mita

Every time I've posted my objection about large scale commercial puppy farming being linked with more risk for later health & behaviour problems, I've made it clear I'm referring to rigorous & recent US research. My objection is not based on anecdotal evidence, If it were, I'd say so. it's based on research. The factors involved are related to the large numbers in one location... & have been teased down to specifics. Oddly, the Draft Code includes one of the key research papers in their own list of References, but the authors don't appear to have read it or can't understand it. No one is asking to make commercial breeding of puppies illegal... what I'm asking is that any model of operation be based on sound research, not simply on commercial considerations. I've even posted before that the research would suggest they look for different models of operation so that welfare of the dogs/puppies... & the ultimate best interest of pet buyers .... are paramount. Other jurisdictions have handled the matter with far better accord with research. Which is why I posed the amendments to the UK laws on breeding dogs. They show they're light years ahead in grasping the research & putting it into practice. They even demonstrate a thorough grasp of socialisation which research has identified as a key variable .... of both mother dogs & puppies. Even the breeding laws in Ireland show a high level of awareness (yes, I've posted that reference before, too). The Victorian Draft Code scores zero on this. I can't speak for Victoria, but puppy farming remains a huge problem in Q'ld. It's perfectly legal to have huge numbers of dogs on one location in areas designated for primary industries. Cruelty laws only kick in when the conditions are horrific. But the research base is clear.....huge numbers of dogs on one location (often with adequate but minimal care) is linked with much higher risk for health & behavioral problems. Both AWL Qld & RSPCA Qld are aware that there's a huge gap between what cruelty laws can cover & what should be minimum but well-evidenced standards for breeding puppies. Linda, your comment in this thread, had me cheering. Spot on. I'd only add the key variable of socialization along with the multiple animal husbandry: Total agreement with some of the more farcical things in it that are just baffling from a point of view of anyone who has owned more than 1 animal and knows anything about multiple animal husbandry (which clearly the authors did not) and they would be just funny if it was not all so serious.

Congrats on cracking the breed, dee lee... But minimax's investigation & pic were not wasted. The pic answered my first question... why doesn't a dog that lives on a roof, fall off? Now off to google 'Kangal'.

Maybe stick your head out the car window... & bark loudly? Katdogs did say it was attracted by passing dogs.

... with your ladder sticking out of the car window, too. I still insist this dog gets a pat. We are dog lovers on DOL. Funny if the police pull you over & you have to explain. 'Going to search for a dog on a rooftop, take its pic, & climb up & give it a pat.'

The double standard would have to disappear if a process around 'humane' methods was written into the Code. As it would then become the legal standard. One first step in any such process would be to differentiate between Emergency PTS and Planned PTS. What constitutes an Emergency would need to be spelled out, along with the methods.... & who can be responsible. Should require a written report by that person, following any such act. That would then also clearly differentiate it from any person in the community deciding to kill a companion animal for their own pathological reasons. Planned PTS should go straight to green needle by a vet.

Good advice, donatella. You never know with cute dogs. 2 p/b tibs (microchipped & with ID) got let out by a tradesperson, in Sydney. Owner searched & searched. 2 weeks later, she was putting up a poster at a service station, when a customer came in & said the people next door had just got 2 dogs like that. Gave the address. She asked the police to come with her. When she stepped onto the porch & spoke, there was frantic barking from under the house. It was her dogs. These people had found the cute dogs & decided to keep them. So it's a good idea to put Sightings Welcome on flyers/posters.... or something like that.

You're one up on me, Katdogs. I've never heard of a Sarplaninac. Off to google a lot of dog. :)

... and a ladder. I insist you give him a pat. :)

Has a massive head. From an Australian breeder's site: http://www.shantisoultibetanmastiffs.com/gallery.shtml

You've got me so curious.... dying to see the pics. That dog must think he's the Lion King up there! :) I love your dog-spotting and coffee & baked goods tour idea. You could be on a winner.

It lives on a rooftop!

Aaaaaw! I loved the first pic of the two. But this one is even more gorgeous.

Lie, DD. As the rest of us don't know the Famous 'Ole Ben, we'd never find that out. :)

I have tibbie-owning friends who have relatives who adopted a failed student guide dog (wanted to play with every dog he met). He couldn't swim.... sort of didn't know what to do. So his 'dad', who happens to be a dog trainer, had to teach him. I don't know how, tho'. His pic at a swimming lesson (click to enlarge): I googled & found this:

.... & public education programs & school programs to teach children how to behave around dogs.

