YOLO

We are currently feeding her a mix of Chicken mince, Puppy Kibble, and Fortified Rice Milk. Stools are soft but well formed. She likes the food which is good.

We'll soon be bringing a LabraKelp pup into our home. She will be around 8 weeks. It's been a long time since we had a puppy, so any hints are welcome. We have (on vet advice) always fed a blend of Raw and good quality kibble. So I'm thinking something like Chicken Mince? Combined with Puppy Kibble. Fortified Rice Milk for extra protein and Calcium. Puppy chews for teething Should we be feeding 3 times a day at this age, or more? I have some worming chews for "Puppies and Small dogs." Can we start her on those straight away? Same question for flea treatment.

Take a look at the Dog Refuge pages some time, they have taken to art of "Turd Polishing" to a whole new level. Every misbegotten mongrel is given some posh-sounding "cross" name, when in reality they are simply the product of the worst of the backyard breeders. And we need to realise that these so-called "designer" puppies are the same. There have been some legitimatise attempts to create a new type of dog, or cross-in a "desirable" trait. But the irony hear is BYBs proudly proclaiming that their produce are "third generation". Translation = "we got hold of two mongrels and bred them." Same too with the vast majority of people selling "Shit-Poos" or similar. They're NOT actually crossing a Shitzu with a Poodle. They are breeding a couple of fluffy little mongrels and sticking a label on the pups to flog them. I'm not such a snob as to suggest that only Pedigreeds make good pets. But at least you have a good idea what you're getting and know what to look out for. The other problem is that people think it is appropriate to pay substantially less for their "designer" mongrel. When in reality all the lower price usual means is that the BYB has skimped on vet bills, nutrition, hygiene, etc, and is probably over-breeding their bitches and selling their puppies too young.

Yes, this thread triggers a few issues, but to answer the OP's question: Asking for a deposit is not uncommon. It's probably just something the breeder learnt to do/ thinks is good business. I can understand the arguments for and against. Once you have met the breeder and dogs, and selected your puppy, I would not be put off by a deposit.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. So they sent for her after 6 weeks, but what? The friend never had her shipped? End of the day, you have taken a dog you knew belonged to somebody else. Whatever transpired between the owners and their friend, you have no claim. You'd better hope the police don't get involved, because you could be charged with theft.

I should have mentioned that I have 4 Adult children who all love dogs, so much so that there is competition between the humans for doggy affection. The new dog would "blong" to one of them, even though it's one big happy family. Jasper will always be my favourite. I just want to be sure he always knows that.

As a dog owner and lover, its very easy to say "my dogs come first" but sometimes its not that easy. When we were first looking at renting, I didn't have stable employment and neither did my wife, and the trying to find a dog-friendly place, things were looking grim. As it is, I'm paying an extra $15 a week, for a house I didn't like, because the ones I did wouldn't accept Jasper. I'm obviously happy with that deal, but for some others it can be tough. We're in the process of buying again, so won't have that hassle, but again others don't have that luxury. In regards to the OP's dilemma, I certainly sympathise. The original owner sounds like one of "those" owners, rather flaky. At the end of the day, I would have asked for reimbursement of all your costs, and then given the dog back, but would have absolutely nothing further to do with the flake.

We have been thinking about adding our next dog to our family. We have two Flatties, Jasper 14 and Chloe 7. Am thinking of perhaps a Goldie. There are good reasons for getting any new dog before Jasper passes, but what is very important to me, is that Jasper (14) never feels that he has been supplanted. I THINK Jasper would accept/love a puppy. He still loves to play, and I think he would be good with a puppy. We have been "fortunate" in that both Jasper and Chloe were "rescues." Would love to rescue again, but thinking that would be hard with Jasper and Chloe. I highly doubt he would accept another adult dog. And even a "young adult" would likely be too mature for Jasper. My big concern is how fast the puppy will grow up, and whether it would quickly become too much for jasper?

Gotta love the classic 'You can't have one of our pups because you don't deserve it", and in the same breath "stay away from Breeder X because they breed too much". Most people who decide they want a puppy, will get one. What we SHOULD be doing is trying to ensure that ALL those puppies are healthy, sound, and temperamentally suited. Not shrinking further into arrogant little cliques and forcing more people into buying from puppy mills. Newsflash: Being rude, arrogant, condescending, and hostile does not make you a breed-expert, nor a "responsible breeder", it just means you're an ass.

