moosmum

I would guess yes. My dogs were selected for a natural protective instinct and we see this sort of thing a lot but its not always a strictly protection thing I've noticed.It seems like they are a well disiplined pack who have learned to work together,and with us. They seem to recognise our social rules and work with us to enforce them. We had a small stray wander in once who was terror ,attacking any of our dogs for no reason.The dobie put up with it and ignored it(the stray was only up to his knees) Then the terrier went for a small terrer bitch we had and and before I could rescue her,the dobie calmy walked over,picked up the terrier and placed him gently down 10 ft away. Another has herded our old tiny boy under the car when they played zoomies and keep him out of harms way till the game was over,alert us to the ringing phone,straying kids and generaly help out.She brings it to our attention when things aren't as they should be.ie horses in the yard.She also did a similar thing for me,not another dogwhen a stranger pulled up on th road in front of our rural property ,jumped the fence and ran straight for me with no greeting.She ran straight for him till he pulled up and called a greeting that I answered,then escorted him to me keeping slightly in front watching his face and kept him at a walk. Another took to protecting the laundry on the line after getting in trouble for pulling it off herself. So maybe not strictly protection but an enforcing of rules? I agree,its realy interesting to see those sorts of interactions and makes me ask all sorts of questions.

Impact of diet on canine health is a good one H.W Also like the research into helping people select and raise good family pets. Those 2 should be relevent to the majority of pet owners. Another subect I am very curious about is breeding for intelligence (trainability/human focus and desire to please and interact etc,not simple ,I know) I have known some extrordinary dogs and heard of many more eg: Theo in Sydney many years ago.I think we might see some exciting results. At the same time I have to wonder about the ethics of such reseach.Who would be entrusted with the raising and care of those dogs?

When people resort bullying and ridicule to shut down what they don't want to hear discussion is pointless. Sorry Corvus,hope you get some good ideas. How is that question either bullying or ridicule? Your right Sheridan,P.L. I may have jumped to my own conclusions there,but I'm still going to leave this alone.its not fair to this thread.

When people resort bullying and ridicule to shut down what they don't want to hear discussion is pointless. Sorry Corvus,hope you get some good ideas.

Then you read it different to me. Corvus states Mcgreevy doesn't doesn't want to end pedigree dogs. He does not see why his interest in their health necessarily means he wants to end them. Nor do I.

Tess . looks like a good book,will have find that! The photos look beautiful and capture so much.

I assume this comment is aimed at my post. I don't want to de-rail this thread,but I'm honestly interested to hear why you would view this area of research as "pushing an agenda" or incompatible for breeders of pedigree and pure breeds of animals. The benefits of pure bred,pedigree animals are irrefutable and recognised.There are surely going to be negatives as well that desereve research and recognition not only for a balanced view,but ensure best practices are clearly understood so those effects can be minimised. The only threat I see to pure bred,pedigree animals is if these negatives are dismissed or covered up so that fanaticism rules policy.

that's just part of the issue, isn't it? it'd need to be a panel of independent, unbiased, knowledgeable and sensible people from inside and outside the breeding community, surely. Wouldn't want to leave it to chance and have it become a farce like BSL. Would they be elected from the general population? appointed by an individual? Who would this body be answerable to?

And who will write this charter,decide who is granted license,and police it? Who will you trust to decide policy and direction to choose what dogs people can own and who has the right to breed?

I think if pedigree breeders were openly permitted to cross breed,the organisation of registries and their more responsible outlook would filter down to influence better practices and responsibility in the general population. Recognition of purbreds predictable traits would become more widespread and pedigrees valued for the information they impart and theirr purpose more readily understood.

But Rascal who and where are they? Why are they not leading the industry/public towards their cause? Why are their names not commonly known and referred to in say pet shops proud to sell their quality 'product'? Why are their no media stories on the great work they are doing? Until the number of amazing, beautiful and deserving dogs (pure or cross breed) who are dying every single day in every state of this country reduces significantly I cannot support any deliberate back yard breeding, puppy farming or selling of animals through pet shops. It is simply not necessary. Nor is it in a dog's best interests. It should not be considered an easy way to make money or supplement an income. 1stly,Ethical BYBers would be highly unlikely to sell through pet shops. 2ndly,there are so many BYB'ers .With out representation from a body concerned with improvement with in that "industry" (for lack of a better word)who is qualified to find and promote those striving to improve and breed for purpose rather than profit when the words "back yard breeder" have become such a taboo? few are going to openly proclaim it. 3rdly,why are they not leading the industry /public towards their cause? Its not that simple.They may well be doing just that, promoting responsible breeding practice,just not specifiying by whom!

