Jed

PF Didn't I brainwash you? Chocolatelover, people on this forum are involved on many of the things we are discussing, in one way, or several, so they have personal experience, some over many years. Most have also read ALL the research on various subjects.

Yes, but what are the laws you would like to see introduced?

WoofNHoof I am amazed that someone who is not and never has been an ANKC member, does not, and never has owned a registered purebred dog, but owns two petshop dogs, probably sourced from puppy farms can make such an assertive statement, from a basis or no knowledge at all. Amazed

GCCC experts have stated that the APBT and AST are the same breed. All depends on the evidence presented by Tango's side, and the judgement, I guess. Toowoomba City Council has always stated that APBT and AST are the same breed.

Chocolatelover What type of laws do you think should be brought in - for breeders and for pet owners?

From the quote above surely I could be forgiven for thinking that you were lumping McGreevy and Bennet into the same camp/category. I'm not sure that breeding dogs for the pet market equates to breeding lots of dogs for profit, breeding dogs for pets isn't necessarily a matter of upping production it's more about producing a more suitable pet, based on the argument that what is winning in the show ring may not necessarily be what makes a great pet. Since Bennet doesn't show she may already be breeding towards the pet market yet isn't exactly churning out mass amounts of puppies so I'm not sure how you can equate the two? At present it is just words on a forum because all I'm reading here is why this or that strategy isn't good enough, and so nothing happens arguments just go round and round in circles while the puppy farmers are out there busily promoting themselves. It's easy to see why the purebreed world has been left behind in these matters. edited to clarify Well, I'd certainly put McGreevy and Bennett in the same basket. They are pushing the same barrow, at the same events. It's not what Bennett is doing, it is the ethos she embraces which is not agreed with. What's the purebred world got to do with designer mutts and puppy farms?

Sandgrubber, don't you think explaining (defending?) the position of breeders who keep more than 3 -4 dogs is a worthwhile exercise? Public perception, formed by animal rights, seems to be (from what we read) that anyone with more than 5 dogs is either a collector or a puppy farm.

You might think that, because you have no experience of people who keep more dogs than that. Perhaps if your experience was wider, and your experience of multiple dogs was garnered from places other than filthy puppy farms shown on TV, you might think otherwise. There are people with more dogs than that, and whose dogs I would consider to be better cared for than the dogs owned by many people on this forum. I am not criticising you, although I do think you probably need to see more places where more than 3 - 4 dogs are kept to make that judgement call. Oh do I know you??? How do you know what my experience is? I know how much time I spend on two dogs every day to have happy, content dogs and there would physically not be enough time in the day for any more. But maybe our ideas of how much time a dog deserves is different due to our experiences. Not that I would like to make assumptions about you of course It's not an assumption. You have already stated your experience, and for you to make that statement, you have no experience. Because you can only cope adequately with two dogs, does not mean that everyone is in the same position. Some people can't cope with one, some can cope with ten, if you had exposure, you would have understanding. Sorry have not given you a run down of my life experiences. Nor do I wish too. I don't "adequately" cope with two dogs - this is how many I choose to have at this point in my life while I am raising a family. SBT123 asked me what I considered a large number of dogs and I said three to four. And now you are an expert on my life experiences I gather you are trying to defend your position and in my limited experience people who do this are trying to convince themselves Good luck with that. Your life experiences have no relevance, and I am disinterested in them, because they are irrelevant to the topic. Your choice is to have 2 dogs,and you have stated that you can cope with that number. Others can cope with more, yet you have denied that others can cope with more than you can. Perhaps you are making assumptions? I have absolutely no need nor desire to defend my position. My position needs no defense, and you are correct in stating that your experiece is limited if you believe that I am trying to convince myself. For you to categorically state that people cannot cope with 3 to 4 dogs demonstrates that you are extrapolating your own experiences to others which is usually an invalid way of qualifying situations which are outside your personal experience.

Whoops back on track. Wow I hope the researchers at UQthat came up with that didn't get too much taxpayer funding. Probably didn't meet expectations because they were under socialised with no stimulation or exercise. If there is an undersupply of puppies and dogs are being put to sleep every day (I think it is one every four seconds in the US) then people must be trading in their dogs for puppies. Puppies grow into dogs - so not enough puppies and too many dogs - doesn't take a genius to work out what is happening. RSPCA, Australian Veterinary Association, University of Queensland figures and facts all agree. lilli has already given the RSPCA figures for Australia, which I believe disagree with 1 dog every 4 seconds, so perhaps you are using US figures which are not relevant to Australia? You are correct, and all the bodies which have done research over long periods of time are incorrect? May we see your studies please? Thanks

I hope you reported him?

RSPCA stats quoted by lilli are correct, and are backed by other studies by the AVA and universities. UQ's research program found that the majority of healthy dogs surrendered "did not meet expectations". There is actually an under-supply of pups, according to all research. Except PETA. But that would be USA. And I think the same stats apply there, but PETA seems to not publicise the fact.