You just can't win with some people. If a breeder keeps more than 2 bitches, that's a "puppy mill" but when the breeder wants to place them with families, well apparently that's wrong also. Everybody wants to own dogs, but apparently we have to pretend they are delivered by magic fairies. But what really gripes me is those who proclaim "of we would never buy from a Breeder, we only take rescue dogs." So people who mostly are trying to do the right thing, and produce healthy typey dogs, are apparently evil, but you'll indirectly support the backyard abominators and various miscreant idiots who allow their misbegotten mongrels to breed and then dump the offspring. Conceptually, there's nothing wrong with the idea of a Labradoodle. Every dog breed originated from somewhere and generally involved some form of crossing to acheive the desired results. But as with any breeder, you need to look at their practices. Are the parents sound and typey, have they been hip/elbow/eye checked, do they follow responsible breeding practices. IMHO the HUGE problem with many so-called "designer crosses" is that they aren't. If I try to sell you some misbegotten piece of fluff, and tell you it's a Poodle, you'll pretty soon spot that it's not. But claim it's a CaverShitzaPoo, and you really have no idea. Worse still, you're conned into thinking you have something desirable. My daughter, God love her, who unfortunately lives on the other side of the country, bought what was supposed to be a "Groodle," a Golden crossed with a Standard. Pigs arse, and that's what the poor dog looks like. Contrary to most claims, such dogs are not inherently "hypoallergenic." Allergies are caused by proteins, usually present in the dander and secretions. Some breeds have more problematic proteins than others. Unless you know the genes that cause them, and can selectively breed dogs without those genes, it's a pig in a poke. Poodles shed less, that's not the same thing, but its why they need to be clipped or you wind up with a pet shrub.

Dingos ARE "Wild Dogs" They can and do breed with other dogs that have gone feral, but technically there is no distinction. So when the APB refers to "Wild Dogs" that includes Dingos so you may well find that your local "Wild Dogs" are comprised mostly of the Dingo breed. Dingos are supposedly descended from similar dogs that arrived around 5,000 years ago, so its not surprising that over those thousands of years a fairly narrow phenotype developed. Furthermore, like a resistant bacteria, its not surprising that after 200 years of being hunted, shot, and baited, they are not only fully adapted to the Australian bush, but have become very difficult to capture and kill. A domestic dog that goes feral has none of those "advantages" so I would imagine their survival rate is much lower, and hence why the dingo characteristics continue to dominate the Wild Dog population.

As for recommendations, we take our dogs to Murdoch Uni. Period. As in any walk of life, you get all sorts of vets. Some excellent, mostly good, and a few scumbags.

The Greyhound Industry is an abomination that should have been shut down decades ago. The vast majority of dogs, unsuccessful at racing, are simply killed. GAP is a sham. It's actually an Industry initiative designed to cover up the the true horror. Obviously they have a vested interest in distorting the truth, and promoting this fairy-tale that surplus Greyhounds all go on to happy lives as pets. The "domestication" problem isn't restricted to Greyhounds. Trying to take any animal, bred and trained for a particular industry, and force it into a radically different environment, is a recipe for suffering and disaster.

Just a horrible tragedy, hard to believe, and difficult to understand without knowing more. Thoughts and prayers for the family, it is hard to imagine a worse way to lose a child.

Jasper is around 12, going on 13. Like most dogs, he never displays discomfort, but its clear he's not as sprightly as he once was. There are no obvious pain triggers, but it appears he has some kind of arthritis in his hips. It is probably most notable when he pees, he barely lifts his leg at all when going on the grass. (Although he'll still cock it for going against a wall or post.) Are there pain-relief or even anti-inflammatories he can be given, without side-effects? Or do supplements like glucosamine and condroidin work?

Jasper was a re-home and castrated when we got him, so we never had to bother about my darling Coco conceiving. Similarly, after Coco passed it wasn't a consideration in getting a new dog, but as it turns out Chloe was also neutered. But, hypothetically, what would we have done if the RSPCA had given us a choice? I'll say this, knowing what I know now there is no way I would ever allow another dog to be castrated. Maybe I would not have made the same decision back then, but there's nothing wrong with LEARNING. Short answer now, is that if I were certain he would never be wanted for breeding, I would get the dog a vasectomy.

If you you were walking towards me and told me that uour bitch was in season you would get a mouthful of not very nice words! Part of the responsibility of keeping you bitch entire is leaving her at home when she is in season. Walking a bitch in season even on a lead in a public place is irresponsible and asking for trouble. Yes, just like all those rape victims who were just "asking for trouble"I continue to be amazed that people with such Neanderthal attitudes know how to use a keyboard. What a champion.

