moosmum

Not sure, but there may have been a young female advertised in the older dogs section? Docked, not cropped, but could be worth a check. Importing a pet for the sake of cropped ears and docked tail alone, to me would be too great a risk for the cost.

N.S.W still has life time registration. With that, its worth paying the extra IMO. even with out a refund. A refund might encourage some to spey or neuter at a later date. Tho' I think switching to life time would do more to encourage rego. in the 1st place.

Time to truely mature can be essential too, to find what a dog has to offer. I would think the costs of enforcing such a practice would be be better spent on finding ways to bring dog owners together. Regularly, not just annual events. I think this would help massively in education by providing the forums needed. Assuming every one is a fool who shouldn't be trusted with their own decisions- gives you people who haven't the tools to form their own judgements, or can't recognize what tools they have. Responsible dog owners who register are essentialy paying taxes to own dogs. I think that revenue would be better spent promoting those responsible owners in providing and showing the benefits, instead of only using those funds to punish irresponsibility.

I don't think it would. But I agree its unlikely to happen, and even more unlikely to be accepted with out corruption. Self regulation can work. But only when there is integration with community/environment interests. With out that all they get is entropy. I can't see that change happening. (See organizational physics.) Doesn't mean I like it. Or that I could support the industry in its present form. But I argue for the lessons to be learned because there are others in the same boat. We lose purpose, diversity and a lot of value by ignoring integration as a requirement for success.

IMO, because its public standards the Industry must be accountable to. Either its got nothing to do with you, ( or 'us' ) as members of the public, or we all take a share in the responsibility. If the community takes no responsibility for 'Identities' , No one can. Identities are set from within. Thats their Nature. The Nurture part can only happen with some level of integration with its environment. Responsibility in common, to each other.

Fools if they think thats who they need. Maybe should be 3 strikes and your out, by law.

Dementia is every bit as bad as the more physical deterioration. You have done whats right and he knows and loves you for that. take care of yourself now, you need it. The sacrifice you made for him hurts you, not him. Hugs

I was about to make the same comment.

There was a thread about this a while ago. I would remove loose and poorly attached dew claws on the hind legs, other wise no. Touch wood, But I have never had them removed, never had problems that a quick clip wouldn't fix. My dogs clearly use their dew claws much like thumbs to hold or grab.

He is gorgeous! And yes, he does look like he is sturdy inbody and mind, like hes been here before.

Dissapointing they weren't asked to address the problems instead. Too hard to promote expectations, easier to get rid of the problems altogether. No wonder thats what what people expect. Who needs PETA.

I disagree. Ones purpose is cruel ( and Illegal ) practice. The seconds purpose is to race greyhounds. There is no reason it should be assumed that purpose must involve cruel or illegal practices on the grounds that some belonging to that culture use them. You mention earlier an industry or hobby is not like a religion. I think there are similarities in this case, in that both foster exclusive member cultures to support their purpose. Unlike most hobbies or industry. But I don't think just because its cultural, it should be considered O.K. either. As a human society, we work to change and improve our culture. That can only be done we accept it, as a human culture. Not by accepting arbitrary cultures as some how exclusive of others. Cultures are just Human Conditions with a degree of choice. You can be born into them, but you can also leave or improve on them. They are open to influence of the cultures and societies surrounding them. Once they are considered exclusive though, that culture has taken steps to ensure they will not be influenced by by the society or cultures around them. Isn't that the purpose of exclusivity? So they are built from within and not open to 'corrupting' influence from other cultures or society in general? Exclusive cultures by nature are not accepting of change or ideals not included on the beliefs it was founded on. Its Based in its own past, on what was accepted truth in its past. There are beliefs being protected by exclusivity.

Again, I think this is a modern identity problem that will apply equally to pedigree breeders in the long run if we don't learn from it. Agree with your post Woof. Its as a Society we redraw lines as to what brings us benefits or what costs we will no longer bear. So its as a society that we promote and teach those benefits and the responsibilities that come with participation. The problems as I see it come when we accept that there are 'identities' within society that are exclusive. As has been the case within the grey hound racing industry, and is also the case with pedigree breeders. An exclusive 'identity' within a society is not open to to the expectations imposed by society as a whole. Only to those of their own. An identity by its nature is built from within. It takes nothing from without that doesn't re-inforce or nourish whats there to begin with. It built on experience, in response to experience. Of its past and what was proven to work at the time of its inception. So change can't be "recognized" as meeting societies or common expectations. Instead those expectations are perceived as demands on an exclusive society from a hostile environment intent on destroying an identity. That identity is gone if its changed. The internalized 'identity' of the industry must rebel against a societies expectation of it, when that society has no understanding or experience of the realities inherent to that environment. Exclusivity closes the avenues of communication our expectations must be based on. So I believe the solution is to find ways to recognize a broader and more inclusive society than is allowed under current rules and regs. Because Asal is also right, this IS all connected and will continue . Exclusivity creates an environment divorced from the expectations of any society out side its own. BY choice of exclusivity. Yet it can't police its own. Not effectively. It must accept expectations contrary to the responses its identity is based on to maintain any purpose to the broader society it exists in. Individual response has no place in an identity. It doesn't fit unless it conforms. Society polices its own, and promotes whats expected . If its exclusive, its not our own. We we have no part of it and can not affect it. Only reject. We can't even accept it, because it serves no purpose to us, it only imposes costs.

