Steve

Having an agreement with a [et shop where if someoen goes in to buy a specific breed that they send them to the breeder, then the breeder pays the pet shop $50 for spotters feees and send the buyer back to that shop to purchase their supplies - I would see that as a great partnership.. No matter what I am going to be the person selling the pup. I will speak with the buyer and screen them and ensure they are good to go. I think we should reward the pet shops who are working with us and promote them and help then grow their businesses without the need for live animal sales

Sort of . - the test will tell you which dogs have it and how badly they are affected even though they may not have have symptoms. They are saying if you breed A with A that you get 75% with no disease not just no symptom - thats the first generation - time will tell if breeding at least one A will lower the odds of 1 in 4 over subsequent generations. I havent compared the odds of getting a pup with HD if the parents score zeros.Though it does lower over time if only zeros are used. If enough scan and enough pedigree info is kept and enough info honestly shared then in one or two generations they will know whether the As they are breeding are still carriers even though they are not affected. That MAY be the case because usually the carrier is not affected so there's a possibility that at least some of the As will be carriers. thats if carriers are even counted. Remember no one knows yet what the mode of inheritance is. There may be something else altogether going on. The protocols for the MVD means they have to breed their bitches older than the majority of breeders do so its going to take a while to paint the whole picture . With any breeding program you have to work out what it is you are after - in cavs most breeders have been selecting for good hearts because of the high incidence of MVD in the breed. If the incidence is relatively high for both MVD and SM then selecting against both at the same time is very difficult especially when there is other background noise about in breeding and how often you should breed , how many you should own. etc. However, even if they are working on - say hearts- first and then intend to move on to the other when they have got the hearts doing pretty well I dont think it would do any harm to also know the status on the other to begin building a profile - of course even better if they can select dogs which are clear for both. But that may not be a possibility depending on the figures. Scanning is probably not the whole answer to eliminating it completely and There are other sub issues to consider including ethics and politics but as CEO of the MDBA I would be disappointed and would have to step in to help any of our breeders to do what ever is needed to get their dogs scanned. I would consider that if our cav breeders are not doing this then they would be dangerously close to being outside of our code of ethics. If this is ever going to move forward cav breeders need to breed lots more and own lots more so that when one or two dogs have to be eliminated because their hearts are skipping or their scans are no go they have alternatives to what they will breed with. They have to raise the prices of their puppies to cover expenses and have what needs to be done to share info and work together honestly.

I just started this last night *fingers crossed* it will assist in some form. It says to give on an empty stomach, wasn't sure exactly how to do that so just chucked it in his meal, what is your experience with it? Ive seen miracles worked with it in animals and humans but sometimes it gets worse before it gets better. There is also differences in how you dose them and how much you give them.

So would I. There is no way I would let a stranger into my home to determine whether or not I am a good dog owner. edit for clarity - ofcourse if I've built up a bond with a breeder over a period of time with the purposes of buying a pup they wouldnt be a stranger (but they'd know me well enough by then not to need to do a home check I would think) but if eg they lived interstate and made a request on a forum for any tom dick or harry to come through my home, I probably would no longer be interested in buying a pup from them anyway I didn't have a home check before I got my last puppy but the breeder wanted me to visit another breeder to meet a wheaten in a family situation. Of course, I knew that second breeder was assessing me but that was fine; I thought that was a good way of seeing what we were like and how we interacted with his dogs. We spent a lovely afternoon playing with his wheaten and kerry. The following day I got a call from the breeder saying we would get a male pup if there was one in the litter. I don't object to home checks but I understand the offense it may cause due to the inferred lack of trust. I think sending you off to meet one in a home setting is a great idea and makes heaps more sense to me than having a house inspection which I feel is way over the top in the list of what hoops you need to jump through to own a dog.

Alright - if we assume - worst case they get to the pet shop at around 5 weeks and stay till they are 10 weeks old - define socialised.What would you expect the person who had control of these pups did in that time frame to ensure they were well adjusted.

