Steve

I think you will find that at least in most states of Australia its not illegal to eat dog. - as long as you dont dock its tail first.

O.K. This is it - I cant hold off the ticket sales any longer - if you intend to come you need to book your ticket now We have to know final figures within the next 24 hours. www.mdbaawards.net.au

Yep you need your glad rags and there's dancing this year so tap shoes would be handy .

That was good fun - thank you

You need to go through the buy a ticket spot here so we can get your details to send you out your ticket. www.mdbaawards.net.au Im looking forward to meeting you.

O.K.Rozzie - you're it

Advertising entire litters on main registration wouldnt bother me and I dont mind if they dont have a desexing contract either.

Now Im really swinging over to full on excitement mode. The judges decisions are in and the winners names have been sent off to the engraver to do what needs to be done on the trophies and plaques. That make ME and Lesley Stewart [goldchow ] to be two of only 3 people on the whole planet to know who has won each category. because the judges dont know who they are judging - Awesome! We have also just got notice that Dr Lesley Levins will be able to attend and thats truly a miracle and we are all very very happy she can join us.

Nup Im not buying that - in my opinion its straight out lost the plot animal rights craziness. Considering having legal people representing dead fish is just too stupid - and its way past basic common sense or sanity.

;)

Crap- Thinking its stupid to give animals lawyers isnt the same as wanting them to suffer. I think its stupid to give animals lawyers.

In order to advertise on dol you have to be a registered breeder with a current prefix with one of the states ANKC canine authorities. Whether or not these people are doing the right thing or not is up to their state's canine associations and its not possible for Troy to be able to check out which ones are doing the right thing. If Troy starts to take notice of everyone who wants to say something about a breeder and disqualify them based on that then no one would be left advertising. Get the breeder talking about their dogs and what they do to be sure their puppies have a great start in life. Ask about what they were aiming for with the mating and you want to hear that part of that is in what they would be putting intothe next generation. A backyard breeder or a puppy farmer only looks at what they might get from that one litter - that may be nice pets to get some extra money a champion or a great working dog etc but unless they can tell you they were interested in the generation after this and how what they were doing might impact on the breed or their dogs into the future this is a definite warning light. If a breeder is looking at what comes next they are more likely to look at profiling a pedigree effectively screening for recessive issues and selecting dogs more suitable for breeding. Take a look at the state's canine association codes of conduct and consider what is in there you dont want a breeder to do. For example in some states the breeder can sell puppies to pet shops.I would not buy a puppy from someone who sells puppies to pet shops because I think thats a screaming red light on how they view puppies.They can own hundreds of dogs, they can breed purebred as well as cross bred puppies all while they are breeding show,pet or working dogs. Or you can buy from an MDBA member we've already screened them for you and we have various checks to make sure they comply with our code of ethics. If you are an MDBA pet owner member we will take a close look at any breeder you're thinking of buying from and give you advice too.

Yeah why dont the UKCK just say - LESS - out loud ?

