I cannot agree with not giving advice

I'm in favour of locking the thread but making it a little more friendly. I find these threads soul destroying as the pup will die whatever we do or say.

 

I think it's a really hard one to gage.
Obviously a puppy that's 6 weeks is nowhere near as bad as a puppy that's 3 weeks.

I think some friendly helpful advice then closing the thread is probably better than just shutting down the thread as it's likely that these people didn't know they were doing anything wrong and genuinely care about their friend.

I didn't get any Heath checks on Stanley and he hasn't got any papers, so I'm probably an irresponsible dog owner. I didn't do it because I didn't care, but because I was naive and should have researched better before I got him. But I really love my dog and would do anything for him - health wise or not.

And should the unthinkable happen and he does have issues down the line I'd be devastated if I was told I couldn't post here because he didn't have health checks as I value everyone's opinion and help so much, and I would be a time that I would really rely on the forum.

 

Oh yes I understand that, but what I meant was that these same folk are likely in countries that promote abuse as forms of training, so I feel these people really need encouragement to stick around the forum.

 

I feel it's so difficult to come up with a definitive answer as to what the forum should do in for under age puppies.

I understand that the practice of taking puppies away so soon should be stopped , but how do you compare a puppy farm in say, the UK, where the motive is greed/ money with possibly a poor area in India where people themselves have a hard life and have been dealt a less than positive hand to start with? Ignorance and real need probably play a part with the latter, and if an individual has enough about them to ask for advice my feeling is they should be helped even in a small way. Surely by educating one person there is a positive outcome. But it needs to be skilled help of a practical nature, and I don't know how you do that over the internet.

 

I like @Rosie's post and think that would be ideal.

 

A very good point.

Additionally, many people in less-developed countries can't afford health care for themselves (and in some cases, people are culturally averse to seeking medical care unless they are at death's door). So simply advising them to visit a vet isn't always going to produce a positive result for the puppy.

 

Nevertheless, underage puppies need vet care. We are not qualified to give the advice that these puppies need. We are often talking about 3 or 4 week old puppies here. Underage puppies removed from their mother and litter need intensive, skilled care (e.g. an artificial heat source, potentially bottle feeding, round the clock care). They may be dehydrated (a life threatening situation). These situations are beyond this forum.

 

I agree that very young pups need vet care, but we should still be able to tell owners that they need to see a vet, and give any other advise we can since they may not be able to see a vet.

FWIW, 7 Weeks is the norm for many Lab Breeders in the US. Probably comes from Richard Wolters books on training gun dogs, companion dogs, water dogs etc. While he would be considered old fashioned here, he still has a large following in the US. He said that pups bond better with their people in the 7 to 8 week period. I don't know if it is better, but it certainly worked well for Tilly and Cooper.

 

This used to be 'the thing' not long ago and I believe the Guide Dogs for the Blind advocated it?

 

I grew up on a farm, in the 1940`s/50`s . Our farm bred pups used to go to their new homes at 6 weeks old back then . I had my first ever very own puppy, a terrier, bought at a farmers market for 10 shillings , she was 6 weeks old, it was the norm back then . Now ok , I know the fact that it was the norm doesn't necessarily make it right, but I don't consider myself to have been cruel either , quite the opposite ! So , back in the day there was no internet of course, but I wouldn't like to think that, had there been internet/forums etc . I would have been turned away , just for want of a little support ?

 

Guide Dog pups leave Mum at six weeks but they stay with their litter another week while they are assessed, then they come to us puppy walkers at 7 weeks old.

And, yes, they are all very bitey when little!

 

And the forum policy, as stands, is that we will not allow discussion of a puppy under the age of seven weeks, so, had you arrived here then, you would have been welcomed.

In the UK it is (or will shortly be) illegal for anyone to sell a puppy under the age of eight weeks. Of course, this isn't the same everywhere, and we do understand that. But, the fact that it has gone so far as to be made law does speak volumes, I think.

Again, I believe there is a huge difference between talking to someone with a six week old puppy who is a bit bitey and someone with a three or four-week-old who is unwell.

The message already tells them that they should go to the vet. What is anyone else here going to say? My puppy isn't eating - go to the vet. What should I feed my puppy - go to the vet. My puppy is lethargic - go to the vet. My puppy isn't toileting normally - go to the vet. Go to the vet, go to the vet, go to the vet. And, if you can't go to the vet because you live too far away or because you don't have the funds, who here has the expertise to offer any real advice other than, "find some way to go to the vet or your puppy may die"? It would be horribly inappropriate to try and give any other advice. It's terribly sad and, as I said above, I do think that there is some argument to both approaching different situations differently, and to changing the statement somewhat - Rosie had some nice options - and maybe we should consider making it a normal post and not a blue box that may seem like it's telling them off. But, still, I strongly believe that, for the very young puppies with health issues, it is wholly wrong that we should be allowing a conversation.

