mita

People buying puppies need to take the position of being wise consumers. Wise consumers first do their homework... and research. So find out for yourself, first , what are the essentials that go into producing puppies with best chance possible. There's all sorts of sources of good information for doing that . Which then becomes your guide as you deal with individual breeders. Know what you're looking for & move on until you find it. We've been talking about breeders putting in the hard yards to produce quality. Puppy buyers need to put in the hard yards to find quality. And, speaking for myself, I'm happy to pay for what I consider quality. And, I've been fortunate, have found lots of it in my two breeds of interest. Shelties & tibbies.

The more the pet-buying public can be educated about all the factors that go into producing puppies.... with best all-round chances to develop as well as possible... the better. Most people automatically think of puppies' health histories, soundness of limb & being able to function. But not all realise the importance of socialisation. Dogs' behaviour & personalities don't just come ready-made like the colour of their fur. No, it's hugely linked with parent dogs & whoever raises & cares for them, from the earliest age on. Which is why that pic of the breeder I posted, shows her doing something that's worth pure gold. While lying on the sofa! :) To show this further.... scroll thro' how that Danish breeder talks about her dogs. Yes... all the things associated with breeding & showing, like conformation & health. But the dogs are all described in terms of encouraging & loving their personalities, especially their closeness & trust in people. http://www.kennel-sommerlyst.dk/our_dogs.htm Incidentally, one of the best descriptions I've heard about raising puppies/dogs this way, came from a Victorian registered Rottie breeder talking on ABC Radio. She was explaining how her 'show' Rottie does pet therapy work with elderly people ... it was all in how she bred and raised her dogs. As I said, this work to savvy pet owners, is worth pure gold.

Here's a registered breeder working hard :) on one of the critical factors that goes into producing dogs with good temperaments & good adjustment for living with humans & their environment. Happy to pay for this work :) , among other things. This particular bit is tough.... but, gee, someone has to do it. :) http://www.kennel-sommerlyst.dk/images/familiesofa.jpg Research shows that socialisation is critical for dogs if they are to live close & harmoniously with humans. Also a behaviour like aggression, has one link with degree of socialisation of the mother dog. It's not just a case of socialising puppies in their first weeks .... but also of ongoing socialisation of parent dogs. And, statistically, registered breeders have been found more likely to do this. (Pic is one of the leading Danish breeders.)

And sometimes totally responsible registered breeders adopt their dogs for next to nothing, or nothing, because a good home for the rest of its life, is what they want. (I had to make such people take a good price.) I've had 4 purebred dogs that've come to me like that. They turned out to be fabulous dogs with exceptional good temperament & health. Not that it surprised me. I'd done my homework well & figured out where my chances of finding an all-round quality dog would lie. Given all the variables associated with breeding, raising & ongoing development of dogs... it's a case of risk management. Where is risk likely to be less? And in buying a pet dog, socialisation of dogs/puppies by the breeder is into the mix. Rigorous research from UQ showed that good socialisation & more control of litters is more likely found with registered breeders. Note.... that doesn't mean all, it means a statistically significant number. So that sets the direction for less risk... registered breeders. Next to test out the reality with actual registered breeders, by looking for the attitudes and practices which would reduce risk. Note... even in the best of circumstances, breeders don't totally control nature. For heavens sake, medical science doesn't totally control nature for humans. Given all this, when it comes to getting a puppy, I'll go for a purebred. And, based on my respect for the breeders who put in the hard yards to reduce risk, I'm prepared to pay. Here's an example of not yet 7 week old tibbie puppies being raised by their breeder. So I'm not pushing any Australian breeder in particular, these are in Denmark. Northern Europe is great for producing quality in this breed. Says a lot, tho', for quality found here in Australia, that the Scandanavian breeder who won at the last Crufts, had imported an Australian dog for her line. I now own one of her dogs... & she's fabulous, in looks, temperament & general health.

Agree totally.

Thanks for that further information. I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced. There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description). Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened. So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law.

Did the dogs in this case 'attack' in ways that fit the descriptions of dangerous dog behaviours as set out in the legislation? If so, the Council would fail in their responsibility if they didn't adhere to the label 'dangerous dog'. If not, then the label 'dangerous' with all its consequences wouldn't apply. All I can find is the OP saying the police described the incident as 'minor'. But that's not descriptive of actual dog behaviours. So doesn't answer the question. What is beyond question, is that the dogs were on the loose outside their property. And the owner would well be ordered, by the Council, to set in place future containment management ... with whatever penalties would follow from any failure.