I still cannot believe all the people who have been BRAINWASHED into drinking the sterilisation kool-aid. I even had a supposedly "renowned" breeder tell we that she insisted all bitches be sterilised because "it reduces ovarian cancer by 90%" Really not sure how the other 10% managed to get cancer in a part of their body they nolonger had? When we were purchasing our latest bitch. I was actually concerned and started a thread on Pyro. I expected to be inundated with horror stories, because apparently every unsterilised bitch will get pyro almost immediately and almost die. Yes its a horrible disease, and I suppose that if you're worried that you won't detect when your bitch is sick, then removing troublesome body parts might be a good option. I have owned 4 Flatties. 2 dogs, and 2 bitches. One of each was entire, and the others were sterilised because they were re-homes. Guess which ones had all the development problems. There are literally NO good reasons to castrate a male dog. It's amazing that in an era when people are protesting the routine castration of male livestock, people thinks its a good thing for their pets. For starters, even if ALL our dogs were running wild, castrating males has no effect on population. That's biology 101. (Ironically, that's why male livestock are castrated, because you only need ONE Bull or Ram to service an entire herd.) Castration does not stop humping. That's simply a training matter. My entire dog was trained out of it at an early age. Our castrated re-home still did it when we got him, and had to be re-trained. Depriving your dog of Testosterone is cruel and can lead to stunted growth, and a variety of developmental issues. Yes, if you start with an overly "aggressive" dog (such as one bred for security work or fighting) then castration can settle them down. But hey, maybe just buy a different dog? Bitches are a tougher question. Pyro IS an issue (just not the certainty some would have you believe.) As is mammary cancer. And yes, it can only take one bastard dog climbing your back fence to have an unwanted litter of mongrels. The problem of too many dogs in pounds and getting euthanased is a complicated one. I have not completed any grand study, so I can only base my opinions on logic, my own observations, and some inferences. (But I still think my views are just as valid as those who blindly proclaim that "overpopulation" is caused by YOU not sterilising your dog.) There is a terrible industry of puppy mills and BYBs churning out puppies for the petstore and gumtree market. It turns my stomach to think what happens to the cute puppies in the window, when they are nolonger cute, and its time for the new batch. Added to that, the way some people treat their dogs as things they can simply throw away when they are bored of them, is sickening. When we got our dogs, we spent a lot of time looking in pounds and havens. Not sure what its like elsewhere, but when we looked it seemed that 90% of the dogs were some form of Staffy or Kelpie cross. Probably very cute as puppies, but completely unsuited to high-density urban living. To my way of thinking, the solution lies firstly in encouraging and enforcing a more responsible attitude towards dog ownership. ie: Don't buy cute puppies, look to the adult dog you want to own. Dogs are for LIFE, not till you have to move house or get a partner. Don't support BYBs or puppy-mills. Always consider the needs of the dog, not just the plaything you want for a couple of hours a day. Buy a dog that is suited to your environment and lifestyle. And secondly on clamping down on the BYBs and puppy mills.

I suppose there are legitimate arguments for out-crossing, but I'll leave those for the breeds where its an issue and for those that know and understand the reasons. I certainly don't support it for cosmetic reasons. So in the case of say "Silver Labs" I fully support their exclusion. But that is deliberately adding "genes" that were not already part of the breed, and where that is blatantly obvious. Merles are possibly a different issue again. My (limited) understanding is that Merle is not a colour, and whilst "attractive" is actually a genetic defect. It affects not only skin & hair pigmentation, but eyes, and also particular cells in the inner ear Whenever you ask, EVERY breeder says "Oh I breed for health and temperament," and that is clearly a crock. I'm not going to guess at percentages, but there is clearly a significant portion who breed for the ring and vice-versa. Plus those who breed for aesthetics. And for all those who defend the standards as being carved in stone, the problem is that in reality dogs are judged not only to basic standard, but often more so to some narrow interpretation that is currently in vogue with judges and breeders.

As for those digging up the ole "links between colour and genetic faults" chestnut, I imagine this can be overcome by hanging garlic (or crystals) over the kennel, and/or getting a priest to perform an exorcism? Or maybe we could actually catch up a couple of centuries and use MEDICAL SCIENCE?!? I am 150% in favour of rigorous Hip/ Elbow/ Eye/ DNA testing of all available ancestors before breeding. Which for most breeds and most genetic problems, has naff all to do with colour. There are a few, where either the genetic issues are present in the same bloodlines, or the skin pigment is itself a symptom of a skin type that can lead to other problems. But even there why not rely on the actual science rather than guessing? The horrible irony is that by arbitrarily excluding dogs simply on colour, we further concentrate the gene-pool and make it that much harder to breed out the undesirable genetic problems.

Agreed. In the past, breeders could use restricted colour dogs in their breeding program even though they could not be exhibited, and the gene pool was not automatically reduced by the limited register. Our system assumes that if a dog or bitch does not meet the standard entirely, then it is not worthy of being considered for breeding. This might make sense in breeds where the gene pool is large, but definitely does not make sense where only small gene pools are available AND the restrictive trait neither affects health nor breed type. There could be a case made, in some breeds, for allowing restricted colours to be bred on main register, but not shown. Application by breed clubs could be made to the ANKC for this in the same way that application can be made for inter-variety breeding etc.trait. But this is the silly thing, take a look at the shows for some breeds, and its like a glorious collection of badly made quilts, spots, patches, ticking, you name it, and nobody bats an eye. But turn up with a black retriever where the colour is not 100% uniform and you'll be politely told not to embarrass yourself.

