Pjrt

Rotty was the first to come to mind.

Maybe Anotalian? Or Smooth coat Collie or good old Labrador

Some folks will be wondering how you get PON out of Polish Lowland sheepdog. Does the N stand for nizziny by any chance?

Cute boy. I worked at a kernel that housed a couple out of quarantine in the mid 80's. Not one we see often !

have you had direct experience with them okway? i only ask because i've used a kennel owned and operated by dog people that are fully active in the dog world here in Adelaide and i'd never use them again - in fact, i'd go as far as to say they shouldn't be in the pet boarding business. If you've had experience with them and could give me a little more info about what you like about them, i'd be grateful. taa

I think I know the one. If so yes very active in show circles, 'top' breeders, big winners, judges even if I'm not mistaken, but big failure at boarding from every one I've ever talked to that have used them and a person I knew went for a job interview and walked out!

I'm sure there are great dog people running great facilities but there are some that seem to rely heavily on 'reputation' they don't match with service

Sounds like the one - i boarded Wilbur with them once; never again. Rats ate through the food container i gave them, he was a filthy mess when he came out. The dogs were all just left in a large dust bowl of a yard all day long and as we left they made a snarky comment about Wilbur.

I think you may have us confused with some other kennel. We do not and have never had rats, all dogs are bathed and clean before they leave, and dogs do not spend the day in a dust bowl. As far as somebody walking out on a job interview, I have never heard of that either. Anybody is welcome to come and inspect our premises anytime during office hours. I have also just checked our computer records and we have never had a dog or cat called Wilbur board with us.

Suzi and myself(formerly blinkblink) are talking about a kennel in SA in the quoted posts above.

The only dog that ever died in my care in 31 yrs of working with dogs was a 7yr old B.B He just went to sleep and didnt wake up

What exactly was the point of this thread anyway? The B. B of '53 look like abominations of canine design just like those of today, if you're after personal opinions.

All the B B I've ever met have been awesome characters though. I guess the dogs don't know any better.

Gee what was the point of this thread anyway? I thought it was interesting and that others might too.I was looking at their kennel set up and how they managed them - taking them for walks etc and how the longevity is the same now as it was 60 years ago which squashes PDE on that point.

It is interesting.

In relation to 'policing our own' 'we' as in the general membership of whatever pursuit, need to keep our eyes and our minds open, but most importantly we need to have clear well set out paths to places to air our concerns, and know they will be taken seriously, investigated and acted upon, without fear or favour. So often this is not how it goes. That needs serious consideration.

The only dog that ever died in my care in 31 yrs of working with dogs was a 7yr old B.B He just went to sleep and didnt wake up

What exactly was the point of this thread anyway? The B. B of '53 look like abominations of canine design just like those of today, if you're after personal opinions.

All the B B I've ever met have been awesome characters though. I guess the dogs don't know any better.

If the RSPCA rehomed more dogs likely many of them would have fickle temperaments and likely end up in trouble with other animals or humans. Not saying that some of the dogs leaving their shelters now don't but if they started lowering their home able standards people would soon be complaining about the junk status dogs they rehome. There are also only so many homes to go around for working mixes, Staffy crosses...,.and greyhounds. That might be because there are too many of them perhaps. It is not the RSPCA fault that some people are dipshits that breed too many puppies. So I'm not angry about RSPCA euth rates whatever they are. I'm angry at the dipshit breeders and owners that don't take responsibility for their dogs. And I'm perplexed why the Greyhound people have their right to humanely dispose of their dogs taken away

It all sucks lemons.

I agree Steve. Personally I thing they got it all wrong with the greyhound thing v RSPCA. I absolutely support the ban myself but why take responsibility away from the owners to take care of their own dogs. The owner should be able to pts their own dogs. That's taking responsibility. I don't agree with overbreeding for greed resulting in such wastage but now the ban is in this will be the last of them. It would be nice if the breeders and owners were dedicated enough to keep many of the dogs as pets otherwise they shoul have the right to humanely destroy them. Sure some of them would have been surrendered to the RSPCA anyway and many of them would end up euthed so I can't judge if it's the owner or RSPCA humanely destroying them. Same difference.

