Are they good with kids?

The common question: Are they good with kids?

What it is really asking is: Does this particular breed bite?

And the answer is: Yes. This breed, and every other breed, bites.


Puppies in a pen with a child peering in.Dog bites are a lot more complex than simple ‘breed’.  Families with children and dogs need to recognise that any child-dog interaction can end up in a bite, regardless of breed.  However, there are a number of ways that dog bite risk can be minimised.

It is very possible for dogs and children to live safely together, but it involves setting the dog and the child up for success, and managing interactions to ensure they are positive.


The Dog

Dogs need to be selected with care as they form an important part of the picture.  For a dog to be ‘good with children’,  they need to be adequately socialised, trained, and have a stable genetic personality and temperament.  Your role, if you’re looking to add a dog to your family, is to select a breeder using stable dogs with good temperaments who socialise their dogs and puppies to all people, including young children.  Once you’ve added one of these well-bred, well-socialised puppies to your family, the next step is to continue to socialise the puppy well with all people, train the puppy appropriate behaviours (e.g. not to jump up), and police child interactions with the dog.

That is, a dog needs to be selected, socialised and trained to be the best dog they can be, and then well managed – for life.


The Child

Children need to be taught to interact appropriately with dogs.  Dogs with stable temperaments should not then be an invitation for children to climb on, poke, or otherwise tease or irritate the dog.  Even good dogs have limits.  Children should be taught to:

  • Always leave dogs alone that are sleeping.
  • Always leave dogs alone that are eating.
  • Always leave the dog alone when they go to their special place (which could be the dog’s crate, bed, or kennel).
  • Always leave dogs along that are acting fearful (and how to identify a dog that is scared).
  • Always leave dogs along that are acting aggressive (and how to identify a dog that is angry).
  • To pat dogs on the chin and chest, and avoid hugging or squeezing a dog.
  • Never do anything that could hurt the dog.
  • Never grab a dog by its collar.

All these interactions are high risk for children, as dogs don’t like being interacted with in these ways, and it may lead to them biting.  Children need to have rules concerning their interactions with all dogs, for their own safety.



As the dog’s owner and child’s parent, you play an important role in managing the interactions that take place between the dog and the child, and ensuring they are appropriate and safe.  For example, it is your job to ensure that children know not to approach a dog that is eating, while also ensuring that the dog is always removed from the children while eating.  If you think your dog may be fearful during a child’s birthday party, perhaps putting the dog in boarding kennels for the weekend or otherwise confining the dog would be an option.  Management also includes alert, conscious supervision of all dog-child interactions: The mantra of “Supervise or Separate”.  If you can’t watch how dog and child are interacting, then separate the dog from the child.

If you know there are deficiencies in your dog’s temperament or your child’s behaviour, then your management attempts should be set up to prevent these deficiencies giving rise to a dog bite.

 A young border terrier sleeping with a child reading the puppy a story.


Any breed that is described as ‘good with kids’ is, at the very least, being deceptively advertised.  Dogs are living individuals, and there’s no guarantee how they will behave with children.

As you can see, the question “Are these dogs good with kids?” is a complex question.  Any dog can be good with kids, provided they are come with a genetic ‘good temperament’ and are well socialised, and well trained.  However, this dog can only be expected to be ‘good’ if the kids interact in respectful and safe ways with the dogs, and all interactions are constantly monitored to ensure all parties are safe.

Having a safe home environment for children is a lot more than just choosing the right breed – it’s an ongoing commitment to education and management of both dogs and children.

If you want your dog to be good with the kids, you really should be asking, “Am I good at management?”


Further reading: See Resources for New Puppy Owners, particularly the links under ‘Children and Dogs’.


Product Review: Rose Hip Vital Canine

I have mentioned occasionally my first border terrier, MacDogald, and how he now lives with my parents. What I didn’t mention is that my elderly grandmother, who lives with my parents, somehow let Mac out of the yard. And when we found Mac again, he had a fractured pelvis.  His pelvis break went straight through the socket for his femur (his ‘hip joint’).  We knew Mac would never walk the same again, but after 6 weeks of crate rest, at least he was walking.

Our next step was reducing Mac’s pain as a result of the healed injury, as it was inevitable that he would develop arthritis in that joint.  He was started on a course Cartrophen almost immediately, and when he was due for the next course, his behaviour indicated that he was in pain as he was hesitant to engage in some activities. But even then Cartrophen was having a limited effect – as an 11 year old dog, it’s possible that arthritis was starting to creep into his other joints.

