mita

I had a Cavvy, too. I found the personality questions terribly hard to rate because I didn't know how that particular Cavvy actually behaved. I wanted to write "I wouldn't have a clue unless I spent a bit of time with the dog in different settings.' So my 'didn't describe' ratings were more 'I don't know.'

Well said. The photos are gorgeous.

Would it help, then, to declare it officially a Dog Beach. Like Q'ld has one at Nudgee. With a sign & conditions.... so that anyone coming on to it, knows what to expect. And to avoid, if it's not their thing.

When we were kids my father used to say, when we were poorly, 'You can eat. You'll live.' So I put great store on a good appetite. So best of news that MUP's hungry. It's good, tho', she's getting the problem thoroughly tracked down, in a hospital. Please pass on my best wishes.

That is so sweet! Police taking their lunch break around the Zen-calm of cats. :) What a great way to socialize the pusses, get them into the public eye & also provide a community service. Along with the other projects I read about on their website... they'd be do-able here. With not a lot of expense. I very much liked the Compassion & Loving program, linking (carefully chosen) young people from the Juvenile Justice System with shelter dogs.

I don't know how feasible it is, in your case, but we've always cooperated with doing some socialising among our dogs that share neighbouring fences. . We get them to meet first on neutral grounds... & then have meet-up play dates in the various yards. We've also taken them in a little mixed-neighbour group for short walks. So they've tended to band together at the fencelines, in a 'pal' group. Every morning our little dogs head for the fenceline & just lie there together with the neighbour's dog, chilling out. The greyhounds at the back, get up much later, so our Annie then goes on to lie at that fenceline, waiting for them. The neighbour's greyhound puppies have been socialised like that with our little dogs (& the one next door). When they come back home a couple of years later... they run straight to the fenceline, tails wagging, to catch up with their old friends. We've been lucky that all the dogs' temperaments have been suitable. I can imagine that, in some circumstances, it'd be not safe to even try.

Which is what I do. I wring the flannel a bit first & give a good rub thro' down to the skin. I put a tiny drop of highly concentrated Nil-Odor in the warm water, for a lovely fresh smell. I also sometimes put a little Fido's Free-Itch Concentrate in the water (it's a product you leave in).

Totally agree. While still taking sandgrubber's point that when all is well, dewclaws can serve a real purpose in specific situations which most of our Oz dogs won't be in, anyway..

Anyone told you, you're a genius! A Clayton's DNA Test. :)

Yes, the US behaviourist bloke who wrote the book about keeping dogs in apartments, said people could get a pretty instant.... or at least a few times effort... to put a dog off barking, by doing something that made one hell of a noise. He suggested banging 2 saucepans. But any loud, unusual, scary noise would do. Also in these threads in the past, suggestion's been made to wind a roll of black plastic weed mat along the fenceline so the dogs can't see each other.

WX, I didn't know that about pet saliva. I'd heard that about cat saliva & allergies. But I should've figured the same would apply to dogs. Also how pets can bring in allergens on their fur (long or short) from outside. But so can humans. One tip given to people during the really bad pollen season, is to wash their hair when they come home.

O/T but you made me curious. Looked it up. You're right...innovative & inspiring. http://spcala.com/humane_education/humaneeducation.php

From the Mayo Clinic: Interesting they say allergens can be on the fur. Seems all fur can pick up allergens like pollens, smoke etc from outside. Cats and dogs Allergens from cats and dogs are found in skin cells the animals shed (dander), as well as in their saliva, urine and sweat and on their fur. Dander is a particular problem because it is very small and can remain airborne for long periods of time with the slightest bit of air circulation. It also collects easily in upholstered furniture and sticks to your clothes. Pet saliva can stick to carpets, bedding, furniture and clothing. Dried saliva can become airborne. So-called hypoallergenic cats and dogs may shed less fur than shedding types, but no breed is truly hypoallergenic. I agree many pets owners mean they don't want a messy house when they ask for 'non-shedding'. But I've found both long & short hair bring their own problems. There's drifts of fur from the shelties & tibs. But there's little sharp spikes of hair from the short-haired dogs. I get our pet tibbies clipped...in our Qld weather they're more comfy.

Frankly, Steve, I've made my position clear & indicated why. So I'm leaving the matter here.

I've already indicated, Steve, that the original situation did not fit with my ethical standards. Which are informed by the recent US research that found sound companion dogs tend to come from certain kinds of breeding/raising arrangements. And those arrangements just happen to match the personal ethical standards of the registered breeders that I've supported by adopting their dogs. For the reasons I've set out. Credit should be given where credit is due. This person's animals appear healthy & in well groomed condition. But, it's a free country & commenting about the situation not matching the one that I would support, is fair. Others may disagree about the situation I'd support. Someone else may say that it's personally unethical for them to rehome one of their showdogs when he'/she retires. And that's fair enough. Ethics are personal decisions about what seems right or wrong. The real clanger in this case, is that it appears to have become a matter for prosecution, where actual physical evidence would be expected. The kind of evidence that would stand on its own. It hasn't remained in the area of ethical decisions. Where I think it belongs.

I'm being fair, too, based on the physical evidence. And I can only see it as a matter of ethical standards.... & not anything to do with physical cruelty to animals. I also think it's highly significant that the RSPCA was not involved. As I've already said, not a matter for prosecution. It's not unreasonable to personally expect that breeders keep a balance in the face of expanding numbers. The ones I have respect for....ethically....do so. A good reason why I own retired showdogs from such breeders. They balance their numbers & keep accommodation stresses in check.... so they can continue developing their breed, but in manageable numbers. which allow close relationships with their dogs & a great amount of freedom & stimulation. As I've said.... it's also a consumer issue. O/T great rejoicing here. Retired show-dog pet tib next door's 'cousin' just won BOB at Brisbane Royal. But our retired show-dog pet tib answers that her 'aunt' won BOB at Crufts.

