mita

Corvus, I'm still trying to find the more recent article, comparing dog breeds, in terms of comparisons with the wolf. Given it was based on knowledge which followed the genome project, it was based on something tangible. The earlier stuff tended to be based on someone's idea & assessment of dog behaviours (& we know how contentious that can be!). I've got a feeling it might have been in the Scientific American. Shall keep looking... But I did find a great diagram showing the evolution of dog breeds in relation to wolves (thanks to the genome project). This article also picks up on something I read in the article I can't find . Which was, there's a set of East Asian dog breeds that have a very high level of genetic sharing with Chinese wolves. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/...00317144640.htm

Isn't that a beautiful photo of the 2 'boys together. The article is great, helping to spread word about working dog breeds needing new homes. Great save, by all concerned, & warmest wishes to Kenny's wonderful new family.

There was an article in New Scientist, way back in 1997, where a researcher had described & ranked some domestic dog breeds in terms of the extent to which each one compared with a 'grown up' wolf. Right at the bottom end, Cavaliers (I think it was) came out as never getting further than the level of a 20 week wolf puppy. I remember reading that article, but couldn't get it up from the NS. However, there was a summary on Don Burke's (sorry about that!) website. http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/factsheet...an-Pooches/2168 BUT I also remember reading a much later article, in the New Scientist (or the Scientific American), making comparisons among dog breeds as a result of the later opening up of genome research. I'm still looking for it. I vaguely remember it referred to certain breeds as more 'ancient' & I was surprised at the dogs on it. Maybe that links with what Monah was saying about primitive dogs breeds.

UQ, like any university, carries out objective research. And also supplies research discussion papers on request. That's their relationship with Government. They're a source of evidence-based information. Like, the management of unwanted dogs and cats paper prepared by Prof Jacqui Rand, UQ, & a fellow academic from Monash. It's referred to on the Dpt of Primary Industries website: http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/4790_6430.htm That site also mentions funding to some councils, in order to come up with ways that better deal with the breeding, supply, sale & responsible ownership of cats and dogs. To reduce numbers of unwanted numbers flooding into pounds & shelters. The Gold Coast Council, via a working committee of wide representation (Dogs Qld, Feline Association, AWL, RSPCA etc) saw this thro' to implementation. There's now a Breeders' Permit/Code of Practice required on the Gold Coast...applies to anyone who breeds. AWL Qld writes: Reasonable standards which responsible breeders can easily meet are set out in a new Code of Practice for the Keeping and Breeding of Entire Cats and Dogs. These standards cover enclosure, housing, food and water, hygiene, socialisation, exercise, training and enrichment, health care, breeding/rearing of young animals, responsible selling, and record keeping. It's required that all breeders publish their their breeder permit number in any advertising as well as giving it to the person adopting an animal. The AWL also says they urge people in the Gold Coast Council area (where these laws only apply) to ask for this permit number whenever buying a puppy or kitten. And refusing to enter into dealings where a verifiable number is not available. There's more information about this system & other intiatives that go with it (like discounted desexing), on the Gold Coast City Council website. I don't know what's in place to test the efficacy of this new system. At the least, data can be collected to extract some stats. Jed, I agree with your point that Dogs Qld already has a code of ethical guidelines. I've always thought that the Qld listing is excellent. And should be made more public, so that people can see for themselves what high standards registered breeders are set. Dogs Qld was on the working party that came up with this Gold Coast system so I'd hope that point would've been made. For myself, when giving suggestions to people I know, about how to get a puppy, I give them the RSPCA Qld Imprint article on fighting puppy-farming....which states 'If you want a pure-bred dog, visit a Canine Control Council-registered breeder only and...ensure conditions are humane.' More recently, I add the summary of the recent UQ research which concluded that registered breeders socialise their puppies better. Never, has anyone come back later & told me they've been disappointed in the dealings they've had &/or the purebred puppies they've adopted. And that's about it, IMO.

Yes.

I think you're right, Brooke. It's not until somebody sees the full horror of these places that it dawns on you. Maybe Dr Chris took in the feedback that came in after that business of buying a puppy from the store. It referred to the hellholes that can lay behind 'shop' puppies. Now he's seen one & the poor little creatures who've 'lived' there.