Sorry I'm at work at the moment I'll come back later and add clarity if needed

People shit all over the RSPCA. They are not the ones causing the problem. Sure maybe they could do a better job mopping up other people's shit, but ultimately it is other people's shit they're left to mop up.

Which chiro did you see?

Dr. Matthew Condon runs Chiropet and does chiro, physio and acupuncture.

If you didn't see Matthew before I'd give him a try. He was a regular vet for years before retraining in his special areas he concentrates on now. Unlike a lot of pet therapists, because Matthew is a vet, he brings vast knowledge in other areas as well as being able to access information (such as X-rays ) from other vets and prescribe medicines.

Just search Chiropet for their website.

I can usually pick a breed a mile off. I surprised the guy with an English Toy Terrier a week or so back.

One of my less stellar moments was when I asked a lady with a couple of 12 week old generic SWF looking pups who walked into my salon for a quote, what are they crossed with....... They were Havanese,,oopsie. They really did look like every other 'Maltese cross' pet shop puppy that I see so often on my grooming table.

Didn't you just move house?

Haredown Whippets

I can show you a study that says for Greyhounds in racing condition, it is virtually impossible to feed sufficient bulk of raw food to meet their protein requirements. It recommends hight quality, high protein kibble AND raw.

Curious as to what greyhound owners fed pre-kibble? I know bread and milk was popular; and baked rusk thingies - but what else?

Vets recommend dry food because it is too difficult and time consuming to explain feeding to clients - much easier and more effective to say "look, this will work, here's a bag".

I get that.

However, when the 15 month old dog has continuing ear problems and recurring serious mouth ulcers - and the vet fails to either find the cause or cure the problem, I do wish they had stuck to the recommended diet, or not come to me with the problem.

And dare I say it, there are monetary incentives connected to volume of sales. And who sponsors veterinary research, funds veterinary schools etc etc. money talks

All those things happen, I know. I'm almost certain that the vast majority of regular everyday dog owners don't. How can that change?

For example, In the big scheme of things the amount of ordinary dog owners on, who or know about, the associate register and what it's about, is tiny.

I like to ask my pet owning clients where they got there dog from. Many different answers. But I find it crazy that some of the pedigree papered owners I ask cannot even tell me the prefix on their pedigree, while the oodle owners can rattle off the name of the oodle farm they got from. Crazy! But it's true. That tells me there is a marketing issue somewhere in the mix. Or maybe it tells me that for the most part, the pet buying public don't actually care that much where they get their dog from. They just decide what they want and go out and find it. If it's in a pet shop window, or an oodle farm website, or a pedigree breeders property matters little ....how can we make it matter?

You tell me. You can tell people about puppy farms and they'll rationalise getting a pup from one as "rescue". Ditto pet shops.

Don't I know it. I groomed a little mixed breed dog for its first trim on Saturday and got told pretty much that exact scenario. They called the number on the ad, told they can meet in a carpark etc. that rang alarm bells with them so they cooled off on the idea. A couple of days later the seller called them with a sob story and that they were in the CBD that day blah blah and apparently the buying couple folded and agreed to meet and see the pup, and had resolved not to let their emotions get in the way of a poor decision....and then told me to my face that as soon as they clapped eyes in the puppy they had to 'rescue' it. Fleas, worms and all. Then went on to tell me they chose a mixed breed this time around because their pedigree toy poodle was pts at age 8 after a miserable life with terrible skin issues. I hear these things day in day out. Sometimes it's flipped around and they're seeking a 'proper breeder' after having a dud mixed dog.

I don't know the answer.

All those things happen, I know. I'm almost certain that the vast majority of regular everyday dog owners don't. How can that change?

For example, In the big scheme of things the amount of ordinary dog owners on, who or know about, the associate register and what it's about, is tiny.

