BJean

As an observation, dog's water intake is a lot higher on dry food or commercial food than it is with raw meaty bones. What do you feed Thomas?

I've considered this and decided that it does not matter. If say Dogs Victoria are the recipient of 20 letters stating the same - it is no different to the protocol required to request a special meeting, whereby a letter is written by one member outlining the issue with signatures from supporting members. So the more letters received by the State CCs, the better. I have received an initial reply from Dogs Victoria - they agree the document is negative and will take up the matter directly with the RSPCA.

I think I have sent all the templates out but if I have missed anyone please let me know A big thankyou to all those helping the reponse has been really great, I was hoping for maybe a few but 30+ is :D UNREAL

Here is the thread on mandatory desexing. http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...ston++mandatory It discusses the issue.

Keropiyo what council are you with? Is it Frankston? If so there is a vet who may be able to help you with your council and possibly having the council bylaw ammended.

Bizarrely, members' responses to the RSPCA document are not confined to your perspective and knowledge of the breeding practises and status of ANKC pedigree dogs, and as such we require that our CCs address the misinformation distributed.

Thats an awesome site Kirislin! Nice find! lol very funny - faves are toxic granny and furious typist and duelists Furious Typer’s combat strategy is to drown her adversary in a tsunami of angry verbiage. She is absolutely immune to subtlty and ignores all but the barest essentials of any argument. After breifly appraising the gist of her opponent’s counter attack she puts her head down and rapidly fires off long rambling messages replete with grammitical and factual errors. The typical Furious Typer lacks endurance, however, and if the other combatants can weather the initial assault she will quickly exhaust herself and retire from the field. Warriors often underestimate Toxic Granny's fighting abilities. She can be very aggressive, and because of the deference paid to the elderly, not only does Toxic Granny easily attract allies to aid in her defense, but her foes are reluctant to employ their strongest weapons against her. Prudent Warriors avoid confrontations with Toxic Granny because there is ignominy in defeat and no glory in victory. In a perpetual personal feud, Duelists generally don't menace anyone but each other, unless, of course, another Warrior foolishly gets between them. They may not even remember what started the fight, but that they cordially loathe one another and seize every to go at each other. When the other Warriors eventually weary of their endless kvetching the Duelists will be shouted down or Nanny will ban them. Even after getting the heave-ho from one forum, however, it is not unusual for them to seeking each other in other forums to renew their fight.

It's probably a matter of perception. Just becasue you may perceive a post that way, does not mean it is intended to be read that way. Perception again? If Troy had issue with the content of your post and not someone else's, then I think you have to accept the possibilty that maybe the other post was not as nasty as you perceived it to be? Honestly I have never been aghast on grounds of nastiness for anything anyone has posted. I've been baffled, perplexed, amused, annoyed - but that's to be expected from reading different points of view. That said I 've never got a warning so maybe Im not reading enough into posts? lol like Steve said it's a game and what the umpire says is right is right

Brooke, I read your thread and dont agree that is was a clique-y, mob-mentality bunfight. Sure some people didn't agree with what you were doing, but maybe they had a point. Next time you want everyone to agree with you and your ethos, dontt post on a public forum. Otherwise expect some public debate. If others PMd you becasue they found it all too much, tell them to press the report button and ask for assisstance. L:)

If two dogs are the perfect compliment, how is another combination better, based on hip scores? Is another stud dog better if it has a lower hip score? If a dog is outstanding representation of its breed and has a hip score of 8/8 can we ask a puppy buyer to then assess different sire/dam combinations with the same eye and knowledge as a breeder, to see if the other potential litters are better or worse? 0/0 8/8 passes any hip health requirement. imo that's all a puppy buyer needs to know. You cannot say that a puppy from 0/0 8/8 breeding will have more/less propensity to have HD than a puppy from a 0/0 - 1/1 0/0 3/0 breeding etc ;)

;) Er, No. ;)

Basic rules? What are the rules for dog behaviour/training? There is no consensus on dog behaviour/training, only theories. moreover, the popular theory of the moment, which has issue with the word dominance would not give much time to concepts of rank and being a 'leader'. (its not an appropriate concept for them) When a dog goes to attack with intent and means what it does more often than not, it does not regard the object it is attacking as having the same right to be or do what the dog is doing. This type of mindset requires that the dog perceive a rank/teired/hierachial system in the world it interacts with. I've never known a dog with the mindset to carry out a sustained attack to not have this kind of operating system. Purely positive training is endorsed and recommended by the RSPCA. A licensing 'education' system (sic) based on this would be a disaster. To advocate licensing for dogs ownership is a failure to see the practicalities, contradictions and issues of dog ownership.