Well said, quoll. I know someone here who gave specialist foster-care to a small dog rescued from a horrendous puppy-farm. Ping was a pretty little 12 months old tibbie girl, with white & gold coat. Really funny, tho', because she had orange legs. After a few months the orange started to fade. Turns out, it was the result of living her life at the puppy farm, nearly up to leg-tops in urine & faeces. It'd dyed her white legs orange.

A couple I know who own a tibbie boy have come from northern NSW to Qld's Sunshine Coast annually, to visit the wife's mum who lives in a unit (dogs are not allowed to stay at those units). They have a routine where the tib boy is booked into a good kennels on the Sunshine Coast. With the kennels' cooperation, they use the kennels like a motel for him. The tib is dropped at the kennels in the late afternoon with his own blankie & toys, and has his dinner there. He sleeps at the kennels overnight, & has breakfast next morning. Then his family picks him up & he spends the day out and about with them, he can visit at the unit, go to the beach, on drives, shopping, whatever. Then late afternoon he goes back to sleep overnight at the kennels. His family pays the usual full price for kennelling. Apparently, it's not unusual for some kennels to cater for dogs on holiday like that. So I'd follow up what you've said. See if you can find a kennels in the area where you're staying, which would be happy to do a routine like this.

Herbie's replacement is written up in the latest North-West News, Brisbane. Sniffing out danger After intensive training, one of Gallipoli Barracks' (Enoggera, Brisbane) newest recruits is on the front line. Trent, a kelpie-cross cattle dog, and Sapper Shaun Ward, have joined other engineers from Brisbane's 2nd Combat Engineer Regiment to help detect IEDs and weapon caches in one of the most dangerous jobs in Afghanistan. ... The sniffer dog has been trained to detect 50 different types of explosives and will be a valuable asset to Australian forces in Afghanistan. The pair travelled to Uruzgan province to replace Sapper Darren Smith and Herbie, who were killed in an IED strike in June. But Trent is more that man's best friend - they share meals, workload and space in his swag. Man and dog will spend every waking and sleeping minute together over the next few months as they scour Uruzgan for deadly weapons. Stay safe, Shaun & Trent.

Cavs seem to get the special mention in the TV programs which suggest purebreds, as a group, are shonky. But here's a Cav who lived to a ripe age of 14 yrs or so. And who was a working dog most of his life. Truly. Buddy the Cav, from a registered breeder, started work, when only a little bloke, as a therapy dog at Everton Park State High School in Brisbane. His job was to bring love & comfort (when necessary) to the students in the special education unit. Buddy carried out this work, with distinction, for 12 years. Only recently, he passed away. The school has a memorial plaque mounted on the wall with a picture of the handsome Buddy & the words: Buddy: A friend to everyone Buddy's ashes were buried in the school garden last week. He'll be greatly missed by a whole school & the general community.

This is a masterpiece ;) Contains a dose of just about every bit of lunacy that's ever been uttered on the search for a new dog. I'm so glad HeavyPaws came up with the Child Friendly Perfect Dog for such a discerning pet owner.

Yes.

It's socialisation which is required for puppies. That's learning to form relationship with people. Both from people-contact at a critical early stage & from modelling from a socialised mother. This is a necessary base for later behaviours, for all breeds. As to research. From the University of Qld Vet Connect, Summer 2008: ...studies show there is a 'critical socialisation' period for puppies between 5 and 14 weeks of age, when it is essential puppies become familiar with a wide range of experieces. That is vital for forming proper social relationships with people and other dogs, later in life. If the puppies have not been socialised with people before 14 weeks of age, they are unable to form normal attachments with people.

If puppies are sold to be companion pets from a place run like that, it's just as much a consumer issue. There's plenty of scientific evidence that puppies need to be hard-wired for bonding with humans via socialisation in critical early weeks. There's also evidence that the extent of socialisation of mother dogs has effects on puppies. A non-socialised mother does not provide the behavioral modelling which is also required. Places that leave out this critical factor, should be exposed as not preparing puppies to be what they're sold for. Pets, companion dogs alongside humans. (Which is why even the puppies bred to be military dogs are provided with the highest level of early & continuing socialisation.) So another group that should be involved in stamping out puppy-farming, should be the Australian Consumers' Association, also known as CHOICE. Who already set out some guidelines for people wanting to buy a companion puppy. Which maybe could be updated to take into account this critical issue. Next rally or public forum on banning puppy farming should invite along not only the relevant Kennel Association, but also CHOICE.

