A new puppy...any tips?? - Page 3

[MammaB21]

Thanx everyone. Some good info here, I will check out all those links. I am not sure if we will go the raw route, but I deffinately want to look into it. Gizmo has been feeling better. I gave him some wet food that morning, and I am pretty sure that is what upset his tummy. I am now going to just mix his dry food with some yogurt, and soften it up a bit.

mamamilkers That is a good point about wanting a family dog. That is really what we want. A companion. A buddy who will fit into our family. And that is just what we got!!!

[thekimballs]

I abandoned this thread and am still seeing nothing good, but I have to respond because of the above food links. Feeding the way the links describe is an excellent way to hurt your dog, BADLY.

That middle book describes a method of feeding that is CRITICALLY short of calcium. Your dog will not grow properly. It's also got all kinds of crazy stuff about not feeding pork (US pork does not have any danger of trichinosis) and how great vegetables are. Pulped vegetables have a place in a certain type of raw diet, but they're not a major part of the diet and most raw feeders are now doing a prey-model diet that has no vegetables.

The first link tells you not to feed bones, and gives an example of a salmon meal that is horribly unbalanced.

The last has you baking a treat that is no better than any you could get at a discount store.

Feeding a good raw diet is BY FAR the best way to feed your dog. But you have GOT to do your research, or you will harm or even kill your dog.

If you want a good treat recipe/method, just take some raw meat--boneless chicken, liver, etc.--coat it lightly with garlic powder, and bake for several hours in a low oven. You want it both cooked and dehydrated. This will make several hundred treats of appropriate size; remember that a treat should be no bigger than the nail of your smallest finger.

[SevenVeils]

Shih-poo? Aussiedoodle?

So what do I have then- a Saint Akpyr? And I guess my last dog was a Boxing Retriever or maybe a Rebox?

Look I've been on the front line of designer dogs for years!

Or do you only get a spiffy new name and claim your mutt as a breed if it was bred intentionally?

[MammaB21]

Originally Posted by skyastara

Shih-poo? Aussiedoodle?

So what do I have then- a Saint Akpyr? And I guess my last dog was a Boxing Retriever or maybe a Rebox?

Look I've been on the front line of designer dogs for years!

Or do you only get a spiffy new name and claim your mutt as a breed if it was bred intentionally?

Guess what, I don't really know who you are trying to convince here. I think I have explained myself over and over again. If I had a yard, and a DH and DD who weren't allergic I would have had more choices. I don't call my dog a Shihpoo because I think it is its own breed. In fact, I usually say he is part Shih Tzu part toy poodle. Because he is. Shihpoo is just easier to say, and deffinately easier to type. I know you have some issues with this, and obviously me and my dog, and my choice in getting him, but I would appreciate it if you kept those opinions to yourself from now on unless you plan on being alittle more considerate of other peoples feelings. Remember that we are online, and what you type can be greatly missunderstood.

[MammaB21]

Originally Posted by thekimballs

I abandoned this thread and am still seeing nothing good, but I have to respond because of the above food links. Feeding the way the links describe is an excellent way to hurt your dog, BADLY.

: confusing. To be honest, I havent even gotten a chance to read the links yet. I was curious about the raw diet, and was thinking the same thing about it being potentially harmfull if not done properly, so thank you for pointing that out. I think I will just stick with the high quality, all natural food he is on now, however I will probably still look into raw.

As for you abandoning the thread, I just wanna say that allthough I think you have a very strong opinion on some things disscussed here, I valued your insight, and learned alot from your advice, so thank you. But I dont' know what you mean by not seeing anything good. I have tried hard to gear this thread back to the original topic.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by skyastara

So what do I have then- a Saint Akpyr? And I guess my last dog was a Boxing Retriever or maybe a Rebox?

Reminds me of that commercial (for what, I can't remember) of the guy wondering what you'd call a beaver and platypus cross. A platyver, or a beavapus? : I snort everytime I hear that commercial on the radio!

