good and breeds sound puppies" than using a popular sire because he isnt related to any of the bitches in the first generation. Even if no one inbreeds for 5 generations what are the ods that one of these new dog's genes wont be bubbling around somewhere ? Oh wait - will we also be restricted in how many bitches a male dog can service? Perhaps how many puppies we should be able to put out with breeding papers in case one bitch and one male make too many ? Some breeds only breed less than 50 puppies a year ,breeders limit what can be bred with and more and more dogs are desexed so even if one might look good it doesnt have the equipment and if we want to have purebred dogs that entails keeping the breed pure - you know - inbreeding.

as i see it at the end of the day we still have a choice. I mean UK have agreed to open the books and all, but i see it if it does come here and by what others are saying its only a matter of time anyway , then i as a breeder have a choice whether i want to have those dogs in my pedigrees or not and which dogs i select etc.. as others have said its all up to selection anyway how we've always done things as breeders. they are going to identify F1, F2 and F3 generations anyway so after that it will be many years later and still it will be all up to selection still. Except - the critism of purebred dog breeders stems from the fact that we have selected dogs based on how the dog looks. By opening the stud books and allowing the criteria for a dog to be accepted that it closely resembles the breed seems to me to tell the world that what they think is true. All we care about is how the dog looks. Its like saying here are 10 beautiful looking men for you to choose from who will no doubt make beautiful babies but one has HIV . You need better reasons than just the way the dog looks and thats not what Im seeing. As those F3's get further down the pedigree you wont see them as the generations move them off the page but the genes they bring in will have mixed throughout the entire breed. Some will say thats a good thing and if there are bad genes in that dog that there is less chance for the recessives to show up and have affected dogs - I cant see the point because unless we all just breed one generation of generic dogs sooner or later we end up right where we are now . If however, they were opening the stud books and the people who wanted a particular dog to have acceptance had viable reasons as to why this dog is best suited and it entailed more than just that the dog closely resembeled the breed standard Im all for it . Now some purebred dog breeders still dont get it and they defend the indefensible - breeding to how the dog looks without taking into account what else is going on - including the impact of breeding to extremes of the breed standard . In my opinion opening stud books based on how the dog looks without needing to consider anything else perpetuates this .Talking about the perils of in breeding without discussing how negatives of inbreeding are caused by selection no no's doesnt educate anyone and doesnt help any dog from suffering. Nor does it help our PR or ensure our breeds have a future. It doesnt take into account the uniqueness of each breed and what will be required to ensure their future progeny is having a great life without suffering because of the decsions we make.

For all we know we may be selecting for less fat genes when we select for better hip scores - we know fat dogs are more prone to crook hips.

aren't labs and goldens the breeds that are prone to eating to the cows come home they never stop? i remember reading this somewhere. So its up to the owner to make sure they only eat what they need. my brother has GR's and they would keep on eating if he let them. There are some breeds which are known to be genetically predisposed to being over weight and yes I agree its up to the owner but if some breeders want to select for dogs which are less likely to be over weight - I cant see any more harm in that than slecting for better hips or elbows etc .

Yes I have a tendency to agree, but I dont know enough about labs to take on the two people I know who have been breeding them for over 30 years each - both of whom are professors - who tell me that there may be some work to be done. If they want to have a closer look and develop a plan I dont see much harm in letting them have a go. But I dont see having a go as just opening the stud books.

Are you sure?

I don't know what you guys on on about. Breeds are constantly being modified, as long as you can still make out the breed, what is the problem? All jokes aside dog breeds are always constantly being modified - but to date few have been modified for anything which will deliberately bring something better to the quality of life for the dog and that is what we need to change.

This however is 2011 and we have more access to knowledge, genes etc at our finger tips and science which we have never had before. I dont care what a breeder is aiming to get as long as its a definite goal and a defined plan on how that will be achieved and why - if its dogs less prone to being fat - no worries but you are not going to do that without a clue about how you will go about it or what the dogs you will use have in their ancestry.First you have to prove that they are fatter ,that they will benefit if they are bred to be less fat and that they are not perceived to be fatter because more are desexed or the nutritional bases have changed or because only some lines are more prone to being fatter etc. If you want to select for that and it is your belief that this will benefit the dogs you breed then what a wonderful project to undertake and all is well - but you still need goals and plans on how to acheive them, specifics of what you will select for and what you will be needing to compromise on to get there - because this isnt 100 years ago.