Container of Rose-Hip Vital.So, of course, when Rose-Hip Vital Canine contacted me for a product review, it was only fitting that Mac sample the product to see if it improved his comfort.

I must note that I’m very much a skeptic when it comes to herbal-whatsits, and come from a family of skeptics. Though I was reassured when I received a bunch of research papers with my trial sample, I was still skeptical.

But: We were amazed at Mac’s improvements on Rose-Hip Vital.

One of the most obvious signs of Mac’s pain was that he would hesitate to jump on the couch or the bed. Within a few days of the supplement, Mac had stopped planning his jumps and started easily hopping up.

A few days after this, Mac then stopped groaning when he moved in his bed or got up from laying down.  Presumably, the pain that was making him groan was now reduced.

Then, after about 10 days of first starting the supplement, he started running around the house, grabbing toys impulsively  and using the couch as his race track.

Not only did Mac’s pain-symptoms decrease after taking Rose-Hip Vital, but it did so dramatically over just 10 days.

Indeed, my skeptical-dad then went out and purchased Rose-Hip Vital (for people).  His results were less dramatic, but when he forgot to take his Rose-Hip Vital away with him on a weekend trip, he certainly regretted it!  It seems that perhaps Rose-Hip Vital built up more slowly for him and so the results were more subtle, but obviously cumulative.

Mac is not the only dog who has seen incredible results on Rose-Hip Vital Canine. My friend has a border collie with ongoing unresolved lameness issues which saw improvements with the product (see: Kenz’s Story – A Rose Hip Vital Success).  Indeed, the active Rose-Hip Vital Canine Facebook page has countless success stories of dogs doing better on the product.  A DogzOnline thread shows a number of people having success, too.

Mac continues to take Rose-Hip Vital Canine, and we have no plans of taking him off the product. I would very much recommend Rose-Hip Vital Canine for any dog with joint related issues. The results seen with Mac were significant and fast-acting.

Rose-Hip Vital Canine is responsible for dramatic improvements in Mac’s mobility and significantly improving his quality of life. We are so grateful for finding this product and finding the Mac we used to know again.

Mac going for a run!

Mac going for a run!

Rose-Hip Vital Canine provided Some Thoughts About Dogs with a free sample of the product but all thoughts and experiences expressed in this blog post are my own. Genuinely very happy with this product!


The Week in Tweets – 22nd May 2013

This is our (almost) weekly segment where we review the content posted on our Twitter over the course of the week. It’s a long post! So make sure you grab a coffee and prepare yourself for some serious reading.

But before we start, just a quick picture of a rainbow that was visible at tracking training on Tuesday.

Rainbow at Blackwood on Tuesday.

Rainbow at Blackwood (South Australia) on Tuesday.


Tweet of the Week

Fascinating and weird! A National Geographic story on “Resurrecting the extinct frog with a stomach for a womb“. I don’t know what else to say!


Rescue and Sheltering

An almost-tweet-of-the-week post, called “Foster Caring for Dummies” from Maggie’s Farm.

Get involved and take a foster care survey: “Someone like you? Our foster care survey“.

The SavingPets posts I tweeted this week: “There is no death row at the RSPCA“, “Celebrating 100 years of the Lost Dogs Home“, “The worst advert for an Australian rescue dogs & adoption. Ever.“, “Empty cages, empty incinerators“, and “RSPCA NSW just like No Kill (except with killing)“.

From Team Unruly: “So you found a stray…

Beautiful pictures of Munster and Bungee – Fetching Puppies (from the Ruthless Things blog).

No more ruff days for Bruce.

Old and New Ways to Find Lost Animals.

The lie at the heart of the killing.

What influences a dog’s lenght of stay at a no-kill animal shelter?

DogTime Smears No-Kill.


Dog Training & Behaviour

One person’s experience with the dog whisperer.

Fenzi Dog Sports Academy.

From Companion Animal Psychology: Positive Reinforcement and Dog Training II and Do dogs find their owners presence supportive when a threatening stranger comes near?.

From Patricia McConnell: Why do male dogs scent mark so much? 

Steve Courtney’s Philosophy on Dog Training, a brief overview.

Dominance Dog Training – Is it worth discussing anymore?

Why I don’t need to be a pack leader.


BSL and Dog Bites

iKilling Dogs – the new BSL app.

Dog evaluations – a quick side step.

From SavingPets, two victims of BSL: Baby and Diva.

Dog Bite Conference, Italy, June 15th and 16th.