O.k. Lets look at this a minute. Surely the general idea from the pet shop point of view is to move these dogs out as quickly as possible. I remember once checking on some beagle pups which were in a pet shop in Penrith. They had come in on the Monday and by Thursday 8 were sold. I dont think that holding these pups for 4 days in a pet shop woul dimpact at all on how easy they woul dbe to train or live the same lives as any pup from any regsitered breeder. In fact I know lots of breeders would rarely handle their pups because they work or because they need to keep em in one spot etc. How long has a pup got to be in a pet shop to suffer to a point where it is altered and more difficult to train. What is it that a pet shop does which can be guaranteed not to be happening in any home with a litter in anywhere which would impact on trainability? Lots of peopel take a new pup home and dont socialise it due to worries about vaccinations etc and it would see less animals and less people than a pet shop so what am I missing?

Have you tried Aloe Juice both internal and external?

why not ? Personally, I don't like them. I don't like visitors but that doesn't make me less of a good dog owner, I wouldn't expect a puppy buyer of mine to subject themselves to my invasion of their privacy. If there is a specific need for a certain fencing arrangement I could understand but as a condition of sale, I'm just not comfortable with them being a requirement. Granted I'm not a rescuer so maybe I'd see things differently if I were. I just did a home check for a Canberra rescue...and the lady was lovely. She fully understood why someone had to ensure that the dog she was adopting was going to a good home...and it was! I walked through the house briefly and looked at the yard and fencing....so it was not a 'poking and prying' visit, just a check to ensure adequate fencing and get a general impression of the prospective buyer. It did help that there was an immaculately groomed dog there already...ensconced on the couch. I'm not keen on strangers in the house either but would be happy to have someone do a home check if I was adopting another dog. Particularly with rescue dogs, when a rescuer takes a dog from a pound and puts their heart and soul into caring for it until it is adopted, then a home check reassures them that the dog won't end up back in the pound again. Anyone can walk into a pet shop, buy a puppy and take it home...to heaven's knows what conditions. I would buy a puppy from a pet shop any day over having someone inspect me and my home before they would sell me a puppy. If you cnat trust what the person is telling you - then you shouldnt be considering selling them the pup in the first place.

