Diva

There are at least three issues I see- -accomodation that doesn't allow dogs at all - it's just plain rude to sneak them in, but if that's your personal ethics nothing we can say will change who you are -accomodation that allows dogs on the premises but not inside the rooms - if they find people sneaking them into the rooms they'll likely move into the first category. No problem for those who don't respect the owners' rules anyway, but a problem for lots of other people who do. - accomodation that used to allow dogs but now doesn't after some damage - dog owners who allow that are in class of their own, and hopefully not on this thread.

You might get one of those guide books to pet friendly accommodation. :rolleyes:

A lot of show people travel with dogs in custom designed dog trailers. The dogs often sleep in the trailers too. If dogs are snuck into rooms against the rules, the motel owners start banning them all together. So motels that people once used for show weekends, can no longer be used creating an accomodation hassle for many. I assume that is why showdog dobs in people who break the rules re dogs in rooms - so that the people who just think of themsleves don't ruin it for the others who appreciate being able to stay there with the dogs sleeping in the trailer. The rule breakers get kicked out and banned, and the other show people get to rebook for next year. not sure if that explanation helped, but I tried, LOL.

I wouldn't do it, because it's very rude to stay somewhere and deliberately flout their rules, and it may lead to even tighter restrictions on the next pet owner, such as not even allowing dogs that sleep in vehicles. I pay extra and stay at places that allow dogs inside, even if that means renting a house for the weekend. If I can't find such a place either the dogs don't come or I don't go.

I believe that 'other poster' would have been me. The purely factual information that 112 members signed the notice for requisition for the special general meeting is easy to find on the Dogs NSW website. I have no views on the motions either way. As I have previously said, I am not a voting member of Dogs NSW. And I have absolutely and utterly no interest in the factions or feuds of Dogs NSW.

Same here. A third person, eg a friend, would not be allowed to enter the ring, but they could be at ringside to take the dog off the steward. When a steward is to intervene would be determined by the judge, sometimes before the stay exercise if the judge briefs on it, or just by a signal in the ring. I usually ask judges how they will handle breaking dogs before we start if I am stewarding, unless I have stewarded for them before and already know what they prefer. I have to say I haven't seen any interference between dogs for a long time here, perhaps because I usually steward the higher classes.

Maybe they don't know another way to talk? Or maybe it works well enough that they don't need to modify it much? Maybe one of the reasons we have dogs is that we could always 'get' what they were communicating and they can 'get' what we are. I think maybe I communicate to my dogs in many situations much as I communicate simple messages to other people - a bit less verbal, but if someone analysed it I think they would find a lot that would map across. Maybe too much! But I don't think they think I am a dog. I do think they consider me part of their social structure. I'm pretty sure they think the cat is too -or else why would they exchange grooming rituals. But they know she's not a dog. To say they think I am a dog would make me wonder why they don't think cows are dogs. Or kangaroos. Or, as above, cats. I think being able to tell species apart is a pretty basic skill that any adult mammal, predator or prey, would want to have down pat. Not sure why dogs should suddenly fall down in this skill when it comes to humans But given we are all one household social entity - dogs, people and cat - I can still accept they might try to apply heirachical behaviours to our relationship, without thinking I'm canine. But given that I control access to most of the good things in life, that only causes a problem if I carelessly give away authority.

I'm not a breeder, but I am pretty sure docking of tails - except in exceptional circumstances - is now illegal everywhere including WA. So it's no clue to their origin, just the willingness of someone to break the law. Something dodgy went on. Hard to tell what though. The person who claimed to have found the puppies could have bred them - 'finding' would be a common excuse given to rescue orgs I think.

I find that hardly any DOLers are what I would call 'purely positive'. I know there are a few out in the 'real world' but I don't hear them on DOL. But I see many many posts arguing against this invisible cohort. So many that they seem to derail a lot of threads and ruin a lot of opportunities for real discussion. Plenty of DOLers may argue against the use of corrections in some specific situations, or against some specific sorts of corrections, but I am struggling to think of too many who say they'd never correct or think others should never correct. So who are these purely positive souls?

I don't think white tripe is harmful, it just has none of the properties that make green tripe a valuable food. I'd be suprised if your butcher will sell you green tripe. I think it is against health regs in Australia for him to do so. It seems to be allowed in NZ.