[SevenVeils]

Originally Posted by MammaB21

Guess what, I don't really know who you are trying to convince here. I think I have explained myself over and over again. If I had a yard, and a DH and DD who weren't allergic I would have had more choices. I don't call my dog a Shihpoo because I think it is its own breed. In fact, I usually say he is part Shih Tzu part toy poodle. Because he is. Shihpoo is just easier to say, and deffinately easier to type. I know you have some issues with this, and obviously me and my dog, and my choice in getting him, but I would appreciate it if you kept those opinions to yourself from now on unless you plan on being alittle more considerate of other peoples feelings. Remember that we are online, and what you type can be greatly missunderstood.

It wasn't actually any of your posts which I was replying to. I don't have issues with you or your dog. I have issues with people intentionally breeding mutts, giving them made up names, and selling them for profit. I have the exact same issues with people breeding purebred dogs the same way. I have issues with people preying upon others' lack of education.

These practices victimize humans and dogs alike.

In a perfect world, every person who is considering a dog will spend hours and hours researching dogs before even coming close to a choice. That world is unlikely to ever happen. My partner gets huffy when I criticize the huge amount of ignorance possessed by my landlord, and the obvious problems that it is causing for her dogs (and her neighbors), and tells me that until being around me he would have been exactly like them- gotten a dog with about the amount of consideration that you would put into getting a piece of furniture. Then maybe train it a little (because that's what people do- teach it to sit or so forth), but mainly let it run rampant. ETA: this is not the way that I view you. But it is the 'norm' unfortunately.

But the people who are producing dogs have a huge amount of responsibility on their shoulders. The ones who don't feel this way are the problems. It is up to them to lead the members of the public toward education, and to provide only the best possible animals both structurally and temperamentally (correct for the breed in question).

That is my issue. It is nothing against you nor your dog. The breeder of your dog, yes. Your dog is here, he is alive, he deserves the very best treatment, training, diet, and it sounds as if you plan to provide those things.

I do feel strongly about people like your dog's breeder. That is what you are picking up on. I would love it if everyone understood why what they are doing is so bad. That won't happen, but I can't just shrug my shoulders and walk away.

If you think that's bad, you should hear what I have to say about the people who are responsible for my (amazing) puppy's life. His parents were found wandering, abandoned in the remote, unpopulated desert mountains of Nevada. They were emaciated. The rescue people didn't even know that she was pregnant, and she dropped 8 huge puppies less than a week after the parents were found.

My dog is wonderful. I am very happy that he is part of my life. But am I glad that he was created? No. Am I happy about the way that he came to be? Of course not. Those two dogs suffered for weeks (or years, who knows how they were treated by the former owner) and no dog should have to go through that. Especially while pregnant.

Hopefully that clears things up a little. Truly, I have no issues with you.

[mtiger]

Originally Posted by MammaB21

Also my 2 year old is very good and gentle with him. They are like siblings, it is so cute!! He actually plays with her the most because he sees her as a litter mate. So we are working with her to show her the commands and working with him as well.

I didn't read past page 1, but had to comment on this. NO! NO NO NO! This is a terrible dynamic to allow. Your pup should never see your child as a litter mate - he should know that the child is in a dominant position. Make sure he does, or you're in for dominance issues as time goes on.

[MammaB21]

Originally Posted by mtiger

I didn't read past page 1, but had to comment on this. NO! NO NO NO! This is a terrible dynamic to allow. Your pup should never see your child as a litter mate - he should know that the child is in a dominant position. Make sure he does, or you're in for dominance issues as time goes on.

The very next line in the statement you quoted sais, "so we are working with her to show her the commands, and working with him as well." Thank you for pointing that out. It is deffinately not something we are incuraging. I think because she is little, he sees her more as someone to play with. Wich is fine, as long as he also knows that he isn't the boss over her. She will be coming with me to puppy classes, and hopefully they can show us some guide lines to fix this.

