sandgrubber

My first litter: incident. Pup threw up. People took pup to vet and rang up $100 vet fees for exams etc. Turns out it was carsickness. I hadn't yet learned not to feed pups for a few hours before they went to new homes. Since then I've given puppy buyers as many tips as I can about vets in their area, and recommended several times that if they think anything is wrong, to notify me before they go to the vet. If there is a specific reason for caution, eg, I've had a few pups with overshot jaws, and a few litters that were likely to develop KC given high incidence in our area. I give them a written description of the problem and, for bad bites, a guarantee that I'll pay the cost of surgical procedures in the unlikely case that they are necessary . . . but ONLY if they notify me and give me the option of choosing the vet, or getting a second opinion from a vet I respect. With KC I let them know that it's like a baby with a viral infection . . . in most cases will pass without treatment but meds may soothe symptoms, antibiotics not likely to be effective, vet care needed if energy level drops or temperature rises. I generally go for the free 6 wk insurance from Pet Plan . . . which ensures that severe KC treatment costs won't become an issue.

Councils tend to arbitrary behaviour, with fees set willy-nilly. If you don't like what they are doing, you have to speak out. It's a painful time-consuming process. But if people don't take the time, there's no point to having local government. Personally, I think 'breeder permits' are a good idea. But many good ideas get implemented in a bad way.

Maybe not with all people but with a far chunk of them it is downright callousness. In every town I have lived there has been many many people just having litters upon litters as it is cheaper just to dunk puppies/kittens in buckets of water at birth than to desex. (or dump them at 6-8 weeks after mummies boobies have dried) I know heaps of people who just drop one dog/cat at the pound so they can get a new dog/cat. BYB's would have nothing on the thousands of people who own dogs but don't desex and then just dump unwanted puppies. That is being callous. Knowing each season your bitch will have pups and you can just dump/drown them. I agree . . .the difference is semantic or of degrees. The most critical callousness is that of people who allow dogs (cats, ferrets, rabbits, or what-have-you) to breed without adequate thought about where the resulting puppies will go and what sort of lives they will lead. I am p.o.'d with people who defend the 'right to breed' without recognising the widespread abuse of that 'right'. I don't like government intervention . . . but nudges from the government in the direction of making spey/neuter be the norm seem to be a good thing.

If you want government processes to hear your words, get involved in the political process. I doubt that your local Member reads DOL forums. Interest groups effect change when the effectively exchange with the outside world . . . not from chorus behaviours.

