Puppy buying is a bit of an art. As a breeder, and being in breeder-communities, I know that breeders can experience a lot of frustration with enquiries. Puppy buyers, I’m sure, also get frustrated, and perhaps don’t know that they are going about puppy buying in the ‘wrong way’.
I’ve compiled a list of tips for contacting a dog breeder. These are broad and general, but hopefully will help anyone who is searching for a puppy.
For so long, the message has been “socialise, socialise, socialise“. The idea has been that, regardless of the puppy you select, you should be able to socialise it into a happy, normal, well adjusted pup.
Markable Curly Coated Retriever puppies, socialising with some cows.
The more I learn about dogs, the more I am inclined to disagree. I think we have hugely overlooked the role of genetics in determining many behaviours. While I will always advocate socialisation to get the best out of a dog, I think some dogs are genetically wired to be confident despite their socialisation experiences.
I have some anecdotal evidence to share with you.
I used to work in boarding kennels. We had a pretty extensive questionnaire we’d ask new clients and, sometimes, owners would admit: “We didn’t really socialise her.” Considering these admissions, most of these dogs were actually quite okay. I can recall very few cases when these dogs were outwardly aggressive to people, and most were okay with dogs, too. What kind of explanation supports this evidence? To me, it suggests that these dogs were either genetically ‘good’ dogs, solid and confident, or genetically ‘mostly good’ dogs, which needed minimal socialisation to complete an adequate behaviour code.
Another example with my own girl, Winona. Winona came into my household at a difficult time and got relatively little socialisation compared to other puppies that have come through my house. However, she is a very confident dog. She is tolerant of all handling, she likes all people, and though she is sometimes ‘overwhelmed’ by large dogs when she first meets them, she recovers well and interacts appropriately. It’s clear that Winona is supposed to be a confident, happy, non-aggressive dog. Socialisation had, at most, very little to do with her as an adult dog. Considering the confident, non-aggressive dispositions of her parents, I am not surprised. Winona is genetically confident.
Mooch the Norwegian Elkhound – with us for 2 months due to her severe fear issues.
And then let’s consider Mooch. Mooch was a foster dog we had last year for 2 months. She was an incredibly fearful dog. It took two weeks before my partner could touch her. Once she was on my lap when a stranger approach, and she expelled her anal glands in terror (I didn’t even know this was possible). From her history, it seems she was (almost) kept exclusively in a house for 2 years, being tended by immediate family, with few visitors and few outings.
It took very little effort to bring Mooch around to a near-normal dog. She will never be perfect, but she didn’t take huge efforts or time to get her to be a decent dog. I took her out to tracking training with me a few times, and this is a very busy house – you need to get used to seeing a lot of people fairly quick! You would think, from her history, Mooch would be impossible to restore to confidence. I think Mooch was never meant to be a fearful dog – I met Mooch’s parents and I have met few dogs as beautifully confident and contented. I think Mooch was a genetically confident dog, with a hugely neglected socialisation period, that meant she displayed fearful behaviours.
Now, again, I believe the environments and the genetics work together to produce the dog. I’d like to emphasise that I think socialisation is important, but not the ‘be-and-end-all’ of dog behaviour. To me, the message of “socialise, socialise, socialise” is outdated.
I vote for a new slogan: “select, select, select”. I’ll explain in my next post.
It is with mixed feelings that I announce that Winona (who we talked about days ago in our 2012 goals) went to a new home on Friday. After their weekend trial period, her new family has fallen in love with her.
Winona at 7 weeks
I get frequent enquiries about border terriers, and Winona has been ‘on offer’ for a while – however, with certain conditions. Namely, that we can continue to show her to her title, and that we can have a litter from her at a later date. This is a pretty big ask.
Her new family contacted me after their border terrier cross died, and after a lot of consideration, came to visit. Continue reading
This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.
Throughout Paul McGreevy’s two day seminar, he expressed a number of opinions regarding dog breeding. Being a dog breeder myself, I anticipate I paid particular heed to his comments. I find that, in the current climate of dog rescue and puppy farms, dog breeders are constantly under scrutiny and, in general, I find myself a little defensive to conversations surrounding dog breeding.