They have no idea they can get a pup from a registered breeder for less money and with vet certs for parents, I tell them as I cruise around places like PP. There is NOT enough promotion of pure breeds except the bad promotion last year. On here...sure...it is a pure breed forum, we all know and love dogs and many of us know breeders and have seen the dogs strutting their stuff. I will help anyone to find a rescue dog and I will help anyone looking to buy a pure breed, if I don't know the breeders of a particular breed then I will ask other breeders I know and trust who will. The problem is in this instant society people are not prepared to wait and honestly can't understand why they need to wait for a puppy. They don't care about the poor bitch in a cage mated every season...they just see the cute puppy in a glass cage and want it much as they want the latest gadget for the kitchen. There needs to be more public awareness about farms, pet shops and the pure breed community to assist people to make the right choices. We need to stop this dumpathon of dogs or at least slow it down. But they cant get a pup from a registered breeder because we have been breeding less and less and our supply goes no where near the demand. If purebred breeders are dumped on and accused of puppy farming if they have more than a certain number, if they have more litters than a certain number etc .If council planning laws and mandatory codes make it virtually impossible for small breeders to flourish and keep our dogs in condition we as breeder feel is more suitable to the species then there never will be. Stopping the sale of puppies in pet shops isnt about going to stop people from dumping dogs if stats from AWL are typical. Stopping the sale of puppies in pet shops isnt going to stop people who breed puppies in sub standard conditions Stopping the sale of puppies in pet shops isnt going to make people want our dogs more and if they did we dont have them to sell them anyway. So lets look at why we dont want puppies sold in pet shops realistically and not because of what we have been peddled. 1. Puppies in pet shops are kept in poor conditions. - Are they? There are regulations for the pen sizes and everything else is pretty much sorted regarding how they are kept and fed and watered whilst in the shop and its not in the shop's best interest in numerous ways to have them kept in poor conditions. 2. It encourages impulse sales - maybe but any place where people can look at a puppy before they buy it can be accused of this.Rescue especially push the concept of buying a dog because you are "saving " it and both operate at least partially on people wanting to take them home to make its life better. One of the recommendations for rescue dogs is to move them into more high built areas to allow the public to see them and many are marketed to push sympathy buttons. Any place including breeders who offer puppies at 8 weeks of age will see a percentage of impulse sales. Breeders know that if someone comes to their homes to look at puppies which are ready to go especially if they have kids with them they will probably go home with a puppy.I dont think impulse sales are unique to pet shops but there is a probablitity because they are in retail areas with foot traffic that the potential for an impulse buy is increased. 3. They buy puppies in poor condition, poorly bred from puppy farmers [those who breed puppies in substandard conditions]. They say they dont that they buy healthy puppies from breeders who are out in the open and complying with mandatory codes and planning laws. In all liklihood some do buy puppies from breeders who cut corners and who breed puppies in sub standard conditions but thats not intheir best interests. Buying sick or un socilised puppies wont keep them in business very long. this is the one reason most often push as the major reason for stopping the sale of puppies in pet shops in the belief that if we take away that market and make it more difficult for a breeder to sell their stock that they will breed less. I personally think that they will still breed them and simply sell them to different places with different methods and the public will go with them because the demand is still the same. I also think that if mass produced puppies are sold in pet shops rather than out of the back of car boots or from the front offices of battery dog farms there is at least some protection that the pups are parasite free,clean vaccinated, microchipped etc 4. That Puppies which are purchased from pet shops are more likely to end up in pounds. There are few stats available but the ones that are clearly show that this is not the case from at least one shelter [awl ].Whats more if we are going to use this as a valid reason for being against sales of puppies in pet shops then we also have to use it as an argument against people who sell rescue dogs because the stats of these are more than double pet shop sales in that shelter. 5. That the buyer is not educated on what the pup will grow into and they are likely to be living with a dog with management requirements as it grows into an adult which they didnt anticipate. This is one of my big ones - however the same can be said of a rescue pup who's parents are unknown being sold by a rescue group,any cross bred or mixed breed sold by anyone under any conditions. 6. That the transaction is motivated by profit - a quick sale - move em in move em out. But breeders and rescue are each as vulnerable to this as any pet shop is. I know breeders who get pretty desperate to move em out at 8 weeks who hand them over to the first person who turns up.They may not be as motivated to get the money[arguable] but they most definitely can be motivated by finding new homes and getting them moved as much as any pet shop. Moving them out quickly because they can then save another or moving them out quickly because they dont want to be stuck with them without the proper education and screening still brings the same results.Some going into homes where the buyer had no real idea of what they were getting. Breeders and rescue are not necessarily immune to being motivated to make money. 7. That they dont screen their buyers to ensure they really do have adequate fencing and the lifestyle suited to the dog they are choosing. this is probably a valid argument however, this may be just exactly the reason why people buy a puppy from a pet store over rescue and breeders in the first place. Lots of breeders dont screen their puppy buyers either - and if AWL are screening their buyers that screening isnt working in preventing surrenders. 8. that the buyer has no contact with the breeder - assuming the breeder is prepared to offer a post sale service and assuming the buyer wants contact with the breeder. The reality is that most breeders dont want to,they dont have to and that goes for registered breeders as well as any other breeder.It is not part of the regs or codes of ethics. If you stop breeders selling pups to pet shops you will still not see those breeders offering after sales service. There are vets, trainers, other breeders, internet forums books etc to replace the breeder in that regard anyway.If something goes wrong even if the breeder does offer support for this many buyers will dodge the breeder if they cant keep them ,they can rehome them without help from a third party or they can place them with a rescue group.Lots of rescue groups dont want the breeders to be part of "saving" their own anyway So promoting purebreds because they are preditible and it allows people to choose an animal most suited to their lifestyle and therefore less likely to be something they are not prepared for or not being compatible with - no surprises with management issues etc but thats assuming that they do their homework and consider this too before they buy. It can and does still go wrong and people find they cant stand the dog but the risks are lowered. We still have a problem in that we cannot suppy the demand. if we promote the idea that people should assess their lifestyles and choose a breed which is most likely to be compatible who will breed these compatible breeds of dog?