Jed . . . what's the secret of doing quotes? I mess them up every time. Your post below is a masterpiece of technique. Retort follows after the quote of quotes Thank you. I love learning, I love a good seminar. Alas, there's not much for me there - we already have a central registry, its called the ANKC, I know what happens to house dogs which go to kennels, from reports of Dr Bennet's seminar in Tas, I would think it was a waste of my precious time, Dr McGreevey's views are well publicised. I hear he is interesting, but flawed. Oogh, canine research, I like that. Will someone be able to tell me about new breakthroughs in the identification of the gene responsible for RD, or luxating patellas, or even the mode of inheritance? That's the type of research I love to hear about - the sort that will make me a better breeder. If it's not a promotion of cross bred dogs, representatives from the ANKC should have been invited. If it walks like a duck, quacks, looks like a duck, it's a duck, pure and simple. I don't think it is a promotion of cross bred dogs, it's a promotion of animal rights and being further allowed to encroach on the purebred dog fancy. And yet another bashing of purebred dogs and their breeders, using skewed figures overridden by unbiased research which research will not be mentioned, to brainwash people into believing that purebred dogs have a myriad of problems which will be solved by some academics with an agenda and little practical experience. You were hoping for a good roll up to push your agenda. Sounds like Don Burke revisited to me. Gee, many have said they will be attending. Perhaps the ones who have PM'd you are frightened you might bite them? Maybe work on your image a bit? Absolutely not permitted, so you might try harder in future. Does "all getting along" mean we all have to agree with you? Erny - that bothers me too. No one is saying the right things *goes off to study Sun Tzu again* Sandgrubber I agree with you. Registered breeders are only as good as their integrity, mentors, source of learning, and will to learn. Some learn and succeed, some just do the same thing in the same place for years, some come, fail, leave. As much as we like to bag the ANKC, it is working for health and quality in purebreds. There's a difference between working for health and quality and driving people out Whether cross breds will come under a health and welfare umbrella is another matter. I think not. The purebred community has one goal, and one agenda, although both very broad. The mong breeders have as many goals and agendas as they number. The worst of the pedigree dogs are better than the worst of the designer mongs, but the registered breeders do have an organisation, which the mong breeders do not. And I very much doubt that most of the mong breeders want an organisation, they simply want to continue to do as they like, and rake in the moolah. the mongs already have the greater market share and have had for years. Few registered breeders give a rats about that. Supply and demand and promotion plays a large part in that. I don't see mongs as having any relevance to registered dogs, nor do I care what mong breeders do, except for damage done to the dogs. Mong breeders have different goals, different aspirations, different motivations. Hostility? Unfortunately, most of the public does not understand about a lot of things about breeding dogs - not the mechanics, the things breeders stive for. I don't think they particularly want, or need to understand, although it is not "secret business". They do not understand the relevance of points in the breed standards, they do not understand that by changing a point, something else will be changed - and mostly, they don't care. They want a happy, healthy dog which fits their lifestyle, which suits their particular training style and which is easy for them to love. Consider - the Cav standard calls for straight silky hair. Too easy. Some cavs have wavy hair. The wavy coat tends to be coarser. Not a big deal? Nope. Except that the straight silky hair knots less, holds the dirt less, smells less and requires less grooming. And if it knots, the knots are easier to remove. I know when I sell a pup with the hair type as required by the standard, it is unlikely that the dog will be at the groomers in a matted to the skin mess. It's only a small point, but it's a point which means the difference between success and failure for some owners. It is, in fact, a very important point, although very few owners realise it, and some breeders don't either, although the ones who have lived with both coats do know. That's the kind of thing breeders know and strive for, but the public doesn't know. There are many many items like that with every breed, and these are often the things which highlight success or failure for the pet owner. Boxers have a reputation for slobbering, but a boxer with a correct mouth and satisfactory flews slobbers very little if at all. People don't understand the standards, they don't understand the difference between a coated dog they have to groom for a couple of hours a night, and one which is ok with a bit of a brush off every week. They think all boxers slobber. I think it is rather sad that someone who doesn't seem to understand the standard wants to crossbreed dogs to change them. You should first understand that which you wish to change. And puppy buyers generally are more satisfied with purchases from reputable breeders (read this forum for verification) and the majority of breeders do try very hard to do the right thing. A larger proportion than the mong breeders, as far as I can tell. Yep, some mongs are great but it's all Russian roulette, isn't it? Breeding purebred dogs shouldn't be Russian roulette. I think there is a basic, rock bottom challenge that the pedigree community is not facing. Some of our breed standards promote things that run contrary to breeding good suburban pets . . . which is what most of our puppies end out being [pardon awful awkward English language]. For example, as a Labrador breeder, I know that breeding for the duplex coat that is appropriate from pulling in fish nets in the Bay of Fundy and enshrined in my Breed Standard, results in dogs that suffer from the WA summer heat. 90% of my pups go to pet homes -- mostly because of the Lab's deserved reputation for easy temperament and low grooming needs. If I get a lovely bitch pup who lacks the duplex coat, do I run her on as a brood bitch? Or the father/daughter line that doesn't like to swim? Not true to the intent of the breed standard, but less inclined to dig in the water bowl and slosh water all over the place. Do I promote a line that done well as Guide Dogs due to high biddability and strong loyalty to person, but useless in retrieving trials? I'm not taking sides . .. just saying there is a legit debate . . . and I think some people are trying to cut that debate off . . . and in my eyes that reflects badly on the pedigree dog world. Actually, I am taking sides. I strongly believe that the world changes. Dog breeds need to change to adapt to changing environments. I welcome genetic tools that will help that adaptation. I almost decided to have a go with kelpies . . . a breed I greatly admire for endurance, intelligence and suitability for a hot climate. But seeing how unhappy many kelpies are in the suburbs, I decided that breeding them was a bad idea. There aren't that many openings for herding dogs these days . . . and the openings that there are are better filled by people who run 10,000+ sheep, not by ageing yuppiie dog lovers like me. Lots of Aussies like the kelpie look, keen-ness, intelligence, and strength. I would love to see kelpie lines devel oped that were better adapted to suburban life. Given that dog breeds have evolved over time to varying 'work' demands -- eg, Labs became retrievers, not bringer-in-of fishnet dogs, many 'fighting' dog breeds are now house dogs, and cart dogs all but died out a century ago -- I think the desire to make dogs fit in better with suburban lifestyles deserves serious consideration. Breeding to suit a function is a long honoured fact in the pedigree world. We need to accept that the function of many dog breeds has changed. We allow for appearance to evolve . . . why not also allow temperament to do so. As for cross breeding .. . I think the Lab was improved by cross breeding with a hodge-podge of gun dog and occasional other breeds ~1800 to 1950. I don't think we should be jumping on others who try to create new breeds through cross breeding. The example I know is the Rat Terrier . . . mostly a 20th century breed that mixes ground-dog prey drive with more affable traits . . . and which would not exits if the extreme anti-cross-breeding community had its way. I can see some sort of 'spoodle' being a great family dog . . . and I wouldn't condemn anyone for trying to breed some heat tolerant and not so food obsessed traits into Labrador lines to come up with a new breed.

