> Guide dogs are wanted to be imprinted on people and probably not learning canine ways is an advantage in their future job as a guide where they can't just be a dog.

Thanks Brainless, that was what I was getting at in my earlier post.

It mustn't be forgotten that Guide dogs are working dogs bred, selected and trained for a specific purpose. To compare them to pet, show or other types of working dogs is flawed from the start. Just because it's OK for guide dogs to be taken away from mum at 6 weeks, doesn't make it right for ALL dogs.

> There is in essence nothing wrong in the breeder retaining a puppy for as long as they want, as long as they systematically ensure that each puppy is properly socialised and habituated as an individual. Each puppy needs to learn to cope with the environment without the support of its litter brothers and sisters and other dogs. Although this is possible, in practice, it is very time-consuming."
>
>

This is exactly what we keep saying here, a decent breeder who will be devoting their time to one litter bred infrequently (it's part fo the pleasure and joy of breeding) so that they can spend the time needed to do it properly, as they more often have far more experience rearing puppies than the new owners will have.

Guide dog puppies do not just go out to an average member of Joe Public.  Puppy walkers will have quite strict guidelines, and will have training and experience.

> developing a sound temperament...

Temperaments should be bred for, and then nurtured.

yes, they're bred very specifically to be a certain way and as you say they're with puppy walkers who are, by definition, there to socialise and train the pups rather than living a 'normal' life.... other puppies wouldn't get the same treatment and are much better off remaining with good breeders, their siblings and their mother....

>It mustn't be forgotten that Guide dogs are working dogs bred, selected and trained for a specific purpose. To compare them to pet, show or other types of working dogs is flawed from the start. Just because it's OK for guide dogs to be taken away from mum at 6 weeks, doesn't make it right for ALL dogs.

Actually, the article specifically refers to that reasoning and says that it DOES refer to all dogs:

"You might think that this is a special scheme for dogs with a special function. In fact, what the scheme provides is adult dogs with sound temperaments. These dogs coincidentally make the best material for guide dog training which does not start until they have been assessed at ten months or older. "

Going back (almost) to the original theme of the thread, first well done to the OP for walking away form this suspect breeder, but would still like to be sure you you have done enough research into your chosen breed before you continue your puppy search.  Second, I had an email last night  which has upset and worried me so much - a breeder apparently planning to let a litter of Pug pups go at 5 weeks old.  The owner of the stud dog got in touch with me as she is so concerned, a case of her being talked into letting her pet dog be used by someone she knows little about.  I have given her a whole list of reasons to pass on to them to try and make sure this does not happen, and can only hope that buyers will not be stupid enough to attempt to take pups at this age.  A 5 week old Pug is so tiny, and will porbably only be starting to wean properly, do hope they change their mind.

it may create (after a specific breeding programme) dogs suitable for the job they're bred for, with pretty much full time care from the puppy walkers, given the specialist breeding and training it's doubtful (impossible?) that this would have the same results for dogs bred for different purposes and brought up by 'normal' people, who may not spend the amount of time, nor have access to the places that guide dog pups are given/taken.

It's all a question of balance, and given the situations I would rather keep my pups to 7 weeks, 8 weeks in certain circumstances and with certain breeds I'd keep longer. No pup of mine leaves here any less socialised than any guide dog puppy at the same age.  I also give advice and help on new owners maintaining this socialisation.

I haven't seen anything that proves what I do with my pups isn't as good as what others do.  Most of the comparisons are with back yard breeders and puppy farmers which are badly bred, badly - if at all - socialised, and are often sickly, meaning they get even less socialising at the critical times.

Guide Dogs do a good job and if what they do works for them, ok fair enough, but it's not the best option for other situations - imo - and shouldn't be seen as a blue print to encourage other people to get rid of their pups early.  To be honest those who wish to do this are really out for saving themselves energy (hard work looking after those pups!) and money (the food they eat!) and many will sell to those who wont put the time and effort into the pups - which is why lots of them end up in rescue, unsocialised, untrained and very difficult to home.  Responsible breeders keep their pups, socialise them and sell to people who'll continue their good work and offer a 'forever' home for the pups.

> that's even worse then if they take them away from mum and siblings at 5.5. weeks and out to walkers at 6 weeks, its shocking
>

Well, it is doubtful that they are away from their sibling or mum at 5.5 weeks but why is out to the walkers at 6 weeks shocking?  The end result suggests no problem with this.
Similarly the breeding age of dam and frequency of litters does not appear to present any problems in the beeding of good, well adjusted healthy puppies so perhaps there are too many preconceptions and prejudicies about just what a healthy bitch is perfectly capable of doing.

the rules about bitches are there to try and protect them, it's not based on what 'they're capable of' :-( more like what humans are capable of :-(

>it's not based on what 'they're capable of'

I think it is.  I think the regulators of commercial breeding took the minimum number of litters that a bitch should be able to cope with without detriment to her health to protect them from exploitation from those that would not have a concern to the health of the bitch or her offspring.  

  However, clearly there will be many who are perfectly capable of producing more than this without detriment and the GDB are very different to other mass puppy producers as they DO have a continuing interest in the health and well being of the puppies they produce and will therefore be self regulated by that.

I think there is a lot of omnipotent thinking which goes on, on the part of breeders, behind the belief that puppies are better with them, than with a new owner at 6/7/8wks.

