Tag Archives: puppies

01/14/12

The Sin of Breeding Dogs

I’m in the process of socialising my puppy.  We’ve attended various places and am asked a number of questions. But the question I dread is, “When did you get her?”

My reply is, “I actually bred her litter.”

I’ve seen a number of faces go hard and critical when I make this declaration.  You can see their brains turning… They think about RSPCA ads about puppy factories, they think about shelter ads telling them animals are dying in pounds, they think about how irresponsible I am to own entire dogs.

When did dog breeding become such a sin? Continue reading →

12/7/11

Myrtle at 6 Weeks

We are very happy to introduce Myrtle, our newest resident.  Myrtle is 6 weeks old and is the daughter of my Clover, out of a dog in Victoria.  She was born a singleton puppy, and we were lucky enough to find two 9-day-old puppies that have been her siblings.  Myrtle is 3 days younger than her foster-siblings.

This mating has been a long time in the making, and so far, we are quite happy with the result.

So here is a video of Myrtle, at 6 weeks (and 1 day) old doing some training.  It is mostly fun – we are playing tug. I was going to edit out the minute where she goes and entertains herself but that, in itself, is quite amusing.  She pretty much knows ‘sit’ and ‘touch’, but and in this video we practice ‘give’ (the tug toy back) and ‘drop’.

I was happy with this training session. We both had fun, and that’s all I really want at this stage.

12/27/10

What is the answer? (to puppy farms)

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:

  1. Responsible breeders have the opportunity to get back any animal that, unawares to them, ends up in unsatisfactory care.
  2. Breeders may be less likely to have litters if they are concerned that their puppies may cost them a fee if they end up in inappropriate care.
  3. Breeders will seriously consider the homes in which the puppies end up in, as securing a ‘forever home’ first up would ensure no fees later down the track.
  4. Pound-like facilities would also have monetary benefits as a result of this proposal.

 

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?”.

12/27/10

Puppy Socialisation Checklist

Socialisation is one of the most important roles of a new puppy owner. Puppies’ brains develop considerably from 6 weeks-16 weeks of age.  During this time, the puppy learns a lot about their world.  It is a unique window of time that will impact the puppy for life. Socialisation is the process by which your puppy is exposed to as many facets of life as possible.

Puppies that are well socialised are more secure adults, and more adaptable adults.  If nothing else is done, the most important thing a puppy owner can do is expose the puppy to as many things as possible.  To be beneficial, these exposures must be positive.

Puppies should be exposed, in a positive or neutral way, to as many things as possible.  Negative experiences that occur during the socialisation window can affect a puppy for life. Some recent research suggests that puppies need to be exposed to things several times over the socialisation period.

The below list is also available as a PDF: Puppy Socialisation Checklist Continue reading →

12/27/10

Puppies Exhibiting Calming Signals

At the moment, I am raising my first litter.  The puppies are only two weeks old, but are already using calming signals during intensive handling sessions.

The most obvious of which is yawning.  I don’t think I have seen a puppy yawn once in the whelping box – all have yawned while they are being handled.  Obviously, the puppies are not merely tired.

For those who are unaware, “Calming Signals” is a term coined by Turid Rugaas to describe behaviours that communicate discomfort or stress. One of them is yawning, and my puppies are clearly displaying this behaviour.  Another is the ‘look away’. I am certain that taking photographs of these puppies would not be so hard if this signal wasn’t mastered yet.  I have also seen the occasional lip licking, though not with enough conviction that I am convinced it is a calming signal.

I guess my interest in posting this observation is the very early stage of this yawning – why are puppies this young yawning?

There is some debate about whether calming signals are for the benefit of the other animal (e.g. another dog) or actually work in calming the dog down who is displaying the behaviour.  It could be proposed that, at this stage, the puppies are only interacting with their mother.  I have doubts whether they are using these behaviours to solely communicate with her. So perhaps calming signals are working in these young puppies to calm them down?

Perhaps our pet dogs need calming signals in preparedness of interacting with humans.  This raises questions about the origins of calming signals.  Do wolves make calming signals?  How about some wild dog-like species, like New Guinea Singing Dogs or Dingos?  Could this very young display of calming signals be as a result of puppies having to interact with outsiders sooner than their wild cousins (considering that puppies ‘in the wild’ would be in a den for several weeks)?

This is a simple observation, but it makes you wonder – what’s the point of yawning when you’re two weeks old?

(Turid’s website is Calming Signals Community. For more information about Calming Signals, you can access DogWise.com’s selection of Turid Rugaas books. I can personally vouch for the fantastic “On Talking Terms With Dogs” DVD, though the rest of her resources are yet to be dissected.)