I think the tail docking is a red herring. The OP thought having docked tails may have meant they were from another state. We know that is not correct. Sounds to me like they may have been cross-bred or BYB puppies the breeders couldn't sell or didn't want to raise, so they dumped them on rescue with a bogus story, then they did get a sale - so they went and got them back so they could make a buck on them. Or maybe they were stolen and the same scenario played out. I guess getting better surrender documentation would help, but if someone threatened the foster carers it would not always be feasible to hold out, whatever the paperwork. The threats if serious enough should be a police matter. The other way to deal with it would to be much more selective about what pups the rescue accepts but as the OP notes that has its own issues.

IMHO, each dog inherits a suite of characteristics, eg more or less able to deal with stress, more or less responsive to certain stimuli, more or less likely to behave in certain ways. A lot of that for pure bred dogs is somewhat predictable by breed, although you can get a lot of variation with breeds too. Some of that variation may be because of good or bad breeding, but some may be just natural variation. Whatever the pup starts with, genetically, is then impacted by it's early experience - I think the first few months are important, including the influence of the dam and litter - and then for the rest of its life by all it's experiences and learning, deliberate or accidental, and how it's physical and psychological needs are met. Or not met. But I don't think that many dogs are born 'bad'. They may be in a home more suited to a different dog, even though that home is a 'good home', it may be the wrong home. Or it may be in a 'bad home' that it still manages to do OK in because it's resilient enough to cope, or that home actually meets most of its needs even though we don't think it's a good place to be. Or what you think is a bad dog, I may think is just fine. And vice versa. Depending on what role you and I want that dog to perform and what traits we particularly value. A few dogs may be born 'bad', with a psychological problem of some kind that makes then inherently dangerous or too extreme in behaviour, but I don't think that is many. That doesn't mean all the others are suitable for an average pet home though. I hope that never becomes the sole measure of a 'good' dog.

It often feels to me like just a politically correct cover for not liking or for fearing pet animals. It's not as if the pet owner is suddenly going to start donating the money they spend on their pets to charity if they had no dogs, anymore than anyone one else is going to donate because they couldn't spend their money on what they like to now. It's no less a valid consumption choice than any other. Take away my dogs, I'd probably get a flashier car - that's really going to help the starving, not. And food producers aren't going to start giving their produce away to the starving if they can't sell it for pet food. They'll just go to the next most profitable market, and that's not going to be the poor. Or it will become a waste product, it's costs covered by increasing the price of rest of the more sought after cuts, if it's meat. It's a bogus argument.

I hear the argument that pets aren't good for the environment more and more. I usually reply that their boat/house at the coast/overseas holiday/McMansion/flat screen TV in every room isn't that good for the environment either.

Unless the dog has been declared dangerous it just needs to be under effective control. There is nothing to indicate it wasn't under effective control. Whether we think he should have been in the park or not is irrelevant to the question, which was should it be reported or not. There is nothing to report.

Report what, bad manners? Nothing has happened that is 'reportable'.

On a poodle list I used to be on there were Americans who shot over their mini and toy poodles. I'm sure they are up to it. But I recognise that little face.

you cheated with the poodle !

From what I understand - and that's a substantial qualifier, LOL - it's not Dogs NSW seeking he be removed, it's the petitioners. The motions are their wording. It's up to them to come up with their reasoning. (I am not even in NSW - just a curious bystander).

The OzShow list has some details. Apparently the meeting was called because >100 members asked for it via petition. Not instigated by the CC as such, but called because they are req'd to respond to such a request.

Having seen the behaviour I'd agree not to overstate the problem. It was embarrassing for you I think, but she mostly looked young, too fond of the sound of her own voice, overly excited and in need of a bit of training in how to behave in that situation. She walked beautifully and calmly and that was what she spent most of the time doing, so you are at least half-way to the demeanour you want.

I agree with that. But I could just as easily replace 'working breeds' with 'terrier breeds' or 'sighthound breeds' or 'herding breeds' (which are real working dogs to me) and probably many others, and it would still be true.

I tried it too. One at a time and giving them the signal it was OK to have what I had put down. Dog 1 moved the towel, sniffed the kibble and took one. She didn't return for the rest - but she's a fussy eater. Dog 2 moved the towel, ate the kibble. Dog 3 Picked the whole lot up towel and all and took it to her bed

There was a vet on the radio here on Sunday saying how she supported her clients breeding their dogs, because they produced so much nicer puppies than 'proper' breeders. There was some valid stuff in there about the benefits of raising puppies in a home environment, but a distinct bias towards unregistered puppies and byb breeders. And that's a vet on public radio, no wonder other people think it's fine.

SSM, just let me know if you want to practice that last technique with the most social of mine in the role of the other dog.