Not rude at all. Sorry. Most of the DOL complaints about the RSPCA seem to be directed to the VIC branch, and there is a tendency in these discussions to tar the RSPCA as a whole for policies implemented in one state branch. I agree, it would be good if CC people would seek membership in the VIC RSPCA. [i'm in WA .. . haven't heard many complaints about the RSPCA here other than my own problem that they are not allowing chook-farmers to use recycled egg cartons for farm-sales]. If there is, indeed, a problem with the NSW branch not accepting CC members, why not embarass them the denial of membership -- which flies in the face of widespread Australian values?

Pedigree dog registration numbers -- eg, the decline of the GSD, doberman, and many long-haired breeds, shows pretty well what the public wants in dog temperament. The semi-surprise is the rising popularity of the SBT . . .who in my experience, tend to have never-failing friendly energy, be larrikins, and sometimes be scrappy when it comes to other dogs. Guess Aussies are willing to put up with a mild tendency to DA to get a crazy little, ever-enthusiastic, short haired ball of energy. I don't think anyone is proposing to breed the 'guard' out of all guard dogs, or the 'herding/high energy' out of working herding dogs. Just to help people who like some breed or other, but want non-working lines that will be more appropriate as pets achieve that objective. I think there are many who like aspects of, say, the kelpie, but don't want to end out with a dog that goes neurotic through being confined to a back yard with no work to do, or a bluey who doesn't hock-bite strangers who appear in its territory. As a boarding kennel operator who tries to see dogs as social animals, I see loads of dogs from herding dog breeds that become fence fighters, barkers, and semi-neurotic, and loads of staffie crosses that can't be mixed with other dogs because the fighting side of the SBT character is too strong. As a Labrador breeder, I know most breeders who work with my breed will cull any dog from their breeding program if that dog shows signs of HA or DA. And glory hallelulah if anyone finds a 'biddability' gene (I doubt it will happen). I would be grateful for the development of genetic screening problems that would permit identification of such dogs before they reach maturity . . . so that their genes will not be passed on and their temperament faults can be used to advantage by placing them with a family that likes Labs, but would like more of a guard dog. I also think that APBT people would be in much better shape re BSL if there were a way to select out the 'pit' temperament factor. Pitties are often lovely dogs . . . but some do carry the fighting dog tendency in a big way.

Mike Goddard's abstract reads: Genetics of Dog Behaviour and Breeding Programs to Improve Canine Welfare The most important step in any breeding program is to decide on the objectives. Since most puppies sold become pets, the main objective should be to breed dogs that become successful pets. Two sets of traits contribute towards this – behavioural traits and health traits – and both of these also impact on the welfare of the dog. Some abnormalities are due to a single mutant gene such as progressive retinal atrophy (PRA). In many cases the mutant gene is recessive so a dog can carry the mutant gene but appear perfectly normal. In some cases there are DNA tests to detect such carriers. However most diseases are due to many genes and environmental factors (eg hip dysplasia and epilepsy). In these cases the best strategy is to estimate the overall genetic merit of the dog for each trait and select those with highest merit. This would be helped greatly by calculating estimated breeding values for each dog for each important trait but to do this would require that a central registry was kept of dogs' status for traits such as HD and epilepsy. Among behavioural traits, fearfulness, aggression and over excitability are undesirable traits. They are also controlled by many genes and by environmental factors and the best way to improve them is to select animals with desirable estimated breeding values for these traits. O.K. Nothing new there - what is the aim of the seminar. Actually, there is something new and significant. From what DOL'ers repeatedly say, the health and temperament message needs to be put out to the DD community . . . and there are still some in the pedigree community who could stand to hear it as well. I would love to see some organisation working for quality control in cross breeds . . . or for all dogs equally. In my experience in kennels, some DD's are wonderful, healthy pets and quite healthy, while others seem to be the result of breeding two dogs that no reputable pedigree breeder would think of using. No better, and no worse than pedigree dogs. The non-pedigree dog community seems to be gaining market share from the pedigree community. I think behooves the pedigree dog community's interest to listen, look, and not prejudge. I congratulate mic for keeping his or her cool in the face of hostility.

