mita

That's good he has a caring son who's watching over him. He is very vulnerable. You didn't laugh at his cognitive decline condition. You laughed at your own dog, a Cocker, with a Pitbull label on it.

Something has to be done to regulate use of labels in pet stores (& by backyard breeders, too). If they tell customers a puppy is 'purebred', that should only be permitted under Truth in Advertising, if proper pedigree papers are also provided. But the pet stores here have made a real thing about not identifying the breeder... And it appears those selling to pet stores (registered or not), tend not to want their details passed on. And you're right, there needs to be education about what 'papers' are, so the backyard breeders can't just type something on a piece of paper. The UK law says that a breeder's identity must go on a means of ID that follows the puppy (each puppy is given a 'breeding' number). I don't know, if since then, that's been combined with the microchip. But it'd be a darn good thing.

Seems you'll be waiting a long time, for any answers, Jed. If they come at all. Thank goodness someone has stood up and questioned the exaggerated assertions & statements being made about registered breeders (as a group).

I'm not a NSW resident, but people are welcome to use any points.

What should be talked about is puppy farming.....as a technique, not just a place. Someone who breeds from a few dogs in a backyard, but who fails to develop them as socialised companion animals, and sells them as a commercial undertaking, is puppy farming. Someone who has big numbers, kept in pristine conditions, with good food & vet care.....but also fails to develop dogs & puppies as socialised companions, is also puppy farming. I can't see any reference to the key research about socialisation of both adult dogs & puppies being highlighted in this 'new approach' by PIAA in NSW. Yet, that links with what happens to dogs later. Puppies from breeding places that don't provide for it, are more likely to be dumped. Providing adequate socialisation doesn't fit into a commercially profitable breeding business. Neither does this 'new approach' pick up on another vital piece of research. A major reason extracted from people surrendering dogs to pounds & shelters was that 'the dog had not lived up to their expectations'. Which means what those people had in their heads when they bought a puppy, did not match with the reality of actually living with it. In some cases, that could be an owner acquiring a breed not suitable for their lifestyle and means to provide. So screening of potential owners at Point of Sale is critical.....& matching owners with a breed likely to fit lifestyle.....& counselling about the realities of life with dogs (toilet training, barking, expenses, adequate fencing.....huge list)....& providing support as new owners deal with reality. Pet shops do not have the means or staff with expertise to do all that. Besides, being a commercial enterprise, they sell to the person who hands over the money. And that's the end of it. I'm appalled that RSPCA NSW is coming in on this.....while the above research is available. Both were carried out by UQ in Q'ld. In contrast, RSPCA Q'ld, in a newsletter February 2011, advised people looking for puppies to go to a good breeder (my definition is one who provides socialisation/screening/counselling) or to the RSPCA Shelters or ethical Rescues. The Companion Animal Taskforce in NSW appears to be firmly headed in a commercial direction. Yet the most critical aspects of puppies/dogs becoming companion animals that 'stick' in homes, are not compatible with the present commercial setting.

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

Yes to what Crisovar posted. I also see why it'd be good to get good registered breeders where the pet buyers are. My 2 dogs are retired showgirls from an excellent breeder. Pretty golden little things that were well socialised when they came to me. So they're full of confidence when out & about. People are forever coming up to me & asking can they pat them. Then follows the questions about what are they & where did I get them. The biggest surprise is when I say they're purebreds, ex-showdogs, from a registered breeder. These are the common comments: "I didn't know that show people sold puppies/dogs to pet people. I thought they only sold to other show people.' 'I didn't know that dogs from show people are so friendly. I thought they just pranced around a ring.' 'I wouldn't know how to find one of those breeders.' At that moment, I wish I had the registered breeder on the spot to introduce her....with all she could tell them. Incidentally, I make a point that the purebreds I've got from registered breeders have not been 'instant'. I tell the people I had to wait patiently , for a few months, for my Annie girl. As lovely Annie is usually reclining in their lap at that point, I can truthfully add, 'Quality is worth waiting for!' So, anything that links the pet buying public with the purebred breeding world is good with me. As I said before, I'd even like generic ads, maybe pointing to Breed Club sites or the Dogzonline Community pages.