Yes, that's what I read into your account, Tralee, a negotiated agreement, with the Council, to contain your dogs in a way that'd prevent another problem. If so, a positive outcome for you & your dogs. But seems you've paid a high emotional & financial price. Your experience would be of general interest for dog owners (who are under NSW council law conditions). Any p/breed or mixed-breed dog can be vulnerable for being declared Dangerous, if a certain situation falls out that way. (There was a sweet little tib spaniel boy in Brisbane who was declared Dangerous,) Goes past BSL issues where it's the breed that's the impetus. So I understand people saying it's not relevant on this BSL forum. You had as much right as any other citizen to query that the actual situation your dogs were in, fitted the descriptions of 'dangerous dog' in the ways set out in the legislation (which I just looked up). There's all sorts of consequences which would follow if your dogs had to live with that label. Seems your action to have the situation reviewed was successful, so your dogs were no longer seen as 'dangerous' .... but certainly in need of containment management. You anger seems to be coming from why the situation wasn't scrutinized so carefully in the first instance. As I said before, you've finally got a more positive outcome with a negotiated control order, but you've paid a price.

Malti, please pass on my congratulations to the lady. Her photography skills do the dogs proud. Positive things like that make time & space- wasting emails look pathetic by comparison. HA, I agree what you said about Facebook. There's the best of it and the worst of it. The best is like what's being presented in the Taree Dogs page. The worst of it, is people having a public platform with nothing to balance what they say. Many people, tho', are becoming suss about that & keep an open mind.

Good on you for setting the record straight. Also for getting on with your work helping save dogs. I hope anyone receiving emails that just drum up drama will ignore them. And, like you, get on with the positive. BTW your Taree Dogs in Need Facebook page is excellent. Whoever takes the photos does a great job. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Taree-Dogs-In-Need/217836118238687

A lovely attitude. Certainly the same for the registered breeders that I've deal with. And who I admire. Note to pet buyers: This is the kind of person who puts the welfare of their dogs first. Which means that's how they approach all the decisions around breeding.

My goodness, Teddy has movie star looks. Gorgeous boy! Bless Rhonda & Nina who got him out to safety and a new wonderful home.

I understand your concerns for posting & your looking at an overall picture. But I always feel like Pollyanna coming into these threads.... especially when it comes to the quality of the registered breeders of purebreds I've had experience with (limited tho' it is). In the past, Sheltie breeders associated with the Shetland Sheepdog Club of Qld.... & for more recent years, the registered breeders of Tibetan Spaniels (both nationally & internationally). I couldn't respect & admire these people more in what they're doing for their breeds. Quality rather than quantity rules. Over the years, I've sent on other pet people to link up with these breeders. Many didn't even know they could. And they've been very, very happy that they did.

You have every reason to be proud of Em. Looks lovely ... & playing her part brilliantly in the still shots. Now that's talent!

Don, that little lady is just your kind of little doggie. She's extraordinarily beautiful & sweet. I understand the feeling, tho', as a fellow Breed Tragic.... when you can't have another.

The breed I'd like to have in that situation would be a Newfoundland that I could use as a hairy raft to escape with my other dogs, Tibetan Spaniels, to the mainland. The Tibbies with their buddhist nature would remind me to Stay Calm and Paddle.

Example of the US FDA at work, investigating and recalling pet food that harmed. With their powers, the FDA can go after perps in a big way. Very motivating for US pet owners to use their system of reporting complaints (note the independent testing): Melamine Pet Food Recall of 2007 On March 15, 2007, FDA learned that certain pet foods were sickening and killing cats and dogs. FDA found contaminants in vegetable proteins imported into the United States from China and used as ingredients in pet food. A portion of the tainted pet food was used to produce farm animal feed and fish feed. FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture discovered that some animals that ate the tainted feed had been processed into human food. Government scientists have determined that there is very low risk to human health from consuming food from animals that ate tainted feed. All tainted pet food, animal and fish feed, and vegetable proteins continue to be recalled and destroyed. As a result of FDA and USDA's comprehensive investigation, on February 6, 2008, FDA announced that two Chinese nationals and the businesses they operate, along with a U.S. company and its president and chief executive officer, were indicted by a federal grand jury for their roles in a scheme to import products purported to be wheat gluten into the United States that were contaminated with melamine.

