moosmum

So sorry to hear you going through this and hope you have family/friends support. Agree re the autism society to get immediate guidance and supprt as a 1st call.Even if it turns out not to be autism. In the mean time to keep your son distracted some noisy,moving parts toys might focus his interests elsewhere. Good luck,very glad to see you getting early help,it can make an enormous difference whatever the reason.

I am very happy with tails on my dogs,tho' I would have prefered it be left to personal choice.I think the arguement that no-one asked for tails be left alone before legislation is irrelevent since a)it has taken time for people to get used to in some breeds. b)How can you pick a pup at 3 days old to say"hold the docking on that one". Many breeders would have refused to sell with out docking. I once had a woman tell me it would be cruel to leave tails on her boxers since she saw one once with a tail and it could not sit properly Though I don't like that we have legislation to force the issue,it has made it easier for those who prefer tails...they would have had a hard time before legislation to make that call and still be taken seriously should they want to show or breed with tails. Nothing against the practice at all if its done correctly,but I prefer my own dogs with tails now I am used to it and if their increased agility is due to the tail,all the more reason to be happy.

Dobes....I like the look of the docked tails,but I don't have any regrets now we have them with.I am used to the look and they now seem much more natural. Maybe coincidence,but the agility of our tailed dogs is very much better and I think the tail helps as a "rudder". I have never seen another dog like Moss on her feet,unless its a Foxy. :D

I would also be happy to pay more for a pup that was considered extra good by a breeder,if they have a reputation to back their opinionion. I do believe tho' that in guardian breeds at least,you can get a pretty good idea if a pup will measure up or not.Not fool proof ,and maybe some will dissagree with my personal pick,but you can tell a lot about dominance,nerve, some drives and basic personality.There will be some who clearly won't measure up to serious work. If I value what a a breeder is working to produce and their methods are proving effective, I would happily pay more for the pups showing best potential for the job.

I will have to try it in the interests. of science.Will be worth it just to see O.H try to catch me with a towel.

Trainers and behaviourists. Info. on laws, responsibilities and welfare. Novelty shows ie: best trained,best looking dog,cutest pup.(for non pedigree/show dogs .....Then breed reps with info. on pure breeds and possibly breed shows. Educational and fun for all dog owners.

Well done,both of you! Glad you are O.K ,its scarey realising how vulnerable we are. Lovely pics too!

Joe, If you know anything about breeds that have been used for fighting you will know that they're aggression is with other animals not people! Therefore it is not understandable if a "bull breed" runs across the road and bites someone!! Just because you think they have some genetic disposition to be aggressive does not mean this makes them Human Aggressive. This incident has nothing to do with breed whatsoever. However the outcomes may have, and fortunately being a GR he may be a luck boy. I think you misunderstood Joe. If I am right, Joe was trying to say that the circumstances are also different here in that Buster was in a situation where there was provocation.Fighting family members near a dog who has recently been in a traumatising situation and owners had little idea how to deal with his aggression,likely aggravating the situation. He is a breed not known for its fight drives.He is an older dog with no history of aggression but very much loved by friends and neighbours alike who have never had cause to fear him . He did not run out of his yard to attack strangers on what should be neutral territory and this does make a difference to peoples perceptions. Joe was speaking more of fight drive rather than dog fighting breeds.

I run 4 bitches and 1 dog. 1 is a SWF but the other 3 are working breed. The oldest girl is undisputed queen even now while she is getting very frail. All ignore the SWF even when she realy pushes her luck. 2 of the others are separated at all times,12 hours each in a run every day.I don't trust them to even walk past the other on leads after having one break loose.We have been able to break up both fights before any injuries but its plain to see we won't be so lucky if there is a next time. Both are fine with all the others,but as Joe says,they have a grudge and there is no cure. We have also run entire males together with no dramas,though there were rare scuffles soon forgotten.

I run 4 bitches and 1 dog. 1 is a SWF but the other 3 are working breed. The oldest girl is undisputed queen even now while she is getting very frail. All ignore the SWF even when she realy pushes her luck. 2 of the others are separated at all times,12 hours each in a run every day.I don't trust them to even walk past the other on leads after having one break loose.We have been able to break up both fights before any injuries but its plain to see we won't be so lucky if there is a next time. Both are fine with all the others,but as Joe says,they have a grudge and there is no cure. We have also run entire males together with no dramas,though there were rare scuffles soon forgotten.