What a sweet looking old girl, her name seems to fit that pic so well. Hugs, and thank you for what you gave her.

Lovely to see. I know there are a lot of of people who haven't a clue, and always will be but looks like society is becoming a lot more aware of shelter dogs in general, and the benefits of adopting older dogs.

Much harder with a pup, but definitely can be a heritable trait. So agree mostly, not so much the breed as the individual. Tho' it appears from this thread that Rotties are still a fairly reliable choice if breed is the selection criteria. If I couldn't be sure of parents having the traits, I would go an older dog known for the right stuff.

Yeah, I'm missing a boy here and he reminds me so much of my beautiful Pids. Peppos Perros sounds great, I've often thought how much a dog could could give confidence to those suffering from the sort of PTSD suffered from victims of violence.

Jewel and Finn both look lovely to me! Love Jewels gorgeous grin . Slow start Loba, but lots to consider now!

Seems many breeders of pedigree dogs breed away from a defensive trait, on the grounds most people are not responsible enough to manage it and train to avoid problems. On the other hand, Security Personnel push for high prey drive among other traits that make working lines unsuitable for many who just want a dual purpose pet, and believe that such dogs should only be handled by trained experts. Most security trainers don't seem to believe defense can be a trait that expresses naturaly with any reliability, and needs a high prey drive to train. So we seem to have nich thats being neglected or almost forced out. Another purpose being lost. B.S.L would be a big deterant to pedigree breeders. Personaly, I would go Rotty for the reasons you mention, tho' she might be able to find a G.S D breeder with very confident , stable lines she could view to affirm for herself the likely confidence of the pups. Either way, I would like see both parents are calm and confident, and view pups over a period of time, how they react to litter mates and people to select a pup like you describe. The best guide is parents and behavior of pups with either breed. Watch the litter over time if possible. So no firm recommendation on breed from me, but I would suggest looking for a breeder whos dogs are 1st very confident, with strong handler sensitivity or 'pack drive' and friendly to familiar visitors but mostly neutral to strangers. ie doesn't rush up for wriggly submissive pats. I would also avoid submissive dogs, tho' I don't think a lack of submission should = dominance either. J.M.O. P.S. An overly pushy or 'dominineering' pup with the above traits might be too aggressive, and a pup that is in your face doesn't mean it will be too friendly and trusting with strangers. It could well be one looking to bond or partner and a show of the 'pack' drive I think is great when training just makes the pup seek you out more. Good luck to your friend.

Thats not O.K. Maybe a petition calling for more over sight so that animals are housed in a climate controlled area, in cages large enough to to avoid poking and prodding and checked for health, microchips etc 1st?. We shouldn't need puppy farms. I agree. When we make it common knowledge what goes into producing a healthy in body and mind pup suited to personal conditions of the buyer, puppy farms will not be viable. People will demand better. When we work to ensure its common knowledge, people will be more inclined to make better choices and take responsibility for them. But if they are looking for dogs that will be happy in a small backyard or unit with minimal care attention or need for excersize,or social requirements, yet remain placid enough to be handled by children, elderly and vets etcs, then maybe puppy farms provide an environment where those things are selected for. If we are going to keep dogs as toys for the elite and out of the public eye and need for concern, then perhaps we are getting what we deserve and ask for. As for more registered breeders taking up the slack, just look at the GSD thread in general. If all breeders are following the trends in the show ring because thats the only acceptable bench mark of the breeds with out being classed as a BYBer, who is left to question the trends set there? ? Who is left to say there is no need for a G.S.D to be the way the show judges favor, or for Pug to breathe if the K.C breed clubs are the only ones given authority to say what people should be allowed to own? I think the pedigree system would utterly collapse within one human generation. I know it would. Whos standards are we left with then, because the breed I have over 30 years experience with rarely meets MY standards when its bred soley for those laid down by the breed clubs and selected and tested in the show ring. Once we are there, where are you going to find buyers for these dogs who have any familiarity with dogs, their selection, care and on going husbandry and needs? What standard of new members would you have and how much knowledge would be retained and passed on to them by the older generation? It would decrease exponentialy. How may years does the average pedigree breeder last now? Not many. I believe puppy farms are a symptom of this idea that the 'common Man' should have little to do with dog breeding and selection because they are unfit, unless they are working within the limitations of a Pedigree organization. I believe the lack of responsibility is too. Because we refuse to believe its a possibility, we have to find the fault to condemn and hide the positives because we know dam well they will do the same to us. Of course I think we should be doing better. But I don't think we will get there by displaying every failure and expecting people to learn from that what possible to achieve or how its done. I don't think we will get there by demanding every fault and mistreatment be made impossible to occurr. I don't think it will happen if people doing good things are afraid to demonstrate what they have achieved because we are trained to find their failings and demand an end to them. When we don't say 'It could be even better if you do this" we aren't teaching how to do better. Just how not to do it at all. When only K.C breeders are permitted or encouraged to breed or sell dogs, you will not have an environment that supports the breeding of dogs. You will have K.Cs with no support, because they will breed for K.Cs and show accolades, not people. Dogs will be for K.C members only. We are heading there. That is the direction thats being pushed.

