Are You Serious Jo

Why doesn't a nose susceptible to cancer bother you tralee? It directly affects the dog's working ability and is a welfare issue.

Considering the high risk of melanoma in Australia, shouldn't all breeders only breed with dogs with full pigment and no liver.

Unfortunately some judges and breeders are letting lighter noses through. They don't have to be completely depigmented to be an issue, any colour other than black should be disqualified.

I don't understand why lack of pigment isn't a disqualifying fault because it directly affects the purpose of the breed.

Comedy gold tralee :laugh:

There are a few instances where a dog is so messed up it is both DA and HA. The dog I mentioned earlier also stalked my daughter (who was about four) from behind it's fence, it was chilling to watch as I knew what it had already done to the dogs. We shouldn't assume that DA means HA too but have to be aware it can occur together.

It will soon be easier to be a gun dealer in Australia than a registered breeder.

The only way to stop puppy farmers is to the stop dog breeding entirely. If the existing laws were policed they could have cleaned up the farms. Once the registered breeders are gone they'll go after the puppy farmers. What are the Oscar's law people going to do when they see the puppy farmers thriving under the new legally approved conditions. Why is it that only we can put two and two together and realise it is actually benefiting? How can they be so stupid, and I'm talking about the non PETA people pushing for this. I guess they are just so focused on the one aspect that they just don't care if registered breeders go under because they don't like them either. But it's very obvious that this helps PFs immensely.

That's my best guess too. The threat is right there and you can see it all when you read his story. I wouldn't want him speaking for me, he doesn't seem to be helping at all.

Not well played at all!

No, nothing like it. The very reason we are so careful in designing experiments is because they are non verbal. If you know what you are looking for and can work out a way to test so that the only way to solve a task is for the animal to have a particular cognitive ability. You assume we are working blindly but that is far from the truth. The work done builds on other work till there is a very clear picture of what a species is capable of. You can only solve the trap test if you have means end reasoning. You can only solve double displacement tasks if you have secondary representation. You can only show mirror self recognition if you have self awareness. It is far from an inexact science, we know a lot about the cognition of animals.

We don't know his tone, but if we can pick it as a potential thread through text then imagine how they took it in a phone call. You have to be ultra careful if you are dealing with people in a professional manner and I wouldn't dream of even writing that, let alone saying it to them.

From the above link. Without being there obviously we can only speculate, but they may have taken exception to the bolded part. "On the way the RSPCA solicitors phoned me to explain they had a right to enter the property under section 30 of the Act, having by now memorised the Act, I made it clear they had no right, and that if any person was found on the property without the right to be there, they would be removed."

If he is aggressive I think they can refuse to deal with him.

It's pretty ridiculous isn't it when you consider we don't even go this far with children. If the building regulations don't get enough people then the rest will be cleaned up because they will walk away rather than be forced to feed their dogs vet prescribed dry food.

Commercial breeders will just say they are following the breeding rules and no one will know any better unless they DNA test the parents. Again it will be the people with pedigrees getting caught out. I think the vet approved diet is a real problem because I don't know any vets who support raw.

My thoughts too, if you read between the lines of his own words.

Could you offer to find them a more suitable dog in exchange for having this one PTS and not reporting? You have to report otherwise because that situation can't go on.

Poor poodle I lived next to a bastard dog that was dangerous. Ripped the leg off a neighbours Jack Russell from an adjoining property and pulled off part of my dog's ear through the mesh. Unfortunately the owners of the other dog wouldn't contact council but I did and they had to put fine mesh all along my side. I never took my dog out that section again because all he had done was go over to collect his ball and leaned against the fence.

Seems a bit crazy, can't see why Moorook can't have an agent unless he's been difficult to deal with, he did imply there were confrontations.

Jesus, some vets are anti-purebred so you'd have to avoid those and those that have a clue would be booked out

Hmmm, wish I could correct one thing he claims but I can't due to confidentiality issues. I can't see this being resolved, Moorook want to be able to take anything with a pulse and the council want a cap on numbers and time. They'll just close her down eventually and she bought this on herself.

Gee it was JUST a queston. Your a bit touchy about it tho so maybe you have no permissions? Granted. Permission is not required, by the time photos get to me thay have gone through a chain of postings. This is different to Copyright material which pertains to intellectual and economic property. We can't be sued for 'photo junkets' Regards Wrong, there are very clear rules about copyright and photographs. If a person complains about you using their photo without permission the person hosting the website etc. is obliged to take it down. Now I know people use photos all the time so you are confusing the law with what people do while flouting it, but it's still the law. The polite thing to do is to link to the site you took it from, if you do this most people are happy not to chase you. You can't pretend laws don't exist because you don't want to follow them. If the owner of those Maremmas contacts Troy about the unauthorised pictures he will take them down. I hate seeing such misinformation spread about photography!

If you put a photo in a public forum then it becomes public, it is no longer private. Its a different matter to take a photo or an image of someone which technically belongs to them and post it on the internet without their permission. The internet is a public place it is not private at all. I sit through this discussion with the school police liasion officer and our year 9/10 children every year. You need to ascertain the facts before you make insinuations. Go look here at the Australian Copyright Council website http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/browse-by-a-z/ and download the photographers and copyright and the protecting your copyright PDFs. Photos are automatically protected by copyright and shouldn't be used without permission. However, some people don't mind if you at least post who took the photo. I'm a photographer and the whole I can use anything on the net myth needs to be cleared up. I would have thought you'd appreciate by now that original work should always have the creators name at least, better still a link.

That's true, but if I had to I can get people to verify my story, the problems there are well known among animal people in SA. The point is he is taking the fight to FB and making some pretty big claims in the media in a current investigation. If the council and rspca deny his allegations he has a lot to lose. I personally would be saying anything he has without a copy of it in writing in my hand. My point was it's no use us worrying too much over the future council and rspca action till it's been verified. It would be really foolish of both those groups to act outside their boundaries in a public case.