There are many different stories of the origins of Flat-Coats and Goldens, and perhaps there is an element of truth to all of them. :-)You make an interesting point regarding solids. In some breeds, too much solid is seen as not a good thing, as it indicates a too narrow breeding history. In some breeds, "solids" are practically unheard of. This is one of my gripes with Flatties. Both my black dogs had/have red flashes, a sure sign of a Liver not too far back in the family tree. Incidentally this is a sure sign that both came from a particular breeder (which I know they did) who was known to breed from Livers, a practice frowned upon by most other breeders. SO here you have the crazy case where a dog can not only be accepted (ie solid Liver) but become a champion, and yet STILL be excluded from the gene pool because there offspring are deemed undesirable. The silly thing is that when we talk about "non-standard" colours people immediately jump on the "cross-breeding" bandwagon. So a Golden Flatcoat is immediately seen as evidence of some diabolical dalliance with a Goldie. WHY? I could just as easily crossbreed with solid black Labrador lines, and if you were relying on colour to spot a mongrel you would be stumped. Or what if I bred with say a black Poodle? WOuld you not be able to tell that the result was not a Flatcoat?

Aren't the words "liver" and "chocolate" just two different words to describe the same colour? For instance in GSPs brown is referred to as Liver and with Labs brown is referred to as chocolate, but ultimately they are just two different names to refer to dark brown? You could be right, I'm not so sure what passes for "liver" these days... We had a "Liver" GSP and I too believe that she was in fact very close to the "Chocolate" of say a Labrador. Our Flatties were/are Chocolate, which is not an accepted colour. My first Flattie's Dam was Liver, there was much more Red in it, almost plum like. Now, I don't show my dogs, so its possible that judgement on this topic may have eased. I have certainly seen photos of "Liver Flatcoats" that appear to be chocolate not Liver. I know that in the past there were certainly those who viewed Chocolate Flatties as the equivalent of say "Silver Labs." But perhaps opinion has changed on this. Which is another interesting point. If the judges and breeders are now going to accept what is effectively a (gradual?) change in the colour, why insist on the colour in the first place? (And why get so shitty when I point out that my Flatties are in fact Chocolate Brown and not "Liver.") It's not just the issue of Breeding and/or Showing (although that is clearly what drives it.) I know of a case in which it was strongly rumoured that a Golden Flattie pup in a large litter, rather than being celebrated as a rare occurrence, was PTS.

But I am talking specifically about colour. I am all for standard, if I buy a FC puppy I want it to be a Flat-Coat, not a bitza.But, particularly with less populous breeds, I think we are doing the wrong thing in further narrowing the gene pool by excluding dogs that may be perfectly healthy, and meet the standard in every other way, except for colouration. The additional problem is because there is such a strong link between breeding & showing. Most breeders want to show, and then want to breed from their champions. Most of the problems we are now trying to breed out, have come about in part because of shrinking gene pools. We have no choice but to shrink them further to remove heredity health issues, and should therefore lessen the damage by simply ignoring colour. (Unless it is a clear genetic abnormality.) Its annoying if you consider that say a GSP, can be be any combination of black & white, or brown & white, including solid, spotted, or ticked. The particular problem with Flatties is that whilst Liver is accepted, they are generally disliked for breeding. Breeding liver on liver tends to produce pale (non standard) eyes, and breeding with black tends to produce red flashes for a few generations. Then, whilst a black with red flashes would probably be ok to breed from (with a "full" black to dilute the red) they are unlikely to fare well in the ring and so unlikely to get Champion status, and hence unlikely to be bred.

Been thinking about this a lot lately (don't know why.) I feel the number one goal in breeding should be health. Then temperament. After that, breeding to a standard is obviously the desirable outcome. But I am starting to wonder about the fixation on colour. I have owned two Chocolate Flat-Coats. Neither would have done well in the ring, and theoretically should not be bred (never an issue) because Chocolate is not an accepted colour. The accepted colour is Liver, and mine are definitely NOT Flat-Coat Liver. I have seen other dogs called liver that were close to chocolate, but in Flat-Coats Liver is redder with an almost plum tinge. I have also owned two Black Flatties, however in dogs with a close ancestor who is Liver, it is common to get liver flashes. Ralph's Dam was Liver, so he had a fair bit, and whilst I don't know Chloe's parentage, she also has flashes. These also would make a dog struggle in the ring and be "unsuitable" for breeding, as the black is meant to be solid. Lastly, despite what we think we know about the genetics, it is still possible for Flatties to have golden pups. I have seen it more often in very large litters, but I guess that would just be a function of the numerical odds being small. Why should such a dog be excluded, just because of the colour of their coat?