Karaoke???? Its supposed to be a posh do but Ill think about it.

Soon

I actually disagree. We are guardians for our children, but they certainly don't get to do whatever they want, and they are certainly not equal to adults. Equal in value, yes, but not equal in standing. Guardianship implies responsebility just as much as ownership does, maybe even more so because guardianship implies that you have to take care of them and you are responsible for their well-being. Ownership doesn't mean anything. I own my car and if I want to drive it off a cliff I can do so, or set it on fire, or simple fail to get it serviced regularly, or not have it repaired when it needs it. If you fail to have your dog repaired when it needs it it's a criminal offence, so obviously they are more than just property. Drive around for a day with no rego or unroadworthy and see if its an offence.

I actually disagree. We are guardians for our children, but they certainly don't get to do whatever they want, and they are certainly not equal to adults. Equal in value, yes, but not equal in standing. Guardianship implies responsebility just as much as ownership does, maybe even more so because guardianship implies that you have to take care of them and you are responsible for their well-being. Ownership doesn't mean anything. I own my car and if I want to drive it off a cliff I can do so, or set it on fire, or simple fail to get it serviced regularly, or not have it repaired when it needs it. If you fail to have your dog repaired when it needs it it's a criminal offence, so obviously they are more than just property. A property owner has rights which can not be taken from them without due process of law. Guardians have no such rights.. Guardians can be removed simply relying on testimony from an "interested party." If we are guardians then ultimately its the state who gets to say what will and will not be and they get to make decsions based on life and death, health etc of the animal we are guardians of but not owners of. Wards have the right to sue. History tells us that if the state is not prepared to accept new responsibilities it delegates them to some outside agency - wonder who that would be? If we must compare children to dogs which I personally see as pointless then I will say this. I am a mother of 8 children and I have also been guardian appointed by the state to several others. As a mother I make all decsions pertinent to their welfare and upbringing as a guardian I can make no important decisions and everything has to be approved first or I run the risk of having my guardianship removed from me. Name changes will not make people love animals any more or less. Humans, in the main are a compassionate species and we want what is best for humans and animals alike.If you are a guardian rather than an owner you can't buy or sell and no matter what we do and how we legislate, species will still go extinct, animals will still be eaten and the chosen few will be kept as pets and some people will not change the way they treat them no matter what they are called.

When the Magna Carta was being signed animals and property played a pretty big role. Thats because if an animal is not someone's property then someone else can pick it up and take it home and do pretty much whatever they want with it. It also brings into question the fact that if someone doesnt own it - who is going to be held responsible for it? Easing animal suffering is definitely worthwhile but turning animals into a kind of human is another matter If you are its guardian rather than its owner it implies equality where ownership implies responsibility. People who own dogs need to be more responsible for them, literally and emotionally—not more equal to them. Guardianship suggests dogs have a right to live their own lives as they wish. This is impossible in our dog-unfriendly world where what the dog does naturally is frowned upon.Rolling in smelly stuff, cocking its leg, having sex,raoming freely, having dust ups with other dogs eating the legs off the furniture are things that as an owner I am expected to be responsible for and I happen to like that. I think being a dog owner is something nice -special and I like them being my property. Social movements are only as effective as their ability to win popular support and usually there is an end goal with small steps to have support offered by thise who would not back the end goal in order to achieve their end. I am not giving up my right to own my dogs. The signing of the Magna Carta is taught to every kid in the free world because it was such a big deal and it meant we did have the right to own property including our animals and it still is.