Help me out here. You made a comment about how it appeared the property had grown, like Topsy, over the years. I picked up on your point because it seemed to describe the situation to me, too. I expanded on that same notion, .... that if someone's numbers of dogs will grow , then it's reasonable they should consider what that might mean for the accommodation. I made it clear that I owned that expansion, not you. Your second comment that I agreed with was that you said 'there is a lot of dogs'.... 'more than the average dog enthusiast'. I picked it up & agreed with it. I expanded on my agreement that it had implications for socialisation. And made it clear that the expansion was mine. So, overall, I did not change anything you said. But agreed with 2 points. And expanded with my thoughts. What consideration do you want in the future?

I have no idea what the specific parts of those 3 laws what this person will be charged with. And I am a great supporter of registered breeders. But allowing numbers of dogs to outgrow reasonable facilities for them is not on, ethically. I know the Kennel Associations are basically registeries, but I'd like to see them do more professional education among their members on how to manage numbers, basic accommodation & care, and stimulation and socialisation. They've already got loads of members who do these things well.... as mentors. As others have said, there's no mention yet of vet reports of serious health conditions. Nor was it seen necessary to provide physical care by taking the dogs into care. Pity there's not a section in the Victorian cruelty laws, like there is in the Q'ld law, which says first intervention by the authorities, like RSPCA, can be on an educational level. That is, helping the person clean up their act in some respects. I think this case fits a category like that. So this case seems to come down to numbers management, stimulation and socialization issues. But, what is annoying, is that the new draft Victorian Code is full of pie in the sky about managing much larger numbers of dogs... & their provisions for stimulation & socialization are inadequate. Mita what do you mean by this - there was only one dog in each pen and they had stacks of space to move and run in - Im not sure what you are saying when you say they shouldnt be allowed to out grow the facilities - to be honest based on the codes and legislations etc and what large scale commercial breeders do even what boarding kennels do and very small suburban breeders do there seems loads of space and nothing appears to be un accommodated. People who know the dogs and who have visited and know the breeder report that they are well socialised and not lacking in stimulation. It's not unreasonable to ask for better accommodation than ramshackle conditions as it appears in those photos. If you're going to own dogs.... any number of dogs.... it's reasonable to require that, as numbers grow, the person has the means to provide decent accommodation. It seems the person had a maximum of 50 dogs at her highest point. That does not fit the level of provision of socialization that would be regarded as standard for someone who will be providing puppies as companion dogs. I don't know what 'people' who visited and said socialization, by their standard, was fine. It would not be likely by mine. I see it as a matter of ethics, not a matter for prosecution, but of education. And a consumer issue. May well explain why the RSPCA didn't become involved. But rather a hyper-Council. You appear to think the original situation is fine. I don't. But it does appear that the person has already acted by reducing her numbers. Which is why I like the Q'ld legislation.... it gives people the opportunity to make adjustments.

Leah, how refreshing it is to see someone posting about the central issues of socialisation & stimulation in the breeding/raising of dogs.

I have no idea what the specific parts of those 3 laws what this person will be charged with. And I am a great supporter of registered breeders. But allowing numbers of dogs to outgrow reasonable facilities for them is not on, ethically. I know the Kennel Associations are basically registeries, but I'd like to see them do more professional education among their members on how to manage numbers, basic accommodation & care, and stimulation and socialisation. They've already got loads of members who do these things well.... as mentors. As others have said, there's no mention yet of vet reports of serious health conditions. Nor was it seen necessary to provide physical care by taking the dogs into care. Pity there's not a section in the Victorian cruelty laws, like there is in the Q'ld law, which says first intervention by the authorities, like RSPCA, can be on an educational level. That is, helping the person clean up their act in some respects. I think this case fits a category like that. So this case seems to come down to numbers management, stimulation and socialization issues. But, what is annoying, is that the new draft Victorian Code is full of pie in the sky about managing much larger numbers of dogs... & their provisions for stimulation & socialization are inadequate.

Love all those pics! Smudge is a star. The new home & siblings look just right for a star.

That same industry hand looms large over the Victorian stuff presently being put together. The PIAA says magic words to Governments such as business, jobs, money going into the economy. Then the rest, like welfare & requirements to produce the soundest pet dogs, gets knocked out. The evidence from US researchers about the outcomes from large scale commercial puppy farms is so strong.... that the researchers said they were departing from the usual in a research paper... by going on to sound a warning. They advise people not to buy pets from any place that sources puppies from such places. It's the opposite to what Campbell Newman has said. Pet shops can get 'accredited' all they like but the specifics of large scale puppy farming produce the most 'at risk' dogs. He's wrong about sufficient laws being currently in place. The laws cover horrific condition of cruelty. They do not cover what is perfectly legal. As many dogs as the 'farmer' likes, on land designated Primary Industry, & often with adequate but bare minimum care. But, as the US researchers point out.... beyond the scope of the 2 essentials for producing sound dogs in health & behaviour. Quality animal husbandry & the necessary socialization.

I hear there's no cure. Thank goodness. :)

Not really, anyone walking down the street can see someone lives there. .... and that dogs can't fall off the roof.

The English Springer Spaniel Club of NSW has a rescue page on their website & a contact person. http://www.springerclubnsw.com/rescue-dogs.asp O/T I had a look at the rest of the website out of curiosity. Aren't they a beautiful breed!