Souff

I am still awaiting a reply from you. I am waiting for you to provide more information on your assertions above. Thank you Come on Leema, dont keep Jed waiting any longer. Put up the names and addresses so that we can organise a midnight raid, drag them out of bed and set them to work in all the shelters on poo patrol for 6 months at a stretch. Who needs to wait around for the justice system ... way to slow ... the animal liberationists are experts at doing midnight raids with bolt cutters, so we could ask them to lend a hand I s'pose. Souff

A genuine question, dogmad. I'm interested in what information puppy buyers are given or can get... when buying from a petshop. How did you, or the person who surrendered the purebred puppy, know that it was indeed originally from a particular registered breeder? It's just that I know of people who've been simply told, in pet stores, that a puppy is 'purebred'.....but no written documentation is shown or given. And certainly not the name of the breeder. I've wondered if it would be impossible for a buyer to know, with certainty, if the puppy was from a registered breeder... or from a backyard unregistered breeder (we have one of those nearby, 'producing' a small breed). I'm not disputing that some registered breeders sell to petshops (there is no legal barrier). It's just that the UQ research dug out quite a number of the backyard unregistered breeders. I've met someone who enquired about a 'purebred' puppy, directly, from one of those. And was shown a home-typed piece of paper with the mother & father's names on it. And was also shown the pedigree papers for the father. Perhaps buyers need educating to know that they are entitled to get proper pedigree papers with a registered pup. The microchip (if the puppy was microchipped) will lead to identification of the owner at the time of microchipping. Under the law that should be the breeder, but that wont always be the case. Souff

What business is the number of times a bitch can be bred of anyone but the breeder and the vet who KNOWS the bitch well? Most breeders have had bitches who struggled to have one or two litters and then were retired ..... and then the same breeders can a bitch who is bred now and then and loves to be a mother, is an excellent whelper, bounces back into good shape and can be exhibited in the show ring because she is in top shape and given plenty of time between litters. Souff was once pressured into retiring a bitch from breeding after she had a number of litters. She drove me crackers for the rest of her life because of false pregnancies and then, after she was spayed, because of her behaviour around puppies, pregnant bitches and other hormonal activity. NATURE DECREED THAT SHE WAS MEANT TO BE A MOTHER AND SHE WAS A BLOODY GOOD MOTHER! My vets and I agreed later that we should have allowed her to carry on for as long as she was a good natural whelper and feeder. Breeding was what suited her best and she delivered beautifully healthy pups. Straight after lactation she would spring back into shape and there were never any conception problems. Not all bitches are like her and the decision to continue to breed must be made on what is best for the individual bitch. Never again will I listen to anyone who tells me a bitch should be retired from breeding simply because she has had a number of litters! People who pressure other breeders over this can go to hell - it is not always in the bitch's best interests. Treat your bitches well, skip one or two seasons between litters and let them be in top shape when they breed. Let them do what nature intended and give them every possible assistance. Souff

There's a Trade Practices Act which would not allow an association such as the ANKC to enforce a ban. So it's not a case of the ANKC 'allowing' registered breeders to sell puppies in a pet shop or not. But it does not contravene that Act to have recommended guidelines on homing puppies & dogs, in terms of screening for suitability, providing follow-up advice & support etc. As many registered breeders, who provide appropriate care for their puppies & dogs, do. And, as far as I know, such a relationship between breeder & potential puppy owner is urged, ethically. So that makes it OK? Registered ANKC breeders selling to pet shops and the public are supposed to think that ANKC breeders are ethical and operating under an ethical system? I think not. Who said anything about ethical? "Ethical" is a word that is not used in legislation these days and it is from laws that a society takes its lead. There are both ethical and unethical people using the ANKC system and the same will happen under any system. The ANKC let the dog boat drift away years ago and self-interested, inward-thinking people within the breeds led that direction and they were very busy protecting their patch and not wanting to see the bigger picture, so the drift away continued to escalate and they probably didn't see it. Forward-thinking inclusive old timers like Danny Scott would be rolling in their graves if they could see the damage that has been done. Now the pet shop people have got the smarts and have got themselves a much bigger boat and it is all legal. Ethical breeders should be proud of being ethical ..... but they are not automatically ethical just because they are an ANKC registered breeder, or any other kind of breeder. Souff edited to straighten up a few bits.

Fantastic!