I agree completely. I'm afraid it's easier to just curse the RSPCA. In WA we don't find the RSPCA much of a problem (or are there people they've bothered who aren't speaking up). I'd guess that's historical accident, not a result of good organisation in the K9 community. I would say it's the VIC and maybe QLD/NSW people who need to mount a a challenge. So I take it you haven't read about how people who were identified as members of a canine council were refused membership? Serious question. It is a bit hard to run for board if you aren't a member, and a bit hard to be a member if they exclude people from certain groups. I have not read about this, nor do I find it easy to believe. I don't find it hard to believe that someone would misrepresent events with respect to RSPCA. I wrote to the RSPCA and asked. It took a couple months for them to reply. The reply is as follows: Thank you for your patience in waiting for my response. Whilst I did not believe it to be the case that we refused membership to people on the Canine Council, I also wanted to check with senior management. I can confirm that in Victoria, we do not exclude anyone on the Canine Council or any breed association. Exclusion from membership is only based on exceptional factors such as a prosecution for cruelty – of course, this could apply to anyone. If you have any further concerns regarding this matter, please do get in touch with the RSPCA in your local area. I hope that helps to clarify the situation regarding membership in Victoria. Kind regards, Fiona Atkinson Events & Membership Manager RSPCA Graphic Logo Deleted here 3 Burwood Hwy, Burwood East VIC 3151 | W: www.rspcavic.org P: 03 9224 2262 | F: 03 9224 2507 | E: [email protected] So, either someone is not telling the truth, or the person who was refused membership was refused membership for reasons having nothing to do with being on a CC. As our law uses the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", the ball is in your court to offer evidence that people are refused membership because they are on CC's.

I don't think callousness is the problem. Sadly, more pups and kittens are born than there are good homes to take them in. No wonder so many vets have spey/neuter as a mantra. It must be depressing to be the one holding the green needle for so many animals who never found a loving home . . . and knowing that for every one that is euthanised, there are probably several who meet a less humane early death.

The question isn't so much mode of AI as timing of the bitch's cycle. Implantation is generally done to get the semen in a couple days after ovulation. Chilled semen lives longer in the womb and is thus may be put in vaginally a couple days earlier.

If I didn't have puppy buyers, I wouldn't breed. If I were breeding specifically and only for puppy buyers I wouldn't bother with importing semen, etc. and I wouldn't have clean health sheets (avg hip score total of 3, no elbow scores, all PRA clear) for all my breeding dogs. The California examples of desexing legislation show that it DOES reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats without causing distress to legitimate breeders of pedigree dogs. quote: To achieve this, they hint at legislation. After all, who better to condemn the docking of a puppy's tail than the person who will, in a few weeks time, slice open her abdomen to remove a healthy uterus? That is scare mongering. Vets vary widely in their level of education regarding pedigree dogs, and in their attitudes toward tail docking, declawing, desexing, etc. Many of them disapprove of some breed standards . . . but so do a lot of breeders. It's really sad to hear of abreed that, in many cases, are incapable of natural mating or natural whelping. It is sad to see some breeds with large fractions of the population suffering from HD. To say it's a bad thing that someone HINTS at legislation is to deny free speach. You'll find extremists who hint at all sorts of things. The extremist who wrote this piece is hinting that the dog police want to impose forced sterilisation on healthy pedigree dogs. But most of the 'healty uteruses' that vets remove are in pets whose owners, for a combination of behavioural and birth-control reasons, choose to have the pet neutered. Some also do desexing for rescue organisations. Is that so horrible? People have been desexing animals for hundreds of years . . . the practice is so widespread that there is a special word for the castrated male of many domestic animals (gelding, steer, etc.). As for breed standards . . .read the reactions to the recent posting in the general discussion forum of an old book on pedigree dogs. Lots of people think that breeds have gone downhill through a century or so of breeding . . . that the old stock looked better. Or read the many acrid debates about the show GSD. How is it ok for the pedigree dog community to forbid a breeder from getting more than four litters from a healthy brood bitch, with the result that she will either have her healthy uterus removed, or she will be at risk of some nasty diseases . . . but not ok for someone outside the breeders community to hint that laws might be enacted to require sterilisation of dogs with genetic diseases?