Legislation and Dogs

Save the Future of the Working Dog.

Anger over proposed dog laws.

Campaspe Working Dogs’s response to the draft for the Code of Practice for Breeding and Rearing of Dogs.

Florida’s Pet Lemon Law.


Dog Breeds & Breeding

Incorrect certified PRA result issued.

Is Shiva a ‘sound’ dog?

From Terrierman: The Shiro Mim – Japan’s early answer to radar and The Scarlett Point Terrier.

Bull terriers: head case.

A history of Crufts.


Dog Health

Community-based veterinary public health.

Choice on Pet Vaccination.

From A Mastiff Blog: Exercising Your Mastiff Puppy and Spay or Neutering Your Mastiff or Other Giant Breed Dog.

Free or Inexpensive Spay and Neuter listed by US State.


Other Dog Stuff

The heat(map) is on… The colours of canine welfare.

What is a good life for dogs?

If I Should Die Before I Wake.

Jade Fountain seminars on 3rd of June in Belmont.


Animal Stuff

Keynote presentation abstract: Antoine F Goetschel.

How much do you really love animals?

Children with autism show increased positive social behaviors when animals are present.

Matty the Baby Sloth.

Tears flow freely as US lab chimps see sky for the first time.



How is this comfortable, Breaker?

Breaker, Digger, and puppies.



Breeding and Rearing Code in Victoria – Email Submission

Less than 12 hours to go to get your online submissions and email submissions in! Commenting online or email animal.welfare@dpi.vic.gov.au (open in email client) if you’re looking to do the same) with your feedback on the proposed code.

To Whom It May Concern,


Re: Breeding and Rearing Code Review and Public Content


Whilst I understand that the proposed Breeding and Rearing Code has come about due to public concern regarding the welfare of breeding animals in large breeding establishments, and I support motions to improve the welfare of all animals, I am deeply worried by the unscientific nature of this proposed Code.  Significantly,

1)   The Code includes only 18 references.

A Code such as that proposed should be far more thoroughly researched before reaching a consultation stage.  Instead, this Code uses 16 papers on a variety of companion animal topics, some which are not even peer reviewed, to reach a conclusion.  There needs to be far greater review of the available literature to reach recommendations on further regulation.  This review should include articles covering the welfare of breeding animals in a number of contexts, in a variety of breeds and species, while also considering the success of regulation in achieving welfare outcomes in similar circumstances.  None of these areas are covered in any of the references currently included for the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS).  Without more research, the proposed Code may be ill positioned to improve animal welfare in Victoria.

2)   The significance of the paper by Kustritz (2012) is exaggerated, and its interpretation is erroneous.

The review paper written by Kustritz (2012) seems to be the basis of many of the conditions surrounding breeding animals in the proposed Code.  However, this is only a review paper.  This means that this paper reviews other literature, and is not research in itself.  Therefore, calling it ‘scientific research’ (as claimed in the RIS) is erroneous.  Furthermore, this review paper has not been peer reviewed (and therefore has no quality control measures) and this paper also has only ever been published in Canine Theriogenology, which is owned by Ms Kustritz herself.  In addition, this paper warns against regulation, saying “There is little literature to support many of the recommendations made by veterinarians regarding management of breeding dogs. This limits our ability to guide legislators uniformly and may result in inappropriate legislation or legal findings”.  That is, Kustritz recommends against the very actions that have been undertaken when writing the proposed Code.  Whilst the paper by Kustritz is a starting point when considering the welfare of breeding dogs, it is not scientific, it is not peer reviewed, it is not independently published, and it recommends in its own text that it not be used in creating regulation.  Considering this, it should not be used as the crux of the proposed Code, as it currently is.

Additionally, the paper is often erroneously quoted within the RIS.  This raises huge concerns about the validity of the research process undertaken in formulating the Code.  For example, the RIS claims that the critical age recommended is for the general health of the bitch.  However, the Kustritz paper makes no claims of this nature.  Critical age is based solely on bitch productivity and not the welfare of the bitch.   Similarly, the RIS claims “Scientific Research [sic] recommends that… bitches should not produce more than five litters”.  But the Kustritz paper does not say this at all, instead uses two articles on two breeds of dogs to indicate that productivity decreases after five litters.  That is, scientific research shows that productivity decreases after five litters, but not that bitches should not be bred after five litters, and certainly does not make claims on bitch welfare.  In these two instances, the RIS is misleading.