But does "average Joe" does not know or care what the ANKC or BYB is? Methinks not. If Average Joe has not been exposed to dog breeders in his life he probably will look under "D" for dog or "P" for pets or puppies. The attitude of dog breeders that Kirislin referred to in their post was part of the reason that purebred dog breeding in this country took a huge nosedive. Like everything else, purebred dogs need promotion. Advertise what you are doing - if you breed the best dogs in the world, then go tell the world! Until the internet became widely accepted, the canine councils did not do a good job of promoting purebred dogs to the people who buy dogs. For the general public (and "average Joe")the Royal Shows were the best avenue for the public to see purebred dogs. And then most of them just came across them, they did not pay all that entry money just to see dogs. I can find the best or worst boat advertised in a paper or on the internet; I can find the best or worst restaurant advertised in the paper or on the internet; why should I not have the opportunity of seeing a good dog advertised in the paper or on the net? As others have said so beautifully on here, it is not how the dog is advertised - the important things are how well the dog is bred and how suitable the new owner will be. Please dont listen to the crap spouted by those who would rather see the purebred dog world die out altogether. Souff

When you've got at least one rotten apple in a box it's not too long before the whole lot become inedible .... and my dog's breakfast looks a whole lot better! Souff

Or a tango in a brothel with a million bucks. There's been more noise in Parliament over the last week than 'a dunny door banging in a cyclone' Absolutely right. And they just love to play the games while we are the mugs paying their wages! We are the shareholders and yet they think we have to cop all of their lies and spin and self interest. In the real world in a business scenario where they properly earned their money, they would have been booted out by now. Their generous superannuation is the real reason that they are keeping themselves there ... and not tossing out the grub who used workers funds to pay for prostitutes. Karma, where are you? Souff

Can anyone tell me if this is an annual fee, or is it for lifetime registration of a dog? If it is for lifetime registration I don't think it is excessive, though it will come as a shock at first for the Aucklandites. It is probably on a par with NSW. If it is an annual fee, then hey, yes, that is really steep .... Souff would be asking for a council-paid dog walker to come with that package ;) Souff

I will take your word for it. The never-ending slide of registered breeder numbers and the ever-reducing numbers of pups being registered in the last 10 years became too much for me some time back. I got tired of glazed eyes looking at me when I rabbited on about it. So I gave up. Australia has been legislating good breeders and good dogs out of existence for years now and there are a lot of vets who should have splinters in their bums by now. They are the professionals that government advisors consult when somebody comes up with proposed legislation, and they have sold the purebred dog breeders - some of their best customers - right down the drain. NZ has to date done the right thing, but keep a sharp watch on vets in that country too. Souff

And so ..... there is no difference between a registered breeder and a puppy farmer, and this is all sanctioned by the canine councils and the state governments and the animal welfare lobbyists. Joy oh joy, we have some more bright and shining new legislation, all expensive and all paid for by the taxpayers, so all must now be wonderful again ... The wheel has been reinvented and those lil ole puppy farmers are still free to ply their trade. Souff

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8424666/rudd-daughter-flies-home-for-family-chat Kevin Rudd's daughter Jessica is flying home from Beijing for a family meeting about whether her father should contest the Labor leadership ballot. Ms Rudd is encouraging people to overlook the messy situation and get involved in democracy. "Tomorrow, when I fly in, I'm coming home to a political situation that most Australians think is a dog's breakfast," she wrote in a blog on the website Mamma Mia today. _____________________________________ A dog's breakfast ? As far as I am concerned, none of them involved are worth feeding, though I can understand that is not how Jessica might view it. The canine crew here eat far better! If any of this disgusting mess was on the menu they would rightfully walk away I am sure. :laugh: Souff

Interesting turn of phrase, Asal :laugh: Cataracts can happen in even the best lines where the problem has not been seen before and has apparently been recorded in more than 75 breeds of dog, so why would crossbred dogs be immune? There is also the problem of feeding puppies with artificial milk formulae. Not enough has ever been said about this - for commercial reasons I suspect. An ingredient called arginine is the devil, and I am not too sure whether it is too little or too much arginine that is the problem, but this has definitely been linked with juvenile cataracts that can affect any breed of pup, and also kittens. Some say that formulas are now improved, but I remain of the opinion that no pup should be given formula unless there is no natural mothers milk available in the first few weeks. Imho, pups should not be given formulae after 4 weeks - there are plenty of calcium-rich natural foods and puppy foods that can be given at that age. No pup should be given milk once it is weaned. In the wild, once an animal is weaned it must drink from the pond or the creek. Souff