[MammaB21]

Skyastara No hard feelings. I understand where you are coming from, and I know it must be frustrating for you. I just have a problem with the assumption that ALL toy pet owners are irresponsible, didn't do research, got the dog because it was cute..etc..and that ALL cross bred breeders are irrisponsible, and doing this increadibly evil thing. I certainly see your points, but I don't believe this to be true. I believe the breeder we used is a good person, and she cares about her dogs, and their homes. Now, I know you can come back at me with all the things she did wrong, and I see that now, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm not going to jump on this bandwagon of shooting down any breeder or animal that is less the perfect in your eyes. These are opinions, and as much as you feel your right, you have to remember that others may not agree with you, and that is okay. I think we have bigger fish to fry when it comes to dogs, cats, and all stray or sheltered animals. And that is something that we can all work together on, without all of the debates.

Also, I just wanted to point out that we are in a different area. I don't doubt that in some areas these 'toy' dogs are being sheltered very freequently. But where I am there is little to NO dogs of this nature in shelters. And I looked within 3 states of my own. If they are in a shelter, they have waiting lists down the block. There must be many out there who are being homed for life.

[mtiger]

Originally Posted by MammaB21

The very next line in the statement you quoted sais, "so we are working with her to show her the commands, and working with him as well."

Yep, I read the next lines. But the "it's so cute!" part worried me more than the latter lines encouraged.

Originally Posted by MammaB21

Thank you for pointing that out. It is deffinately not something we are incuraging.

This is good. I would not encourage any play between them that is not 100% supervised (i.e. it's going to be play between you or Dad, pup & child).

Originally Posted by MammaB21

I think because she is little, he sees her more as someone to play with. Wich is fine, as long as he also knows that he isn't the boss over her.

No. He needs to know that he is NOT her playmate. That she is - and always will be - one of the bosses of him. He must understand that she is dominant to him.

Originally Posted by MammaB21

She will be coming with me to puppy classes, and hopefully they can show us some guide lines to fix this.

And this I would so not advise. For starers, I'd be surprised that the person running the puppy class would allow you to even bring a 2yo. Most will not allow under 6 or 8yo's to participate, and prefer that younger than that stay home. It's a distraction to everyone. Instructor, parent, pup, other participants and their dogs. You can ( and should) ask the instructor for input, and even ask if it's okay to have Dad bring little to class towards the end one day so the instructor can observe some interaction. But please - don't bring her to class with you. If I were someone paying for a class and another participant brought their 2yo? I'd be asking for my money back.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by MammaB21

I just have a problem with the assumption that ALL toy pet owners are irresponsible, didn't do research, got the dog because it was cute..etc..and that ALL cross bred breeders are irrisponsible

But they are. As we mentioned briefly in the other thread (what is a back yard breeder), mixing breeds is usually done under very specific circumstances, and when it's done by a responsible breeder it's done to add dogs back to THEIR breeding program, which means the dogs are either kept by them, or are only available to the public (and even then, they're usually sold with in that certain circle - hunters, herding, sledding, etc) in a very limited way.

So yes, the breeder of your puppy is irresponsible, most likely due to a lack of knowledge. That doesn't make her a bad person, and that doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't care about her dogs and her puppies. It just means she either doesn't know what is involved in being a reputable breeder, or she doesn't care (but from the sounds it, it's the former). However, both are reasons not to support breeders like her in the future.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by mtiger

If I were someone paying for a class and another participant brought their 2yo? I'd be asking for my money back.

Really. I occasionally give DD some markers and some paper to sit on the porch while I do leash work with my dogs in the driveway, and it's beyond distracting. I can't focus on my dog and anticipate signals and be concise and quick and attentive with a 2 year old in the back ground. Never mind adding 10 other dogs to the picture, which would no doubt change the dynamic of my *own* dog. The only exception to this was when DD was a newborn and was asleep in the sling. I took advantage of that time to walk my dogs, but even still, I'd never take a newborn (or a toddler) to a dog training class. Especially a puppy class where everyone is out of control. LOL

[MammaB21]

Yep, I read the next lines. But the "it's so cute!" part worried me more than the latter lines encouraged.