You might think that, because you have no experience of people who keep more dogs than that. Perhaps if your experience was wider, and your experience of multiple dogs was garnered from places other than filthy puppy farms shown on TV, you might think otherwise. There are people with more dogs than that, and whose dogs I would consider to be better cared for than the dogs owned by many people on this forum. I am not criticising you, although I do think you probably need to see more places where more than 3 - 4 dogs are kept to make that judgement call. Oh do I know you??? How do you know what my experience is? I know how much time I spend on two dogs every day to have happy, content dogs and there would physically not be enough time in the day for any more. But maybe our ideas of how much time a dog deserves is different due to our experiences. Not that I would like to make assumptions about you of course It's not an assumption. You have already stated your experience, and for you to make that statement, you have no experience. Because you can only cope adequately with two dogs, does not mean that everyone is in the same position. Some people can't cope with one, some can cope with ten, if you had exposure, you would have understanding.

No hormones in chicken. Illegal for about 20 years. And inspectors used to check it, but they are not used now.

I think it is rather a shame that the CM has printed only Jemima Harrison's comments, and not those of the Vizla breeders and other breeders on that site. JH seems to be Britian's answer to Don Burke.

Chocolatelover You might think that, because you have no experience of people who keep more dogs than that. Perhaps if your experience was wider, and your experience of multiple dogs was garnered from places other than filthy puppy farms shown on TV, you might think otherwise. There are people with more dogs than that, and whose dogs I would consider to be better cared for than the dogs owned by many people on this forum. I am not criticising you, although I do think you probably need to see more places where more than 3 - 4 dogs are kept to make that judgement call.

Sorry to hear about this, hope your pup is ok now, and he doesn't suffer any ill effects .Breeds are not dangerous per se, DOGS are dangerous. This dog is dangerous, and he should not be off lead with a pack of other dogs, and not under effective control. You should report the dog to the council. If he has attacked before, a description will probably suffice. Whether it does or not, an ACO should be in the park patrolling, to find him. And if the council seizes him, at least he wont be attacking anyone else. Although you said you would not report, SHE said she would keep him on lead, and then went back on her word immediately. How dreadfully irresponsible. People not reporting attacking dogs leads to more dog attacks, and people believing they can do whatever and go where ever as they please with what is a dangerous dog with no regard or care for others they hurt. And that leads to breeds being banned, which disadvantages the gentle members of that breed, and fails to make owners of dangerous dogs understand what their responsibilities are. This woman's responsibility was to keep this dog on lead, and away from other dogs. She failed to do that, so now, the law must make her.

There are more Blenheims and Tricolours being bred, so the chances are better with those colours. Chocolatelover, it is difficult to get a registered pup, more difficult in some breeds than others. Demand outstrips supply

Whilst puppy farms are glorified by people like Don Burke, Steve Austin, veterinarians and academics, and puppy farmers are invited to seminars at universities as "guest speakers" the public is given very good reasons to believe they are suitable places to purchase pups. And why not? On one hand, puppy farms are touted by "experts", on the other, registered purebred dogs are condemned by intensive TV programs. It's not the conditions of puppy farms, it is that the premise of keeping dogs in those conditions is just wrong. Nothing will justify a basic wrong, and the best husbandry in the world will not overcome the problems of how the dogs are kept.

I wondered about that. What did I miss? I saw the dog with the OCD, but the others with it looked ok. But I still couldn't see much difference between the ones at the raided farm, and Banksia. However, for me, the whole premise is wrong. If the whole premise is wrong, nothing you do after that is right. It's against the laws of nature, imho. And from there, we get to the way the bitches are treated. I don't approve of "modern" piggeries either BTW, and I feel more strongly about dogs. Dogs from pet shops/pf don't end up in the pound because they are bred in pf, they end up in the pound because the people selling them don't have any regard for them when they sell them, and they sell them to unsuitable people, and the dogs are not suitable, and then they end up in the pound.