No one is saying that individual people are not doing the right thing by their dogs, simply because they are not registered with the Kennel Association. What the UQ study found is that problems lay more in the direction of unregistered breeders re the factors screened for. Not that all didn't. Nor did the study say that individual people are doing the right thing by their dogs, simply because they are registered with the Kennel Association. The study found that registered breeders were significantly more likely to do so, re the factors screened for. Not that all did. Their study was a comparison of registered and unregistered breeders. As concern has been expressed by registered breeders that they will be demonised/penalised as a result of efforts to cut out puppy-farming, it makes sense that their Kennel Association becomes the centre for their self-regulation according to the ethical guidelines. It is, after all, both their registering body & the source for their ethical guidelines. Whatever unregistered breeders want to do, in the face of this move against puppy-farming, is over to them.

The UQ study found the trend was towards registered breeders getting it right in socialising their puppies & controlling their litters. That means the significant number must be complying with the ethical guidelines of their Canine Association. Because you've have to do that, in order to get those outcomes. There you have a ready-made case that the ethical guidelines of the Canine Associations are already making a significant positive impact on the breeding of purebred dogs. It's logical, then, that further emphasising self-regulation by the professional association would be a way to go. If something is working, just make the same thing work even better. Simply introduce keeping of basic health care record cards plus Canine Association ethical guidelines in the form of self-checklists, and insert a requirement that a registered breeder is willing to have an Association representative visit. (Note, just be willing, not some schedule of visits). Rogue registered breeders can be picked up via these means & by (what others have mentioned) current council/kennel licensing requirements. It's at that level, there'd be a role for the RSPCA, which should be grateful that self-management would already have screened out as fine, the majority of registered breeders. Those arguing for further laws to combat puppy-farming should be made aware of the UQ study findings.....which clearly found the worrying trends were more towards unregistered breeders. Which means it would have been a good thing for a DOGS Vic registered breeder representing best practice breeding & raising of puppies, to have addressed that rally.

So true, Steve, that one of the most critical things that forms the best of companion dogs, is an early genuine, loving bond with their carers. Which is a mental & emotional 'thing'. You're right...impossible to put into the terms required by a law. Maybe we could separate out, basic requirements laid down by law to breed & sell puppies... from consumer education about what to look for in getting a puppy that's been well bred & raised. The public need some education re the critical mental & emotional learning young puppies need. And to seek out only puppies raised under such a regime....as well as in humane settings, of course. But those 2 things go together. Which is why I would have loved that Rottie breeder I posted about, to get up at that rally & say exactly what I heard her say on an ABC radio program. I don't have too many problems about breeders having to keep a health record of the basics. When my tib was used for testing the greyhounds in the GAP program (most came from v. responsible owners), I was impressed by the health record card that came with the greys. Very similar actually, to what I've kept for our pet dogs & cats (& for children, too!). I also don't have any problems with the very sensible guidelines set out by the Canine Associations being translated into a checklist, that a breeder simply ticks off, as having been followed. And with permission given, for a representative of their Canine Association, to come visit. No schedule of visits, but just indication of willingness. This to my way of thinking, is self-management by the registered breeders themselves thro' the overview of their professional organisation OK, we all know that there will still exist rogue breeders who are also registered. But if the UQ research is right, the majority registered breeders do an OK job in raising their puppies & controlling numbers of litters. That study found the big problem was with unregistered breeders, who are wild cards, totally outside any governing body with ethical guidelines, & not socialising their puppies well nor controlling numbers of litters.

Pam, if I had to single out the most essential thing that marks out a puppy-farmer....it's that a PF not only doesn't experience that bond you've described. But he/she wouldn't even know it exists. Yet, every piece of research shows that it's the critical early weeks bonding experience that a puppy must have, if he/she's to develop into a sound companion dog. It's not just psych fluff, it relates to how the puppy's brain gets hard-wired. Even the military dogs breed up at Amberley, have this same close-human bond beginning, in the specially built puppy place on the base. Humans handle them from birth, with great affection. When old enough to let loose, the puppies have a great, supervised time on the base (swinging on ladies' skirts & not caring about jets roaring over). At 4 months, out they go to enjoy fostering in family life with all its activities, until it's time to return to the base to start military training. By that time, they've been beautifully socialised & fully capable of forming the strongest of bonds with a handler.