I would not personaly buy a pup from a commercial enterprise. My experience and understanding is that the type of dog I look for has to be proven in a similar environment to that I would be keeping them in, and that he breeder has to have the same expectations of what they want in a dog as I do If my own expectations are likely to be met. I think that, in a nut shell, is what we need to be teaching the pet buying public. I don't expect guarantees. I think thats unrealistic. I do expect that the animals are selected for the purpose/environment they are fill, from 'stock' tested as successful in that environment. That they are exposed to any conditions they are expected to handle to demonstrate they can. That they are healthy, well cared for, and that the breeder/seller does have an understanding of selection for that purpose. We will NEVER eliminate welfare issues. We CAN reduce them by shaping expectations of better. Parklea markets could as easily be pressured to do better. Provide and insist on more suitable conditions. The fact that there was an out cry shows that we are concerned with welfare and do want better. I just don't think out right bans do any more than to increase ignorance in the long term about the realities of animal husbandry, or selection. I believe the increased ignorance from people isolated or unfamiliar with animals is largely what contributes to the impulse buys and support for less than optimal breeders. The puppy farm that helped to combat the Victorian Legislation sounded like they were doing a pretty good job. This should not be taken to say I think thats a good model. But its likely better than 'some' pedigree breeders. As long as we are going to concentrate on the worst examples in order to ban whole environments for the breeding or selling of animals, we will find cause to ban all of them. If you eliminate puppy farms and BYBers, that leaves ONLY pedigree breeders. Few oops litters. Pedigree breeders at present are so few they have little hope of meeting demand. No where near. There would need to be huge change in attitude in pedigree breeders to meet the expectations of the PET buying public ( or working dog buyers) to support a future demand. At present, the main expectation placed on a pedigree breeder is that they meet the demands of the standard, as it is applied in the show ring. That is the test of a pedigree breeders success- That is the environment a pedigree is bred FOR, and tested in. Yes, we need to reduce the incidence of badly bred animals. Animals being neglected, abandoned etc. I just think its far more effectively done if people are more fasmiliar with animals and what it is that contributes to the best of them, and to best of their keepers and that that is done best by example and demonstration. If we showcase what brings the best, people can learn to recognize it and seek it. They seek the rewards of it, and learn their responsibility to finding it. We have animals well integrated into a modern society. If we show case the worst, people won't recognize what DOES work. They will only learn what to avoid. They are taught there are only costs associated with animal owner ship . There is an expectation there is no place for animals in modern society. We expect the costs to be too great to justify them. There are very few breeders these days willing to put themselves out there to show what they are doing, what they achieve, and how it benefits the people who support them because we are all trying so hard to show the failures. There will be fault found in the best and thats what they will be held to account to.

As long we aren't educating owners and buyers by discussion and by providing experience and incentive to get it right, you are not going to prevent impulse buys or ignorance. Venues aren't the problem, lack of better expectation is and you won't change that until you demonstrate what people should expect, and their own responsibilities to achieve those expectations. The more we remove dogs from the public eye, the less familiar people will be with dogs. The less familiar people are with dogs, the more mistakes will be made and lower the expectations will become. If people can't recognize an unhealthy dog that should not be bought or bred, or poor condition(s) its because they have little familiarity with dogs, and little understanding of what they should expect. Or the consequences of no expectations. Yes, some are just concerned with the money- but they wouldn't be supported through sales if people were familiar with and taught to expect more. Just maybe, those who are only concerned with the money would also understand to expect more than that, and that their buyers do too. If you want people to understand what 'doing it right' entails, Then "doing it right" has to be a visible example to emulate. Removing opportunity to do something at all just removes an ability to demonstrate ways it can be done better. No expectations at all there.

Hi Ricey, Good to see you back. I agree. Environmental selection, basicaly. The dogs best suited to the environment they are going to, and their purpose in it. Or tested is as similar an environment as they are being chosen to enter. The show ring is fine, for those who want to show. It can't cover all purposes and I think thats where the K.Cs let breeders and the dogs down. It seems to foster a belief function must follow form.

Thank you. I think so too. :) I may have done myself out of a dog tho'. :laugh: And I think for her, other dogs will have a hard time measuring up to her memories. She will have high expectations. Finding some one who works to meet them is already much harder.

The little dog is left alone. Shes old and grumpy and deserves her peace. G.D gets that she is handled differently. And that ears and tails etc aren't to be pulled or grabbed etc. Looking gently is O.K. And she seems to have an understanding of Dog body (and sound) language already. The new Tentie pup is also getting some valuable lessons and forming a great relationship with children.