I wouldn't include or discount a dog/bitch for breeding, based on hips alone - I dont think 8/8 with 0/0 is that high, or a cause for concern. A hip score tells you what the hips looks like at that point in time - no more. The Lab breed average is 12. 8/8 as a judgement of the hips appearance is preferable to 1/5 or 2/4 or 6/1 etc If the sire with 8/8 is the best overall match for the 0/0 bitch then there is nothing wrong with the breeding. imo too much emphasis is placed on hip scores to the detriment of the total dog. I see dogs/bitches incuded for breeding just becasue they score 0/0 imo that is no different to including a dog for breeding just because it has a good shoulder or nice coat when the rest of the dog is sub-standard. Hips are only one small part of the whole Yes there are 55 other Lab puppy listings on DOl and yes the sires may have lower (but not necessarily better) hip scores than the sire of your litter, but it doesn't make them better Labs. Doesn't give them better temperament, better overall structure, better breed type. nb: If you are new to hip/elbow scores why dont you ask the breeder what the hip scores mean and why they chose this particular combination? I'd also ask them about the other aspects of the dog too.

My chihuahua is agressive, but most of the time nobody cares because if he's not in anyone's face he's not a danger to anyone, the only way he might succeed in severing my arm was if I had died already and he'd had a week or so to gnaw at it. So what we have is a combination of powerful animals and humans who no longer use them for work and therefore have little understanding of the proper management of powerful animals, and the reasons for it. Therefore controls over ownership and breeding are a logical step to take IMO. Control over ownership = control of who, where and when the breed can be owned = BANNING of the breed where it is decreed the breed cannnot be owned.

Yes Souff But it will not be cross breed derivatives that are targeted instead pedigree breeders of medium-big breeds, anything that the public and other dog breeders dont know much about and or are afraid of. I dont believe in divide and conquer - or that we can stand by ameliorate why other breed types fall. As a big breed person I feel the future of my dogs lies with the future of all dogs ... To be honest small breeds like pug, mini poodle, cav, chi really are insignificant to me, and on some level I view them with contempt so legistlation which would restrict-to-cease their breeding on health grounds is inconsequential - such legistlation would never be drawn up for my breeds - the health problems simply aren't there to the extent that they are in many small companion bred dogs ... nevertheless I will fight the RSPCA on their PR crapola campaign denigrating pedigree breeds and calling their health a significant welfare issue - even if mine are never likely to fall under that RSPCA radar. I read respondants afraid or ignorant of big dogs (and the psyche of certain other dogs) yet in the same breath they are espousing solutions for the 'control', ownership and future of these dogs ... yet they would be the first to demand that breeders not the RSPCA be the ones to oversee the health and future of their own dogs. Tell me how does a dog attack, come to ownership of all medium-big dog breeds needing to be controlled? It comes to pass when self-flagellating dog owners/breeders dont support each other, and espouse solutions for things they do not know much about. Worse still, they assume that a legistlative system knows more about where dogs can be owned and bred, more so than any breeder or breed specialist. When the RSCPA come knocking on their door to decreee that their cav's brain is the incorrect size for its skull, and cant be bred, (and owned) or pug's airways are too distorted to breathe and cant be bred (and owned) that is the dog control legislative system at work. We've got healthy mutts Vs sickly pedigrees and small dogs (excluding the sickly pedigree ones) Vs big dogs. I suppose you cant use the health stick to go after all dogs, so just as well we can incorporate 'scarey potential' as well. Aye too much nonsense, give me my scallop shell of quiet night

Everyone who chooses to own an animal. Controls could mean anything from reinforcing some of the existing legislation such as microchipping and registered animals to control on what breeding means and implies. I also believe that there should be controls on the ownership of certain breeds. For example, I live in a townhouse and have scant knowledge of, let's say, Maremmas. I should not be able to purchase and own one unless I can meet it's needs and demonstarte an understanding and knowledge of that breed. Controls in their own will not suffice though. My statement was; controls AND education. What's wrong with Maremmas, are they too big for a townhouse? Do pugs fall under the category "certain breeds"? Perhaps they should. I'd rather a dog which is physically sound and has its instincts than a dog like the pug which has had all its instincts bred out, and all diseases and defects bred in, and getting near kicking the bucket when it nears 28C. I dont know much about pugs, they just seem like close to the ground blobs that have difficulty breathing and cant move that well. Not nice is it when prejudice is thrown around based on preference and ignorance? Well this is what it is like for owners of big dogs or 'certain breeds' - when issues of breed based controls are bandied around based on the unknown and fear. 'tis not very productive is it? Not directing this solely at you Anne, but to the other posters too who want big dogs controlled ( = big dogs banned in certain areas). Hmm so if one is over 60yo say, what are the choices for dog ownerhsip: a brainless chihuhua with the nerve and brain of a pea, or a pug that cant breathe. Aye what horrible generalistations and stereotypes, but this is what prejudice brings.

