Steve

Are you kidding? Do you seriously think that breeders who advertise on Dogz all have quality breeding stock and do the right thing? Better take a better look.

Anyone in 2014 who is looking for a puppy can just as easily look on any website to find a puppy or a breeder. If what they are looking for isnt on one site they look for another . You get good and bad people from any website especially if you are clear in your ad what it is you do and what you are advertising. The reality is that dogz has a set of criteria which has limited those advertising to a small group of breeders - those who are registered as ANKC breeders so if someone is looking for a registered purebred dog its likely that they will come to sites like this first. There is no guarantee that the people looking will find a better breeder or a better puppy and definitely no guarantee that you can only find great homes from people who sourced your contact details from this site or any other. In fact some who advertise here are pretty dodgy and without going into some of the reasons why I say that believe it or not there are lots of people who dont know about dogz and that doesnt make them lesser potential puppy buyers or lesser breeders. This isnt about whether breeders should advertise in newspapers or less restrictive websites or whether a breeder should advertise at all its about the illusion and the propaganda pushed by animal rights that many of us have swallowed. A good breeder doesn't need to advertise - and of course breeders who advertise on dogz don't NEED to advertise right? A good breeder will have a waiting list and wont breed a litter until they are sure they are all spoken for - if we all really did that it makes for a hell of a lot of very patient and disappointed people , wasted time and we would still have some times when we didn't have homes when its home time. I have personally witnessed a well known , well respected breeder who handed over 8 puppies to a dealer which were taken over the border and sold to a pet shop because she was too concerned about how she would look if she were seen to be advertising her puppies. I have spoken with registered purebred breeders who have had their puppies PTS rather than be seen to be a bad breeder and needing to advertise. Two days ago I spoke with a breeder who has some left out of her litter which is now 18 weeks old and the only reason I can see for that is that she will only advertise on dogz.She should be able to sell her puppies easier than me as she lives in a more populated area but is more worried about how she will look than doing what is best for the puppies and her family and finding them new homes. Some of us will sell all of our puppies without effort and without needing to advertise in a place where breeders of all types advertise some of us will not and that doesnt make us bad breeders or breeders who breed large numbers if that's an option we use. Some of us just happen to like advertising in numerous places to spread the word about us and our breed. Some of us dont have swish websites,one of the best breeders Ive ever met [won Master breeder of the year too ], doesnt have a computer and no access to email, some of us dont want to keep a list of people who want a puppy when they ring and probably wont in 12 months when the pups are born or if they still do are shattered when the bitch has the wrong sex or the wrong colour etc. Some of us only want to sell locally so we advertise only in local papers. Some of us live in the boonies so the puppy buyers are not as easy to find. Some of us dont belong to a breed club, some of us believe it or not have a beef with dogz and prefer not to advertise here . There are not many things I can think of where those who have something to sell wont advertise it in certain places in fear of who else is advertising there and how they will look.

Myself and EmilyKate Clements. Its good - you should sign your names to it - well done

Who wrote this sway?

Why on earth do people want to interfere so much with dogs being dogs and allowing them to simply do what comes naturally ? My heart goes out to the bitch Stupid. Some expert the vet is - not.

The best way to get more people being responsible is to put focus on the people who are doing the right thing Place your nominations here

Yep Ive got a couple of sheep I keep just for this purpose - he will live with them all day everyday - except a trip per day around the place to get to know us and the other animals etc for the next 8 to 12 weeks.Then he will come out into the paddock and stay with the sheep for ever as if he is one of them.Loving them and protecting them.

Well there are lots of reports that this doesn't always happen and the point for me is that if it didnt happen there is little anyone could do about it.

Yep I see all that I just feel better when Im doing everything I can to cut down the risks just in case and so far that's worked for me. I grow all of my own food organically - no chemicals here.

Look what I picked up from the airport last night. No days off- out to work straight away.

Well considering my mother is responsible for the eggs that were already inside of me and that were used to produce my children and I breed dogs over multiple generations - for me - that places huge importance on what I feed and expose my girls to so they get the best diet possible and live as stress free with limits on exposure to chemicals and personally when I purchase a pup bred by someone else Im more interested in that than I am in hip or elbow scores etc. Just in case. Feeding a less quality diet may have little or no impact on one dog not used for breeding but in case it has a negative impact on its offspring for me there is no wondering as to why I do it.

