mita

This is done more often than you think. I know of many breeders who have left an option open for an undesexed bitch in a Pet home to come back and have a litter if the new owner wishes. Some even show dogs that live full time in family homes, in my opinion there isn't much difference between a well cared for house dog and a Show dog. At least I believe there shouldn't be. :) I am curious as to why a pet owner would agree to keep a dog under these conditions - is it very common? On the surface it would appear that it only benefits the breeder - what benefit to the pet owner. Unless they are getting the dog for free and the breeder is picking up all vet expenses etc its hard to understand why anyone would do it? Or someone with a genuine love for the breed and wants to help contribute in some way. A big 'Yes!' to this. All different options for keeping/breeding & showing dogs should be explored. The essential features should allow for socialisation (of all dogs, not just puppies), a healthy environment, opportunities for stimulation, exercise and training, & comfortable accommodation. And matched to breed. If these can be ticked off .... the breeder's doing fine. One option is care in a pet home. And you're right, Dory, some owners would happily do it, not just for love of having a pet, but also because they want to contribute to the development of the breed. And these various options should be being promoted .... not one model that fits puppy farming being imposed on everyone.

I agree, make contact with GG85 & Dogmad. I've also got a list of tips for dealing with a shy or underconfident dog. Would you like me to PM?

All spot on advice. Write down the practical advice in plain language & simple sentences. Like recipes are written And I agree about the desexing now. I also think you're doing a great job with help & advice. Hope she continues to listen.

Excellent point which should be spread around dog owners.

Or you're a fan of the movie actor Alba Gaia Bellugi. She's the girl, not the dog in this case. http://cine.ados.fr/films/je-m-appelle-elisabeth/photos/51511-alba-gaia-kraghede-bellugi.html

WOOT! WOOT! I do love those two names even though most people wont know how to pronounce Gaia! Go little Goddesses! I'd never heard of both names before ... but they're neat & suit the pups. By coincidence, I saw a European movie actor's name in the newspaper today ... Alba Gaia Bellugi.

I'm not even convinced that its a value judgment, more like wishful thinking! I may be charitable! By thinking they might be claiming 'genetic superiority'. :) It consists of belief statements like... 'It's good to cross breeds.' 'Cross breeding makes healthy dogs.' Like a mix of wishful & magical thinking! It's amazing, tho', how it's embedded into the world of buying & selling pet dogs. In a simple slogan or two.

Agree, Aidan, there has to be objective measurement to support any claims. The 'simple' way the term, hybrid vigor, is used in many of the basic dog contexts, is actually a value judgment. And nothing to do with science.

Fair points, corvus. But I'd add that it's often brought up to justify a dog breeding position... or choice for selecting a crossbreed. From a pretty simplistic line. With the suggestion that 'better' health will follow. So I'm disagreeing about always remaining silent & walking away. Silence can be taken for assent. I'd at least provide the simple, health-related comments from the US vet.... in only such a context. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=443915662016&id=1584362759

Agree. The people with their shallow slogans about how adopting a p/b dog 'kills' a shelter dog, have no idea that good ethical breeders are up the prevention end of dogs being dumped. Just as good rescues are at the saving end of dumped dogs. I like how the Australian Consumers Association (CHOICE) website guidelines for getting a puppy/dog, point people towards both registered breeders & rescue sources. Both work for the welfare of dogs. Trouble is that slick, emotive slogans that no one thinks thro', spread like wildfire.

Having known Sam, I can see why. Trouble is, since I looked up the adult boxers for adoption, I've become addicted to that page; Who couldn't love these faces: http://www.dogzonline.com.au/breeds/mature/boxer.asp

Aaaah! Them's the sounds of doggie happiness. You must feel like Regan's godmother, Pers :) You helped make it happen.

Regan's a pretty girl. I love those white markings. :) I hope she & her family will have lots of happy times together.

A good point, T. Genes aren't simply all going full bore. In certain cases, the environment supplies the trigger. Along with the fact the environmental contribution to health problems is on a scale of extent. Also still much remains a mystery as to any genetic vulnerability, or gene involved or combination of genes in numbers of specific conditions. One powerful thing, as you say, is that the purebred breeding system allows for searching by breadth & depth of pedigree over life spans that are shorter than humans. Which is why researchers in human medicine re conditions that we share with dogs, find such tracking a great boon.

Agree. I even worked out the proportion of hours she said her dogs were actually in their kennels. It's a minority of their time. I thought her example illustrated how many of the registered breeders combine the use of kennels, yards for open running & play, and the house itself. Fine ... as it covers well the aspects of a companion dog's life & is in line with a breed's needs.

Yes, situational ethics means taking things on a case by case basis. And identifying & thinking about the variables in each case. As I've said, I set my decision within a highly specific scenario. Change even one variable ... & it becomes different. Situation ethics rejects 'prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules'. It says that ethical decisions should follow flexible guidelines rather than absolute rules, and be taken on a case by case basis.

There was an odd paragraph in that excellent article I posted by a US vet about hybrid vigor & she was supporting the efforts of the majority of p/b AKC breeders. It was about how she didn't agree with how the Vice-President had sourced a German Shepherd puppy. It was in the context of the source being a large scale breeder. Made me wonder... Bit O/T, sorry.

As I said.... I'm realistic & would be in my own case. And within the highly specific scenario I've set out. It's a case of situational ethics.

Yes, BFAS is impressive from I've read on that website. It's a shame to see such a sensible rescue making an anti-AKC rant. This opposition between rescue & the p/b world is so unnnecessary.

I've already said the son was in a hard situation at a stressful time. And he made his decision. I have no quibble with someone making an ethical decision that might be different from mine. Bring on the ethics classes, I say.

It's a case of risk minimization versus dead ex-young, healthy dog. And I've gone for risk minimization in a scenario where it was already known that a good home was confidently in the running. Different scenario entirely, if that's not so.

I have to click on your posts to show.... as I've had you on ignore for a long time. And I'd hope, you've also done the reverse. Well, I'm dead in that scenario so I wouldn't be feeling anything personally. Hypothetically, if given time before death to make my own arrangements, I'd follow the example of the elderly lady & see them into a new home.... based on risk minimization. If death came quickly & only permitted me to gasp out to a friend to rehome them as I thought it was in their best interest .... then it's over to them & their decision-making once I've gone. I'd be aware of that reality as I gasped it out. It's a fair scenario to pose.... but academic in my case. I have family with strong feelings that the pets are all family, too. We organised that my late brother's two p/b blue heelers, one elderly, would be fine & safe after his long battle with cancee. He didn't even have to ask. It was a given.

Point to where I said that a dog I rehomed could never end up somewhere undesirable? Best we can do with anything that relates to the future is to minimize risk. And some considerable effort is made in that direction. Certainly was in the case of the rehomed little dog I've cited. If anything less than that was not available, then a totally different scenario exists to make ethical decisions on.

Is this another scenario? Am I supposed to be dead & someone PTS my dogs after saying she wouldn't?

As I said.... I said the dog 'would go with the owner' .... and it did, by proxy.