And it is that attitude, whether you mean it humorously or semi-seriously or not, that will sink everyone. I have Pugs so I don't care if they ban all those "big powerful nasty dogs that are born vicious" Oh no, now the law makers have decided my "hideously deformed Pugs" need to be banned too. What's that old saying about hanging together or we'll surely hang separately? If Souff is going to be hanged then I would be prefer not to be hung with a bunch who chose to breed dangerous dogs. String me up with the deranged if you will, but I cannot defend the breeding of dangerous dogs. Souff So, are you saying pitbulls are dangerous? Staffies are dangerous? The Portland dog 'Rocky' is increasingly being referred to as a "Staffordshire bull terrier cross". If you support PBs as danergous you support Staffies as dangerous - in the eyes of the public they are the same; they cannot differentiate.

Control - how so?

Are you espousing that the general public undergo a dog license or just anyone who lives in proximity to a dog? Shall we all pass a dog test before we can walk into a park where there are dogs? What about dog beaches - only licensees to habituate there too? If we go away on holiday, must our friends/family who agree to look after the dog, also go and get a dog license? How will we keep those that dont have a dog license away from the dangerous dog object? We put guns in gunsafes, cars only by current licensed drivers ... at what age do children need to get their own dog license before they can handle the family dog - 16, 18, 21? In order for licensing to be implemented, there needs to be a system of rules about how and when the handling of the licensed object is legal. Does equating dog ownership to owning inanimate objects like cars and guns, really seem a sensible, practical idea to you?

No you are being naive. I get 100% on a driving test, doesn't stop me from collecting speeding fines. Knowing what is law and following the law are not the same thing. Impulse control, your own belief of what you can and cant do are not dictated by the letter but your own perception of boundaries. Following your reasoning there would be no need to license people to drive then? Awesome. :D step outside of the university and see that licenses do not impact people's ultimate behaviour. anyone can get a license, it does not mean that everytime they drive their car they will drive like they did to get their license. notwithstanding a dog is not a car - I own the dog but it can be approached by any number of people who may not have a license to dog. Dont forget that potentially dangerous items which are licensed, like guns can only be handled or be in possession by those that have a gun license. So if you're walking your dog, an officer to approach - license please? come on

No you are being naive. I get 100% on a driving test, doesn't stop me from collecting speeding fines. Knowing what is law and following the law are not the same thing. Impulse control, your own belief of what you can and cant do are not dictated by the letter but your own perception of boundaries.

Conditions like what? I own the dogs. What makes you think that you can teach people common sense? I've told him more about dog behaviour than any test could test him - but arrogance and hubris learn hard.

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D Which, to me, is fairly alarming. If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog? I have no answers; I'm just wondering. No some people are just thick (NOT speaking of the case at hand but another example) and have no idea about how their behaviour is perceived by a dog, and in turn, how to interpret behaviour exhibited by a dog. A member of my family is thick when it comes to dogs (of course he cannot see this and thinks they all get along well.) He makes sudden movements in front of their faces, and with one particular dog, pushes him in the chest and stares him in the face at close range. I say, "dont do that you will get bitten" and go into xyz reason why. Thick ignores what I say because he cant see how uncomfortable the dog is and the signals the dog is giving him. Then one day the dog snarls and lunges at him. I say "see that was a warning, do it again and you will get bitten." Thick keeps going, until the dog really has a go, knocks him backwards and the dog's teeth stop about 2mm from his face. I say, "that's the last warning you're going to get. The next time he's going to bite your face off / maul your head and it will be all your fault." The penny drops and Thick no longer behaves like an idiot with that particular dog any more.

Keep in mind that further restrictions on dogs and banns dictating which dogs can be kept and where will not protect dog ownership. Of course it may keep the ignorant warm at night as they imagine a delightful Australia full of pugs and harmless SWFs but it will only erode the future and freedom of dog ownership.