OOOOH Rabid What big words you are using,need to go check the dictionary for the meaning.

After all is said and done a caring breeder has put a lot of effort into choosing the parents, rearing their puppies well and don't want their efforts wasted.

They will likely have made their dogs a life's work, or at the very least have a very deep interest in all things canine, their dogs are likely to a major part of their lives.

Of course a breeder is going to have more knowledge about their dogs and breed than a new dog owner or someone who has only owned one or two before, for whom the dog is just a part of their lives, not a major study.

There are those potential owners who have as much knowledge and experience as the breeder and often these pups will be allowed to go a little sooner, especially if ti is already a multi-dog household where the vital dog to dog learning can continue.

that's cos there's a lot of truth to it ;-)  although I'm happy for most of mine to go at 7 weeks, they're definitely better off with me until then.. and if they haven't other dogs and there are other factors I'll keep them longer... no one on this thread or any other has said anything which would contradict this belief, nor have the well rounded pups I've produced ;-)

>Of course a breeder is going to have more knowledge about their dogs and breed than a new dog owner or someone who has only owned one or two before, for whom the dog is just a part of their lives, not a major study.

But my point is that so-called 'knowledge' itself is a bit of a grey area:  Even taking 5 'experts' and asking their opinion on various topics (vaccinations, food, brand of worming meds, grooming - anything) is likely to reveal 5 different responses.  So these things are not 'factual', but are frequently presented to new owners as if they are THE way to do things and absolutely incontrovertible.  If a new owner wanted to stray from these things, they would often be seen as going against the breeder (tut tut) - when really another 'expert' breeder of the same breed would be doing things totally differently anyway.  Very few things are proven inconclusively.  And, even those which are (such as that toy breeds mature at the same rate as large breeds, psychologically, and that 6 wks has been found to be the best age for homing a pup) are frequently overridden by breeders who assert that they know better. 

"Facts" are usually just opinions, dressed up as facts, and presented in an all-powerful way to naive puppy buyers.  Frequently control and 'my way is the best way' is the thinking behind this, rather than trust and believing that someone assessed to provide a suitable home should be able to make any calls about anything.

All facts are opinions. Even the ones found as the results of studies are opinions formed from the findings given certain criteria.

Thre is no one right way for many things.

Indeed most things but especially breeding dogs are an art not a science, however I still haven't read anything which says that 6 weeks is the optimum age for pups to leave the breeder :-(  A few dogs who've left at 6 weeks and been fine v a few dogs who've stayed with poor breeders and who've not been so well socialised doesn't count I'm afraid.  Nor do the habits of Guide Dogs for the Blind who offer a very different experience and 'home' to most puppies.  Like most things, it all depends.. if I had someone who had a very good reason (not many would be suitable, but for me I had a pup at just over 6 weeks, I collected him after his eye test as the breeder had driven a considerable distance nearer to me and I asked to have him early... and they agreed, and another in a similar situation)  However, for me those two dogs have been my most difficult.... for differing reasons however.  The pups I got at 7 weeks have been much more 'balanced' .. the 'rescue' pup I got who'd gone into rescue at I think 6 weeks, but came to me at 8 weeks wasn't traumatised by this - but I didn't expect him too, better to have left people who weren't caring for him (and actually wanted him dead!) and looked after by doting rescue people.... he turned out to be quite well balanced too :-)  I consider though that in general most people don't have the time - the expertise nor the social connections (other dogs for the pup to be with) to manage the socialising at 6 weeks.... in fact one of the 'worst' pups I had was a singleton pup who was so demanding (due to lack of siblings) I had to have her in the kitchen and mingling with the others from the moment her eyes opened and she realised she was on her own... once she grew up her mother hated her and I eventually found her another home at about 10months.....where she is the total centre of attention and loves it!

> frequently overridden by breeders who assert that they know better. >

As opposed to someone whos been on a correspondence course for example?

I would think a collective experience base of many, many decades would deserve more credence and respect.

If a new owner wanted to stray from these things, they would often be seen as going against the breeder (tut tut) - when really another 'expert' breeder of the same breed would be doing things totally differently anyway.  Very few things are proven inconclusively.  And, even those which are (such as that toy breeds mature at the same rate as large breeds, psychologically, and that 6 wks has been found to be the best age for homing a pup) are frequently overridden by breeders who assert that they know better.


Of course both the 'new owner' and the breeder have a choice in this matter... I wouldn't want to feel I was 'overriding' anyone, but then I wouldn't sell one of my pups to someone who had totally opposing views on keeping dogs and socialising pups to myself... just as I wouldn't buy from just anyone I wont sell to just anyone... and if someone wants a pup but doesn't feel I'm the best breeder for them then they're best going elsewhere - mostly those who want to get shot of the pups at 6 weeks because they're a lot of work and cost money to feed!  Of course take one of THESE pups away from home at 6 weeks, leave another for a week or two to be - basically - neglected and you've a self fulfilling prophecy - it's better to home a pup at 6 weeks than at 8 weeks, and no one would disagree... but take a pup from a good breeder at 6 weeks and not give it a well rounded socialisation period and compare it to one who stayed with a caring and responsible breeder and the conclusion would be very different - better to take a pup at 7 weeks... most 'studies' are skewed and one of my favourite study type book was called 'how to lie with statistics' which fits the 6 week theory to a 't' :-)