O.K. But do you think promoting our dogs as pets will make any difference to pet shops selling puppy mill dogs? Are you coming at it from - the public buy from pet shops but would prefer to buy from us if we strutted our stuff more? Problem is we dont breed anywhere near enough to fill the demand. I dont see pet shops as any form of competition.

So it seems many of you are saying that in order to do something to stop the sale of pets in pet shops we should promote purebreds more ?

Interesting . So at the end of the day its still coming down to profiling your pedigree - knowing what you have and what you might get and use that knowledge to achieve the goals for that litter. Scanning is only part of the answer.

No signature from me either.

I cant speak for other breeds but the Maremma is brilliant. Thye are not aggressive at all and they accept what ever and whomever you accept. Remember Ive got 8 kids and Ive had Maremmas for almost 20 years - thats given them a fair work out. Ive had them in paddocks with up to 500 sheep and in my lounge room. We only have a small flock now and the paddock dogs and the sheep come in and out of the house yard to act as lawnmowers occassionally without missing a beat and still sit at the kds feet and lap up any affection they can grab. ive a bitch that was put with the sheep when she was 6 weeks old. When she is in whelp and about a week to go I bring her in and bath her and introduce her to her whelping box. She sits for 2 days with her back to me and would go back to th elambs if I let her. Within the 2 days you would never know the difference between her and the one thats been inside all her life. She allows the kids to help her whelp and doesnt batter an eyelid as the visitors come and go around her .She's never been house trained but she would blow up before she went to the toot in the house. If I let her near the lambs I have to bind her tummy because she stands and lets the lambs feed from her. Lots of breeders allow them to whelp right in the middle of the flock and lambs and pups are usually born in the same week or they give them a barn where they can come and go and never miss a day's work. Mine get maternity leave. I like em close to me and to be handled as much as possible because even though you want a good working dog you also dont want one that you have to worry about with the kids or that you cant handle. They go to work at 6 to 8 weeks. The last champion I bred works with goats all week and is gentle and fantasic with the adults and kids and has never lost one to predators. He came out of the paddock each week end - had a bath and ran around the show ring with out missing a beat. As pets - they are perfect and I love them so much I cant ever imagine not having them live with me.

Yes but inthat situation the people who were responsible for caring for the animal from birth or almost birth have taken the responsibility for finding it a home and they can educate the buyer and screen them within reason too. Im not sure how I should word it but what Im trying to say is I dont think pet shops are automatically evil due to conditions etc but I dont think they can do what a breeder does in being able to offer back up , and education and support for the dog or the buyer. If rescue are whelping pregnant dogs they should be doing what breeder should be doing and neither one should be using emotional crap to get a sale. Bassed onthe stats from AWL where returns from rescue are higher than either breeders [ any breeders] or pet shops there is a can of worms there.

Really? I find that hard to believe Steve, but would be interested to know your reasons. In that case, that would mean any cat & dog whose breeder can't be identified must either be PTS or given away free? That would pretty much be the nail in the coffin of rescues, since they can't survive on nothing. Sorry you're right - I meant as puppies. I think anyone who takes less money for the pup than they could get if they sell it themselves is usually doing so to remain anon ,duck responsibility and because they dont care enough about what comes next. I think that the people who sell the dog should know enough about the dog and the breed to be able to educate the buyer on what they are getting including how both parents behave. there's more but Ill come back gotta run.

