Greytmate

poochmad little Bear Perry's Mum sas Anne Jaxx's Buddy Goldchow Me Lhok Espinay2 Melzawelza shazzapug Have I missed anyone ? Me

It isn't anywhere near as much of a lottery as buying a dog without a pedigree. Having the pedigree means that your dog will be a combination of genes of its ancestors, and by learning more about or knowing those dogs and studying pedigrees you can increase your chances immensely of getting a dog with the traits you want. Some good breeders do offer guarantees that the dog will be fit for the purpose it was sold for. They know their lines that well. Not every buyer of purebreed puppies checks back through pedigrees, but good breeders should be doing this. They should also be producing dogs that come fairly close to having the conformation and temperament described in the standard.

I wouldn't imagine a schnauzer would be any better with feral cats than the last dogs were.

And unless we address this, we will not get anywhere. But there are solutions working in some parts of the world, and maybe one can be found for here too.

So funny.

Poor little dogs must get a bit sore as they age.

I know someone who has a bitch who became dog aggressive because she was attacked by another dog when she was younger. She was not DA prior to the attack. Her owner breeds with her and produces beautiful temperaments. No, she became aggressive because she was genetically predisposed to aggression when a certain trigger occurred. Not all dogs become aggressive after being attacked by another dog. Some will become fearful and some may not be permanently affected at all. Studies have been done that indicate using an aggressive bitch for breeding may pass on the tendency both genetically and environmentally. Maybe she has been very lucky with the temperaments she has produced, but there is no way in the world I would touch a pup like that as a pet.

Let's NOT. Let's remember we are on a purebreed dog forum, and if "genetic traits" are only "generalisations", we might as well be on a unicorn forum instead. I suggest you go and find one, because you will probably fit in there quite well.

The ones that do carry on that way are one reason why the breed is still illegal. If you want to carry on like some of them do, people won't take you seriously either.

We talk about dogs on this forum. The same rules don't apply to humans. That is a myth! Some modern breeds have had breeds crossed into them, but the original breeds came about through natural and then artificial selection, and only using certain types of dogs for breeding. Not cross breeding at all. Think about it. How can we have anything cross anything, unless there were at least two different breeds to start with. And one with little knowledge of purebred dogs. But you will learn if you stick around that breeding well-bred purebreed dogs is much more expensive to do than to cross breed dogs. My beliefs have everything to do with protecting dogs and not anyone's pockets. Nobody said all dogs are identical. But most traits have a strong genetic tendency, so if you are after certain traits you can get them by choosing dogs that have those traits in their bloodlines. And you can't do that with dogs that don't have pedigrees. My belief it is mostly genetic, and only some environmental. But then, I have worked very closely with hundreds of dogs, so have a good understanding of them. Dogs can be shaped a lot by the environment, but how they are shaped by it is determined genetically. That is great. There are plenty available from rescue organisations that need good homes. The sad thing is, when people get Pot Luck dogs, and the dogs turn out to have faults or traits they were not expecting, and the dog is the one that suffers. Many dogs are sold as Whatever cross Whatever, because the breeders knows that people have no way of knowing what the dog should really look like, and won't realise they have something different.

What about not being a redneck rebel, but still being open to the idea of law change? Cause laws get changed by sensible lobbying, not by large mobs of loud bogans. Can I please join in? In about 2 minutes when we roll out our first visible approach you will see that we are open to law changes when everything is in the right place and going after what we want in a unique way and Im not saying we are not open to it on this issue - Im saying we want to work on ways which dont require law changes to start and if we get to that its a way off and would only come with lots of homework. That is a good approach.

What about not being a redneck rebel, but still being open to the idea of law change? Cause laws get changed by sensible lobbying, not by large mobs of loud bogans. Can I please join in?

I totally disagree with your comment! I have had pure breed dogs all my life except for the last dog, which was a Maltese/Shitzu. He passed away 2 weeks ago with cancer at age 15. He was the best, most loyal, obedient, and loving dog I have ever had. I would not hesitate to purchase another Maltese/Shitzu. Some would say there is not bad dog, just a bad owner. Dogs like people learn by example. Welcome to DOL, bradf1405. The problem with cross breeds is that you can in one puppy get traits from one breed, and other puppy will be more like the other parent, and there is no way to tell what you will get in your mix puppy. So while your last dog was excellent, your next one might be totally different. It is such a big lottery as to what traits you may end up with when people cross breed. If your last dog had excellent traits, it would be worth you researching both malt, and shih tzu, and seeing which breed has the traits that were most like what you loved about your last dog. And then buying that breed to ensure you get a dog that is how you want it to be. The other danger with cross breeding is that there is no incentive for the breeder to use really good dogs for breeding, as cross breed fluffy puppies will sell very fast regardless of any physical problems they may develop when older, and it is hard to see problems under a fluffy coat. Buying a purebreed from a good ethical breeder is really the only way you can buy a puppy and know what to expect in terms of conformation and behaviour. Cross breeds such are a lucky dip. And unfortunately, many grow up to be so different from what their owners imagined when they first met their cute ball of fluff. Unfortunately, there are bad dogs and good dogs and sometimes good owners can end up with a bad dogs if they buy one that is really badly bred. Good breeders are so important for the future of dogs. They are the ones that developed the traits and looks that we admire in our dogs. Cross breeders do not do anything to ensure that the dog they breed has the right genes to pass these traits on to future generations of dogs. They are in it for the money alone, and they put no thought into genetic health at all.