This is a good one - it says [ among other things] that If a grandmother smokes her grandaughter has 4 times the chance of having asthma http://books.google....dmother&f=false

Google epigenetics and especially epigenetics agouti mice. Its exciting stuff and from a breeders perspective so important. What if those pushing anti commercial foods are right and HD is in the main the result of diet - not just the diet of the dog in question but also the diet of dogs in previous generations

The entire system enables this type of discussion to occur and its why it should be changed. If the system allowed the person who has lost their dogs to feel they have had the opportunity to speak and have some control, if it wasn't so easy for some power hungry ranger backed up by a dodgy quasi police force system to be corrupt if they want to be - things would be different. If in fact the ranger has used their power inappropriately an ordinary owner remains powerless to be able to defend themselves. They can determine whether to seize the animals - and every step in the chain is capable of being corrupt because there is not enough accountability. They can take your animals, take it to their vet , say whatever they want without the requirement of a second opinion and if determined the dog needs to be PTS - destroy the evidence with the owner having no input . They wont take notice of your vet opinion as it is deemed to be biased. They could see the dog has a cherry eye and decide it needs surgery in their opinion and order her to have the op done after they have heard her argument and followed up on what her own vet has advised her. Why seize a dog with a cherry eye? Even if it is a situation where she had been directed to get the eye done and for what ever reason hasn't done so why not offer her the ability for them to do it and for her to pay back the money for the op? I dont know anything about this case and Im certainly not accusing anyone or any body of corruption but seriously - lets be honest - there is a huge amount of power handed to them with no third party accountability and if they wanted to stitch someone up it would be pretty easy to do. In the mean time you take away someone's family and put them into legal situations they have never experienced before and probably have no money to defend and leave them with living the rest of their lives without the company of animals. Its a hard punishment and often leaves the humans in a hell of a mess. Some will say they deserve it and definitely some do but you have to give the ability for some voice and some control for their defence in the hands of the owners or there will be threads such as this where the RSPCA can be accused of corruption and the community fears them rather than respects them.

I just got back from the airport with my new baby stud muffin - 8 weeks old and perfect. Bred for temperament and working ability and his closeness to the standard and the breeder has done a hell of a job. Id never do it any other way. Glendawn Maremma and Basenji - you rock!!!

As a breeder I believe its not just about the dog you see its about what happens because of what you feed as well as genetics which impact on future generations. If you are going to draw conclusions on how the diet impacts you also have to look at the other variables such as stress, over vaccination, heart worm meds,exercise etc . When you own more than average numbers of dogs all kept in the same environment and fed the same diet especially when you breed them you see how the diet can impact pretty easily. One of the reasons I love being a dog breeder. http://www.livescience.com/21902-diet-epigenetics-grandchildren.html

Even though you havent had a large dog before I hadnt either until I got my first one and now Id never live without one.Look at the Maremma Yells a lot at strangers - doesn't bite unless it has to and loves you to bits.

I believe one of the main reasons people dump dogs is because they have a dog which doesn't suit them and their lifestyle. I believe that some people and some families can live with any dog and make adjustments to their lives to accommodate the dog's needs and can live with the dog regardless of its characteristics,traits and management requirements. Many people and many families cant and Im one of them . I want a pure bred of one or two particular breeds and I want it to come into my home as a new baby. There are less registered purebred dogs dumped than others because there are less bred. Believe me Ive placed puppies with people who appear to be perfect owners - who couldn't have been given a tighter screening and who couldn't have been given more education or informed on the breed - and they are great owners for a while and then for a myriad of reasons they no longer want the dog.Three in 30 years that I know of have been dumped in rescue and have told lies to avoid honouring their contracts and coming back to me first. The type of stats we need for anyone to say whether or not one group or another is the bad guy breeders and should be more accountable for dogs being dumped are not kept so any ideas we have of which breeders are possibly creating the problem are at best educated assumptions. Fact is there is a demand for puppies. I no longer keep a constant waiting list because at any given time I had between 50 and 100 waiting.I dont believe I could ever breed enough to fill the demand for puppies of my two breeds in the foreseeable future. Rescue dont have any trouble at all in finding homes for new puppies and nor do puppy farmers and large scale commercial breeders and pet shops. while ever there is a demand someone will supply it and the less predictable pure bred dogs are bred the higher the demand will be for the next best . Less predictability = higher risk of being homeless. Until we focus on the choices people make and go after greater education and look at how owners accept the responsibility of dog ownership there will be limited progress - however any push toward pure bred dog ownership which will give greater predictability and a better chance of happily ever after for family and dog the numbers for pure bred dogs and breeders who educate and try to match owners and offer a safety net has to increase and its dropping more and more every year. As the supply decreases for predictable pure bred dogs the demand for second or third best increases. Time we took the focus off who is doing the breeding and look at it from a different perspective. The only way to do that is if breeders and rescue listen to each other and work together to address the whole problem and not just land on assumed solutions without knowing all of the variables and possible unexpected consequences.

RIP Neil - condolences to his family.

Yep set up by the state government.

Ive checked and from an independent source it appears to be true. Most of these puppies are coming from licensed kennels in Victoria which have been approved to operate and house hundreds of breeding dogs by the system there.For me all that demonstrates is that the massive push and interference by such groups to have more and more laws introduced has had the opposite effect to that which they said they wanted. Victoria has THE most ridiculous over regulation of dog breeding and that has produced bigger and bigger establishments which obviously seek more markets to sell their produce. There is also talk of corruption with some puppies passing vet certification which shouldn't be and at least one transport company has refused to ship them due to "puppies which are supposed to be 12 week old lab puppies which can sit in the palm of your hand " and numerous other concerns which probably should be looked into - but there is big money in this now and much more going on behind the scenes which will develop as issues into the future.