Pet food safety in the USA is covered by their US Food & Drug Administration. (section of their Dpt of Health). All concerns about human & pet food are under the responsibility of that FDA. They set out notices of pet food product recalls because of safety issues. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/newpetfoodrecalls/ So the US also has monitoring processes which can be used & referred to. The American Veterinary Association directs pet owners to report any adverse problems re pet food to the FDA. In other words, to a body that's independently charged, by the US government, to investigate, order recalls where necessary, and report to the public. https://www.avma.org/news/issues/recalls-alerts/pages/pet-food-safety-recalls-alerts.aspx There is a real world, beyond Facebook, where systems that respond to consumer concerns are in place. It's good for consumers to know about those systems.... and use them. The US FDA even lists all the Consumer Complaints Coordinators, with phone numbers: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/ReportaProblem/ConsumerComplaintCoordinators/default.htm

And specially good if people know that they can contribute to monitoring pet food safety in Australia, by taking any concerns into the Pet Foods Adverse Tracking System. So, pet owners, know it and use it. All this was set up following urgent recalls of certain pet food & treats back in 2008 and 2009... after they did damage. It was realised, then, that Australian pet owners had no ongoing barrier of protection re commercially produced pet food ( domestic & imported). The Australian Veterinary Association and other groups got together under the eye of Dpt of Primary Industries (where there was already food safety measures for humans) ... & the protective systems were set up. http://www.ava.com.au/about-us/policy-and-positions/topics-1

I might as well save my breath ... in a context of 'if it's on the Net it must be right'. Australia doesn't have to rely on Facebook contributions for monitoring pet food safety in this country (both domestically produced & imported). We have a Pet Food Adverse Events System of Tracking, in place. It's as close as lodging your concerns with your veterinarian. It's better for Australians to know we have these systems in place .... from a top-level monitoring working group, to a process where adverse reports go straight into a system that can do something about the matters.

Lovely pic of Annie snuggling into someone:

The best thing is to keep walking away to a source that has credibilty. The Australian government has set up a Standing Council on Primary Industries Pet Food Controls Working Group, which is constantly surveying the scene of pet food safety ... setting standards... and reporting on any issues. These are the people to listen to. They have an explanatory document called Managing the Safety of Domestically Produced Pet Food, and Imported and Domestically Produced Pet Food. Which shows how they cover all bases that are pertinent to safety in pet food in Australia: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vU_AEUtcucAJ:www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2181603/report-of-the-scopi-pet-food-controls-working-group.pdf+Australian+Veterinary+Association+warnings+about+commercial+dog+food&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShV6ilZ2t4pH1ORasY6eEQFgjjKrQSGkef91vKWII4oFhGMbz6eOcjIYGwcSMQfwGpeoEhPMOS5sc6s3IcGCGB1W7FVGmMl7WyuYQjvISf1PTTfr3S10fpY_Mk9_l5d_fRyERpT&sig=AHIEtbSizQIUzqqpptXZK4QhUzFoPwOiGA The Australian Veterinary Association gives this Working Group their seal of approval... & is a participating member. Which means the work is evidence (science)-based. http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/pet-food-safer-thanks-cooperative-approach

They fit me to a T, too ... and many of the added ones as well. I'm glad you posted the list, Panto, because only yesterday I was thinking of all the odd (to other people) things I do with our dogs. Now I don't feel so lonely. :)

Yes, a classic case of 'blame the victim'. Someone allowed their dog to rush yours, by not being firm with the leash. Your dogs were the victims. Much easier to point to 'evil' than to think about how the issue happened. Saves taking any personal responsibility. It's a stupid word to apply to dogs.

The Icelandic Sheepdog stood out for me, too. I'm no breed expert but something about that dog reminded me of the rescue Sheltie boy we adopted. Expert breed 'eyes' told us he was an 'old-fashioned'-type sheltie that looked less Rough Collie- like around the muzzle. The Shetland Islands were a Norse area as was Iceland. I wonder if there were common ancestors way back in the history of both breeds. Speculation only. Not saying. I'm really enjoying working my way thro' the videos which capture the dogs in real time.