Thank you, so very kind. Like the training make good dog, I hoping my chatting makes good english, yes?. I tell my wife I get on here for my english improving, but she ask why a dog forum to do this, she think I come here because for chat about dogs, nothing do do with learning better english, but is good excuse to chat dogs for me, but I dont think she believe me?. Never mind is good to chat dogs for pleasure anyway, yes? Joe Love it! I think your english is already improving and you've barely been here a week, Joe. May as well practice your english chatting about something you're interested in. :D X 2, and you do get your point across very effectively.

Mr Jeff, I am remembering a dog imported to Australia, perhaps in working circle you may seen him called Fax vom Grenzganger probably 10 year ago mentioning the black Shepherd dog I am thinking yes?. Fax and also Iwo vom the Grenzganger were dominant dogs, beautiful stance with the gazing eye of intent, but never nasty dogs. There are many others of course, but the Fax is one dog perhaps maybe indentify the type of personality in the dominance I speaking of? Joe Hi Joe, The dog in the video was a Fax son. It was a good video but seems to have been taken down. Greetings Jeff I think we reading on the same page with the dominance trait, as is not surprize to me learning of the Fax son. Fax was a very dominant dog, better dog (in my opinion) than his father Dolf ze Zakovy Hory (Czech lines). Dolf had the dominance and higher in the social aggression but hard dog to handle very reactive dog. Fax had the intent in his eyes, don't mess with me look, but was very calm stable dog until pressurised. Shame the youtube is not presenting video you speak, would have been good for demostration to the folks of dominance in the working dog that we speak. Joe Yes, That would have been good to see.Any other you can think of Jeff?

Yes, my lot are dominant to humans as well,but have been taught good manners so that this is not generaly obvious to most,unless they have reason to be "told." The oldest girl is the one who has universal respect with strange dogs giving in to her leadership right away...yet she is a very "polite" dog.She clearly sees herself as equall to us,her owners, in any company,dog or human.She rarely has to do more than give a poke with her nose to get any action to stop or a dog to listen.She has an incredible"roar" though that she uses now and again,mostly on pups or imature dogs. Funny to watch a grown male Dobe who was being over excited and playing too rough retreat with his bum tucked in and saying "OOOOHH!!" at her roar. With people,she is polite and very friendly as long as she is either off her home territory or if they have been addmitted.With out permission to enter they wont get in.(same with other 2)If once addmitted they break the rules,her actions will depend on the situation.Maybe just tell us ,maybe a soft growl and poke.Shes never had reason to do more and is very restrained so doesn't over react. I don't see her as the most dominant,just a natural leader with universal love and respect. The second bitch is a rougher diamond and less tolerant.We say she speaks once.She is more obvious in her body language and less restrained in her actions.She will give very clear warnings to people and dogs and they obey 1st time or pay the price.Shes learnet better restraint as she matures.She adores children and cats and has been known to growl at visitors who yell at their children while visiting.She is like a rock,immovable,calm and very no nonsense. The 3rd is a very bossy girl.In every ones face if we let her get away with that,very friendly,but provocative at the same time.Learning better as she matures but so fast and sharp she has been the hardest to raise.Very high fight and drive to dominate thats obvious in her play.The rougher the better.Very gentle with pups,but demanding they give more all the time.Playing with one of her own pups who was a female and extremely dominant and fearless,she seemed to be trying to push the pup to her limmits getting rougher the longer the game went till we intervened as the pup was being tossed and still going back fopr more. As a pup,when the oldest said "no play" this 3rd bitch would stand back out of range and bark with her bum up or run around her till the old girl gave in and got up to play.She is the irresistable force. In a more natural setting with out human intervention I believe the 3rd would be the pack leader/dominant female.She is very proactive,inventive,determined,persistent and physicaly skilled.A natural hunter,brilliant on her feet,quick to react and likes to make things to happen. All are very affectionate intelligent and trainable dogs who live on a farm very happily interacting with mini horses,free range chooks and often other animals.With welcome visitors the dogs are all friendly and well mannered to the extent that we have some times to demonstrate that the dogs can fire up if given good reason,so their good natures are not taken for granted(,ie at teen parties)yet they are very tolerant and protective of children.