I like to ask my pet owning clients where they got there dog from. Many different answers. But I find it crazy that some of the pedigree papered owners I ask cannot even tell me the prefix on their pedigree, while the oodle owners can rattle off the name of the oodle farm they got from. Crazy! But it's true. That tells me there is a marketing issue somewhere in the mix. Or maybe it tells me that for the most part, the pet buying public don't actually care that much where they get their dog from. They just decide what they want and go out and find it. If it's in a pet shop window, or an oodle farm website, or a pedigree breeders property matters little ....how can we make it matter?

Wonder when it will dawn that once breeders are eliminated they will be finding themselves looking for a new line of work?

No breeder I know and respect considers what they do "work".

As for blaming the ills of the dog world on the ANKC. The issue is bigger than that. The causes are myriad and a simplistic finger-pointing response that lays all blame at the door of registered breeders is a nonsense.

The rise of the double income family, 450 sq m blocks and higher density living, changes to the cultural demographic and yes, animal rights campaigning are all shaping changes in attitudes to dogs.

The amount of misinformation about dogs, dog breeds and dog raising is rife. I think that is the space where the ANKC best operates but when you have little money and the press prints what it wishes to, its a tough ask

I'd like less finger pointing and more solutions that go beyond "they should". As I've already said, "they" should be "we".

This is a very good point, however in the beginning PETA had bugger all money too, just a bunch of zealots. So how did they get so prominent and wealthy? They were very clever in their advertising in the beginning, still are in many ways. They knew that sex sells so they got people to strut around in the nude, the news will report that so free advertising that reaches millions. Easy peasy. Next they appealed to celebrities, celebs want to be seen to have a social conscience so they will join a cause, every time a celeb speaks people listen and the media report it, again free advertising.

I think if the brains trust of DOL can put away their cynicism (I am guilty of this as well) we could change the narrative on animal ownership in this country. Everyone here is at least 10x as smart as any of the PETA loonies so I am sure we could come up with some super marketing ideas to promote pure breed dogs and responsible ownership, and work on implementing some effective and lasting welfare practices.

Yes, and further to that, for me anyway, it is critical that the registered pure breed breeders be seen to not only promote responsible ownership and effective and lasting welfare practices of pedigree dogs, but all dogs . There seems to be this disconnect. Of course pedigree breeders want and need to promote what they do, but the protectionist attitude does not help. Carrying on as though pure breed pedigree dogs are the only dogs that deserve respect is alienating a whole lot of people who might just like dogs. Sure, hate the people if you like, but don't be seen to hate their choice of dog, if it isn't a pedigree purebred. Bashing up Jo blo and treating his mutt dog like a bastard child will not further the cause.

Breed standards are not the demon in the piece. Breeding and rewarding exaggeration IS.

/End thread haha

Ok, so stop rewarding breeding for exaggeration. It's obviously rewarded somehow for breeders to move in that direction.

Scootaloo that is exactly the sort of response that leaves Jo public to disregard registered breeders.

I'm not here with any particular agenda. I just want to promote deep and thoughtful discussion of pros and cons. I'm not going to dismiss what other people are saying. I may even learn things.

If pedigree breeders know the problems they need to be seen to be working towards rectifying them. Not bitching backstabbing and poking fun at people with other ideas

Have you been to many dog shows? Do you exhibit?

Do you understand a standard and how it relates to the dogs in question?

What makes you believe that pedigree breeders do not know the problems? What makes you think they are not working towards eradicating them?

Eradicating problems is not simply a matter of waving your wand about and crying "expelliamus". It is about identifying the problem, identifying the means of fixing it and implementing that. In the first cross, you may have no success. So - back to the drawing board - it may take 4 tries and 4 different dogs to get any success at all. And while people not involved think nothing is being done quite a lot is being done, but because of the nature of the beast it isn't instaneous.