They share it but it may not be the info you want - only stats Ive seen released by AQIS were about numbers in and out - not what breed they were.

How do I find out who wrote this - looks to me that its worth a nomination

My link - The U.S. Department of Agriculture illegally and arbitrarily is requiring "tens of thousands of dog and cat breeders" to get licenses and submit to unannounced inspections and the costs of complying with "new structural and sanitation standards," dozens of dog and cat clubs claim in court. Forty dog clubs - and two cat clubs - led by the Associated Dog Clubs of New York State, sued the USDA in District of Columbia Federal Court. More cats than dogs are kept as pets in the United States, according to the Humane Society: 95.6 million cats and 83.3 million dogs. Forty-seven percent of U.S. households have at least one dog, and 46 percent have at least one cat, according to the Humane Society. Why 40 of the 42 plaintiff clubs are dog breeders, and only two represent cats, is a poser. Possibly it's because dogs and dog owners are clubbier than cats and cat people. Whatever the reason, the clubs challenge "The Retail Pet Store Rule," 9 CFR Parts 1-3, which took effect on Nov. 18. The regulation was promulgated under the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq. The rule originally was aimed at large breeders who sell over the Internet, but was expanded to include all breeders, including "small-scale breeders," i.e., the members of the plaintiff clubs, "without any support for doing do," according to the complaint. According to the dog clubs' lawsuit: "The Rule radically changes, without justification, 47 years of USDA's regulatory oversight of retail pet stores. Specifically, the Rule redefines 'retail pet store' to potentially require tens of thousands of dog and cat breeders throughout the United States, including members of plaintiffs, to obtain licenses, to subject their residences to unannounced, on-site inspections, to incur substantial costs to comply with new structural and sanitation standards, to risk the health and lives of their dogs and cats from exposure to the deadly Parvovirus, Panleukopenia, and other diseases, and to place their personal safety at risk by opening their residences to strangers." The clubs claim that when Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act in 1966, it "specifically exempted retail pet stores" from the Act's licensing and inspection requirements. "Although Congress has amended the AWA several times since its passage, Congress has not changed or narrowed the AWA's exemption of retail pet stores," the complaint states. "By promulgating a regulation instead of seeking a statutory solution in Congress, the USDA has circumvented congressional intent. Moreover, the Rule's redefinition of 'retail pet store' is inconsistent with the required record that was developed to justify the Rule." The USDA estimated that the rule would affect 2,600 to 4,640 breeders, the dog clubs say - an estimate that is way off base. "In fact, as was noted in the comments, the Rule potentially affects tens of thousands of breeders, including the almost 19,000 members of the 42 plaintiffs, located in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Significantly, the clubs and registries comprised by plaintiffs represent less than 1 percent of the dog and cat clubs and registries in the United States, yet the cumulative number of plaintiff members alone is four times the maximum number of breeders that APHIS [the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] estimated would be potentially affected." The dog clubs want the rule declared invalid and enjoined as arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with the AWA, exceeding the jurisdiction of the USDA, and a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The clubs are represented by Philip Hecht. The Humane Society criticized the lawsuit in a statement, and said it plans to "intervene in the lawsuit and join the government in defending the common-sense regulation." The Humane Society said that the rule was enacted to crack down on "large-scale puppy mills." The statement said that the rule "closed the regulatory loophole" that let puppy mills sells abused dogs online without oversight. The Humane Society statement did not address the dog clubs' objection that the rule indiscriminately affects back-yard breeders. Here are the plaintiffs: Associated Dog Clubs of New York State, Inc; Australian Shepherd Club of America; American Dog Breeders Association, Inc.; Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders; California Federation of Dog Clubs; Albany Kennel Club, Inc.; Albany Obedience Club, Inc.; Allpurrs Cattery; American Fox Terrier Club; American Pomeranian Club; American Russell Terrier Club; Belgian Sheepdog Club of America; Cat Fanciers Legislative Group; Charlottesville-Albemarle Kennel Club; Chattanooga Kennel Club;; Chihuahua Club of America; Cleveland Collie Club; Colonial Newfoundland Club; Columbia Poodle Club of Oregon and Southwest Washington; Dachshund Club of Greater Buffalo; Dachshund Fanciers of Central Virginia; Eagle Rock Kennel Club, Inc.; Erie Canal Schipperke Club; Goldendoodle Association of North America;; Huron Valley Australian Shepherd Association; International Bengal Cat Society; International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club; Kennel Club of Palm Springs; Miniature Australian Shepherd Club of America; Minuteman Samoyed Club, Inc.; Mississippi Canine Coalition, Inc.; Northland Newfoundland Club; Potomac Bassett Hound Club; Saratoga (NY) Kennel Club, Inc.; Schenectady Dog Training Club; Shawangunk Kennel Club, Inc.; Shetland Sheepdog Club of Western New York; Society for the Perpetuation of Desert Bred Salukis; Syracuse Obedience Training Club; Tri Valley Shetland Sheepdog Club of Northwest Los Angeles; Weimaraner Club of the Washington DC Area; and the Working Australian Shepherd Club of Upstate New York.