Sounds like a must read to me. I think dominance is very hard to define in dogs in any real way.There are so many other personality traits that influence how it is displayed. To me,its a supreme confidence and courage to stand his/her ground and not give in to threat.A willingness to take or give punishment rather than than submitt to a break in his idea of how things should be. Can be very cocky and stubborn at times. The intelligence,drives,and bond with his family are all going to influence how its shown. A dog driven by a dominant nature alone ,unwilling to bow to anyone would be a feak of nature and not a viable specimen.A danger to dogs and people. He has to be able to adapt his out look in different situations. I saw an interesting interaction with 2 very dominant males.My Collie X (Chimo) and a G.S.D. who met for trhe 1st time when my dog turned up at a friends looking for me.Chimo, who was used to always being top dog launched himself at the G.S.D (King) and there was a brief fight that stopped as soon as both owners yelled out,but my boy had seen that he was far out classed in that time. We went inside with both dogs and tho' Chimo was allowed in on his owners say so,King literaly put Chimo in the corner. Chimo had to keep his face in the corner the whole time we were there and if he tried to even look over his shoulder,king would stand over him and just give him the look till he put his face back in the corner. As far as working dogs go,I was once told that its more uncommon in females,but when they have it they are great! I have 3 (females) and they all have very different personalities.All accept me as dominant over them and learn on the principle that obedience means more freedom,experience and mental stimulation is available to them.I would not tolerate agression towards me from any of them and they know it. A well balanced dominant nature is a great dog,with good leadership.

The behavioural signs may have been hard to see, but the way you describe it, the situation was a risky one - it sounds like it was a case of a small child attempting to take a hugely valuable resource (bitch in heat!) away from a strange (presumably entire) male dog. Similar to a small child trying to take a bone from a strange dog. Must have been horrible to see. Not nice! I wasn't game to interfere myself thinking the dog would turn on me. It was just lucky my own dog was there and got what I wanted of him. What has kept with me was the calm and unruffled manner of this dog while attacking.The girl had some pretty bad bites to her breasts,shoulders and wrists.