It is all part and parcel of being on the internet. Heck, I received an email the other day from, Ben Bernanke Chairman of the Federal Reserve [uSA]. He must have heard that I can add up pretty well without a calculator and wanted to give me lots and lots of lovely money. :laugh: :laugh: That's so funny, DD. You'll be able to name drop now. 'As my friend Ben.... you know, Ben Bernanke... was saying just the other day." :) None of my weird emails have come from anyone so famous.

Steve, my guess is that the lobbying of the Pet Industry has hit all the 'right' buttons for the State Government. It's a business breeding puppies to be companion animals... & that means jobs to them, and contributes to the economy. So the main intent of the Code is to bend over backwards to make legal, the commercial farming of large numbers of dogs. Magic words.... business, jobs, money into the economy. I'm so sorry the RSPCA rolled over on that one. They say they had to admit defeat & had to require instead that large scale puppy farming be as humane as possible. Except by very definition, it's inhumane. You'd have to call in a magician to make it humane. So no wonder they have a raft of objections to the draft Code. Stellnme, one big RSPCA objection is the open invitation to do anything to euthanize, so long as the person regards it as 'humane'. Seems on an ABC radio interview it was pointed out to the Minister that someone could think bludgeoning over the head is fine. Frankly, it's legalizing behaviour that's linked with personality disorders. And which is usually regarded as a red light alarm in the community... because it's also linked with violence towards people. Frankly, I'd like to see CHOICE (Australian Consumers' Association) get on the Vic Government's back. They have a webpage advising people how to get a companion puppy or dog. Their 2 prongs are....buying from where dogs' welfare is attended to & from a source that produces quality in health & behavioral temperament. The US research found that large scale, commercial puppy farming does neither.

Good on you for encouraging people, especially the registered breeders, to make further comment. Pity that the groups with a range of interests.... except the Pet Industry... can't be put together for a while & not let out until they'd identified what common objections they have... & what they'd rather see in such a Code. Then look at their differences & try to understand them... & find where they could concede. I have concerns in terms of welfare of animals & what the breeding of dogs offers pet owners. The RSPCA's covered many of the basic welfare points. But the RSPCA's admitted they've rolled over on the question of scale of animals kept. The research is in....puppies coming from large-scale commercial operations tend to go on to have more health & behavioural problems. So keeping dogs for breeding on the scale of hundreds should just not be on. Puppies do better coming from home-style, non-commercial breeders. But the numbers range should be open to discussion. In a family/hobby setting with adequate provisions ... a total of 5 is setting it needlessly low, by a long shot! I have other objections, too. The Code is clueless about socialisation. And the minimal time per week for a dog to be let free of containment, would be considered cruelty in my state. Also how animals can be PTS is open to interpretation... seriously so. PTS should be at the hands of a vet. Anyone wanting a comparison with how another country's done it... scroll down to the UK's requirements on breeding establishments (neat summary for the N. Ireland Amendments). Far more enlightened than the Victorian proposed Code, in relation to socialization, stimulation, encouragement of 'normal' behaviour, exercise & welfare generally. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nidsr/2013/9780337989957

I love that first photo of him meeting his big sister! Just beautiful! Keep the pics coming.

I'd heard good things about them, too, from Brisbane people. Very decent & well-organized group. Bit O/T but I love their logo. I understand Winterpaws puzzlement. I've had similar connections that I can't figure where they've come from... but not from rescue groups.

Some good advice I was given has worked well here. Even after the initial meeting ... take the new dog & the resident dog together for frequent walks over the early period. Don't have to go far. Walking together helps form a bond ... turns them into a unit. It's 'us' in contrast to 'the rest'.

:)

So the father thinks the child is too young to learn? I suppose she's already been taught how to clean her teeth, how to behave when out in the busy street, how to dress herself & a whole lot more. By 6 yrs, she's also at school. Is she unable to attend school because her father thinks she's too young to learn? I bet not. If the little girl is lucky, maybe that's one of the sensible schools which has a Being Safe around Dogs Program in place. But the learning from home is so much stronger & more consistent. This child is being taught responses that are more likely to put her in danger, rather than practical things which will help her be safe.

There's a huge difference between having a healthy, realistic caution about being around dogs.... if you're a child...& being so frightened that you then behave in ways that may actually invite problems. Like squealing with fear, running away... & even giving off the scent of fear. The really useful training for children around dogs.... is the same as the training of children to be around anything with potential for harm. We teach children how to behave positively in relation to traffic... not to terrify them witless about cars. We teach them positive, coping behaviours that they can actually do to keep themselves safe. Not train them to be terrified, but emphasize practical realistic caution. There's sound, responsible information available for children being around dogs. This is what the little girl needs.

Don't forget the good sized poster on your own front fence.