mita

It's got nothing to do with 'having a piece of paper'. It has everything to do with what happens for a puppy while in their 'first human's' hands. That's the beginning of hard-wiring to become well socialised....or not. That was already known in the science. Of course, it could be speculated that breeders who place an emphasis on socialising their puppies well from the earliest age, would be likely to seek out homes where that was valued and continued. But the critical early base must be in place....on which later learning can build. (Incidentally, the Spanish study picked up on how people managed their dogs after acquiring them & living with them as pets.) The UQ study compared how registered and unregistered breeders dealt with their puppies. Of course, they recruited numbers of registered and non- registered breeders in numbers which would make the study scientifically viable. UQ is in the top 3 research universities in the country. Registered breeders were found to socialise their puppies better, during the critical first period. And the link was made with less likelihood of aggressive problems later. Have a look at this info on the Rotti Club of Vic website. See what you think. They pull together very well both findings (from those 2 pieces of research)....early base for socialisation by a breeder, then on-going management by an owner. http://www.rottweilerclubofvictoria.com/site/index.php?id=34

There's evidence about how dogs come to be predisposed towards seriously biting/attacking people...or not. Which applies irrespective of breed or mix. It requires understanding, for starters, that the dog's learning was hard-wired a long time past & during a critical developmental period as a puppy. Only response I've heard in the media, which has spoken to that, came from the Rotti Club of Victoria. Following a case where a rotti was involved in an attack. Excellent information given. And, perhaps not coincidentally, the best talk I've heard on radio re how to raise puppies, with this in mind, came from a registered rotti breeder in Victoria. She was helping the interviewer recover from the fact that her rotti does a brlliant job with pet therapy (including children & elderly people).

The Malamute Club has a point that there's a better chance that purebred Mals from registered breeders are less likely to be aggressive to humans. But they've got the reason wrong. It's not a case of being purebred, per se. The evidence is compelling that it's how a dog (of whatever breed or mix) is bred, raised and managed by PEOPLE which results in worrying aggressive behaviours. Like, there's a study from a Spanish university which compared a whole range of breeds. And, for the development of aggressive problems, it came down to human management , not breed per se. There's also home-grown research from UQ that registered breeders of purebreds are more likely to raise their puppies (during the critical developmental period) to be better socialised. Which means, the study pointed out, their dogs are less likely to show inappropriate aggression problems later. All of this does not mean that a purebred Mal will never turn out to be worryingly aggressive. It will still depend on how an individual puppy was raised, (especially in the key period for socialisation). It just means there's a better chance the dog has been better socialised, if it's come from a registered breeder. Every time one of these 'attacks' occurs, an opportunity to educate about the critical need for socialisation of pups from the earliest age, is lost. Only breed club I've ever heard speak to this angle, in the press, was the Rottie Club in Victoria. Their comments were spot on. Whoever is associated with that club, knows their onions!

As a fellow Catholic, I love that comment. Seriously, I'm amazed how this ID issue is being picked up again after all the tragic fall-out from the Qld experience. Where an amazing 21 point checklist, was used to visually ID PB-type dogs. Caused mayhem, until even the CEO of RSPCA Qld publicly admitted being chastened & repentant of it all (more Mick-talk there ). He said the issue had just led to many 'innocent family dogs' being seized & put down. The original point about breed banning was in the interests of public safety. But every bit of evidence has shown that breed or breed guesses are not the key to predicting which dogs are unsafe around humans. It comes down to how they're bred, raised & managed by humans. So now RSPCA Qld keeps saying publicly that it's a matter of deed, not breed. Examples of evidence are a study from one of the Spanish universities, which highlighted owner behaviour as the critical variable. And there's a clear statement from the American Veterinary Association, saying that chasing up the means for dog-safe environments, is not a matter of chasing certain breeds.

Good point. Especially as you've clearly said that this issue doesn't apply to the vast majority of dogs.

mikebailey, your questions are excellent. And I agree with your comments, geo.

I'd guess that'd be in the information you'd give the breeder. As I said, I also supplied a general character reference. And, if I'd not owned a dog before, that would give an idea of the type of person they were dealing with. If it weren't sufficient, for that breeder, I'd move on until I found one for whom it was.

agreed, sigh :D Why is asking for references &/ or the supplying of references peculiarly American...in your view?

