Greytmate

For the purposes of law reform, I think it would not be a good idea to differentiate between breeders based on whether or not they profit or by how much they profit. I believe this for various reasons, but mostly because a dog should not be expected to live in substandard conditions because its owner is or isn't drawing an income from breeding.

I disagree. The important thing is keeping breeding records. That is what registries are actually for. Keeping proper breeding records means that responsible breeding choices can be made, because the pedigree shows who the dog's ancestors are. It also means that the dogs produced can be used for future breeding programs by other responsible breeders. People that breed unregistered dogs are irresponsible as they have no way of knowing what genetics they are breeding with and what traits they may be breeding in to their pups. What they do is a waste, as none of the dogs they breed can be used by other responsible breeders that do breed responsibly.

I agree that jrt could be a good choice. :D

People are not either hobby breeders or puppy farmers. Many would fall in between. Too many dogs to keep them all living in the house, too few to deserve that most hated and emotion-ridden label of "Puppy Farmer".

BTW, I don't think concrete is a requirement. As long as the surfaces are hygienic and washable. The set-up Mita described should easily meet any codes that I am aware of.

Well then push for reform for the code to make the distinction between hobby and business breeders. I don't think you have been reading my posts if you think my "only argument for a dog being confined in pens on concrete is because its easier for cleaning " What do you have to say about enrichment? Or do you think the real issue is about concrete?

I reckon lily'smums' little visit would have been quite a memorable experience for them. :D

Maximum number of dogs should be dependant of the kennel owner's ability to provide appropriate enrichment and accommodation for each dog. At the moment there is no obligation to provide enrichment, only an obligation to provide the correct accommodation. So it the addition of enrichment that is needed to the codes, not the removal of anything.

I don't see codes as encouragement to do anything. I see them as minimum basic requirements. Enrichment should feature more strongly in those codes. I am not interested in what a dog's environment resembles and the fluffy feelings that go with the idea of lovely puppies gambolling around the daisies in the garden. I am interested in dogs being safe and disease free. I am interested in their minds and bodies being stimulated in an appropriate way. You water down hygiene laws and what you will get is properties featuring mud, chicken wire and weeds, and a whole lot of filthy dogs. If there is no requirement to provide minimum welfare requirements, there are people that will jump at the chance of rigging up some more runs without having to spend tens of thousands on concrete and drainage, and throwing some more dogs in them. If you want to talk about a Code of Practice especially set up for little hobby breeders, you go right ahead. Don't put it under the title of "What is a puppy Farmer?" But the commercial reality is that we do have large dog farms to meet market demand, and I think it is inappropriate for the laws governing those businesses to be changed, because of an anthorpomorphic notion that dogs don't like concrete floors or living behind wire.

May I ask why? Yes, I should explain a little better. I don't mean keeping hundreds of dogs in a cage. I mean keeping any number of dogs each in their own separate kennel or crate (or possibly paired up) in the interests of health, safety and good kennel management. A small number of dogs can be looked after in a home, but when the numbers exceed what is appropriate in a house, kennels ensure that dogs are safe. Every dog is entitled to be checked daily for health, and kennels mean that a dog and its surroundings can be checked for any problems before the dog is allowed out onto dirt or to mix with other dogs. If you have dogs just out in yards, you may not see problems like blood or diarrhoea or parasites straight away, and by the time you do, the whole dirt area may be infested or infected. You may have trouble knowing which dog has the problem too. Enrichment will be different for each breed and each individual, and dogs can certainly be taken out of their enclosures for that. Some enrichment can be given while a dog is in en enclosure too. But just letting them roam around a property isn't enrichment. I have no problems with yards being attached to kennels so the dogs can easily be let out into them. I have a problem with dogs being kept in those dirt yards all of the time with no clean, dry, washable sleeping area.

Well there is in that local councils often don't enforce kennel regs if it is obvious that all dogs live in the house. We were given our permit without building any of the structures the permit required us to. If the dogs don't live in the house, they are entitled to have a clean, dry, secure place to sleep. Sorry Steve, I am not a fan of people that breed dogs on dirt. It is unhygenic. There was a breeder here who bred in her normal backyard, the pups got parvo, and next year she bred another litter straight into that yard and came in here wondering why her puppies were so sick. I wouldn't have an aviary on dirt and I wouldn't have baby pups on dirt either. Good kennel management means having a secure hygienic enclosure for every dog. While the dog can be allowed to free-range for exercise, the proper facilities should be there. Do you vaccinate all your dogs for lepto? Does every breeder? What would you do exactly if you got lepto on your property and you hadn't provided dry enclosures for the dogs? I can't see Code of Practice relating to hygiene being watered down, and I would hate to see that happen. Proper kennels are most suitable and comfortable for most dogs. Dogs live in kennels, cows live in paddocks. And the construction of the kennel floor has nothing to do with the real issue, which is the enrichment.