However, McGreevy had some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas surrounding dog breeding, and he presented them in a very amenable way. That is: McGreevy didn’t breeder bash! He approached matters surround breeding dogs in a matter-of-fact way. Indeed, he spent more time blaming the system of dog breeding (i.e. breeding purebred dogs to a standard) for the problems in dogs today than critiquing breeders themselves. Fundamentally, McGreevy believes that the system for breeding dogs need to change in order to emphasise the health and temperament of dogs, and not their physical appearances.
Couldn’t resist including a photo of my current singleton litter. See here border terrier mum with her 2 day old puppy.
Domestication and dog breeds
Domestication and selective breeding have changed dogs from their wolf ancestors. For example, dog skulls have changed a great deal from the skull of a wolf, and there is also much variation between dog breeds. Not surprisingly, the brains of dogs have changed too, with a wolf brain weighing three times as much as a dog brain. Considering that the dog’s brain is part of its central nverous system, it is reasonable to assume that there may be implications for the dog’s entire nervous system. McGreevy said, “We are only just beginning to learn what we’ve done.”
One thing is for sure: We don’t have a wolf in our lounge room.
In times gone by, breeding dogs were selected on the ability to perform tasks, such as herding, retrieving, carting, or any other purpose. These days, selection is mostly based on conformation, and emphasis is being place on ‘beauty’ traits such as coat and colouration instead of structure. McGreevy believes that this current system ineffective, as 150 years of breeding dogs ‘to standard’ has resulted in a host of inherited disorders. Considering this, McGreevy believes that the dog breeding system needs to change.
Current dog breeding practices are cruel
McGreevy asserted that inherited disorders are a form of cruelty. He also put forward that, considering that the main reason dogs are euthanised in shelters is due to their temperament, breeding for good temperaments is imperative. Neither of these traits are overly considered in the current breeding system.
McGreevy believes that breed standards often are in contradiction to animal welfare. He used the British Bulldog as an example. He criticised the standard for asking for a head that is “the larger the better”, while at the same time calling for a narrow pelvis – an obvious problem for the whelping abilities of the breed. Furthermore some of the points in the standard are actually unhealthy (for example, loose skin in Shar Pei has been found to correlate with joint problems, and the skull shape of a dog influences its vision). In McGreevy’s opinion, dog breed standards have been written in a manner that is sometimes contradictory to dog well being.
My suggestion is that breeders become responsible for their puppies for the entirety of their lives.
As in many states microchipping is currently compulsory, and it is likely to make its way into other states as time progresses, I think this is a great way to monitoring dogs throughout the entirety of their lives. All we would need is, in the microchipping database, for an additional field, ‘breeder’, to be added for every puppy. In this way, dogs are permanently linked to their breeder.
This means that, if that dog ends up into a facility (i.e. a pound), then the breeder can be responsible. If a facility fails to find the owner of an animal, the breeder would be contacted. The breeder would have the opportunity to receive the animal back (administration costs only), or else pay the facility a fee and allow the facility to receive ownership for the animal, and consequently rehome it (or otherwise).
I argue that this is a suitable solution as it would mean that:
I don’t believe tougher animal welfare standards are necessary. These standards are already adequate (though poorly enforced), and any changes to these standards only make things more demanding for breeders who recognise legislation.
I don’t believe additional licensing (of owners or of breeders) is feasible. There would be lots of administrative costs associated, and obviously there would be people who would ‘slip under the radar’.
The beauty of this suggestion is that, as far as I’m concerned, it is only unscrupulous breeders unconcerned with their animals welfare which would object to this proposal. As a future breeder, I would LOVE to have the opportunity to get any animal I bred back out of a pound-like facility and rehome them myself.
There would be no additional restrictions or legislation to be enforced, just an extra field to create on the microchipping database. Pound facilities would not have a hugely additional workload – instead of calling two phone numbers when a microchipped animal enters the facility, they would call three numbers.
The main kink in this proposal is that individuals would be able to sell animals which are not microchipped, as I am sure they currently do. There needs to be more policing of microchipping. This is a difficulty. One potential solution is to educate puppy buyers the importance of microchipping, and emphasising ideas such as “you wouldn’t buy a vehicle without a warranty, so why would you buy a puppy without a micrcohip?”.