I agree with this one whole heartedly! Another area I would like to see researched will likely offend many here.Regardless,I feel its an area we owe at least a properly researched look. Health in pedigree dogs deserves real research into the benefits/drawbacks of introducing other breeds into rare,endangered or weakened (Health issues) pedigree lines. My own research and observation leads me to believe results can bring unexpected bennefits not only physicaly,but mentaly and I wonder about the "silent" effects of closed lines. What are the mental effects of closed lines/inbreeding as opposed to selective and limmitted out crossing? What effects are had on open populations when severely inbred dogs are introduced? Do effects dissipate over generations or contribute to over all decline in health over time in open populations? Before I get jumped on for this sugestion,I am NOT anti- pedigree! I AM for understanding ideas before dissmissing them out of hand.A more thorough understanding of this relatively recent ideal of closed lines forever and long term effects is deserved,not only on pedigree populations,but the over flow effects on non pedigree animals.

Read this and quite impressed with the thought and reseach. Might not be "Perfect" but I think its a very common sense approach that will encourage better out comes in more than the target area. Puppoochie, It does address your concerns.Better resources to to enforce the exsisting laws and thus harder to go under the radar.Encourages a more community -responsible attitude and education that would result in well informed peer pressure and ease of reporting.More uniform legislation and so less confusion of protocols.Clear expectations of whats involved in responsible dog ownership. Looks good to me and will have my vote unless you can come up with better?!

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I can understand where Pockets is coming from.I was there too last nite after seeing this trivialised you wonder ...But bottom line is still we need education and enforcement of laws that do make a difference regardless. Even if B.S.L worked,the problems will remain with other dogs of all sizes and types owned by irresponsible owners who can't recognise their dogs potential to do harm,or their responsibility to avoid it. As for the govt. outlawing backyard and unregistered breeders,that would 1st require breed registries to move with the times,accept that cross breeds will always be in demand and creating some thing like appendix registries to cater for that in a responsible way.Would also deflect a lot of critcism of elitism and fallout from P.D.E.since they could argue they have "controll groups" to measure effectiveness of breeding practices.

I supose they could possibly have escaped from containment some how,unbeiliavable this situation to allowed to be a possibility. A nightmare for all those touched by this.

Its the wise move. :laugh:

Default beahvior..? it depends on the situation, you can't say that a dog that has never done anything wrong or displayed aggression has a default behavior, if it did then it would've shown it many times!! Hunting dogs do not have blinding aggression, i have no idea where you get your ideas from from?! Unbalanced dogs of any breed are a problem. not just bull breeds, you need to get your head around that. My reference to default behaviour is aggression of unsocialised dogs which some seem to think is the case, nothing to do with situations either all unsocialised dogs are aggressive or they are not?? Yes, unbalanced dogs of any breed are a potential problem in the community I agree, but there is difference, unbalanced pure breeds by the standard are duds, unbalanced dogs with no standard to follow as in cross breeds could be just that, a poor genetic combination of breed mixtures. So,your solution is to ban cross breds.Any bites after that are o.k 'cos they are just boo boos.Ooops! No one here has said all unsocialised dogs are aggressive. Given the lack of skill the average person has in interpreting dog behaviour,I think your assertion that well bred,sound dogs don't need socialisation is irresponsible and dangerous.

The only valid qualifications I am aware of is a veterinary behaviourist, that's not me, experience training 38 years........what comments are you referring to here?? M-Sass might have 38 yrs experience training their own dogs.

The way I see it,ignorance of dog behaviour and desirable traits for task is pretty universal,and getting worse. I resent that It took me 6 years to find dogs able to do the job there was once a breed bred for.I fought against the idea of crosses untill there was one in front of me I could not disregard.And you know what? Her traits carry reliably.I have traits that people tell me are not possible.Its not how it works.This dog and her off spring have qualities I've not seen in 30 years and blows me out,and the owners of her pups.Yes,I've monitored them. Its been an education for me and changed the way I see things. We still have lots to learn about both cross and pure breeds and I seriously doubt closing that door is a wise move.

