Steve

Well deserved Sheila Julie

Things are not always as they seem - it may be its the same pup and she didnt anticipate that it would change so much.

The possibility of sex causing heart failure is the absolute very least of the considerations for using or not using a dog at stud. Use it or loose it goes for dogs as well as men - higher risk of prostate issues if you have less not more sex .

Its a pretty difficult feat to avoid Parvo anywhere in the Riverina at the moment - dogs everywhere are dropping like flies and any pound needs to have some protocols put in place to try to cut the contamination down - don't think anyone disagrees with that but it gets pretty tacky when you have to tell the world how great you are or defend what you believe to be the right thing by attacking other rescue group's policies - even when you feel you are under attack. . If you have a point to make and I think you do - then stick to the topic handle it the way you see and feel you should and be prepared to defend your actions and stance but back off going after other groups and being so belligerent - it makes you and your group loose credibility. If you think they are taking shots at you going back at them wont help any of the dogs by having public wars among yourself. Needless to say every part of this needs to be looked at - who and how they are being transported and basic protocols the groups have in place to try to keep their end of it held down to a less risk situation.

http://truth4pets.org/2012/06/what-everyone-needs-to-know/ Canine Parvovirus-2 (CPV-2) 7 yrs/10 yrs challenge/serology http://www.news.wisc.edu/8413

We have these products - they are colognes which can be used on the dog as required and living areas etc all based on natural ingredients and essential oils incuding chamomile, lavender etc Last for ages too - http://www.shalarm.c...x.php/shop/dogs If you're interested in giving them a go shoot me a pm and Ill sort something out for you

I dont take names until about 2 weeks before the litter is due .I tell those who enquire earlier about when I expect to have a litter and if they are still interested they come back .The only time I add names before that is when someone already has one of my puppies and they want another . If the puppies were born 4 weeks ago Id get back in touch with the breeder if I were you in case she has forgotten about you

You guys realise that they have just made it super easy to, and clearly have the intentions to, add more breeds to BSL under the menacing category? Owners of any large, powerful breed should be very afraid. They wouldn't have put that in unless they intend to use it. Yep there goes the Maremma.

me too.

Its a reasonably simple op which any vet should be able to complete without any lasting issues.

O.K. If you place an animal with someone they have a right under Australian consumer law to get what they have paid for - if they get it home and find out it has temperament or health issues you have to deal with this .You can offer a refund for return of the dog but they dont have to agree to that and that doesnt let you off the hook. You could end up paying vet expenses and damages if thats the way they want to go. The only way around this is to put everything in writing and to ensure before they take the dog they receive a product disclaimer . So you can say that the dog has been examined by your vet and has been given a clean bill of health and when - include a written document for the vet to say so and that you have not observed any potential issues, that it has been assess and by what method for temperament issues. you have to be very clear that you have done what you can but that you cannot guarantee future temperament issues or health issues because these things are beyond your control AND THEY ACCEPT THAT AS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE GUARANTEED . If it gets to a hearing with the Australian Consumer tribunal or court that will help but it wont necessarily get you out of it altogether either. Of course if there is anything there that needs to be shared with the new owner even if you think its insignificant you need to put that in writing and have them agree to the fact that you have informed them. There are many sub issues here and much more to talk about but the end story is people come to you as a small private rescue with an expectation that you will sell them an animal which eliminates some of the risks they may encounter by taking a dog from a pound - this implies to them even before they get to you that the product they buy will be better quality and they expect better service, a healthier and better temperamented animal. Even if they dont they can make a pretty good argument for that if it goes further. When they walk out your door they expect that they will be able to use the animal as a pet for a reasonable period of time with reasonable anticipated expenses. So the marketing you do which tells the public about how good you are and why they should come to you gives an implication for the buyer and an expectation which places you in a hotter position than [ say ] a pound if something goes wrong. It may be easier to see if you consider why a registered breeder is more likely than a pet shop or back yard breeder to have legals taken against them and demands way after the dog goes home. Its because registered breeders have marketed their ability to sell a healthier better temperamented dog to tell people to come to them instead of the others - so someone buying from a pet shop knows they have a 7 day guarantee and after that they are on their own, they purchase a purebred pup from a registered breeder with an expectation that it is a higher quality - so much of it is about the implication that coming to you brings with it . So we have to say we believe our products are better and we have done the best we can to eliminate or reduce the risks that come with purchasing a live animal but before they walk out the door they have to be able to say they understand you cant guarantee they will take home an animal which is perfect for an unlimited period of time. And that's only about when you HAVE done everything right and haven't told fibs or left bits out - then you are really in trouble.

I agree with this.

Look I get it - I don't like him either but this isn't about Abbott its about the politics and the reality is no one [politicians] ever take any notice of committees anyway. How some of them ever got on the committee in the first place is beyond me.

the concept that the person who breeds an animal or who is an agent to sell the animal should be responsible for everything that may happen to it after it gets to the new owner is a bit way out there in a world wide arena.