However, there are also claims in the RIS that are completely false, such as “the research recommends male dogs are not bred… beyond critical age”, when in reality, Kustritz (and others) do not recommend a critical age for stud dog use at all.  Another false claim made in the RIS is “The justification behind these recommendations includes… the general health of the bitch and the increased risk to both bitch and male dog of reproductive failure and diseases such as cancers of the reproductive tract, urethra and bladder.”  Nowhere in the Kustritz paper does she link breeding of animals to cancer formation.  That is, dogs that are bred are not more likely to develop cancer.  Many of the claims in the RIS are erroneous, misleading, and should be immediately rectified, and these changes should then be reflected in the Code to show breeding standards that are actually recommended in scientific research.

3)   The paper references nothing on cats.

There is a huge paucity in the literature referenced regarding cats and their welfare.  Indeed, the term ‘cat’ and ‘feline’ does not appear in any of the reference paper titles.  In fact, there are more papers referenced from a pig journal than there are articles on cats.  It is inconceivable that the proposed Code could ever make recommendations on cat welfare without using references actually pertaining to cats.  This is a huge oversight and it reflects the lacking process in developing the proposed Code, especially in regard to the recommendations made on breeding cat welfare.

Due to these clear inaccuracies in the RIS’s interpretation of the limited references, I argue that the proposed Code is not significantly informed to accomplish the desirable welfare goals.  Potentially, this Code could therefore be a huge waste of government resources.  Thus, I do not support this Code until it can be more comprehensively supported by academic literature.  I argue that relevant literature needs to be comprehensively reviewed in order to create an informed code that accurately reflects current animal welfare understandings, including its regulation.  To do any less is to potentially compromise the credibility and impact of significant animal welfare legislation.



Get your submission in NOW! Less than 12 hours to go! And if you’re looking for another submission to formulate some ideas, here is what Victoria Dog Rescue had to say.

Go go go! Do something!


Breeding and Rearing Code in Victoria – Online Submission

Commenting on the Victorian Breeding and Rearing Code was an exhausting process! Indeed, I am still in the process of writing a response to email to the DPI. (There email is animal.welfare@dpi.vic.gov.au (open in email client) if you’re looking to do the same.)

I wrote about the problems with the proposed code yesterday.

Making an online submission is a very intensive process, but I am very concerned that others may be ‘put off’ from placing a submission because of the process! Please don’t! Below I have included my submission which may help you form your own.  Each response is limited to 1000 characters (due to the nature of the online form). You are welcome to use the entirety or bits of this response in your own.


1. Introduction

I believe that all Options, A-E, are unlikely to meet the objectives outlined in the RIS.

The welfare of breeding dogs and cats (and their offspring) is governed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. If the welfare of animals in breeding establishments is of concern, then the act should cover relevant penalties for these welfare breeches, or an Animal Welfare Act introduced.

The proposed code does not offer sufficient consumer protection from “poorly socialised puppies”. While the code makes some attempts to describe socialisation experiences, they are no where near adequate for developing ‘well socialised’ puppies during the critical socialisation period of 4 weeks to 16 weeks.

While I believe the cost of $14.75 is not unreasonable for consumers to absorb, it is unrealistic to say that paying such a cost would ‘ensure’ better practice. Any practice compromising the welfare of breeding animals should be dealt with under existing or new Acts.


1. Background

This proposed Code has come to fruition due to concerns about animal welfare. If this is the case, then why is the Code only focussed on the welfare of a very small group of fertile animals? Particularly, why does this proposed Code not apply to greyhound breeders? If the practices defined in the Code are best practice, then they should apply to all animals and not just a select few meeting the narrow scope of a ‘breeding establishment’.

The ‘microchip in advertisements’ amendment has simply seen animal-sellers list any microchip number in their advertisements instead of the microchip of the animal actually for sale.  Authorised officers are inefficient in enforcing microchip listings in advertisements, and also the permanent identification of animals before sale (as seen in the Domestic Animals Act), then I am pessimistic regarding authorised officers’ ability to enforce the complexities of this proposed Code.


2. The problem and the policy objective

Case Example 1 shows how Victorian animals are suffering due to a non-existent Animal Welfare Act.  Animals need an Act to ensure their welfare, and not simply prevent them from suffering cruelty.

However, the POCTAA does allow for individuals to be prosecuted in veterinary problems are not sought. Therefore, the common veterinary problems, as listed here, occur in violation of the Act and should be prosecuted as such.