As a child I was the only witness to an attack on a 10 yo.girl by a G.R. The girl had a small bitch in season that had gotten out side where there were several wandering males attracted by the scent. The girl picked up her dog to put her inside when the retriever jumped up,paws on her shoulders and proceeded to "chew" on her chest,shoulers and arms while the girl tried to hold him off with her hands on his shoulders. While there may have been signs,it all happened so fast they would have been useless. Their was no growling or excitment to this attack.It was caried out calmly and almost casualy. It was stopped when I told my own dog to "get" it and he knocked the G.R off the girl. If you mean signs the owners should have picked up on indicating this dog had the potential to bite,I agree but with this particular dog I think the signs might have been very subtle. It was a family pet,raised with children.The majority have little idea of dog psychcology or how to "read" a dog apart from the very obvious signals.Experience and a desire to understand is the only real way to learn of the more subtle signs. I agree that this was a situation with dangerous potential from the start,It wasn't random.But after that It especialy bugs me when idiots tell me my protective breed will "turn "on me. Joe, I totaly agree with your ideas on selecting for a strong calm nerve in all dogs.I think there are very few dogs bred where the mentality gets the priority it deserves and dogs in general have been dumbed down and more unstable as a result.Just my opinion.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker. Yes but there is a difference between not supporting them because we dont agree with their assumed motivation or where they sell their puppies or if their philosophies are different to ours and fighting a war about it. No one is saying if they are breeding dogs in rotten conditions that we should not say so and work against this. Stand back from this a minute and look at it objectively. On this forum there is a consensus that breeding ANKC registered purebreds dogs is the preferred method of producing a puppy and there is a bunch of assumptions which go along with that. The reality is that the only thing that a registered purebred breeder HAS to do and CAN do which is any different to any other person who allows two dogs to mate is that they can register the birth details on one particular registry unless they breed a select few breeds which have to be scored or screened for specific things before the puppies can be registered. However, even if I have to score or screen thats no guarantee I only use dogs with low scores or that I will breed unaffected puppies. Except in Victoria if I know the status of my dog's DNA I can still breed carriers or affected dogs to anything I want. Any argument we want to put forward and tell people about why buying a registered purebred puppy is better can be squashed except that they are more predictible and there is a greater chance of knowing the ancestry of the parents. None of what Im about to say relates to any breeder who doesnt treat their animals as they should be treated. Lets look at the things that most people on this forum have come to expect from purebred breeders. Where tests are available for a known recessive issue in the breed breeders can test for that - but even though its not politically correct here to say so - if I were breeding first cross dogs I could test for the same things if the issues are known in the 2 breeds Im breeding or not need to test if the issue is only known in one of the breeds. Is it more likely that a purebred breeder will test for these known recessive disorders which have tests available ? Probably but I promise you there are in my opinion, only a minority of breeders who do test even when they can. Even if they do test for the things which they are able to test for there is no guarantee that the dog wont get something which hasnt been able to be tested for or for things which show up even if the parents are tested and selected to try to avoid it such as HD. Some breeders know their parent dogs have produced puppies with problems but still continue to use them to breed with regardless of whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred dogs. Then there is much talk about how registered purebred breeders are better than any other if they test their dogs against the standard and other dogs of their breed by showing their dogs.This has become more of an issue than it was 30 years ago because registered purebred breeders who show their dogs now worry about who will take their dogs and breed them and they have become restrictive on who can take a pup with papers suitable for breeding - unless the buyer is going to be led by them, sign all manner of restrictive contracts and do what the breeders tell them to do its become almost impossible to buy a good puppy which the breeder would feel is good for breeding.So now anyone who wants to buy a papered dog which they may want tohave a litter with has to go to someone who doesnt really understand the importance of the whole selection for breeding stuff. If I wanted to buy a purebred puppy 30 years ago and I told the breeder I might want to breed a litter or two later on the breeder sold me a pup which wouldn't do the breed any harm if I used it for breeding and offered to give a hand finding a stud dog if I did decide to do that when the time came. It didnt matter that much if they didnt show the dog because it had good stuff behind it and it was one which had as much chance of winning as any the breeder kept to show. You may not get litter pick but you got a good representative of the breed which wasnt likely to have too much risk for genetic diseases. I might even buy my own male but I could tell the breeder what I had and that I might want to breed so they would sell me a male which I could put with my bitch and not do the breed any harm. Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed. Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals. Now they are low life puppy farmers -after all isnt it now a medal of honour to only breed a litter every couple of years and only for yourself? 30 years ago these people were seen as those who were less serious about the hobby and not regarded as being more knowledgeable or more elevated in status than someone who really put their lives and resources into the betterment of the breed by owning and breeding more not less dogs. Yet here, as soon as the discussion started, the assumption is that anyone who agreed with the basis of the article were wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder and support people who were treating animals poorly. Thats not what I got out of it at all. I saw it saying stop bagging each other out and rather than follow on like sheep re assess what you have come to believe are characteristics of a person who breeds dogs well just because they happen to be in one group or another which has been promoted as being something it probably isnt. Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better. And :D again! I did not breed in my younger days because I thought there were people more qualified and dedicated than myself. I only wanted a good dog as a companion and nothing to detract from that relationship.I could not be a show person.Wrong temperament.I thought I would have to show to be any good as a breeder. I came to regret that decision when the breed of my choice took a different direction to my own ideals. What I wanted in my dogs could no longer be found. Who is to say my ideals are wrong? When fads in the ring lead to unforseen problems down the track,the gene pool is too small to correct them easily or maybe at all the way things stand. Even uniformity of type can be taken too far.With too narrow a gene pool you might as well just clone.