I was reffering more to how well they are getting along. And how my DD wants the dog involved in everything!! Like, I say, "Lyric, are you hungry for dinner?" She sais, "yes, puppy hungry for dinner too." I am happy that they love each other so much.

No. He needs to know that he is NOT her playmate. That she is - and always will be - one of the bosses of him. He must understand that she is dominant to him.

Yup, I agree. But obviously we will all be playing with our dog. That is all I meant. It is good that they like to play. It just has to be in the right way. In other words, we are teaching my DD to play with him ONLY if she is using HIS toys. So that means, no letting him chase her, or bite at her, or the like, but that if he is playfull, she can throw a toy for him or we will go for a walk, or something similar.

And this I would so not advise. For starers, I'd be surprised that the person running the puppy class would allow you to even bring a 2yo.

, um....ya... you are so right. Ya, this is all something I will need to talk to the trainer about. I want to do puppy classes to socialize him, but some trainers also come to your house, or do one on ones. So that would be good to do for us to incorperate my daughter. And again, DUH....(but to defend, I would have inquired about that before bringing my 2 year old......)

You can ( and should) ask the instructor for input, and even ask if it's okay to have Dad bring little to class towards the end one day so the instructor can observe some interaction.

good idea.

[lilyka]

I just have a problem with the assumption that ALL toy pet owners are irresponsible, didn't do research, got the dog because it was cute..etc..and that ALL cross bred breeders are irrisponsible

I think that is a rediculous assumption. I was watching a program on eugenics the other day and all pure breds started out as well planned cross breeds. Its actually quite an interesting process. Obviously some breeds are older than other but there are new breed being introduced and refined every day. but really what it was boiling down to was mutting it up until you got the dog you wanted then inbreeding it. until you got the same thinge very time. They were showing all the newer breeds and what their genetic lines were during the . . um . .creation process. they used this dog for this and that dog for that and then bred them for a few year until they had a consistant dog and then added a little of this and a little of that and the bred them some mroe . . . craziness. People pick on the labradoodles and little mixes especially but maybe they will be the next perfect purebreds. Alaskan Huskies are a good example of a mix breed that people have come to accept. There is thechnically no such thing as an Alaskan husky. Its a cross breed of a Siberian husky (or other similar looking northern sled dog breed) and anything else. They can't be registered and they can't be shown. there is no standard. its a glorified mutt mix breed. I think a lot of people really underestimate the value of a mixed breed and specific mixed breeds bred for specific traits. after al that is ala pure berd is. a mixed breed that was bred for specific traits, achived those traits and then didn't introduce anything else in.

[thekimballs]

Originally Posted by lilyka

I think that is a rediculous assumption. I was watching a program on eugenics the other day and all pure breds started out as well planned cross breeds. Its actually quite an interesting process. Obviously some breeds are older than other but there are new breed being introduced and refined every day. but really what it was boiling down to was mutting it up until you got the dog you wanted then inbreeding it. until you got the same thinge very time. They were showing all the newer breeds and what their genetic lines were during the . . um . .creation process. they used this dog for this and that dog for that and then bred them for a few year until they had a consistant dog and then added a little of this and a little of that and the bred them some mroe . . . craziness. People pick on the labradoodles and little mixes especially but maybe they will be the next perfect purebreds. Alaskan Huskies are a good example of a mix breed that people have come to accept. There is thechnically no such thing as an Alaskan husky. Its a cross breed of a Siberian husky (or other similar looking northern sled dog breed) and anything else. They can't be registered and they can't be shown. there is no standard. its a glorified mutt mix breed. I think a lot of people really underestimate the value of a mixed breed and specific mixed breeds bred for specific traits. after al that is ala pure berd is. a mixed breed that was bred for specific traits, achived those traits and then didn't introduce anything else in.