This proposed Code is well advised to amend the process for selling unhealthy animals (i.e. they can be sold with a veterinary certificate), to make attempts to ensure the socialisation and handling of young animals, and become inclusive of small scale breeders with dogs living in home environments. (Though, in regard to the latter, the Code is still lacking in some ways.)


3. Identification of viable options

Considering the only reference regarding breeding animal health used in justifying the code is that written by Kustritz, I presume that by “scientific research” you are referring only to the work of Kustritz. If this is the case, the conclusions reached from the her review are hugely flawed.

Kustritz paper is not ‘scientific research’, it is a review of evidence, and it is not peer reviewed (i.e. it has no quality control measures undertaken before it was published). The paper explicitly states, “There is little literature to support many of the recommendations made by veterinarians regarding management of breeding dogs. This limits our ability to guide legislators uniformly and may result in inappropriate legislation or legal findings.”  The author themselves does not recommend that the review be used in guiding legislation. Using this paper to substantiate this code is a clear perversion of the conclusions made within the paper itself.


4. Assessment of costs and benefits

The costs and benefits of each option are only relevant if they are going to be sufficiently enforced.  The perceived benefits listed are optimistic, at best, of enforcement and compliance with the proposed Code.


6. Evaluation Strategy

This evaluation strategy uses indicators that apply to animals sourced from all breeders, including those exempt from the code.  This means that backyard breeders’, small scale ANKC breeders, and greyhound breeders all still able to produce and own unhealthy animals, and there will be consistent detection of ‘poor animal health’ and consistent consumer complaints.


7. References

There is shockingly little research described in this list of references, and very little on breeding dogs. Indeed, there is as many references on breeding dogs as there are papers published by a pig journal.  Furthermore, there is no reference listed for cats and their welfare.  For a Code that will have such significant and far reaching implications, it is important that it is substantiated by scientific evidence. Currently, it seems that the Code is more opinion than science based, which is hugely concerning for companion animals in the state.


2 (10). Euthanasia

This section is titled euthanasia, which is the destruction of animals that are injured or diseased. It concerns me that, at the end of this segment, there is a clause regarding rehoming animals, which seems to imply that euthanasia of surplus animals is permitted in the Code. This certainly does not seem to be in the best interest of animal welfare. Indeed, if a facility is producing animals that are ‘unsuitable’ to rehoming, then they are clearly housing, socialising and managing animals in a way that is not synonymous with their welfare.


3. Records

The record keeping process described within this section is excessive and burdensome for small businesses with few animals.


3 (3) c. Individual animal identification

This segment is irrelevant to small businesses who have animals in their house and yard, and not penned or caged.


4. Sale of animals

The requirement for animals to be sold with a complete health check signed by a veterinarian is perhaps the best element of this entire code. It should be a requirement for all animals sold, and not just those being sold with individuals who fall under this code.

The segment saying “Animals must not be sold before 8 weeks of age” should be “Animals must not permanently leave the business premises before 8 weeks of age, except upon veterinary advice”.


5 (1) Nutrition

These nutrition guidelines require dogs to be fed from a food receptacle, which does not seem to be in the best interest of animals considering the enrichment activities that animals could engage in if fed in alternative ways.  For example, if all meals were provided in enrichment activities such as being provided in “Kongs”, from boxes, with food hidden in their pens and exercise yards, then this would be more desirable in terms of animal welfare.  Indeed, I suggest that feeding simply from a food bowl is poor practice.

Though there is a risk of hydatids in offal, an internal parasite treatment regime close to eliminates this risk..


5 (2)(b) Dogs over 3 months of age

I strongly object to the proposal that a vet will be required to sign off on the behaviour/temperament of a dog to determine its suitability for breeding.  Performing assessments on behaviour is a highly controversial area as it is difficult to get an accurate picture of a dog’s behaviour in a limited window of time.  While a vet may be best in determining the health of an animal for breeding, the temperament and behaviour is best assessed by an owner who spends long periods of time with their animal and sees them on a daily basis and in a number of settings.


5 (3)(a) Heritable defects

Breeding healthy animals is important, but it is possible for animals affected by particular genetic disorders to not pass this condition on to their offspring, depending on the inheritance of that condition. For example, dogs affected with CEA can be bred to dogs clear of CEA (as shown by DNA tests), and produce dogs that are not symptomatic of CEA.  There are several conditions in dogs that are inherited in this way, and so dogs who have the disorder can produce healthy animals with careful mate selection.

Considering this phenomena, it is unclear why this Code requires affected animals to not be bred from. Animals should only not be bred from if they have an heritable defect that will be passed on to their children, and this can be controlled by mate selection, and so an affected animal can produce non-affected children.