Why not send these words to the paper, as a follow-up comment to their article? It is good comment. Souff

Scary stuff? No, I don't think so. Definitely not scary to those who have been attacked, or to those who have had their small dogs killed or maimed in front of them, on what had otherwise been a nice walk in the fresh air. Not too many years back if a dog was attacking a person in the street and the police car rocked up, it was "shoot first and talk later". That is, of course, if they can find the owner of the attacking dog to talk to! Probably still happens today in country towns and quite frankly, I will not condemn such action by any cops. It could be my dog, or my child, or my elderly relative being attacked by a dog with far more strength and power than they could ever have. And, if it were my dog that was doing the attacking? Then I would want to know who the loser was who let my dog out on to the street!!! If a storm had blown the gate open ... well it would be highly unlikely that my dog would have been outside in the yard if storms were around. The dogs are usually inside if I am not at home anyway. No barking to annoy neighbours, no escapes. And when I am at home they see it as their right to be inside with me. Yes, there could be times when some useless member of the family had not closed the gate properly ... and if my dog paid the ultimate price for being outside that gate because of their total lack of thought, then they would be told about it in such a way that they would be checking that all gates were secure for the rest of their rotten lives. The problem once again is caused by IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE, and as a result other people, or their dogs, SUFFER. If I lived in a Council area where I thought the council would come down on me like a ton of bricks, or shoot my dog and then tell me, then let me assure all of you that I WOULD BE EVEN MORE OF A RESPONSIBLE OWNER THAN I ALREADY AM, and the padlocks would be back on the gates so that no other useless idiot could let my beautiful dogs out. We owe it to our dogs to keep them safe, and this includes KEEPING THEM SAFE FROM THEIR OWN ACTIONS. It is OUR DUTY as owners. I just wish councils and governments would closely read the existing rule books and see what powers they already have, AND FULLY UTILISE THOSE POWERS, before spending more and more of taxpayers money inventing new rules. Souff

AND NEVER FAILS TO MAKE ME BLOODY ANGRY! I am sick of useless owners of medium to large dogs allowing their dog to be in a situation where this can happen. Many will chase and maul small dogs ... it is part of their instinctive hunting traits BUT it is simply NOT ON to kill or maim another person's beloved pets. It happens on the streets, at the beaches and in dog parks. It can happen anywhere that a dog can be. Ask any vet or vet nurse who sees the aftermath. It is dreadful for them, and it is totally shattering to the owner of the small dogs. Councils are in part to blame because instead of focussing on one particular type of dog, they should be looking at the capacity of ANY dog to kill or maim. They ALL have teeth to bite and LEGS to use to hunt down what they see as prey. The only answer is to GO AFTER the owners of any attacking dogs and bring them to justice, and hit their hip pocket HARD. I know this is a tough line, but owners MUST come to realise that their beloved dog can be a killer and they must be alert to guard against tragedy. I dont want to hear about breeds or dog types. I want to hear about what happens to the owners of the dogs that kill. Souff

Sums it up. Quite a few years back, a young labrador bit someone at a public event in Brisbane. But everyone understood, in that case... including the bitten person. It was at a Blessing of the Pets on World Animal Day. Then-Archbishop of Brisbane, Peter Hollingworth, was going along the lines of dogs & owners, with a holy-water shaker (looked like a larger salt dispenser). He'd shake it in the direction of the dog's head. Most dogs just blinked, copping a sprinkling of holy water. Except one, a young labrador owned by the Councillor who was in charge of animal control. When the holy water shaker came at his head, the lab thought he & his owner were being attacked. So he bit the Archbishop's hand. Not causing awful injuries, but it was a bite. The Archbishop, who loved dogs, said it was understandable. The owner was a bit embarrassed as he was in charge of the city's dog control. The labrador had already shown his opinion...& was duly forgiven for mistaking an archbishop for a mugger. Great story Mita. :D