O.K. You've all been good playing along - Now a hint - sometime today is the cut off so last poster before that exact time wins the ticket. Good Luck everyone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/738...in-make-up.html Organisers of Crufts have warned dog owners not to break competition rules amid concerns some are resorting to using make-up and beauty treatments such as coat dye and hair removal creams on their animals. The Kennel Club has warned that it will be introducing extra checks at this week's event in addition to its usual random tests. It has also written to some breed clubs for dogs where there is particular concern about the use of beauty products. Although competition rules do not specifically ban the use of cosmetics and other beauty treatments on dogs, they do forbid anything that alters an animal's appearance during dog shows, to gain extra marks from judges, who award prizes for entries that best match the "ideal" characteristics of each breed The Kennel Club said it was aware some owners were exploiting this grey area to circumvent the rules and said it would not hesitate to disqualify anyone caught cheating. The warning comes days before Britain's biggest dog show gets under way at the NEC in Birmingham, and is the latest controversy to hit the event, after rows about the health dangers of pedigree breeding. The use of cosmetics is becoming increasingly common among non-competition dogs. One British company, HUB International, based near Reading, now offers nose paint, black and white dyes to change the colour of the dog's coat, as well as hairspray and make-up. The firm warns customers that these products should not be used in competitions. A recent article in the magazine Dog World even gave advice about using the acne cream Clearasil, to treat spots on animals. Lipstick and eyeliner is also used on some dogs. Some owners are even using female depilatory cream to neaten the appearance of hairless breeds such as the Chinese Crested dogs. The growing use of such treatments has led to the new crackdown on all breeds by the Kennel Club. It has written to the two clubs responsible for Chinese Crested dogs in Britain to stress their opposition to the use of hair removal products. Both organisations insisted their members would not be breaking the rules. Caroline Kisko, a spokeswoman for the Kennel Club, said: "Anything that gives a dog an unfair advantage in its appearance is not allowed. We certainly would not allow the use of hair removal creams. "We do carry out spot checks, including hair samples, but while it is easy to find colour dye it can be very hard to prove that removal cream has been used on a hairless dog. "However, we will be particularly vigilant this year and we have written to the Chinese Crested clubs to remind their members about the rules." Cathy Urquhart, co-owner of the HUB Internation, denied that their cosmetics were being used in competitions. However, Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs Today magazine, said: "Ordinary pet owners simply do not put make-up on their pets or chemicals on their dog's nose. "This sort of trade is becoming more commercial and the demand must surely be coming from people entering shows. "Dog shows shouldn't be about winning at all costs. The whole world of dog shows needs a deep clean and until now the Kennel Club has just been looking the other way." Stuart Payne, secretary of the Chinese Crested Club of Great Britain, said: "I do not believe that any exhibitor of the breed would do anything to cause any discomfort to their pets. "Anyone coming to see the breed at a dog show can see they are healthy, happy and in excellent condition. "It is very easy to abide by the rules, as there is absolutely no need to break them in order to prepare a dog for the show ring." The cosmetics controversy is the latest to overshadow Crufts. Last year, the BBC decided not to cover the event in the wake of a 2008 television documentary that exposed breeding techniques it was claimed led to genetic illnesses affecting pedigree dogs. The RSPCA also pulled out of the show. Last year, The Sunday Telegraph also revealed some 'size zero' dogs were being starved in order to meet strict weight limits at shows. Animal campaign group PETA, which believes pedigree inbreeding is "morally unjustifiable", will target this year's Crufts with a poster featuring a white Maltese with a black comb on his upper lip to look like Adolf Hitler. The caption reads: "Master Race? Wrong for People. Wrong for Dogs. Boycott Breeders". In response to welfare concerns, the Kennel Club has promised a 'doggy dating' website to help breeders find a healthier match between pedigrees using the organisation's unrivalled database of genetics. It hopes the Mate Select site, which seeks to reduce instances of pedigrees mating with close relatives, will be running by the end of the year. However critics have said the project is unlikely to work because it is not compulsory.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...p;#entry4375946

