Wolf dog shot in head General Chat

I agree with some of your post i.e the way the dog was PTS... sometimes need must.

But the bit I highlighted... I hugely 100% disagree with.

Temperament of the parents is hugely influential in the resulting of springs.

Environment and owners, can play apart in the outcome of any dog..but you if you are starting of with extremely aggressive parents... you are more than likely going to end up with aggressive offsprings.

Breeding from aggressive dog is a no no for all ethical breeders, something to take on board for the people who are breding this type of dog.

This thread should be moved. Saarloos ARE a recognised breed.

As for my thoughts on Charlie's set up as a breeder, Well i'm not a breeder but it does not take a genius to work out that importing feral bitches in July & mating them by August whilst they are still disorientated & personality's not known is not a good idea.
Is that acceptable practice of a professional breeder?
Add to that he's produced 12 litters since Feb its perfectly understandable that the general public will see him as a puppy farmer. Of course they will.

Had the above not taken place i doubt he would have been put in the situation of having to shoot the dog, however he has & it will just add fuel to the fire in the general publics eyes that these dogs are dangerous.

I don't think I was clear and I'm sorry. Let me put it this way.... I think it depends on the reason the dog is aggressive, if I became aggressive because if circumstances i.e. not socialised, attacked by dogs etc. Then I don't think this will be passed onto the pup genetically... But if a dog is born from aggressive parents and becomes aggressive itself then yes I think it would be a bad idea to breed. I hope that makes sense.

I think that's a fair point. However, I do think that enough time was not given to check out the dogs properly before using them for breeding. They were only imported in July, I believe, traumatic enough really. Perhaps they should have had more time to settle into their new situation and be assessed.

I have no issue with the shooting aspect of this other then the fact that it had to be done in the first place.
I have looked on the site and read the sorry tale and find it strange that people are still standing up for someone that didn't want to upset people and so didn't tell them about the shooting. Patronising is a long word isn't it? The only reason this is public is that someone leaked it!

Yes, the original breeder has questions to answer, but this man (Charlie??? not sure of names etc) has bought in dogs to breed from and obviously hasn't researched his breeder very well. He has then gone on to breed from an almost feral dog, something that has pushed that poor dog over the edge.
Who's to blame? The dog? The original breeder? The person that bred from this bitch when she was still settling in?

The issue here is not with the shooting, certainly not from me at least, the issue is with questionable breeding practices. I see on the site the pups were not to be sold but were going to be kept had they survived...I assume to be bred from themselves?

A sorry state of affairs isn't it?
I'm not going to say anymore, except I have always had concerns about these dogs being available in this country for no other reason than the welfare of the dogs...this has not calmed or allayed my fears at all.

Alot of that I can't answer because I'm not Charlie, but I do know Charlie has a waiting list of people wanting to buy puppies from him. He also carefully choses who can buy his dogs.

As for being a puppy farmer, if he was I would think the RSPCA would have shut him down by now.

My idea of a puppy farmer is a person who keeps a huge amount of unhealthy dogs in disgusting filthy cages and intensively breeds from them.

Charlie's dog are kept in clean runs with large inside sleeping areas, he has paddocks for the dogs to run and takes them for walks every day, they are dewormed, defleaed and regulary see by vets. Some of his dogs are house dogs.

Though I, 100%, do not agree with this type of "disposal" of a dog, I think the reason I am most ticked off about it is that these are the people trying to claim that they are sooooooo out in the open...much better than everyone else because honestly is the only way anything will change...blah blah....and then (straight from the "confession") "My lie was to spare you this awful information and to tell you instead that we had sent her off for remedial training. In truth, we could get nowhere near her to do anything with her at all."

It looks to me like they did everything they could do to keep it a secret, and only told the truth because someone let it out. I mean, seriously, did they think that people wouldn't notice if that dog never came back from "remedial training"? When would they have said, well it didn't work out...so we shot the dog.

Again, if this had been anyone involved with the NI breed, regardless of side, everyone would be 100% against it...but since this is, truly, a much more honest person (note sarcasm), it makes it alright.

How sad for poor Zsazsa. I know I would far, far rather be shot and not know than tranquilised and then staggering around distressed and not knowing what was going on for as long as it took the meds to kick in.