I have Dobes and have been aware of the program you mention for a long time. I thinks its an excellent idea,but of course has its limitations. Of the dobes I have have owned,most have grown bigger than average and all have lived to 14. I currently have an old girl here of 13,and very disapointed that she is unlikely to make 14 due to rapid deterioration caused by arthritis just in this last year.She has very little grey,eye sight is good still and hearing too. She is 28 inches and at 6 yrs was being mistaken for a 2-3 yo. Her meds are helping though and she is more willing to get up,out and about lately so I hope she suprises us with improved mobility as well. One of her line I am told lived to 16. My daughters male dobe at 9 still catches birds in the back yard.Another 8 yo bitch is just looking a little matronly but not yet "old" by any means. Longevity is very important to me.Any goal to improve the lifespan of dogs is welcomed so long as quality of those last years isn't compromised. My 1st dog was not a Dobe,but I got him at 11 years old.He was a part of my life till I was 27 years old with 3 children of my own and it still wasn't long enough.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker. I don't argue with with any of that,but you are missing my point about labels.They work against us all. Joe public doesn't see this.They go by experience and heresay.EACH of the groups being discussed have genuine,legitamate complaints against them.And laws are being made because people with out intimate,experienced knowledge in their field are demanding blanket solutions. We ask for legislation to curb puppy farmers and numbers of dogs owned/bred is limited.We have inspectors to see conditions before dogs can be bred,policing of practices and care to standards laid down by out siders who have no idea how their legislation affects people in other areas. Dogs being bred in dirty,unhygenic conditions? Make a law that says concrete floors that can be hosed down 2x a day. No veterinary care? Make a law that says all dogs must see a vet 2x a year. Must be vaccinated to prevent disease X times and have a health check before being bred at this age. Kept in tiny cages with no excersize? We will fix that with a law to say dogs at all times must have room to streach out 2X their length and a run in an area no smaller than X 2X a day. Backyard breeders churning out unwanted and un planned for litters? New law.Thou shalt not breed any dog with out a permitt obtained after council approval and inspection of premises and a bussiness plan.All progeny to be desexed. Dogs being bought on the spur of the moment with no foresight? Puppies not to be displayed in public,taken to markets or sold via the internet. Pedigree dogs being bred to standards that affect their health? Thou shalt not breed a dog with a known health issue and if we think a long coat is too hot, that will be out too. Irresponsible owners are letting their dogs be a nuisance? Keep them out of sight and silent. You can add to this list endlessly because there will always be those who will do the wrong thing,out of apathy or ignorance,and with the present mentality laws will be made to counter act . Murder is illegal with harsh penalties but it still happens. If you think these laws are good because they are only aimed at the relevant groups,think again.They can be and will be used against each and every one who owns a dog,more and more often as they are accepted by Joe public as the way its suposed to be. Laws are being abused now to suit the agendas of various groups. These laws play directly into the hands of the puppy farmers you abhorre,because they have the money and profit potential to ensure they are the ones left standing at the end of the day,when dogs are such a rare "commodity" they can charge what they like. Surely, whats realy important is that dogs are not seen as the newest accessory,but are recognised as thinking,feeling beings that we choose to be responsible for,or not. An individual choice made with fore thought, acceptance of the responsibilities and understanding of the price paid for the privilege. If you choose to breed,you bear some responsibility for each and every life brought into the world and how that life is lived.Regardless of weather you make a profit or not.Regardless of weather the dog is pedigree or not.Wether you "knew" or not. The ideal can't be legislated,but it can exsist accross the board and it can be taught,but not if dog ownership becomes so expensive and difficult Joe Public is never exposed to dogs .They will understand dogs and their care as much as they understand alligators. A dog owner,for any purpose ,needs to understand and accept a duty of care. They have only the best of their own resourses to work with and are guided by their peers and percieved demands. No one is born with the ideals they hold today for dog ownership.Its been a long process of experience and we have all made mistakes along the way.If not by our own standards then by someone elses. Who will be left to teach? Wow an epic.

No one is saying they want to be "stand with" or be "lumped with" bad or unethical practice.They are hoping that good practice can be universaly sought by various groups in the ways that suit them and work for them.That they can clearly see problems within their own groups and work to clean them up.Take personal responsibility for seeing their own group is beyond reproach before pointing the finger at some one else. There are some pedigree show breeders that should be condemned alongside the puppyfarmers and the BYBs who keep their dogs in conditions that I have described in this thread because they're little more than puppyfarmers and BYBs themselves. So you are saying you will continue to label people puppy farmers and BYBers and with no clear definitions of what those terms mean. but they re all bad. Show breeders will be lumped into their own category.This allows you to condemn whole groups indiscriminatly while some of the worst can "stand with" you? Wouldn't it make more sense to condemn ignorance and poor practice period and admit that it exsists amoung all groups of breeders? Seems to me your arguments would be given more credence. Um, why are you accusing me of standing with the worst? Unless you think that ethical registered breeders are the worst? Cos I'm with them. Perhaps you mean someone else in the thread. Sorry Sheridan, (and I said "some' of the worst,I definitely did not mean that proportionatly) It was your sentence that some pedigree show breeders should be condemned alongside puppy farmers and BYBers as they are little more themselves. My point was that generalised labels are not fair on anyone. If all pedigree show breeders can't be relied on to be ethical,then its very biased to lump people into broad groups and say "that lot is unethical,my lot is" Ethics arent universal to pedigree or show breeders. So you may say you won't stand with such and such( undefined) groups, yet "your" group is allowing them to stand with you in condemnation of others,who will very likely have ethical members also trying to clean up their act. If "ethics" is defined,I'm sure there are many many BYBers who can be shown to be ethical,and quite possibly some puppy farmers too. If you are looking for them on DOL,you won't find them.Before anyone jumps on me for this statement,I am NOT implying that there is nothing wrong with either BYBers or puppy farmers!! I AM objecting to the way these labels are used to divide and legislate when there is no consensus on what the terms mean. And if you are being fair,too many people on Dol use the terms "Pedigree/show breeder" interchangably with Ethical to define this group.