Sorry but that is ridiculous. Completely laughable. Maybe your "ideal" dog is like this, but most "real" dogs will have something or other or certain situations that they feel uncomfortable with or are even afraid of. They are dogs, not robots. Yes I agree in a perfect world that should be the case, but on the other hand I can see why the type of dogs who fall victim to a lack of owner control and management posing a danger to the community become targets for irradication in the stance for saftey. If we eradicate the type or breed of dog that they like to use now they will simply move onto something else. German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, these are all purebreds and they have all previously been in the same situation as the Pitbull is in now. Labradors have not had their reputation marred by lowlife owners as these breeds have, however, they still have fairly high numbers in most bite stats I ahve laid eyes on so far. Where does this leave your argument that purebreds don't ever bite? Pretty sure I've read a news article about a pomeranian killing a baby before and even my breed of choice, the Weimaraner, has caused fatalities. Not so long ago a toddler in the US was bitten on the neck by the family's Wei and died. None of these dogs are even bull breeds at all. I also don't get the feeling that you like dogs in general very much. Maybe you should just stay away from them, you miht feel a lot safer... I am speaking "aggression" in my comment of stable dogs not needing socialisation, do you think the default behaviour of all unsocialised dogs is aggression...........it's not trust me?? GSD, Rott's, Dobe's etc are not hunting dogs with blinding aggression, the reason they don't use them for those roles, big difference between guarding instinct and killing machines. Morons won't use herders to provide the aggression they are looking for because they have to train them or find fear biters and what breeders of constantly hard herders trainable in defence and attack will sell to morons??. Pure breeds have a recognised standard..........unstable aggression is a breed fault in the major working breeds, there is a defence to their existance if the odd one does bite someone, but what's the standard for a Bully crossbreed which may be killing machine who knows, where is the defence in the standards of a crossbreed?? Yes,pure breeds have recognised standard....Not always adhered to by breeders.Recent attacks by samoyds a good example. Standard says they should "display affection for all mankind" So,standards are a matter for individual breeders whether you talk pure or cross bred.All too often standards are followed cosmeticaly only and the spirit in which they were written has been lost.This is why we see the split between working and show lines widening. You can't say that anyone breeding crosses has no standard in mind,or that there is a breed to suit any purpose that can't be improved on.Especialy when "purpose" has been largely untested in most show lines for as long as it has. Blind aggression is not encouraged in working dogs ,no,but a dogs black out in prey too,and often with less warning on triggers. You say those breeding security type dogs wouldn't sell to morons- but police in some states are getting their dogs as re-homes from the general public now.

Ummmm are you for real... this maybe possible with some breeds, Again what's with the "crap" dogs comments? do you even like dogs as a whole? Socialising dogs is the smart way to help your dog become socially acceptable to the masses who put certain criteria on them. What do you think will happen if you take a dog that was bred for stability then, you didn't socialise it, mistreated it etc.. do you think that dog has the potential to bite? of course it has. I've seen "byb" dogs that are rock solid around strangers, no issues with food, good with kids etc... but one dog didn't like the sound of plastic bags... fireworks didn't set her off but shopping bags did, this certainly didn't make her a poor dog. How many pure bred dogs do you know that are rock solid on fire works night? guess all the ones who are scared must be BYB or something..? (Sorry Geo,not at you.Just not good with this quote thing) Well there goes a major argument against puppy mills.All they need to do is find stable dogs that don't need socialising tho' they could get around that by lobotomising them.That might pass for the same thing) Incidentaly,I searched over 6 years to find dogs suited to my situation.Rang breed clubs for my breed many times,even contacted police and defence forces since "my" breed had in the past been very active in those fields.Not any more and was told by breed club I "wouldn't get one like that" ( able to be good with children and animals to free range on farm,yet remain actively protective as opposed to vicious) I have cross breeds now who do the job beautifully.I see great breeders trying hard to reverse the situation (and fervently hope they succeed,they have my admirration and 100% support)but I have yet to find a breeder who can guarantee me the stability I have found for my situation and keep working ability. Since you mention working dogs. The big thing many security peeps are focusing on these days is high prey,useless for my situation and not needed. We need room in both legislation and breeder trends to allow alternative ideals to be explored.

Saw 1 pet shop that kept 8 week old pups for breeders in large pens full of straw and little dog houses in the centre.Pens were big enough for pups to escape prying hands and in a quiet area. Breeders took pups home end of day and interest registered to be passed on to owners for any resulting sales and vetting.Up to 2 litters at a time only and by arangement,with a limmit how many days pups would be displayed,often with breed information supplied and displayed. It was different.

Handwritten cardboard sign attached to a light pole saying 'staffie pups 4 sale'? :laugh:

Who's denying anything??????? Sorks has been called a troll simply for having a diferent view.looks like denial of alternatives to me. Please don't tar all of us with the same brush. I'm all for robust debate on such issues but pet shops as a decent alternative to breeders selling? Does anyone here honestly think that the sale of pups in pet shops is a GOOD thing? If so, please outline your argument with canine welfare at the forefront of the positives. Seriously, how would pet shop staff even know the personalities of the pups they sell? They don't observe them over the course of 8 weeks and they are contained in a manner that limits natural behaviours. And if the mother of the pups is the best lead on how they will turn out, how does buying a pup having never seen either parent or the conditions in which it was raised assist a buyer to make a good choice? I'm not taring all with the same brush,but trying to point out that all alternatives to pedigree breeders are tarred with the same brush.,no matter what what efforts they might make to be other wise.If we tell people how evil pet shops are,and they should be buying from ethical,registered breeders and they get bitten how do we come out ahead by that? It would surely be better if efforts made to bann every thing were channelled into informing people what a well raised pup should be receiving and why.They would be better equipt to make good choices.

Who's denying anything??????? Sorks has been called a troll simply for having a diferent view.looks like denial of alternatives to me.