The problem is, you (universal "you") read the media reports. Pitbulls look pretty bad. Wouldn't want one living next door. Nasty bloody things, turn in a flash and kill the kids. The majority of pitbulls are simply dogs, with the same attributes for their breed as other breeds. Sure, the boys may want to fight. I know plenty of reputable staffy breeders who tell owners to be careful about the staffy fighting. I tell buyers of boy boxers the very same thing. It is not in the nature of pitbulls to attack people. It never has been. They were never bred as a guarding dog. And the fight has been bred out of most of them anyhow. There are very few dog fighters about, and you wouldn't want to approach t hem as "a peer" anyhow. And the fighting dawgs are unaffected. As ever, they are underground, being abused still, while the nice family pets are the ones bearing the brunt of this. The pitbulls affected by BSL are not fighting dogs, they are simply family pets. Read my lips - it has nothing to do with pitbulls. Pitbulls were simply a breed which was chosen to be the first dog which was banned. THE FIRST DOG. Not because of anything they had done. More breeds have been added to the bans, and more will be added. More will be restricted, as in Germany. The American Pit Bull Terrier and the "media pitbull" about which we hear so much have absolutely nothing in common. Keep researching. I did. It's a shame you wont get to meet some nice pitbulls. I spent a day at an expo with a pitbull - all the kids had a cuddle, all the mums had a pat, and then said "oh, how cute what is it?" "AARRGGH, a PIT BULL!!!" They couldn't believe it. They'd been up close and personal with a PITBULL. Which in truth, was a nice small to medium sized, red dog with a red nose, and a good attitude, and a happy, waggy disposition, happy to meet and greet all comers. The really scary thing of the day was not the pitbull, it was the police GSD's escaping, and coming over to eat us, pitbull and all. There were some scared pitbull supporters and some embarrassed policemen!! Most of the people in favour of the bans have never had anything to do with the breed, so you tend to believe what is in the newspapers. How do you know they were GSD's Jed, did you see their pedigree papers and match the ear tatoo???. They may have been GSD Dutch Shepherd cross with a bit of Belgian Malinios in the mix???. Because their ears stick up, doesn't make them GSD's, and you know GSD's are not supposed to be savage by the breed standard. They must have been some cross breed dogs, couldn't be GSD's, all dogs can bite, it's the deed not the breed!!!. This is a stupid response Jed, but no more stupid than the responses from the APBT supporters which are always on the same lines as this which I have written purely to highlight how silly responses like this look in support of a breed Poor attempt at irony is actually sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. It never stops Justin, same old defence over and over again. I know two APBT breeders well who both have some truely great dogs of their own, but both have PTS several highly aggressive Pits over the years that they believed were no good for the average pet owner and a liability in the wrong hands. And there have been GSD euthed for aggression, and Amstaffs, and LGV,and cattledogs. If this is your argument, I don't think you are on the correct page. This is the page that the APBT supporters should be on if they are seriously looking to release the breed from BSL. Rarely does any APBT supporter ever admit they can be aggressive and it's always as I posted before. A bit of honesty and reality goes along way I think??? Well, it certainly would. ACD, GSD, Labrador are very well ahead, and have been ahead of pitbulls, staffies and amstaffs in the bite stats in Aust for 15 years. Maybe YOU could tell the government that, as you think honesty and reality goes a long way? Of course, others have told them, but they are not listening. Maybe they would listen to you? And then they could ban ACD, GSD and Labradors?

Er... no. He is the president of PIAA after all. They have a policy on selling animals in pet stores and that is it's fine as long as the animals are in good health and well cared for. I'd be pretty peeved if I were that Banksia Park fellow. The spin on the segment certainly wasn't in his favour. Did anyone notice they showed his dogs while the animal rights lady was saying how cruel she thought it was and that they were all the same? Well, maybe it was me, but I couldn't see much difference between the puppy farm south of Sydney the RSPCA raided, and Banksia Park. The dogs on the first PF seemed to be in good condition, all groomed or clipped off, healthy looking bouncy pups. The premises were not as new (and the fridge deserves a book of it's own!!), Don't think I am approving. The whole concept is wrong - dogs are not agricultural animals to be kept on"farms". I agree with Debra Tranta on that. If the entire premise is wrong, nothing makes it right. Nothing. And good on the woman who had the pf and saw the light.

I've just watched the 7.30 report, and I agree with Debra Tranter of AL that dogs should not be kept as agricultural animals, so the basic premise of puppy farms is wrong. However, from the footage shown on the puppy farm south of Sydney which was raided, the dogs did not look badly kept, and they certainly weren't in bad condition. Lots of them were going up to the inspectors, wagging and looking for a pat. Shame the inspector picked the blenheim cavalier up by the scruff of the neck and held her at arm's length when she ran up to him looking for pats. Presumably there were other issues not shown on TV, but a lot of healthy looking dogs, some fluffy outgoing pups (and a totally filthy fridge!!) didn't do it for me. And I couldn't tell the difference between the dogs at the farm raided, and those at Banksia Farms - the facilities were newer, but nothing looked better to me. Or different. Maybe it's just me? But don't think I approve, I don't, not at all, but I failed to see a real problem at the first farm. Maybe it was all hidden? Dogs were in good condition, groomed or clipped off, pups were round and bouncy. What did others think?

And while there are people like you around, the bans will NEVER be relaxed, and after reading your posts, I wonder if they should be! Longcoat "Someone telling you" and it being fact are a long way apart.

I register with pet plan, as above. How good they are, I don't know, none of my puppy buyers have put in a claim. The insurance covers illness, death, accident and theft, so it does look worthwhile, and I have never had a problem with it.

Not true for the ACT Kirty. I'd say not true for all of Australia actually. Yes, they have committed their sins, they stuff up, the focus of some are a little off, but overall they do a lot to protect dogs and cats (and other animals) across Australia. The need for some to express their frustrations or hostilities against the RSPCA blinds them to many facets of the animal welfare debate imo. Whilst the RSPCA in any state goes about seizing perfectly healthy pedigree dogs, taking them to places unknown, making them undergo surgical procedures, and returning them in ill health, costing the owner thousands in legal and vet fees, and then fails to bring charges, people are unlikely to harbour positive feelings for the RSPCA in any state. When a state RSPCA has the following prominantly displayed on their website, any liklihood of them winning support from registered dog breeders is -0. And on top of past grevious sins, it is unlikely they will gather further support in any state.