If breeders breed to the standard, things cannot go very wrong - alas, breeding what you want, and have it actually happen in the whelping box are not quite the same.

I would not be at all interested in breeding dogs without some sort of standard as a blueprint - how easy it would be to go horribly wrong and cause all sorts of disasters - and not know for 10 years.

Bulldogs - in the 70s, they did not whelp normally. In the following decades, things were improved and now most do whelp normally. But non-bulldog breeders don't believe that.

If you mean me, well, 31 yrs ago I started working full time with dogs and I haven't stopped. I have worked for show breeders, boarding kennels, owned showed and bred purebred dogs, even titled a couple.run a rescue service, and trained dogs in obedience clubs, and through all of that have owned and operated dog grooming salons for 28 yrs where I've handled vast amounts of pet dogs, pure and not, pedigree and not, and communicated with their owners.I've observed and immersed myself in the dog world as my life.

I'm not particularly interested in playing pure or cross, pedigree or not, etc against each other. I do not align myself with any camp. I like to see dogs as dogs and discuss dogs generally.

For what it's worth, after seeing dogs from all different perspectives, most especially on my grooming table, I have to say the mutts have won me over. There are a couple of pure breeds that I could see myself owning, but day in day out in the salon, I find the mutts 'designer' and otherwise, infinitely nicer to be around and handle.

So I guess we are never going to see eye to eye.

No one wants to have what they have now taken away from them. Some people will realise the problem and accept it, and accept change is needed, but most just cling on to what they have and oppose change. Can't see the trees for the forest etc. Those left to bring change have their work cut out. It's the nature of the beast.

The 'environment' outside of of the ANKC Is everyone else other than their members, which is a lot of people, largely ordinary pet owners and non pet owners. The ANKC have created their own little environment in which is members are stuck, exclusively. The bigger, outside environment, ie, the general public, is demanding change, but the exclusive environment of the ANKC inhibits change by its very nature. The solution lies in the smaller environment, the ANKC, making itself less exclusive and more able to adapt to the bigger environment, the general public.

It's most people, including most breeders.

You'd think most pet owners would be in favour of higher standards of breeder care and health testing.

So why do they keep buying puppy farm dogs?

Because 'registered breeders' ie, ANKC member body, and their members, come across as exclusive, which they are, by the very nature of the membership.

They go and buy puppy farm dogs because those breeders work within the larger less exclusive environment of 'most people'

I'm not saying it's great, just saying that it is that way

'Registered breeders' need to find ways to become less exclusive and more involved with 'most people' .. If they don't at best they will just remain their own little exclusive environment with little meaning to most people, at worst they will cease to exist because of the pressure of 'most people'.......which in the interests of staying on topic, is pretty much what has happened to greyhound racing NSW

They go and buy puppy farm dogs because they can get one from them - because there is no where near enough bred by ANKC registered breeders to fill the demand.

Sure some wont like how some registered breeders make the process harder but most of us don't in fact lots of us will sell to anyone without a care in the world about where they are going.

For now the environment [ the general public] is as desensitised to the way a particular breed characteristic makes the dogs they choose suffer as the people who are breeding them are. Registered breeders who are breeding them are a drip in the ocean of the rest who are breeding them.

The other bit of the environment wants less dogs to suffer because of how they are selected and it gets bigger and louder every day.

The strategy from every one breeding them and owning them is denial whether they are pedigreed or not and until there is an acknowledgment that its a problem and it needs to be dealt with its a threat to the status quo - but Im curious as to how such a small minority ecxclusib=ve group[ environment] is expected to be able to control what those outside of their environment do and how they can not be in the muck as the plug is pulled.

The greyhound thing really was/ is exclusive. You cant breed a grey or race it unless you were part of that exclusive gang [environment] but anyone can breed a pug without being a part of any environment [ group].

Yep, all of that is true too.

To be honest I'm not sure there is a straight answer or a clear path ahead. And I do understand and agree with what you're saying overall too.