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...p;#entry4375946

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...p;#entry4375946

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...p;#entry4375946

I joined under the user name of Steve 9 years ago but I was here for a while before that and I actually posted one post under my own name when there was a thread started by Jim going on about the possibility of starting up a new group as a separate to the Canine Councils. As is typical of many threads which happen here the idea ran on for a while and died out but I just couldn’t get the whole idea out of my mind and I started to work behind the scenes to see if it could ever become reality. Jim and I started to chat via PMs and email and he used to say -"You just can’t let it go can you?" I couldn’t and I became more and more sure that it was something that was needed in the purebred dog world. Don Burke was popular and was telling the world about how rotten we were and no one was defending us but I also knew that some of us were rotten and there was no way of telling the good registered breeders from he bad Sandy - Ceilidh - was my sounding board in the flesh and I must have driven her mad too and I made her listen to me for hours of phone chats and cups of coffee at her grooming salon - She encouraged me and never made me feel like an idiot for not being able to let it go. I’m not sure she ever knew what a huge part she played in the set up of the MDBA but she was there from day one helping me to think out loud. All the while I was becoming more involved with people who I was watching on dogz. I started to watch posts very carefully and by then I was a moderator so I had some idea of some stuff that was going on behind the scenes. Dogz was the sounding board and the teaching ground for dog related issues and I began looking for people who I thought had the qualities we would need to put a successful group together. I consciously watched for clues in posting styles and hints about who people really were. I watched some other groups come and go and pulled apart what had gone wrong and how we could avoid it happening to us. I had met Dr Lesley Levins who had a PhD in Science Ed when she purchased one of my puppies from me some years earlier and we had become great mates. She was full of knowledge and wisdom of the purebred dog world and I began to think how awesome it would be to be able to put together courses set by purebred dog people. Her credentials left me for dead and she never made me feel she thought that or that I was a flea she wanted to brush off - She also encouraged me and spent hours chatting and educating me. Lesley was a dogz member too! And so the rest is now history - Jed, Nadia, Goldchow, Jim, Lesley Levins, Troy and myself became the board of the Master Dog Breeders Association - for about 2 weeks. It became obvious about then that if we stayed as an association we were going to be bombed and affected by the same influences other groups such as the Dog Body which had already gone down in disaster had been. We had already started setting up the correspondence courses and as an association we were under other pressures to comply with fair trade issues and being told what to do etc which we weren’t happy with. So we folded the Association and Troy bowed out due to his many other commitments and we launched as a partnership and then found that too difficult to administer with us all living so far away from each other - every time we needed to do anything we had to wait for a piece of paper to be posted around from one to the other - so we became the MDBA Pty Ltd trading as Master Dog Breeders and Associates and the Master Dog Breeders Academy. This gave us the freedom to operate without restriction on whom we could let in and how we could word our codes of conduct etc. I was lectured on how stupid I was to go into business with people I had never met personally and I have never regretted that and I feel so very humble to have been involved with people I "met" via Dogzonline. We worked like slaves and everyone put in so much of their lives setting it all up and making it go. We introduced new levels of membership so we moved from just breeders to breeders, rescue, pet owners and professionals. We kept at it even though a couple suffered major health and personal disasters. There has been a stroke, marriage break ups, heart attacks, breakdowns, close family deaths and financial hardship. None of us have ever taken a cent out of it but rather we sank our own money in to make it go. We have now made our mark on the outside world but dogz will always be the place that supported us and bought us together. I could never say how grateful I am to Troy and the fact that he stuck with the forum even though it’s caused him grief and loads of money. Jed, Nadia and Jim have had to move on, they are no longer on the board and have now returned to life without the MDBA board and I’m honoured to still call them mates who I would never have known if I hadn’t have come to chat here now and then about 10 years ago. Lesley Levins has lost her vision since we began and now only has around 2% of her "eyes" She recently had new heart valves put in and suffered a stroke and some major personal crap which she has now almost fully recovered from so she has had some time off but she is still here and a very much valued active member of the board - almost ready to go back to full time work with us. Our graphics work is done for us by someone we met on dogz - thank you shmoo Our event management and sponsorship deals are done by someone we met on dogz - thank you Anne Our webwork is done by someone we met on dogz - Thank you Exelerashun. Our media work is done by someone we met on dogz - Thank You Wendy H. Then we get to Goldchow - What a lady! Lesley Stewart works around the clock every single day on the MDBA and MDBA Pacers which is a charity born from what we saw as a need for animal owners. This was due to requests the MDBA were getting for help and our dissatisfaction for traditional animal welfare orgs. The awards take up a huge part of our lives too and Goldchow is as solid as a rock and with just her and I covering all bases I don’t think anyone could know the work load she has and words could never describe how much I appreciate her and I thank God [and Troy} I was able to get to know her and become her business partner and friend. When I think back on what we have achieved and the difference we have made to so many dogs, and when I think of how big MDBA pacers is going to be and the role it will play in preventing domestic animals suffering and be instrumental in change long after we have moved on I don’t think anyone could deny what an awesome place dogzonline is and the part its played in all we have done. I’m more passionate now than I have ever been that what we are doing is truly what is best for dogs and their owners and with PACERS what's best for all animal owners. I’m very much aware of the fact that without dogz it would never have happened. Anyone who gets to sit with Troy [who is a very humble and unaffected person] should see it as a true honour. I was trying to count how many of you I have gotten to meet personally now not to mention the numbers I’ve had the honour of chatting with on the phone too. For the record I’m having the time of my life - so thank you to every one of you who have participated and become part of this community.