And when some are judged by others failure to work on the problems, what then? Many professional associatons work on the principle of peer regulation - the reason is due to their desire to safeguard the reputation of the association generally. The article isn't arguing beyond urging breeders not to bash one another. Ask breeders to put aside differences and work together for the betterment of the breed and I'll agree whole heartedly. When others are judged by others failures to work on the problem? Then there will be a price to pay.It my belief that breed clubs are in positions of custodians for their breeds and its members.Ultimately they will be held responsible for the direction taken and they owe it to their members to work together with them to identify problems and find solutions,making sure members are well informed of both. Peer regulation can work with enforcable rules aimed at solutions.With out enforcement peer regulation can be seen as peer acceptance. Ask breeders to put aside differences and work for the betterment of the breed and you will agree whole heartedly? Its a deal if you change the word breed to dog.

Yes and yes.Work on your own problems.They exsist in all groups who will ultimately be judged,and harshly.

No one is saying they want to be "stand with" or be "lumped with" bad or unethical practice.They are hoping that good practice can be universaly sought by various groups in the ways that suit them and work for them.That they can clearly see problems within their own groups and work to clean them up.Take personal responsibility for seeing their own group is beyond reproach before pointing the finger at some one else. The above example may not be a "puppy farm",but it is certainly my idea of a BYBer.Are they unethical? Should we be pushing for laws to make it impossible for them to breed dogs at all because their ideals are not ours? Should THEY be forced to stand with the puppy farmers in their corner? There are no clear definitions of Registered,Ethical breeders,BYBers or puppy farmers yet. You can criticise all you want and no doubt find justification with generalizations.Just don't be suprised that they do the same with their criticism of the pedigree show breeders. There are some pedigree show breeders that should be condemned alongside the puppyfarmers and the BYBs who keep their dogs in conditions that I have described in this thread because they're little more than puppyfarmers and BYBs themselves. I just find it astounding that some people in this thread are unwilling to condemn such people whether registered, puppyfarmer or BYB. So you are saying you will continue to label people puppy farmers and BYBers and with no clear definitions of what those terms mean. but they re all bad. Show breeders will be lumped into their own category.This allows you to condemn whole groups indiscriminatly while some of the worst can "stand with" you? Wouldn't it make more sense to condemn ignorance and poor practice period and admit that it exsists amoung all groups of breeders? Seems to me your arguments would be given more credence.

No one is saying they want to be "stand with" or be "lumped with" bad or unethical practice.They are hoping that good practice can be universaly sought by various groups in the ways that suit them and work for them.That they can clearly see problems within their own groups and work to clean them up.Take personal responsibility for seeing their own group is beyond reproach before pointing the finger at some one else. The above example may not be a "puppy farm",but it is certainly my idea of a BYBer.Are they unethical? Should we be pushing for laws to make it impossible for them to breed dogs at all because their ideals are not ours? Should THEY be forced to stand with the puppy farmers in their corner? There are no clear definitions of Registered,Ethical breeders,BYBers or puppy farmers yet. You can criticise all you want and no doubt find justification with generalizations.Just don't be suprised that they do the same with their criticism of the pedigree show breeders. There are some pedigree show breeders that should be condemned alongside the puppyfarmers and the BYBs who keep their dogs in conditions that I have described in this thread because they're little more than puppyfarmers and BYBs themselves. I just find it astounding that some people in this thread are unwilling to condemn such people whether registered, puppyfarmer or BYB. Exactly.The lines are very blurred yet the terms are used with derogatory venom to critisise each other with no real progress made to solve genuine problems.Condemn bad practice,but don't divide with labels into groups. If you choose to stand alone there is little support or sympathy. Just more laws proposed that will make breeding ever harder for those who are already doing their best .The most ethical of registered breeders will admitt there are problems that they as a group must work on. Pedigree / Show breeders have taken a beating in the media.Their future may be at stake. Nor are the worst of puppy farmers being condoned but I can't demand all puppy farmers be driven out of bussiness untill I can define what a puppy farmer is.What sets him apart from a breeders who just has more dogs than i think is ideal? Responsible and caring practice is not confined to one group.