If different entities throw their hats in to the ring I suppose it adds to the confusion among most people. Unfortunately money talks, either directly through public campaigns, or indirectly through back door funding. Change takes time, we all have to accept that. Whoever gets their message across more loudly ultimately wins the most support among most people.

unfortunately the message from registered breeding is that because the dogs are generally health tested and breeding is selective etc etc that the animals are somehow better and therefore people expect they will be, as in guaranteed to be better. When the animal doesn't meet or fails the high expectations surrounding animals from registered breeders, that message gets out loud and clear. The few bad messages will always rise above the thousands of good. Owners who get a great animal are just content and we don't hear their message. Owners who don't want everyone to know their gripes.

I guess when people buy a pet outside of the registries they lower their expectations, for better or worse.

Like I said, I don't have the answers, I just want to juggle the pieces of the puzzle to see if I can get any to slot together

The 'environment' outside of of the ANKC Is everyone else other than their members, which is a lot of people, largely ordinary pet owners and non pet owners. The ANKC have created their own little environment in which is members are stuck, exclusively. The bigger, outside environment, ie, the general public, is demanding change, but the exclusive environment of the ANKC inhibits change by its very nature. The solution lies in the smaller environment, the ANKC, making itself less exclusive and more able to adapt to the bigger environment, the general public.

It's most people, including most breeders.

You'd think most pet owners would be in favour of higher standards of breeder care and health testing.

So why do they keep buying puppy farm dogs?

And yes, you'd think pet owners would be in favour of higher standards , and they probably are. But the 'registered breeders' seem to preach among themselves mostly. They need to find ways to get the message out into pet owner land. Expecting pet owner land to come to the message is arse way up thinking. Not saying that's great either, but it is that way

The 'environment' outside of of the ANKC Is everyone else other than their members, which is a lot of people, largely ordinary pet owners and non pet owners. The ANKC have created their own little environment in which is members are stuck, exclusively. The bigger, outside environment, ie, the general public, is demanding change, but the exclusive environment of the ANKC inhibits change by its very nature. The solution lies in the smaller environment, the ANKC, making itself less exclusive and more able to adapt to the bigger environment, the general public.

It's most people, including most breeders.

You'd think most pet owners would be in favour of higher standards of breeder care and health testing.

So why do they keep buying puppy farm dogs?

Because 'registered breeders' ie, ANKC member body, and their members, come across as exclusive, which they are, by the very nature of the membership.

They go and buy puppy farm dogs because those breeders work within the larger less exclusive environment of 'most people'

I'm not saying it's great, just saying that it is that way

'Registered breeders' need to find ways to become less exclusive and more involved with 'most people' .. If they don't at best they will just remain their own little exclusive environment with little meaning to most people, at worst they will cease to exist because of the pressure of 'most people'.......which in the interests of staying on topic, is pretty much what has happened to greyhound racing NSW

I confess sometimes I wish moosmums posts were in plainer language, but I absolutely love them, because they usually force me to think, hard.

I don't confess to completely understand, but what I take from it is. The environment is everything apart from the self. If the self can't, won't, don't, refuse to adapt to the changing environment outside of themselves, then the environment will force it's hand. History tells us plain and clear what happens to those who don't adapt to their environment. The self cannot expect the environment to adapt to it ......the self must adapt to the environment. Whether that means I put more clothes on so I am comfortable sitting in my cold lounge room, or pedigree dog breeders adapting to changing purpose and expectations.

Thanks Gruff. I wish I could be plainer, but this is the way I talk. Its not such a problem face to face.

Buy yeah, you have it right. When you create an organization, you are creating an environment with its own purpose.

Thats not usualy a problem, because its still just PART of an environment out of many parts.

The problem is when its a closed or exclusive organization. It sets limits its pupose. Its no longer just another part of the whole. Its distinct from the rest.

