Too early! What do you think...

My sisters' friend used to own a Lab/Golden mix named Taboo who died a few years ago because of leukemia. I found out today that she was going to get a new dog.

He will be a purebred chocolate Lab and an "unwanted dog" from Mira (seeing-eye dogs). Apparently, he still isn't born but they are willing to give this puppy to her family at the young age of 2 weeks.

Now firstly, I just don't see how this dog could already be "unwanted" if he isn't even born yet (I didn't even think about asking her when I found out) and secondly, I think it is way too early for a pup to be away from his mother at 2 weeks old. I mentionned this to her and she told me that Taboo was also given to her at 2 weeks and she bottle-fed him and everything.

Is this normal, for Mira to be giving away their pup at such an early age? I was just curious. I'm really happy about it because Mickey will have a new playmate who lives down the street but it seems a bit weird to me.

:confused: Anyone have any ideas on this? Thanks.

Two weeks?? That is WAY too young!!! I don't think the puppies are usually weened until 4-5 weeks of age. From what I have read, six weeks is the absolute earliest a puppy should be given away, and at that point, they really are too young, they have not yet learned all the social skills they need from their mom and litter mates. I believe 8-12 weeks is ideal.

TWO WEEKS!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!
No Way should a pup be taken so early...... what are they doing taking them from there mom so early?!?:mad:

This does not make sence to me???
One of my co-workers/his wife volunteer for
an organization, for Dogs for the blind.
They receive a puppy and it is their job to socialize it, and
than by a certain age the puppy is evaluated,checked out and
if passes, it goes back to the organization to be trained.
If the pup does not pass, my co-worker has the option to adopt the puppy, or it can be adopted from someone who is on a LONG waiting list to adopt dogs that do not work out.
My sister was on a waiting list for over 2 years, and she
gave up on adopting once of these pups.
These dogs are not cheap, and to take a dog at 2 weeks old, sounds fishey. :confused:

Two weeks sounds waaaaay too young. The pup wouldn't have had the chance to learn things from mum and other pups. There could be alot of emotional damage later on because the pup missed out on so much...like, being a pup and playing with others. If they know that the pup is unwanted, why breed in the first place?

This makes absolutely no sense to me either. :confused: Pups shouldn't leave their moms until at least 8 weeks!

That is WAY too early. What are they thinking?!?! :mad:

We got Oreo when she was 5 weeks old. It was a have too situation because she came from an unplanned union of beagle adn poodle. The people didn't want her or her sibling and actually let her sibling get caught in a drainage tile (on a farm) and die. We took her so that nothing would happen to her since they could care less. But she has had problems and from what we can understand from our reading now is that she did not get the socialization skills from her mother or other skills that she needed. She does not get along well with other dogs or people for that matter. For the most part, I don't think she knows she is a dog. She sits on the back of furniture, like a cat would do and has many other annoying habits.

Taking a dog from its mother for no good reason at 2 weeks is a crime!!!!:(

*sigh* Okay so now I know for sure there is NO WAY that this could be possible. I thought it sounded fishy as well. It doesn't make sense to me. I was asking my sisters' friend and kept saying how it was too early and she just looked annoyed after awhile, so I stoppe dbugging her. Maybe she got her info messed up because this sounds totally wrong to me. :confused:

Thanks for replying. Mickey was given to us at 7 weeks, but we could have had him by 8 weeks. It's just the way it all worked out...the breeder would have kept him for that extra week.

If I see her friend again, I'll talk to her about this. I really doubt Mira would do anything like this, I mean they are raising pups to be socialable along with the rest of the traits required to be a guide dog, why would they make such a silly mistake. :rolleyes:

Two weeks is insane. It is essential for a dog to stay with it's littermates and mom for at least 6 weeks. They learn so much from that. For instance, when the pups play together, the dog learns that biting hurts. If he doesn't get rough play as a pup your dog can bite you and not even know he's inflicting pain. I would think that mommy's milk is pretty important also. If there is anyway for her to talk the people into keeping the pup longer, please do! I wouldn't take a pup that early unless it was absolutely necessary.

2 weeks is much to young!!!! :eek: I pup should be takin away from its mother at 5-8 weeks old at the least... :( :(:(:(

I'll just echo everyone else---too young!!!!

In some cases, pups are away from their mothers at an early age (look at Aly's fosters), but that was extreme, and it's not good for the puppies, unless someone is there to care for them day and night.

I would check into it--sounds a little weird to me!!

Okay I spoke with this girl today and she seemed as confused about it as I am. I asked her some questions about it and she seemed a bit lost about it. She also said she got Taboo from Mira.

Anyways, while talking to me about it she also wondered how they knew this dog wasn't going to be used for the blind. She did say her cousin (it will actually be her cousins' dog. She just stays at their house a lot, so she will partly own him) said that when the pups are born, Mira just picks out a certain amount of dogs. They will be getting the one that won't get chosen. Stupid method I think. :rolleyes:

About the 2 weeks old thing, she told me that it's probably because Mira wants the dogs to separate from the other dogs because they want it to grow up as a human, not a dog. If he is with his littermates and mother he will learn how to depend and live like a dog, but if he is brought home and raised from an early age by a human, he will learn to be more like a human. Blind people need "humans" to be their eyes not dogs. Does this make sense to you? I'm sorry, I think I explained it badly, but I understand it. I don't think I agree with it though. Anyways, does this make sense to anyone else?

It made sense how you explain it but it doesn't make sense for "mira" to do that. How stupid of these people, whatever "Mira" is. that is HORRIBLE. Train people to do people things, NOT DOGS. Poor dogs. :mad: :mad: :mad: :( :( :(

HI

You said it was a chocolate lab? as far as I know they don't use chocolate labs for guide dogs. They are water bound. So whenever they are by water they try to jump in. In other words they love water.:) Thats what someone from my group told me. I also think 2 weeks is way to young! I didn't get my guide dog in
training untill she was 8 weeks. They want the dog to act human? I think thats pretty dumb. I mean their dogs and thats what they are supposed to act like.

Really? Choco Labs don't make good guide dogs then. I don't know, I'm just posting what she tells me. I guess I'll leave it up to her to handle.

Not everyone knows what mira is? I thought it was international...oh well.

:confused: I'm confused. If they want a few pups to act more like a human, why can't they leave all the remaining "not wanted" pups with the mom until they're 8 weeks?

Another thing I don't get is, they want to take the pups away at 2 weeks right? To act more like humans? Why would it matter if it's a chocolate lab or not if it's going to act like a human anyways?

What your asking is very true. I can't answer any of your questions Ash, cause I don't know the answer myself, and I wonder that too. I'm leaving it up to them to handle...nothing I can do.