it's not about the pitbull breeders , it's about a few amstaff breeders doing the wrong thing and attracting bad publicity then having them blame pitbull owners for the trouble caused by people from within. What are amstaff breeders or AKNC as a collective whole going to do about these breeders that are AKNC registered breeding dogs way over standard and selling them on the hype that they're tough. Amstaff numbers far outweigh that of the apbt, it would be great if they could all be kept safe. In my opinion a separate organisation of responsible and ethical ANKC breeders breeds to form for the sole purpose of protecting the amstaff and its image. Not so much doing things about other less ethical breeders, but making sure that the dogs that they are producing will not be legislated against and that their own conduct is beyond reproach. You can't change what some dog breeders are doing. You can dissociate yourself from them. You can choose to do things better yourself and not make their mistakes. Pitbulls are illegal for various (logical and illogical) reasons. Somebody needs to show that not only are amstaffs not pitbulls, but they need to show how and why that difference means that their dogs are no threat to the community. Bit hard to do when registered breeders are marketing their dogs as something the community should feel threatened by and breeding dogs to met the expectations of buyers that want a scary dog.

That's interesting, because I didn't think that anal gland expression was a conscious, voluntary thing. I don't think scratching up is entirely conscious either, but dogs do that after territorial type poos. I don't have any more information, it is something I heard years ago that the release from the gland is associated with territorial marking and that dogs that didn't poo out of the yard were more prone to blockage. I can't even remember if it was a study, but I do remember it seemed a credible source. And I did have the experience of my own dog who at first would never poo in public or mark territory and the vet emptying the glands. Then we never had a problem after she started pooing in public, although she was never a dog to be territorial about it in the way that some dogs are. It could be a coincidence. Just worth mentioning seeing as we are discussing the topic and its possible causes. If I owned a dog today that never pooed in public, and it needed to have its anal glands expressed, I would try to train it to poo in public and see if that worked, rather than putting my hands anywhere near my dog's bum as a first resort. Wouldn't you?

If you have a choice, get a male. You have a better chance of a male and female not having a serious fight.

Amstaff breeders and SBT breeders both need to distance themselves from pitbull breeders. But especially the amstaff breeders given the recent court ruling in QLD.

No, too late. Time for responsible breeders of registered and recognised breeds to distance themselves from the losing team.

If they don't like dog smell they should not get a labrador, as labs do often smell doggier than other dogs. Especially if kept outside permanently. I think they should get a lawn ornament.

It totally depends how much socialisation you give the pup and how its treated as to how nervous a dog will be..... Most koolies are level headed and fantastic with kids. Rescue koolies depending on what they have been exposed to will obviously have different temperments as will all dog breeds No. Genetics will mostly determine how nervous the dog will be. The socialisation people do will only have a limited effect on that. The temperament of rescue koolies is also most strongly influenced by genetics.

Walking in public means that children are able to touch your dog. Whether that is good manners or not. If your dog isn't snappy or scared then you won't have a problem, because it is extremely rare for these children to try to hurt the dog.

Steve hard surfaces are needed for disease control. What are you going to do if a dog comes down with lepto? Put them all in your laundry for a week while you wait for your paddocks to dry out? Keep your dogs on grass all the time if you are prepared to remove all dogs from the property in case of disease. But I would expect breeders, or anyone kennelling more than a handful of dogs to consider the long-term ramifications of diseases or parasites on their property and keep the dogs on surfaces that can be properly cleaned.

If you are walking a dog in a park you would reasonably expect a dog to be able to be touched by people without snapping. If that isn't the case, the dog should be muzzled. It isn't good if people touch the dogs without asking, but that is what kids often do when they see dogs, and dogs really need to be able to accept that in public. If the dog is obviously scared, don't take it to any area where there are kids in public. You want to decrease the dog's fear and you cannot do that unless you have complete control of the kids and the situation. A dog trainer working on private property might be the best answer.

I would report it to the council. They have more powers to investigate than you do. If the member won't come forward voluntarily, they leave you with little choice.

Different dogs have different needs at different ages. Puppies need to be kept on hard floors for at least the first few weeks. All dogs should have access to a sleeping area with a concrete floor. The yards in your photo have no shelter and would only be suitable for exercise yards at certain times of day. I agree. Puppy farming is a such a huge topic, that draws such an emotional response here. Most of what people generally want here will never become law. What Cosmolo is talking about is a subject that we are rapidly learning more about and it goes to the very heart of dog welfare and producing good dogs. I would have no problem with dogs being kept in their hundreds in cages on concrete if the exercise, enrichment and socialisation needs are fully met. I think sometimes we can be a little anthropomorphic in our views of kennels. We don't have to live in them.

It doesn't matter whether it is the majority or just a handful. If any registered Amstaff breeders are perceived to be breeding for anything other than the 'cuddly pet market' the breed is in danger of being legislated against.

It says on the website - Pretty easy to check when school holidays are. You might call it 'bad service', but I think you are being unfair expecting them to show you around the kennels on the first day of school holidays.