No everyone is eligible - win a ticket and bring a friend :D

Ive started a new thread for this to make it easier for people to see whats going on. O.K. Here's one for a bit of fun - I will donate this ticket for the Dog Owners Choice Awards about the awards and the winner can have it for nothing. Ive sent an email to Troy to tell him when the cut off time is so I cant cheat. From now on the last person to post in this thread before that cut off time will get a free dinner ticket - value $100. The cut off could be a an hour a day a week etc Gumpette is the last post in on the other thread so we will pick up from there. Last post before the cut off wins. While we're vying for last spot - Lets talk about what brings you to dogz and what you get out of it. How long you've been visiting.The kind of threads that get you back here more often What you hope to get out of visiting here and what you have taken from it.You can say nice things about some of the posters etc but keep the theme to dogz life. Only positive stuff - if you dont have good stuff to say - talk about something else. Negative comments will be disqualified from being in the running. O.K. Ready set go. Gumpette is coming in first in line for a freebie. Lets have some fun while we hang out here for a minute and get to know each other a bit better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/0...defends-animals When Patrick Giger, a 34-year-old angler from the Swiss village of Horgen, cast his baited line into Lake Zurich's storm-swollen waters on an icy February morning last year, he could not have forecast the trouble he would end up reeling in alongside the 22lb pike which was soon to snare itself on his hook. The day ended with the monster fish being devoured by Giger and his friends at a local restaurant, but just a few months later Giger would face, on the instructions of the state prosecutor for the canton of Zurich, criminal prosecution for causing excessive suffering to the animal after boasting to a local newspaper that he had spent around 10 minutes, and exerted considerable physical effort, landing the fish. The pike has gone on to become something of a poster child for the animal rights movement in Switzerland. It has even attracted more than 6,000 "fans" on a Facebook page set up in its memory. But the fate of this fish also acts to highlight the political divisions in Switzerland over just how far to push its animal rights legislation, already hailed as arguably the toughest anywhere in the world. The ultimate test will come this Sunday when the country will decide in a referendum – or "people's initiative" – whether an animal should be represented by a lawyer during any criminal trial in which it is judged to be the "victim". The canton of Zurich has had just such a lawyer – or "animal advocate", as the incumbent prefers to be called – since 1991, but the campaigners who garnered the 100,000 signatures required to automatically trigger a national referendum are now hoping animal advocates will be required by law in all 26 cantons. Antoine Goetschel, Zurich's animal advocate since 2007, acted in court on behalf of the pike two weeks ago when Giger's trial finally came before a judge. Giger was subsequently acquitted, but Goetschel is still hopeful that when the judge finally submits his written summary of the trial in the coming weeks he will clarify what time-length is acceptable for a fisherman to land a fish. For some in Switzerland the apparent absurdity of a dead fish having its own legal counsel – let alone placing such a legal time limit on anglers – displays that the animal rights agenda has now gone too far. However, supporters of the referendum argue that this strikes at the very ethical and philosophical heart of animal rights: why shouldn't an animal, they argue, have the same legal right to representation as any other victim in a criminal trial? And when you open that particular Pandora's box, a whole slew of other chewy questions follow. For example, do all animal species deserve equal rights? If an elephant deserves a lawyer, what about that defenceless slug squished underfoot by a vengeful gardener? Such questions have been troubling moral philosophers for centuries, but it could soon have a practical application in all of Switzerland's criminal courts. "Are fish sentient beings or not?" asks Goetschel rhetorically, as he thumbs the shelves of his law firm's library, located in downtown Zurich not much more than a fly cast away from the lake where his client once swam. "This is the sort of question I am asked to consider in such cases. This fisherman was boasting that it took him around 10 minutes to bring in the pike. The state attorney asked me to look into it. This is my job. I found a case judgement in Germany that said anything over one minute is too long so I used this as evidence. It was uncomfortable in the court as I had 40 fishermen against me. But I ask you this: if we put a hook in the mouth of a puppy and did the same thing for 10 minutes, what would our reaction be? With farm animals there is a strict, legally enforceable time limit between capture and death, so why not with fishing?" Goetschel rejects his critics who claim this all amounts to yet another money-spinner for lawyers. He says he handles 150-200 animal cases a year which, in total, take up about a third of his time. "I get paid 200 francs [£124] an hour for representing animals, but the fee for my other work is 350-500 francs per hour so I don't do this for the money," he asserts. "In 2009, I received 78,000 francs [£48,000] in total – just enough to pay for half an assistant at my office." So who does pay for his time? Clearly not the pike and all the other animal victims he represents in court. "I'm designated by the canton government to do this job for four years," he says. "The state pays me, otherwise it would be seen that I'm too close to being a representative of an animal rights NGO. For me it is about conviction rather than money. It's a thrill for me to make the public think about the animal/human relationship." 