I would agree with all of that, but the rest of your post doesn't offer any insight into anxiety problems. I would recommend a behaviourist be brought in to assess the level of anxiety the dog is exhibiting, see how the owners react to that and act generally around the dog, and then decide what technique would be best to work with. You can not always help a dog that is emotionally unstable, as it is genetic, but you can try different things to manage the barking problem and make the dog feel better. This one does sound a bit extreme so I wish them luck.

And so the gulf continues to widen between the latest genetic knowledge of 2010, and breed standards. Ruger, that link is fantastic, thanks for posting.

You would have to find a study done that was following up dogs obtained from those sources. Are there breeders or organisations that have followed up and collected data from the people that have bought their dogs? I would think that the reason would be basically the same wherever the dog was obtained from. It no longer met the owner's expectations, or the owner was not prepared for the commitment. There has to be a reason why some breeders have a lot more success than others though, maybe even different breeds have different success rates, and that isn't the breeder's fault. Ready Set Go, post as much info as you like, hopefully everyone can pick up ideas. It would also be good to hear from breeders that have done things that have improved their rate.

I'd like to know some stats too. One thing I will guarantee. In our area there WILL a massive spike in dumpings from christmas to february. There have been some studies done on rehoming dogs. We had a study done on our return rate when I coordinated GAP. I will quote the part of the study that talks about what has been learned about rehomed dogs being returned. It references other studies that have been done.

We have so much collective knowledge, good breeders and rescuers, even if we do all have slightly different ways to do things. It would be good if someone could collect all the good ideas together, as well as looking if there has been any research done to prove the effectiveness of certain techniques.

That is the key. By supervising, a person can step in when the excitement/arousal level reaches a certain level. Also by having them in the confines of the house, they are unlikely to reach the same arousal level as they are if they are outside running over a large area. The act of the run and the chase increases the arousal in a dog and the speed in the cat. Kittens playing happily in a home are likely to display predatory type play, which is unlikely to arouse as much prey drive in a dog as much as a frightened kitten fleeing across a yard. The dog understands fully how a cat is feeling through its body language, and that can have a profound effect on the dog's behaviour. I am sure many people here have dogs that are fine with their house cats, but chase strange cats in the yard.

Screening homes is very difficult and nobody can get it 100% right. There is a lot that could be done to improve people's screening skills though, if somebody was organised enough to collect all the info together and train the relevant people. (BTW, I don't have all the info ) If you could attend a short training course on effective ways to screen out unsuitable owners and adjust the expectations of potential good owners, possibly making them better new owners, would that make you think about breeding again?

I want to comment on this, because it is increasingly being touted on this forum as being a good outcome if a dog is returned. It is not always a good outcome, it is preferable to a dog living in terrible conditions, but that is as far as it goes. A dog being returned has to be included in this topic of "dumped" dogs. While not technically dumped, but surrendered, it still means that there is one more dog in the statistics of those needing a home. And having been homeless twice, that dog is more likely to exhibit behaviour problems than dogs that have never been upheaved or have only been rehomed once in their lives. It is very hard for some dog to settle in new homes, it can be tough on them. The dog will also be older when returned, and so less appealing to potential new owners. Then there is the issue of why the dog was returned. When a dog is returned from an excellent home because of bad fortune, the dog is likely to be a good one. But a dog returned from a home because of 'behaviour problems' it could have all sorts of unsolvable and ingrained issues. Rehoming such a dog for the second time could be a huge risk, and certainly riskier than rehoming a dog that had never had reported "behaviour problems". So while ethical breeders and rescuers will always take back their dogs, it should never be used as back up plan so that unsuitable homes can give dog ownership a try. Because that approach will inevitably lead to an increased dumpage rate, as well as putting a burden on the more ethical breeders and rescuers. We have to work at getting potential new owners changing their expectations of what a dog might do. Ideally (my personal value here) a feral cat colony should be culled before any new dog is brought into that environment. But if the potential dog owner values the feral cats, maybe they need to lower their expectation that dogs should not react to them, and think hard before getting another dog.

My words to describe a situation where a property owner has a feral cat colony, and is prepared to permanently remove animals that threaten its existence. Even if those animals are the family pets. That is wrong on a number of levels. Or am I missing something here. Family dogs are not less important than feral cats. I have tried not to make a value judgement on that. Instead I have tried to explain in a non-judgemental way what is likely to happen to a dog living in that environment. See the latest "What breed for me" thread.

My words to describe a situation where a property owner has a feral cat colony, and is prepared to permanently remove animals that threaten its existence. Even if those animals are the family pets.

Monah, you should speak up, especially since you are so polite. If the people that understand dogs do not speak up in this forum, when warnings are appropriate, what does that leave? All the less-knowledgeable people that don't understand or see any potential problems, giving their encouragement. Maybe the person will not listen and will get a dog anyway. But hopefully some other people reading this forum gain a little more understanding about dog behaviour and how problems can start.

Can we get back on topic? I think sometimes we (DOLers) encourage people to get dogs when they do not have an environment suitable for one. Love for dogs might not be enough if the owner has an expectation that their new dog will live in harmony within a feral cat sanctuary. That expectation is EXTREMELY HIGH, and if the dog can't meet it? The owner has been very clear on that, the dog will have to go. So why are people that discourage that person from getting a dog seen as being negative? Surely it's all about wanting to prevent another dog being dumped? It isn't personal.