Mumsy, just my opinion. But I think there are 2 posts on the first page that would be spot on to show to your friends. First, Jed talked straight.....but not abusively....about the responsibility owners have towards the dog they've taken in. And indicated that it wasn't just an emotional reaction but ought to be about working at bonding. Second, Pretty Miss Emma gave some good tips on how she was advised to do that. My own thoughts are that it's a situation where a good example in problem-solving can be given to the children. Rather than just, 'Don't like. Chuck!' Also adding that people can own a couple (or more) dogs & find that one specially grabs their heart. Sometimes called a 'heart-dog'. But that is no reason for the other dog....or dogs....to be passed on. It's necessary to work at & find a 'connection' of some kind with the other dog. But so far, nothing specific's been given about any behaviours, traits or characteristics of that dog. Yet that's the info needed for any plan. If a well thought out plan is tried & doesn't work out, then it's a different matter.

Given that the bloke's comment was so far off the mark, I wondered if there was an outside chance of something cognitively wrong. Good on you for checking with your OH & coming back to tell us. I hope he's got a support system, like family & friends. This kind of thinking where associations don't match up....& where he's forgetting things....can make him very vulnerable.

I disagree with you. Values people hold, are by their very nature related to emotions. And it's people's differing values which determined their responses to that particuar photo. Which is to be expected. Values are subjective judgments about what is important to us. My last word on the matter.

Yes, you are the only person who continues to refer to the UQ findings. I think you have a good point that some different language should be used to refer to socialisation. The word just sounds like jargon..... We need ways to accurately describing the best way to raise puppies in everyday words as the good breeders do it. 'Properly raised puppies' is a good start.

My point entirely. Yes, and I hope you've also taken my point that people will & can differ in their personal responses to what is depicted in that actual photo. Many posters have confined themselves to their personal responses.

I have given my personal response to the photo. I've pointed out that, tho' I do not agree with what's presented in the photo, that does not constitute my discrediting a man I know nothing else about. I have no idea how this man behaves in any other situation such as the Companion Animals Working Group in NSW. A person's behaviour can not be predicted from one photo. All my comments were specifically related to my personal response.

Who says its "evidence"? Someone's grabbed a shot in God knows what context and now its being used here to attempt to discredit Steve Austin. I'm not a fan but I don't agree that smiling for a camera with proof of the success of your latest feral animal eradication project is a cardinal sin. I'm not discrediting Steve Austin. I know nothing about the man. All I know is a photo that I'm looking at. And I don't like the behaviour expressed in that photo. It's a matter of taste and choices re behaviour. I'm find it distasteful & don't agree with the choice of behaviour. You do. Welcome to the world where people think differently. Where people have different values. 'God' and 'cardinal sins' have nothing to do with it. 'Nothing's either right or wrong, but thinking makes it so'. Which is why I read your position with interest, but I don't agree with it. And don't give a damn that you hold it.

We don't want it to happen, we need it to happen, that feral animals be culled. When presented with 'seeing' it, I don't like the person brandishing a dead body and relishing what they've done. That is not a necessary part of the culling to personalise it, in such a distasteful way. God forbid people involved in programs to eliminate feral pests should take pride in their work. I have no problem with a sense of achievement. I do have a problem with someone relishing killing, however necessary. God forbid, a person might exercise some rationality.

If you are a lover of native marsupials, my guess is you'd be grinning too. That photo is evidence that the use of dogs to track and assist with the elimination of feral cats WORKS. I'd find that something to celebrate. See my later posts. You've guessed wrongly about my emotional responses. I have no problem with the need. I don't grin over a body I've killed, however necessary. Evidence can be presented in dispassionate means. It's a necessity....