'Not even a vet can act on behalf of an animal in court' There is a core principle of fair justice that underpins his work, he explains. Animals can be, and often are, treated poorly by their human masters. But while this person can defend themselves, the animal cannot. "Not even a vet can act on behalf of the animal in court." In late 2008, a new animal act passed into law in Switzerland. It runs to 150 pages and explains in great detail how dozens of species are to be kept and treated by their owners, be they "companion animals" or livestock on a farm. In November, the law will finally become legally enforceable meaning the owner of, say, a rabbit could be prosecuted for keeping their pet in a hutch that doesn't meet the legal criteria. A dwarf rabbit, for example, must be kept in a hutch no smaller than 50cm x 70cm, with 40cm headroom. They must also have a nest box, or the "ability to dig". (Curiously, gerbils are accorded more head room than rabbits.) The new rules for dogs are even more exacting. Dogs are deemed "social animals" and, therefore, "must have daily contact with humans, and, as far as possible, with other dogs". If kept in outdoor kennels, they must be "chain free" for at least five hours a day and kept in pairs, or with other "compatible animals". It says they must be walked daily, but the act fails to specify for how long or how far (which has angered some campaigners). And all prospective owners must now complete a four-hour "theory" course before buying a dog then complete a further four hours at a dog school as soon as they take ownership of the animal. Dogs must only be fed "species specific" food and their "enclosures" must have separate areas for eating, sleeping and toileting. If only half the world's human population could be given such guarantees, sniff the critics of the animal act. "The 2008 law was good for animal protection," says Goetschel, who can even represent the best interests of a pet in any custody battles resulting from a (human) divorce. "I think the fight about the level of protection is now probably over in Switzerland. We have the 'dignity of the animal' recognised in Swiss law. But there is a struggle between the idealism of the ethics and the realism of the application of the law. Ethics should be there like a lighthouse to show where to go. Our high rates of prosecution in the canton of Zurich where we have an animal advocate, compared to the others, shows why someone such as me is needed. The mentality of the police and state attorneys varies from canton to canton. They have murders and drugs to deal with so animal cases are often a low priority. They also have a lack of knowledge about the new law. The whole of Switzerland would probably need about six to 15 attorneys to cover all the animal cases arising each year." Goetschel, a vegetarian without pets who accepts the "hypocrisy of wearing leather shoes and silk ties", gets far more animated when moving on to the deeper questions about our attitude towards the animals we keep. "The 2008 law only protects vertebrates," he says. "Invertebrates are deemed not to suffer pain so were left out. Five classes are covered by the law: birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals and fish. This only accounts for 5% of the animal world. But securing the 'dignity of plants' has now even been discussed. It can all lead to some interesting dilemmas. For example, what about the scientist who is trying to make a flea with 12 eyes? Who is representing the dignity of this creature?" A matter of dignity So should all forms of life on this planet have rights enshrined in law? "I happen to believe that invertebrates are more or less equal to vertebrates. This thinking isn't new. In the 19th century, a man in the UK was prosecuted for leaving his scorpions to die. It was the UK in 1822 who introduced the world's first animal welfare law with the Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle. It was Jeremy Bentham's thinking that invertebrates should have common value to other animals and I share this view. Snails and fleas are used in lab experiments; they should have some form of representation. It's the principle of their use that is important to me rather than the individual animals themselves. I believe that we increase our own dignity when we increase the dignity of others." Goetschel accepts that the pike was one of his more unusual clients. The species he represents the most are, in order, dogs, cows, cats and pigs. But he is ever wary of what he calls the "puppy trap". "There is a danger that we only try to protect the animals we think are cute," he says. "I must strip myself of emotion. How would you choose to prosecute the person who cut the head off a cat with a knife versus the person who didn't give any food and water to their cat for two weeks causing it to die? Which cat suffered more? Suffering and dignity should be what guide you, not emotions." The role of organisations such as the UK's RSPCA is important, he says, but an extra level of