Quoting myself from earlier in the thread:
"Lots of breeders will then say "But that's how new breeds are developed--by crossing the existing ones." And they're right. But if I want to, say, breed something similar to a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling retriever (which frisks along the shore to draw the ducks in and then retrieves them), but I wanted a really small and easy-going one, I could indeed begin with my Cardigan Corgis and something like a Sussex or Boykin Spaniel. But when I breed them, out of the six puppies (all of which I must raise to adulthood to see what the mature tendencies of the dog are) MAYBE one would show the tendencies I want. The rest would be "culled"--in the old days, that meant killed; now it generally means the dog is spayed or neutered and sold for a very tiny amount. And so I repeat the breeding, with lots of corgis and lots of Boykins, and each time raise them all, and only keep the one that behaves like I want. And then eventually I begin breeding those together, and maybe back to the Boykins, and maybe then I bring in a Cocker to see if I can get more grass-sense, and so on. Each time I do a breeding, I am rejecting nine out of ten puppies, because nine out of ten are NOT "the best of both worlds."

"Designer dog" breeders don't tell you that you have about a 90% chance of not getting the best of both worlds, they don't sell dogs for a tiny amount, they don't keep puppies until adulthood, they don't have any intention of actually developing a new breed, they don't have any idea what their new breed would do if they DID develop it. What they are doing is fleecing the public by taking two poorly bred purebreds and using magic beans to make a super-valuable oh-so-awesome "designer dog" out of them."

[rhubarbarin]

Mamab21 of course you have to be careful with dogs and kids. But I'm not a dominance Nazi with my dogs, and you don't have to be either.

Yes, dogs need structure and a pack order, but usually they know what it is themselves and act accordingly. No need to beat it into their heads their whole life, unless it's obvious by their misbehavior that they are trying to take a dominant role in your relationship.

I know plenty of dog owners who have dogs that are dominant over them, and while it can cause problems, some of them (the people at least) seem to like it that way.

I clicker train and both my dogs are good with obeying commands, because they know they will get good treats for it. I control their food and make them wait to go through the door after me (I don't enjoy being dragged!). But beyond that they are free to do as they wish. I feel it's more important to let them make their own decisions about themselves when I can. They live a restricted life and should have some choices.

I know I'll get jumped on for saying this, but - my older dog was dominant over my youngest sister until they were 4 and 8, respectively. I don't see any harm in letting kids play with puppies like puppies, unless the dog is behaving inappropriately (threatening or hurting the child). The relationship between Kea and my sister changed over time, my sister started training her with treats, and suddenly she was obviously one of the bosses, instead of a playmate to roll around with. Sis loved to play with Kea this way when they were little, they kept each other busy for hours (to the delight of my mom, who had not only a high-energy 4-year-old to deal with, but an extremely high-energy puppy).

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by lilyka

I think that is a ridiculous assumption. I was watching a program on eugenics the other day and all pure breds started out as well planned cross breeds. Its actually quite an interesting process. Obviously some breeds are older than other but there are new breed being introduced and refined every day. but really what it was boiling down to was mutting it up until you got the dog you wanted then inbreeding it. until you got the same thinge very time. They were showing all the newer breeds and what their genetic lines were during the . . um . .creation process. they used this dog for this and that dog for that and then bred them for a few year until they had a consistant dog and then added a little of this and a little of that and the bred them some mroe . . . craziness. People pick on the labradoodles and little mixes especially but maybe they will be the next perfect purebreds. Alaskan Huskies are a good example of a mix breed that people have come to accept. There is thechnically no such thing as an Alaskan husky. Its a cross breed of a Siberian husky (or other similar looking northern sled dog breed) and anything else. They can't be registered and they can't be shown. there is no standard. its a glorified mutt mix breed. I think a lot of people really underestimate the value of a mixed breed and specific mixed breeds bred for specific traits. after al that is ala pure berd is. a mixed breed that was bred for specific traits, achived those traits and then didn't introduce anything else in.