Ringo, in relation to zoning, I think that councils have always determined the zonings in their area. Personally, I think this is how it should be done, because they should know their local areas far better than the politicians in the city. If I live in a residential zone, I dont want Woolworths or Bunnings or the local cement works moving into my area. Neither do I want a boarding kennel, cattle yard, or chook farm in an medium density or high density residential area. There are usually good reasons why councils zone areas the way they do. If I want to move to a different place and have some acres and kennels and a few breeding dogs, I want them to have freedom to be able to bark without annoying close neighbours, and to be able to run in a paddock and swim in a creek, etc. I would look for a property that is zoned rural and where animal breeding is allowed. Conversely, if I wish to live in a residential zone, then I know that I am limited in the number of dogs I can have there, and I know that I have strict rules to observe and I know those rules are usually there to keep the peace in the neighbourhood. Across the world there are some diabolical places where there are few rules about dogs and dogs are allowed to roam and mate with anything. Nobody really cares how many dogs you own, it seems. Disease abounds in these places. When the authorities move in for a "clean up", dogs are simply culled. Killed. Gone. Problem solved. Given the choice between rules about zoning, and no rules, I will take the place with the rules thanks. Yes, NSW tells its councils to make its own plans about a lot of things. If you dont like the decisions that your local council is making, then go along to the council meetings and let them know, or make an appointment to see the councillor in your ward. They're usually not bad people and you probably already know some of them anyway in their "other lives". Souff

Ah, you gotta love the little terriorists!

Hmmm, so breeders will just have to march in balaclavas I spose. No names, no addresses, no phone numbers. I wonder if anyone in the animal rights movement has ever stopped to consider that good breeders are an integral part of the dog's future as a species. No, probably not. Better start knitting balaclavas for dog breeders. Souff

Whoaaaa!!! Ringo is talking about NSW. Liz T. is quoting from a Victorian newspaper. There is one whole lot of difference between the NSW laws and the Victorian laws, and you can thank a whole lot of sensible people for that. God help us all if they follow the Victorian lead though. Ringo, documents or links are needed if this is not hypothetical and if this is being cooked up in NSW. Souff

I'll take your word for it. Yea, I think it's madness too. It is totally crazy and as urban population densities are increasingly rapidly, this law needs to be re-visited. Also the same for de-barking. It is not cruelty and vets must be allowed to provide this service to their patients, without owners having to be treated like potential criminals first. Souff

No, we do not live in an ideal world and we need to educate more people and their children to use some manners, and to keep their children safe. Some dogs have been abused by people in their past and if they have been hit by people, it is a huge ask to say they have to learn to cope with little humans who want to hit them too. They do not forget ill-treatment and will not tolerate it again. I often have one such dog in my care and when we are out I simply tell parents that she does not like children. She should never be put in a situation where she will be tempted to eat the little blighters, so I make sure that she is never alone and that I am in control of who touches her. That is my responsibility and I tell it like it is. Should she be muzzled? Probably yes, because that should send a good strong signal to those people who think they know more than me. There are dogs out there that should not be patted by children that they don't know or trust. Teach the kids that they must always ask the handler if it is OK first and the kids and the dogs will be safer. Souff

Yes, people do have the right to not be fearful of being attacked by a dog. However, if the human is the one to make a move towards the animal, then the human should always be aware that such action may result in teeth being employed by the animal. I love kids to pat my dogs and I will invite them to do so, or if they ask, I will usually agree. Am I happy if they rush up to my dogs or lunge at them, (as many young children tend to do) ? Definitely not. I see my dog's body language and it is clearly saying "I do not like this approach!" If I were not there, it is highly possible that the lunger would get bitten. Many times I have had to handle dogs that are not known to me, and in stressful situations. I know every time that I run the risk of being bitten, because of the dog's fear. That is a risk I take. However, sometimes there are dogs that I do not want to approach and I will then call for assistance. If I do not like what I see in the dog's demeanour then I do not plan to spend part of my day at the hospital. With regards to dogs being reactive, that can very much depend on the circumstances at the time. If a dog is in calm surroundings, I would like to think that it would be less reactive than in a strange place where it was decidedly out of its comfort zone. The owner should be taking this aspect into account, but a stranger, particularly a child, approaching the dog may not have a clue that the dog is already stressed. Not everybody can read the signs and there are some dogs who are show very little signs of stress before an attack. I voted NO on this poll, because to allow children to go up to any dog which does not know them, could have tragic consequences.

Doesn't really engender much respect. So, the ticket to be a puppy farmer and breed many more muttlies awaits in Victoria - just pay up and you are sweet! I don't really think this is what canine councils should be about, but then again, it is probably just me. There is money to be made after all, and that is what makes the world go round. Souff is going back to turtle watching - much more ethical.