protection is required in his view. "The RSPCA in the UK can act as 'non-instructed policemen'," he says. "But the RSPCA does not have the legal right to represent the animal in court. I can ask a question to a witness. I can make an appeal. My position can be very useful. For example, I represented 70 dogs that had been mistreated by their owner. The state attorney asked if I wanted to write up all their cases individually. But I said, let's just pick three representative dogs and we were able to do a plea bargain as a result. Without me, this case could have potentially taken a year." Goetschel admits to being nervous about the result of Sunday's referendum. It's too close to call, he says. But would he like to see other countries following Switzerland's lead? "The Swiss have made steps that would be nice to see implemented in other countries – the French, for example, say the keeping of an animal is a basic human right – but I'm not proud of Switzerland just yet." Peter Singer, the professor of bioethics at Princeton University and author of Animal Liberation, the book many credit with kick-starting the modern animal rights movement in the 1970s, says he is thrilled that the Swiss are voting to take what he sees as such a progressive step: "I have always argued that it should be possible for animals to be represented in court by guardians, or lawyers, acting on their behalf, much as we do for people with disabilities." It is a positive move towards what he would describe as his dream scenario: "Ideally, you would have laws requiring that we give equal considering to an animal's interests where their interests are similar to ours, that we do not discount their interests merely because they are not human. The details are going to vary according to the species and according to why the animal is being kept. You're either going to have very complicated legislation, or you're going to have procedures that set up committees and tribunals in order to decide what is the proper way to keep animals which will range across the species. But if you're talking about a perfect world, we're not there yet. Are we going to cease using animals for food, for example? That's not an issue that's up for vote in the Swiss referendum. They're not going to stop making their cheese." Recent polling indicates that the "Yes" campaigners might achieve 70% of the popular vote on Sunday, but over the last week the "No" campaign leaders have called for a letter-writing campaign to newspapers – a strong political tradition in Switzerland – and the pages have been filled with dissenting views about the need for animal advocates across the country. 'If I was a chicken I'd want to live in Switzerland' "Let me say straight away that I support our 2008 animal protection laws," says Hannes Germann, a senator for the canton of Schaffhausen and prominent member of the Swiss People's party, the rightwing party that successfully campaigned last year for a building ban on minarets in Switzerland. "But it is enough. If you ask people what is important for this country at this time, it is not yet more bureaucracy and the needless spending of tax-payers' money. We have bigger issues to fight than this." The "Yes" campaigners reject the idea that animal advocates are a luxury. Eva Waiblinger, a zoologist who works as the "companion animal welfare specialist" for the animal rights group Schweizer Tierschutz (Swiss Animal Protection), says that Goetschel only costs each taxpayer in Zurich canton 8 Swiss cents a year. She says she is hopeful, but nervous about Sunday's vote. (The result will not hinge on the national popular vote, but whether a majority of cantons support the initiative. It's this that campaigners on both sides say is on a knife-edge.) "Anglers and farmers are against us," she says. "But the Swiss Kennel Club is supporting us, as are most of the newspapers." The intention of animal advocates, she says, is simply to better enforce the 2008 animal welfare act. She is pleased with the new guarantees of protection – "If I was a chicken I'd want to live in Switzerland" – but thinks they could have gone even further in places: "There is a problem with species-ism in the act. It encourages what is in effect racism against certain species. That's my problem with it all." But when viewed against the protection animals get in other countries, she says she is proud that Switzerland leads the world in animal protection. "When I came to London recently I was shocked to see puppies and kittens for sale in Harrods," she says. "They even had plastic hamster balls which you can put on the floor and watch the hamster running inside as the ball rolls around. If I'd seen this in Switzerland, I would have gone to the police."

Personally I dont agree with breeders placing such conditions on their dogs. Breeders have to make all kinds of decisions based on many more things than just hip scores etc and O.K. sure some new kids might make some mistakes - just as we did and still do but I think once you say "O.K. you can have a dog for breeding". You have to trust they will make their own decisions and hopefully take your advice and if you cant do that dont sell them a dog.

The ones that are in the paddock only ever get a bath about a week before they whelp. The house dogs when they need it but as little as possible. I know if I had a dog which needed constant grooming I would neglect it because its not something I would go out of my way to do. I know some people really enjoy the whole process but not me. You gotta know your limitations.