This thread needs something other than a nodding chorus. I'd class the article as scare mongering. Given how widely the right to breed is abused, and given how many pups are born each year who will end up meeting a sad fate cause not enough good homes are available, I think 'spey and neuter' is a reasonable mantra. The situation would be improved by having more than a mantra. I think all dogs, including pedigree dogs, would be better off if the right were converted to a privalege with attendant responsibilities . . . eg, vet checks and adherence to basic health standards. This would do more to discourage puppy farmers than pedigree dog breeders. Mandatory spey-neuter laws have not stopped pedigree dog breeders in Santa Cruz and other counties in California where such laws are in place. Nor do they result in the dog police (SPCA) going door to door looking for entire dogs. They, in conjunction with education campaigns and subsidized spey/neuter clinics have cut down rates of impoundment and euthanasia. See http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-06-09/news...hoice-neutering. Btw, APBT's are openly bred and sold in Sta Cruz . . . see http://www.scmkennels.com/ . . . note they do not require that all pups be desexed, or forced to wear gear designating them as dangerous dogs. I don't hear anyone threatening rare breeds by mandatory spey/neuter laws.

Great news! Hope a test follows and breeders will be able to work the disease out of their bloodlines. I knew a compusive tail chasing Bull Terrier years ago . . . not a pretty thing at all. Could anyone work out what the mode of inheritance was for this one? Sort of sounds like incomplete dominance?

Yes the poison is poison. The question is dosage. It takes a lot more poison to kill a dog than a mouse. So unless your dog is very small, the amount of poison needed to kill a mouse should do no noticable damage . . . not that it will do any good . . . and not that eating a dozen poisoned mice would be a good thing. At least that's what our local exterminator -- who also breeds Rottis -- told me.

She whelped at 63 days. We did a Ceasar .. . because it was a large litter of large puppies and she has a history of loosing a pup or two in whelping. 10 healthy pups.

Smackos are WAY too salty :D and I don't like the grittyness in most biscuits. The roo mince I buy is often made from little grey kangaroos . . . which taste much gamier than the red roos. It has been inspected for hyatid, though. As for chicken carcasses, I occasionally make soup from them, and when a nice fresh one comes through with a big breast remaining on it, I sometimes use it to make curry chicken (well cooked). Haven't gotten sick from it yet. Btw, a lot of the things we eat are unfit for human consumption.

There are a couple hundred species of ant in Australia. You're not going to be able to get rid of all ants on your property, and to target the problem species, presuming the ants are the source of the problem, it would help to know something about where it nests and what it feeds on. With the right information you may be able to find a highly specific poison, eg, something that the adult ants will take back to their nests and poison their young. The modern, highly targeted poisons of this sort work well with social insects and can be used in ways that aren't dangerous to dogs. But they require some information on the target species. Most ants hate water. If you just want to keep the ants out of the dogfood, I'd suggest setting the food in dishes set inside a larger dish of water. I do this sometimes in the cattery when the ants start eating the canned food. Alternatively, just leave the food down for 15 minutes and then take it away. The dogs will learn to eat fast. If you have ant trails forming, sprinkling talcum powder over the trail sometimes disrupts the ants food search.

Here's one of the groggy girl post Ceasar and the 10some. And a few pups up close. And for good measure a shot showing how the puppies entertained themselves while we were at the vets. I don't much like getting 'em to pose in their first days.

My sympathy. Try a kennel zone in WA . . . you get the same thing from three sides. It's hard to keep kennel dogs quiet, especially on holidays when it's crowded. 95% of them are find, but you always seem to get one or two who don't respond to any attempts to quiet them. We exercise dogs throughout daylight hours, and some of them still bark all night -- eg, we have a little JRT with doggy dementia who will not shutup. There are some kennels that do such lovely things as locking dogs OUTSIDE in the exercise yard all night, resulting in fence fighting and other great sounds. On the other hand, I have learned to enjoy and mostly sleep through chorus bark/howling by the greyhounds and the Rotti pack nextdoor. But that's not all night.

Jarrah had 6 males and 4 females. All chocolate. Doing well. Ended up doing a Ceasar on day 63 after frozen semen implantation.

I used to see a basset at dog school - and totally agree with you. The basset pictured in this book is by FAR a better looking dog. The basset? They show six breeds of Basset, most of them rough coats. Where have they all gone?

Looks like you all were right. It's day 59. Jarrah's temperature has dropped to 37 degrees. Unfortunately the air temperature is 39 . . . all six of my dogs, and the whelping box, are now in my bedroom, the only air conditioned room in the house.

One of my vets told me that Salmonella can kill pups with immature immune systems . . . eg, below 4 mo of age. If this is right, don't feed the pup any meat you wouldn't eat yourself. Be very cautious about 'off' chicken. I think necks are better than wings. More meat and smaller bones. I have heard stories about pups getting wing bones stuck . . . but it depends on the pup, how much it chews, etc.. If the pup tends to swallow whole problems are more likely.

another round of Congrads. Tua must be much relieved to get them out of her belly. Looks like a tired and contented mum.