I approve of the breeder telling people, on the website, that references will be required. As I said, it lets people like me who approve, continue... & those who don't, move on. As I've said the breeders didn't have to ask me. I approached them & in that enquiry indicated that I'd supply references. So they'd know, from the first instance, they're dealing with a person who takes adopting their dog/puppy/cat seriously. And have done the same when applying for a rescue pet. Diva, what is 'pretentious' about someone requiring documented evidence about who you are & what your history of owning pets has been like? I'd call it a necessity.

It wouldn't occur to me NOT to give references when I'm applying to get a puppy from a registered breeder who doesn't know me. I wouldn't need to be asked. If I make enquiries about a dog/puppy/cat from either a registered breeder or rescue, I tell them I'm happy to supply a reference (or contacts for referees). So that breeder, who asked, gets my approval. It was sensible to inform people, in the ad. So that those, like me, who are happy with the idea, will continue. And those who are not, can move on. References (& referee contacts) I've given are :vets who've known us well, neighbours who've lived next door for years (& lived thro' our pets :D ), & a general character reference from professional colleagues who've also known us well.

That's a delightful post. You're so right, dogs bring changes to our lives for the better. And it happens while we've been planning something else entirely. Our little dog, Tessa, passed the age of 13 yrs and then got nicknamed 'Gran', a new name that stuck. She lived for nearly 10 more years and became everyone's gran. Gran taught us patience... 'C'mon, life's too precious to get stressed out!' Other people who've owned the elderly dogs have said the same. They manage to bring more to us than we can ever bring to them.

Couldn't agree more.

Describing a way of breeding/raising dogs and not preferring it for rationally stated reasons, is not the same as 'kicking hell out of' anyone. It's what's done in most fields of work.

Sorry, NRMA, we'll have to agree to disagree. I didn't introduce the terms 'good' and 'bad' breeder. You did. It's not a moral issue. It's an issue that relates to what outcomes are worked towards, and how. And what I happen to prefer. You have selected one part of my second post to respond to....which referred to conformation. Conformation in a breed, is assessed via judging. That is the extent to which a dog conforms with the benchmark of breed standards. The judge is an agent of the body which sets the standard & is accountable to it. This is an evidentiary process, which is at the heart of showing. And essential for maintaining pure breeds. Labels like 'championship' titles are the codes for communicating among the breeders, providing information for decision-making re breeding. Titles reach across distance & across time, so are not dependent on personal communications. I made it clear in my previous post (just above) that breeding/raising dogs also involves goals relating to health, temperament and socialisation. All of which I find to be impressively covered by the majority of breeders in my breed of interest. They even have an international working party on health matters. And the unique personality traits of the breed are valued. As to socialisation, a reading of the australian breeders' websites indicates their understanding of its necessity to dogs' development & the means by which it's done. Incidentally, I pointed out that show attendance itself, adds to that socialisation. I also commented that the Junior Handlers' activities is one of the often over-looked gems of the show world, because of the social skills it can develop in both child and dog. My pet dogs, of my breed of interest, have come from this system of pure breed development with its in-built evidentiary process. Yet, they, too (like you say for your dogs) attract a great deal of public attention when out and about in everyday life. Not to mention from admiring vet staff and groomers. Because of their unique breed good looks and their delightful personalities. To the extent to which I carry references to where admiring people can find registered breeders who work within that system. People are taken by the fact that a little dog whose 'family' includes Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish & UK champions is as much at home as a family pet. And that the breeder who imported & showed her, wanted nothing better for her, but to enjoy a pet life, full-time, as soon as possible after her show career & 2 litter of puppies. Oh, and, as to any remarks about snobby luxury, that breeder had to have purchase money forced on her. Quality of life, in her opinion, was all she wanted for this little dog who'd done her bit in developing breed quality. As I've said previously, it's a free country. I have a breeder preference for those that show. And not for the work of those that don't.

It's impossible to say 'Yes' or 'No' to this statement, in public or otherwise. May is conditional...which means it depends on something. So 'just because someone isn't breeding to win a championship, they may still be doing something good for the breed'. That depends on there being some kind of agreed on benchmark (standard) for what is good. Plus there needs to be an objective means of assessing dogs against that benchmark. (Beyond the breeder herself.) And having some kind of labelling for the results so breeders can share the information across the breed. If all are in place, then you'd have evidence to say 'Yes' to your statement. Are all 3 in place, in the case of people who do not show? They're in place for those who do.