We don't want it to happen, we need it to happen, that feral animals be culled. When presented with 'seeing' it, I don't like the person brandishing a dead body and relishing what they've done. That is not a necessary part of the culling to personalise it, in such a distasteful way.

There is a problem with feral animals & it has to be considered what are the most humane methods to cull. But I agree with PS & Bartok, I find a photo of someone so relishing their 'kill' distasteful & disturbing.

You can always be relied on to zero in on the most important point about the breeding of dogs as companions/helpmates to humans. That has to be in place first....all else then follows. A totally different approach to dog breeding, from that presented by the PIAA, needs to be in the public eye.

No, it simply was a general question. Because Animal Liberation was the only other organisation, than the PIAA, mentioned in the OP.

Something can be legal, but not the right thing to do. I explained why I have concerns with the PIAA's notions of breeding & selling puppies, in my first post And how ethical registered breeders, who behave accordingly, have been found to raise the best socialised puppies (research). That is not saying that all registered breeders DO behave accordingly. It simply says that when that system is at its best, it does best by the puppies & new owners. Not double standards.....but a range in standards.

There's a Trade Practices Act which would not allow an association such as the ANKC to enforce a ban. So it's not a case of the ANKC 'allowing' registered breeders to sell puppies in a pet shop or not. But it does not contravene that Act to have recommended guidelines on homing puppies & dogs, in terms of screening for suitability, providing follow-up advice & support etc. As many registered breeders, who provide appropriate care for their puppies & dogs, do. And, as far as I know, such a relationship between breeder & potential puppy owner is urged, ethically. So that makes it OK? Registered ANKC breeders selling to pet shops and the public are supposed to think that ANKC breeders are ethical and operating under an ethical system? I think not. No one says that it's OK. It happens to be not illegal. Because of the Trade Practices Act, an association can't state and enforce a ban. Best they can do is suggest ethical guidelines which they can't make binding. If there were another piece of legislation which said that the sale of dogs & puppies were in a different category, then the situation could be different (which has been tried & defeated. Remember Clover Moore's efforts?). Why is Animal Liberation the only group that gives a counter case in public matters like this ? Thank goodness someone does. But I'd like to see other groups commenting, from other angles.

There's a Trade Practices Act which would not allow an association such as the ANKC to enforce a ban. So it's not a case of the ANKC 'allowing' registered breeders to sell puppies in a pet shop or not. But it does not contravene that Act to have recommended guidelines on homing puppies & dogs, in terms of screening for suitability, providing follow-up advice & support etc. As many registered breeders, who provide appropriate care for their puppies & dogs, do. And, as far as I know, such a relationship between breeder & potential puppy owner is urged, ethically.

Yes, the devil is in the details. And the only detail in the PIAA quote is that the pet shops will only buy from breeders who 'care for their dogs'. Yes, there are farmers who 'care for' their cows, pigs and cabbages....but they don't develop them to be companion animals as dogs need to be. Has anyone from PIAA read the extensive research on dog behaviour, in general, and on human-dog relationships, in particular? If they had, I'd expect to see what passes for 'care' by breeders to be far more extensive that clean premises, food and veterinary attention. (That's how lab rats are raised.) The critical component in 'care' of puppies & dogs as companion animals, is socialisation. The research shows that it's registered breeders who are more likely to do this, rather than unregistered breeders. And these breeders, who have a closeness with their puppies and dogs, are far less likely to hand them over to a commercial pet store, where the pups are sold to the first person who turns up with money. With no screening for suitable match for both welfare and suitability. So that quote alone does not hold up....a breeder who cares for their dogs by providing the appropriate care, is not likely to hand their puppies over to a pet store to be sold to god knows who. And to know nothing of their future. By contrast, years after adopting purebred dogs from a registered breeder, she still asks me how 'her girls' are going. And I love it. It's why I own beautifully socialised dogs who came to me like that.

That's a lovely write-up that shows how well Donatella got to know his nature. It tells people what Marty's so good at....& what he needs to be happy and safe. The pics are gorgeous! Well done, all of you who've helped Marty.