Treat the bite the same as you do for a human - wrap in a compression bandage - this increases the time frame by miles and mark the spot where the bite is with a waterproof pen etc - vitamin C doesnt work . A bandage, keeping them still and getting them to the vet for anti venom does. There is some new suggestion to use nitroglycerine [used for angina] but Ive only given it a glance and havent gone too far into that research yet to see if its a real option. We sell a snake bite kit - which clips onto your belt.

Thats the whole point no one ever takes notice of committees and they already know that no matter what the committees say they will nod and appear to care but wont - why pay money for the pretence? If they need an expert to back up some crap decision they will get one or two they agree with to say they consulted. Nothing new here they are just saving money and being more obvious about it.

Ive never seen the fear period either ,my puppies are known for being bomb proof when they go home but they are involved in and introduced to things which I know they will experience when they get home and I do think its a lot to do with breed - My Maremma for example in my opinion are advantaged by going home sooner rather than later and so are the people who are taking them. My beagles do well going home at 8 weeks and I havent noticed any difference in a 8 week old or a 12 week old.

Yeah well I didn't vote for him either and still cant believe that so many did - but they did. I suppose it all comes down to the fact that the committees he is abolishing were never going to be listened to anyway and them existing was all about making it look like they were consulting those involved.Not much point in leaving them there if he never had any intention to look at or listen to a single thing that came out of them. Not that I think any government would anyway. May as well save the money and get experts they agree with to give their opinions for free.

They are only cutting the committee not the ability to focus on animal welfare via other means within the department of Ag where it probably should have been anyway - might have got us further as the committee had no clout anyway. Ive no doubt the people who sat on it - especially Animals Australia etc will still get their message across. There are other things he is scrapping Im more concerned about.

Make sure your dogs are on lead everywhere all the time unless its an off leash area - because its against the law .

If there was anything done re loonies breaking the law I havent heard about that. The fact is there isnt any need for them to do that anyway .A complaint to the RSPCA has to be taken as serious and they go and check it out - if when they get there its horrible then they act .They cant take into account anything thats on any film made by fanatics. With a complaint they will investigate anyway with or without filming by people known to be capable of telling pork pies who are criminals. The whole going in under cover and filming is about getting the propoganda/ sensationalism machine going ,more donations and more zealots to come in and try to stop breeders altogether with crazy laws and codes. Its about trying to say that the RSPCA and council don't take a look or act unless its shown to them on film - not true. In Australia all it takes is a phone call and the RSPCA and council would have done what they did anyway. In my opinion this one is a good one - and if its a fact that they [RSPCA council] dont or wont act without animal rights zealots making illegal raids then they should be answering to that - if the AR loonies dont make a complaint but instead opt to break the law before they complain they should be penalised rather than allow them to be given more money raised by illegal activity.

When the tail docking laws first came in I had a corgi who had a serious tail injury and I believed at the time - still do - that it was because her tail did drag on the ground when she was in certain modes .It was the worst pain Ive ever seen a dog have to suffer through when she had to have her tail amputated as an adult - agony. However, that's the only one Ive heard of which has had an injury since - thats not to say there hasnt been others but no one will ever know because no stats have ever been kept and I dont believe that the banning of docking has impacted on the numbers. In Australia The numbers were already dropping before the ban and they have dropped at about the same rate as numerous breeds which were never banned. If the lack of numbers of dogs in a breed bred or the ratio of dogs bred now to then are going to be attributed to tail docking they need some stats to back what they say up and the stats show exactly the opposite .The numbers of Maremma bred in that period of time has dropped by 75% - 150 Australia wide bred in 2012. Shetland sheep dog has dropped by 50% - Beagles have dropped by over 50% - Corgis have only dropped by about 20% You might be able to show cause of banning with some breeds such as Aussie Terriers and Boxers but its a hard push when so many [most other breeds] which have never been docked have radically reduced in numbers bred. In Australia last year 417 WP Corgis were bred and if in fact that puts them on the endangered breeds list here then there are lots of breeds which are in bigger trouble.

Well it came in with AAE and I was only once asked for the paper work soon after it came in. Now I still get them the paper work but I cant get them to look at it even when Im a bit pushy about offering it to them and its never mentioned. Time will tell if Toll follow through I guess.

However, according to Australian consumer law - it will still depend on why they want to give it back.

You were in NSW when you sold it - that means you have to comply withthe NSW mandatory code for breeding dogs NSW http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/299803/Breeding-dogs-and-cats-code-of-practice.pdf 9.1.1.7 If within 3 days a dog or cat is not acceptable to the purchaser for any reason, the breeder is required to take the dog or cat back and refund 50% of the purchase price of the animal. This guarantee must be provided in writing to the purchaser at the point of sale.