Are those dogs from breeders registered with the American Kennel Club? And have those dogs been registered with the AKC? If the answers are 'No', then any breed label can mean anything at all. Looks like in most of those pics, it does.

Well done, Kiwi. You're darn good looking too.

We have a secure, weather-proof verandah deck along the back of the house. The Tibbies are there when no one else is at home. They have a doggie door into the house, too. I'm lucky to have neighbours who also own a Tibbie. And we have an arrangement. If my neighbour is to be out for longer than 4 hours, then her Tibbie, Lily, comes in to be with my girls. If I'm out, then my neighbour, gives my girls a toilet break, a treat & a cuddle, every 4 hrs. When we had shelties, they could go down from the verandah deck to a small courtyard to go to the toilet. But our Tibbies' legs are too short to get back up the set of steep stairs.

I've said before that my preference is to only get a purebred dog from a registered breeder who shows their dogs. As well as doing all the things that develop a breed, both as a whole & in the interests of individual dogs. In terms of health, conformation, temperament and socialisation. The showing of dogs is a public assessment of extent to which standards (which are ideals) are being met. I appreciate the networking among registered breeders, using information re titles. In my breed of interest, the international widening of gene pools is thus assisted. At my feet is an exquisite p/b dog with a pedigree full of Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish & UK champions. And it shows. An experienced groomer just asked me what I was feeding her, to produce the beautiful coat. I replied, she came that way! 'Of course,' said the groomer. 'Breeding shows!' As her background would suggest. On another level, I even like the socialisation benefits to a dog in being taken to shows. And as someone interested in education, I believe that the Junior Handler activities are blooming brilliant....for children to learn a range of valuable skills. It's a free country & people can make their choices. But I won't be dealing with registered breeders who don't show. I just happen to prefer dealing with those who do. That's breeder preference, not breeder bashing.

Our little mixed breed dog lived until she was almost 23 yrs of age. I have no idea of her background because we found her thrown from a car as a small puppy. Visually, she looked like a cross between a black toy poodle & a tibbie. But, of course she could have been from a long line of mutts. She didn't have anything in her diet or lifestyle that was different from our other dogs. But she did have a strong-minded, feisty nature. Very sensible little dog. First vet treatment she required (apart from desexing) was some teeth surgery when she was 19 yrs old. I've also noticed the same thing about some of the purebreds we've owned. They've had excellent health during their lifetime. Like a sheltie & a tibbie, both from Qld registered breeders, never needed any treatment for any health problems during most of their lives. After they got desexed, from then on, they required nothing more than vaccinations & in later life, a teeth clean. Interestingly, both these were feisty natured girls, too. I found their health outstanding & it sure ensured them quality of life. And that's what I'm interested for our pets, quality of life.

There was a tragic case in Brisbane, years ago. A family's dog was found straying & impounded. (Dog had never hurt anyone). But the family could not afford the reclaim fee & the dog faced certain PTS. That was years before there were groups who rescue from death row in pounds The boy in the family (about 12 yrs old I think he was) took it on himself to try to break into the pound one night to rescue his dog. But his wire cutters snipped thro' a live electric cable. And he was electrocuted. This awful story had a big impact & hundreds turned up for his funeral. While an anonymous donor sent money to the council so the family could get the doggie back. Which they did.

Me, too. And there are plenty in my breed of interest who do it admirably. They manage to produce beautiful dogs & stay true to the fact that this breed is distinguished by a very special personality. I've been fortunate that some of these breeders have retired ex-showdogs to me. I think it's a privilege as well as a delight to own them. And I love the way, such a breeder will always ask me, 'How are my girls?'. That speaks volumes for their expertise & care. The future of the breed is in good hands!

I was looking up the site to get a link for their (v. good) pet therapy page. But kept getting a notice saying 'site unavailable'.

Thanks. I looked up the locations on the RSPCA website & it includes Nundah and Samford. Both these are closer, on the northside. You'd be right about UQ, being out this year due to flood affects. I see that other locations close to Brisbane are Cleveland & Ipswich.

You can add the Scots to that list JB, you're right. My apologies to the Scots of gaelic background.