5 (3)(b) Males

The requirement for stud dogs to not be used for more than 6 years at stud is one of the most heinous suggestions in this entire Code. This Code attempts to protect consumers from unhealthy animals, and part of this is having animals that stay healthy for a great number of years. The best resource for breeders in producing animals that are healthy is to use stud dogs that are healthy into their senior years. For this reason, many breeders use stud dogs who are 7 years old or older, hoping to be produce puppies with genes for longevity. Like human men, male dogs stay fertile for a great number of years and suffer no ill effects from copulating as a senior. There is no logical welfare reason to prohibit the use of older stud dogs and, indeed, to do so actually seems contradictory to the goals of the Code.


5 (3)(c) Females

These restrictions on breeding bitches, especially for large breed bitches, makes it very difficult for breeders to produce puppies. If you consider large breeds do not mature before 2 years, and may only cycle ever 1 year, then breeders are restricted to a maximum of 3 litters per bitch. This is further complicated by Dogs Victoria guidelines that restrict a bitch from being bred every season.  If the bitch in question is particularly desirable to parent, in terms of her health scores, or the genetic diversity she offers, this restrictive breeding code is even more heinous.

I think it is again important to note that the Code of Practice for the Operation of Greyhound Establishments put none of these restrictions on the breeding of greyhound bitches.  If these guidelines are in the interests of animal welfare, why do they not apply to all breeding bitches? Alternatively, if they are not in the interests of animal welfare, then why have they been included in the code at all?


5 (3)(d) Retirement

There are numerous negative health implications associated with desexing, and it should be no means be made mandatory for all retired breeding animals.

There should be no option for the euthanasia of animals that have been retired from breeding.  Business owners must be obligated to rehome any animals they no longer wish to have on their premises.


5 (3)(f) Whelping

Bitches that are pregnant are not sick and do not need to be isolated from other animals due to their pregnancy. Indeed, bitches, who are social creatures, may be stressed by being removed from their companions.


5 (4) (a) Exercise and enrichment

This table is a great starting point for the type of experience puppies and dogs should be receiving.  However, it should also include a requirement for puppies from 4-16 weeks of age to be taken off the premises and be exposed to many sights, sounds, and smells in ‘the real world’.  This could include things like exposure to traffic, to many different types of people, to noisy environments like busy shopping environments, and ‘day to day’ things like riding in a car.


5 (4) (b) Socialisation and handling

This table is a great starting point for the type of experiences puppies and dogs should be receiving.  However, puppies should be removed from littermates for short periods from 4 weeks of age to learn to be independent. From 4-16 weeks of age, puppies must interact with compatible adult dogs, not just ‘where practical’.


5 (5) (a) Disinfectant and hygiene

The use of disinfectant in this code is excessive for small or home breeders who have dogs living in their home.


5 (5) (c) Tethering

Considering that tethering of dogs is known to increase aggression, it should not be permitted in order to improve public safety.


5 (5) (d) Small businesses

While I like that this code acknowledges that dogs sleep inside in small businesses, steam cleaning of carpets every 6 months seems excessive and militant.

In regarding to whelping and lactating areas, some of the requirements are over prescriptive given the individual nature of bitches and the methods they choose to parent.

It should be up to the owner to determine if bitches should have space to remove herself from the puppies, as some bitches will choose to abandon their puppies if given too much space.

Furthermore, some bitches choose to co-parent litters, which reduces strain on each individual bitch and can aid in preventing some problems like milk fever. The Code in its current form would prevent such an event from occurring.

Additionally, providing a heat source should be on a case by case basis and dependent on the weather at the time.


5 (5) (e) Large businesses

Entire male and female dogs should be allowed to be housed and exercised together. Indeed, the most complimentary temperament pairings are normally mix sexes.

In regarding to whelping and lactating areas, some of the requirements are over prescriptive given the individual nature of bitches and the methods they choose to parent.

It should be up to the owner to determine if bitches should have space to remove herself from the puppies, as some bitches will choose to abandon their puppies if given too much space.

Furthermore, some bitches choose to co-parent litters, which reduces strain on each individual bitch and can aid in preventing some problems like milk fever. The Code in its current form would prevent such an event from occurring.

Additionally, providing a heat source should be on a case by case basis and dependent on the weather at the time.

Please take the time to submit your own comment. It is important this Code does not get through in its current format, and it will be dependent on public comment.