Tbh I think we all f*ck up, and this one was quite spectacular. But while I don't agree with some of the Cry Wolf breeding practices (well, a lot of them) I would place most of the blame on Zsazsa's previous owner, for (I assume) selling them as breeding bitches knowing well what their temperaments were like. Though under no circumstance should those bitches have been bred from until their issues had been sorted, imo, that is Charlie's fault. We don't know the full details on this so I'll reserve any further comment.

Run free Zsazsa, and your beautiful pups.

As far as I am aware, the bitches were bought to start a Saarloos breeding program in the UK. They came from a very good kennel in France. They are all mature bitches. Saarloos do not come in season more than once a year, sometimes longer, so when they did come in season, they all followed (typical of them) and it was thought that it was the best opportunity instead of waiting another year, especially given their ages. There was only an issue with the one dog, who was NOT like she developed at that time.

As she gained confidence in her surroundings, her breeds natural shyness developed into dominant aggression, Charlie was later told by the breeder that the bitch had been attacked by a group of dogs previously and this marked the start of her aggression, she SHOULD of told him that before, as the behaviour she demonstrated to begin with was NOT of concern, and given that there was no reason not to mate her.

Its clear now that the breeders dog are kept largely without "pet" contact, Charlies dogs spend time in the house, some live there as pets permanently, including at least one of the Saarloos. It was not money oriented as ALL the pedigree Saarloos were being kept anyway.

I totally support his decision in the way in which the dog had to be dealt with, it was the responsible, safe thing to do and anyone having met a dog intent on attack would know you are given little option, IMO he acted in the best interest of the dog and the people around it.

I appreciate many people dont like the fact he is a commercial breeder, I dont either, but I truly believe a better one you will struggle to find in respect of hygeine, and the fact the dogs get much exercise, free running and are handled regularly.

Were these girls bred before Charlie got them?

And didnt she kill all her pups?

Dawn what do you think of the one that has escaped and had her pups out in the wild very much like a wild wolf?
Whats going to happen to her and her pups?

Hi again. May I please ask some questions? Am I right in my understanding that you are saying ZsaZsa's aggressive behaviour came about because of social factors? So they were due partly to her experience(s) prior to being imported into the country?

I have read in the diary that all the bitches were feral to some degree and that she was one of the most feral, an alpha bitch who from the outset required different treatment to the others. So from the start it was clear.

You see, because of this I think it was wrong to put her into a breeding programme so soon, apart from the fact that she (they) had only just come here in July. Whether they only come into season once a year or every month is irrelevant to me - I do not feel it was in the best interest of these girls.

Also, if her aggressive behaviour was not genetic in nature and only deteriorated because she became protective of her dead puppies, I don't understand why no attempt was made to rehabilitate her.

I am also extremely concerned as to the fate of the bitch that escaped - and her puppies. I am also worried that they will all be becoming more feral by the day - how will they fare when they are found?

I wondered about this too - whether she could have been worked on to turn her around after her hormones settled.

However that would have been a costly option I expect and she would not have been suitable for further breeding, so would have to be speyed.

Therefore she would not have fit into the breeding programme/plans so would have been surplus to requirements.

Have no idea, you could always ask him.

did the dog that escaped belong to charlie?

Ditto.

Dawn - may i ask are you intending to buy a Saarloos dog at any point in the future? I ask because the quote above by Lucky star is something i thought you would pick up on & be against but you seem unconcerned.

It is Genova, one of the bitches that came in July. :-(

so it does belong to charlie? sorry names mean nothing to me

1. We (and many other breeders) have a very large waiting list of people wanting to buy puppies from us, but we will only breed when we want another puppy. We breed for us, not to satisfy public demand.

2. For me, the state of the dogs and kennel is important, but does not define a puppy farmer. A puppy farmer in my eyes is a large scale commercial producer of dogs - full stop! It is commercial breeding which is the problem for me.

Mick

No Im not having one at all, I do like the breed though. Im think a lot of valid points have been made Liz, Im actually not bothered in the why's and wherefores, I just believe he acted in the best interest of all concerned, whether I agree with anything else is really irrelevant and if Im honest if I wanted answers Id ask him personally which is something I think others should do. I have told the facts as I know them, that all.

Yes the dog is one of Charlies, one of the recent imports, she jumped out of the kennel run and is on his property.

so the dog is running free on charlies land? how much land does he have?