Its members are responding to that organized environment alone. The demands from out side are an intrusion on that space. Theres very little give and take of messages to act on. The message its members act on are those set out at its inception. The culture is set, or fixed and not able to quickly adapt or respond to change. Its an environment for its members, but since it 'acts' independently of the larger environment, its also an identity. Or another 'self' but far more influential on the larger environment than you or me on our own because of the sheer numbers of individuals all acting on the same message.

Each in their own way, yes. But still the single environment and the messages its members receive from THAT environment. If its an exclusive org, Its messages must take precedence and its members a fixed single identity.

The purpose( keeping pedigrees) isn't the problem. Thats an identity that serves a purpose. The exclusive nature is.

Because that makes it an environment IN an identity it can't escape. It can't effectively respond to any demands out side of its ' self '. It can't be both a distinct identity and an isolated environment. An environment does not respond. It can only demand.

So what is your solution?

The 'environment' outside of of the ANKC Is everyone else other than their members, which is a lot of people, largely ordinary pet owners and non pet owners. The ANKC have created their own little environment in which is members are stuck, exclusively. The bigger, outside environment, ie, the general public, is demanding change, but the exclusive environment of the ANKC inhibits change by its very nature. The solution lies in the smaller environment, the ANKC, making itself less exclusive and more able to adapt to the bigger environment, the general public.

I don't have answers on how they can do that, maybe moosmum doesn't either. What she has done is realise and explain the problem.

The change can only come from within. The larger outside environment of the general public is putting more and more pressure on the smaller exclusive environment of the ANKC. The smaller environment will implode unless it finds ways to become more harmonious and inclusive to the larger environment.

Right now the ANKC (and all that encompasses) are sort of in the pressure cooker. They have to vent enough pressure into the outside environment or they will explode/destruct.

Geez MM I'm starting to sound like you!

I am an uneducated person. If I can get my head around it surely it can't be that hard. You just have to think about it.

I confess sometimes I wish moosmums posts were in plainer language, but I absolutely love them, because they usually force me to think, hard.

I don't confess to completely understand, but what I take from it is. The environment is everything apart from the self. If the self can't, won't, don't, refuse to adapt to the changing environment outside of themselves, then the environment will force it's hand. History tells us plain and clear what happens to those who don't adapt to their environment. The self cannot expect the environment to adapt to it ......the self must adapt to the environment. Whether that means I put more clothes on so I am comfortable sitting in my cold lounge room, or pedigree dog breeders adapting to changing purpose and expectations.

Thanks Gruff. I wish I could be plainer, but this is the way I talk. Its not such a problem face to face.

Buy yeah, you have it right. When you create an organization, you are creating an environment with its own purpose.

Thats not usualy a problem, because its still just PART of an environment out of many parts.

The problem is when its a closed or exclusive organization. It sets limits its pupose. Its no longer just another part of the whole. Its distinct from the rest.

Its members are responding to that organized environment alone. The demands from out side are an intrusion on that space. Theres very little give and take of messages to act on. The message its members act on are those set out at its inception. The culture is set, or fixed and not able to quickly adapt or respond to change. Its an environment for its members, but since it 'acts' independently of the larger environment, its also an identity. Or another 'self' but far more influential on the larger environment than you or me on our own because of the sheer numbers of individuals all acting on the same message.

Each in their own way, yes. But still the single environment and the messages its members receive from THAT environment. If its an exclusive org, Its messages must take precedence and its members a fixed single identity.

The purpose( keeping pedigrees) isn't the problem. Thats an identity that serves a purpose. The exclusive nature is.

Because that makes it an environment IN an identity it can't escape. It can't effectively respond to any demands out side of its ' self '. It can't be both a distinct identity and an isolated environment. An environment does not respond. It can only demand.

That makes a lot of sense to me, thanks.

In relation to the language you use, I think to convey the same basic message across many scenarios it's wise to use, let's say, generic language. It is sort of a template to lay across whatever scenario, instead of having to spell out many many different scenarios using the same language. It just takes a bit of thought and effort to bring the language to the scenario you may be looking at.

Snook has more I think.. Sorry if this one is enormous