This pic sums up a good 'birthing' establishment for my preferred breed which shines as an inside companion dog. Pic taken in a room of a registered breeder's house, with a 'baby-sitter' helping out. By the way, the baby-sitter is not related to the puppies. Just another family member helping out & taking a snooze. Another secret ingredient in a beautifully bred pure-bred dog. Don't know if and how this could ever be put into legislation, tho'. Wouldn't it just follow that every step needed to care for these babies would be taken by such a breeder?

Steve, I know what you're saying. The registered breeders that I've adopted my adult tibbies from stay in touch & always ask 'How is my girl going?' And I love them for it. Just shows with how much love, care & personal attention those dogs were raised. OK, they're my dogs now, paid for (with money the breeders didn't care much about), microchipped and registered in my name. But there's a lovely bond that will always exist between their breeder & them. So, of course, they still say, 'My dog'. That's the precious, secret ingredient in the best produced purebred dogs. Pet-owners should know that's what to look for! It's the key thing that puppy-farming (whoever does it) does not do...& hasn't a clue even exists.

What rose-coloured glasses? I've cited actual examples with actual outcomes. Also known as rational thinking. I believe that being proactive leads to progress.

With respect, I disagree. Situations in Europe can throw up ONE way in which a breeder's purebred dogs can be kept. No one is suggesting, it should be the only way. The champion-stock greyhound girl next door (in Australia) is kept according to that system. Results are...happy dog, happy pet owner, happy syndicate & splendid contributions to the bloodline. MY purebred dogs will never be kept at anyone else's property - never. Well, each to their own. As someone who owns a companion house-dog breed, I prefer a system where the dog I get has been raised as close as possible to everyday pet circumstances. I note, with approval, how so many registered breeders of my breed, state on their Dogzonline Profiles that they raise their dogs in pet circumstances as part of the family life. So, I'd also approve, if and when breeders (of my breed) elect to have one of the dogs 'owned' as a pet by a suitable person who gives them a similar life... but available for showing & maybe a planned litter. Most seem to retire their dogs from showing around 4,5,6 years, when they get desexed, anyway (some, earlier). So the dogs would have continuity in their lives. 1 to 2 litters seem to be the norm. It gave my tibbie girl a good life in Sweden & it gives the greyhound next door the same, when otherwise she'd be confined completely to a greyhound breeding property.

With respect, I disagree. Situations in Europe can throw up ONE way in which a breeder's purebred dogs can be kept. No one is suggesting, it should be the only way. The champion-stock greyhound girl next door (in Australia) is kept according to that system. Results are...happy dog, happy pet owner, happy syndicate & splendid contributions to the bloodline.

I get what you're saying. But from what I've picked up from the European breeders, they believe such a system, where other people might have their show dogs as pets, is actually good for the dogs. They get the best of both worlds. My own dog from Europe came from that system, when young, & she was beautifully socialised as both a pet and as a showdog. And I notice what a good life, the greyhound girl next door has. She, too, has a great pet life, but still contributes to the stock of a champion sprinter bloodline via specialist care on a property when litter is planned. It seems ONE humane & progressive way for purebred dogs to live and contribute, too. Fits in with present laws & is not best conceptualised as a way to avoid laws. It has good goals in its own right.

No Mita, they did have other options open to them - discussion, education and giving a warning. The RSPCA does not go for the throat on every case they are notified about, but they seemingly did with this one. To the best of my knowledge none of the above 3 options were used with Judy Gard. They just rocked up with the warrant and the film crew! If I am wrong on that approach, please correct me. Souff ]That's a fair comment, Souff, about earlier steps re educating, before the option of prosecuting. The much later Qld law on cruelty actually has that written into it. But I honestly don't remember seeing that written anywhere, in the Victorian law. I did notice, tho', how strong the Victorian law was on debarking. They actually bundled it along with tail docking. My own reading was that the Victorian law reflected a 'take no prisoners' approach to debarking. To the extent to which that law even discounts what's been done, legally, in another state. It seems debarking (even if legally done in another state) is up there with major crimes in Victoria... Frankly, makes me think that my own suggestion of seeking Law Reform on that issue, wouldn't get too far, down there.