Its not rocket science http://www.sciencemagnews.com/young-unsupe...e-and-eyes.html The study, the largest of its kind, was done by Vikram Durairaj, MD, of the University of Colorado School of Medicine, who found that dogs usually target a child's face and eyes and most often it's a breed considered 'good' with children, like a Labrador retriever. "People tend to think the family dog is harmless, but it's not," said Durairaj, associate professor of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, who presented his study last month at the American Academy of Ophthalmology's annual meeting. "We have seen facial fractures around the eye, eye lids torn off, injury to the tear drainage system and the eyeball itself." Some wounds are so severe that patients require multiple reconstructive surgeries. Durairaj said dog bites are especially devastating to children because they are smaller and their faces are within easy reach of the animal's mouth. The likelihood of a child getting bitten in their lifetime is around 50 percent with 80 percent of those bites involving the head and neck. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year and 885,000 require medical attention. The total cost is estimated at up to $250 million. The study looked at 537 children treated for facial dog bites at The Children's Hospital on the University of Colorado's Anschutz Medical Campus between 2003 and 2008. Durairaj found that 68 percent of bites occurred in children 5-years-old or younger with the highest incidence in 3-year-olds. In the majority of cases, the child knew the dog through the family, a friend or a neighbor. And more than half the time, the dog was provoked when the child petted it too aggressively, startled or stepped on it.The dogs were not breeds usually associated with attacks. Durairaj found that mixed breeds were responsible for 23 percent of bites followed by Labrador retrievers at 13.7 percent. Rottweilers launched attacks in 4.9 percent of cases, German shepherds 4.4 percent of the time and Golden retrievers 3 percent. The study was done in the Denver area where pit bulls are banned. "What is clear from our data is that virtually any breed of dog can bite," Durairaj said. "The tendency of a dog to bite is related to heredity, early experience, later socialization and training, health and victim behavior." He stressed that familiarity with a dog is no guard against attack and if a dog bites once, it will likely bite again with the second attack often more vicious that the first. The first time a dog bites, he said, it should be removed from the home. "I was called in to see a dog bite. A girl had a puncture wound to her lip. Two days later I saw the same girl, but this time her eyelids were torn off and she had severe scalp and ear lacerations," Durairaj said. "The onus is on parents to recognize aggressive breeds as well as behaviors and never allow their young children to be left unsupervised around any dog." Editor's Note: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Source: The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by University of Colorado Denver.

Same situation here as in the puppy farm thread. Given that it seems this is something which is constantly being pushed its time we looked at it - debated the issues and came up with plan of action of our own which is not driven by animal rights and considers alternatives and actions which dont include law changes. I am against anyone buying a dog or kitten from anyone who is not the person who bred it for a variety of reasons - so lets go - what do you guys see as the answer - but its no fun and prohibitive if we go the way others are and demand new laws - lets look for viable actions and alternatives.

So is this about stopping live animal studies or live animal studies on pound dogs?

How unfortuneate that there has to be angst like this. I hope the outcome is that breeders do test their dogs for MVD and follow the breeding protocol set down and that testing for SM becomes a simple and easily accessable affordable test without too many negative side effects for the dogs and the breed. I agree with what Bet says in regard to owners needing to know breeders test and that they are making ethical and informed decisions in their breeding programs which includes sharing their information regarding their pedigrees openly. But I also know the dog world and I think Bet has been a bit lacking in some regards and naive in others. Personally - I think if its a known issue in the breed - no matter what people should test before they breed them - No matter how hard it is to get the testing done or how much it costs. If Cavs sell for around the same price as lab's and they have to be hip scored, PRA tested and elbow tested - I dont think how expensive the test is should be an issue - its still less than many breeders have to pay to test their breeding stock. Most people buying a cav would pay a bit extra on each pup to cover the costs. However, as its a polygenic and it isnt as easy as it sounds when you have to work with the whole dog and the whole breed ,that testing and test results are not the complete picture no matter what its going to come down to the breeders being ethical and doing the hard bits to get it right. Telling buyers to ensure the breeders test may make breeders test but it wont make any difference on its own and I think there are other things here which Bet has missed. Too bad that this goes on publicly because it doesnt do much for the PR of breeders or the breed.