 

I agree that it shouldn't be an open forum will all attempting to give advice and should be locked. However, the question could be answered empathetically, not a slap in the face which it sounds now! Then to add. do pleas come back when puppy is 8 weeks old.

 

Just want to say at this point, that I am listening to all the arguments, and that we are discussing this (again) in some detail in the mods forum, so do keep constructive points coming. We are not going to do anything hasty, but will make a decision over the next few days.

 

What motivates us, as a forum, is the wellbeing of dogs. Unfortunately, this is not what motivates the unscrupulous breeders who provide underage puppies. They are motivated by money. What we are trying to do, therefore, is to educate the type of people who are buying these underage puppies so that they stop buying them - if the breeders don't have the demand for puppies at that age then they will either stop supplying puppies (which has to be a good thing for all concerned) or begin to understand that they must retain the puppies until they are older. This is the 'long game' - change through education to reduce the numbers of underage puppies being sold.

The 'short game' is, of course, much tougher. What can be done for the underage puppies that have already been sold/bought? In my opinion we simply don't have the expertise to be able to help. These puppies need specialist care - care that we are not able to provide. We would, of course, feel sorry for the parent of a young child that had a brain tumour and required surgery. We cannot, however, offer any suggested treatments without the risk of making things worse (possibly killing the child) because we are not brain surgeons (apologies to any brain surgeons among us). The parent should seek help from a suitably qualified surgeon in the same way that the puppy owner should seek help from a vet. I know we have good intentions but we all know where that road leads ...

I agree that the tone of the existing message could be changed to be a little more supportive but I think its general intent should remain the same.

 

I think the threads should be locked – immediately – and the message should not be more friendly.

I think that we must look at the bigger picture.

Yes, our hearts break for that particular pup – but the fact of the matter is that we can do nothing for that pup. You won’t put things right by being supportive to the human that bought the puppy, not one little bit. And if the forum became a resource to help people with underage puppies – so giving out the message they hadn’t done anything wrong, and were deserving of support – you would be doing harm, you would be harming future puppies. You would be doing something that makes the bigger picture worse.

You might provide some comfort for a human that didn’t (but should have, since that owner has access to the internet so could have done some research) look properly into buying a puppy. In my view, this is worthless compared to the bigger picture of sending a clear message to others to not buy underage puppies.

This is a very good point.

It's a matter of degree though, I think. To my mind the range from 'underage' to 'not health tested' to 'CoI was a tad too high' is impossible to navigate. In theory but not in practice, I agree. I also think any breeder that breeds puppies from parents that were both not health tested and had good results should be chucked off the forum immediately.

 

There are loads of things in the past that were downright dreadful. The past isn't a good guide as to how we should think today.

Selling 6 week old puppy at a farmers' market to any random buyer would today, in a world where we expect health tests and puppies to be socialised to cope with modern living would, quite rightly, result in calls to the RSPCA.

 

Maybe not, but we learn from past experiences, good and bad.
Buying 6 week old puppies on the whole scheme of it isn't terribly bad. (NOT at ALL that I am advocating it!)
Giving Thalidomide to pregnant women with morning sickness was bad, we discovered.
Its all a bit relative.
In 20 years time we might all be being slated by future generations for feeding our dogs and domestic pets "kibble" due to the cancer causing effects of preservatives etc etc.
We have to learn by experience. And often we have to learn by OUR experiences, not even from others experience ("It won't happen to me").
Our thresholds of tolerance are all different too. Yours v mine v Kate's v Pippa's. US v UK v India etc. A lot of it is based on personal experience but not all - some via reading/assimilating external information/culture etc.

I think it is interesting that many rescue organisations use the slogan "Making a difference one dog at a time"

 

Yes it is. And selling puppies in markets is appalling.

Right. And? Er.....are you holding a logical argument together here, at all?

Why do you think that is interesting to the matter under discussion?

 

Has anyone thought about where forum members stand from a legal standpoint if advice is given and the pup dies? I understand that advice is given everyday to owners of pups over 8 weeks, but these pups-and older dogs- are much more likely to be robust,well animals and the folk responding to the posts are highly likely to have years of experience in the care of dogs over 8 weeks of age.
In an increasingly litigious society I think it is a real issue that needs to be considered.

Having said that, I think the notice given could be a little more supportive, but the advice should only be, take the pup to the vet.