Find me one person who is legitimately trying to create and refine a new breed who is SELLING puppies to beginner dog owners. Just one. Even the truly keen Labrador and Poodle breeders who were trying (key word; WERE, since it has been pretty much proven that getting the hypoalgernic poodle qualities to breed true is almost impossible) to create genuinely hypoallergenic dogs don't breed for profit, almost always contribute most of the dogs back into THEIR breeding program, and only create a litter one every few years. You will never find these people advertising their dogs in the paper, on the internet, or through a friend of a friend of a friend. Why? Because their goal is not to create word of mouth that they will have puppies to sell, but to improve upon the very specific set of traits and characteristics they are aiming to create. They couldn't give a rats ass if someone wants to buy their puppies, and if they did, the dogs most likely wouldn't be sold as 8 week old pups, but as juvenile adults, after the breeder has picked the dogs that he/she thinks is going to best suit their breeding program and spaying/neutering the rest.

So yeah, all breeds started as mutts. Yes, there are new breeds being created and refined right now as we type. But I can guarantee you they aren't being sold as those who are using that as an argument are claiming.

[North_Of_60]

Oh yeah, and find me a breeding program that has the written consent of their parent breeds breed club to be using that breed in crossbred breeding programs. In almost every code of ethics it states that using the dogs to consentingly breed them with other breeds is reason for termination, suspension or life time banning from the club.

If mixing breeds is such a legitimate way to start a new breed, and loving one's dog is enough to make them a reputable breeder, then surely, seeking permission to create a new breed must be really easy, right?

[mtiger]

Originally Posted by MammaB21

Yup, I agree. But obviously we will all be playing with our dog. That is all I meant. It is good that they like to play. It just has to be in the right way. In other words, we are teaching my DD to play with him ONLY if she is using HIS toys. So that means, no letting him chase her, or bite at her, or the like, but that if he is playfull, she can throw a toy for him or we will go for a walk, or something similar.

This is all good. But, honestly, I'd rather have you a bit irritated with me for pointing out what you think is obvious (because you'd be surprised at how many people DON'T think it's obvious), than to have you come back in a month or five in a tizzy 'cause the cute little pup bit your child in the face. I'm sure you can understand that.

Originally Posted by MammaB21

, um....ya... you are so right. Ya, this is all something I will need to talk to the trainer about. I want to do puppy classes to socialize him, but some trainers also come to your house, or do one on ones. So that would be good to do for us to incorperate my daughter. And again, DUH....(but to defend, I would have inquired about that before bringing my 2 year old......)

Honestly - it's not as "duh" as you'd think. When we got our first pup, my (now) ex brought our kids to the classes to 'watch". It was a pita. #2 (the now 14yo training the pup across the street) would be calling "Hi Mommy! Hi Penny! Look at the doggies!" throughout the class. It was very distracting - for me and everyone else. Halfway through, I asked him to take them home or out to the playground.

Originally Posted by MammaB21

good idea.

Hah! I hit one good one! This is honestly all from experience. I've had dogs most of my life, but the first one we got when I was an adult was a real learning experience. I was in the midst of a rapidly dissolving marriage with 2 small kids (3 & 5) and a husband who'd told me for years that he was deathly allergic to all animals. He decided unilaterally that the kids needed a puppy. Thank God he chose a breed that's decent with kids - although I likely would NOT have chosen a beagle at the time. A lot of it was trial by fire - I got nipped a fair number of times, #2 got nipped a fair number of times, my mom got nipped a fair number of times. With bruising and/or blood drawn. We slogged through it, and I wouldn't trade my old, grey, warty Penny for the world. She got me through some very dark and lonely times.