WoofnHoof

Yeah I was surprised too Jed you would think that people who live and breathe dogs would know that health risks posed by them are pretty minor and as long as you don't let them lick your plate while you're still eating from it you are generally pretty safe Actually I'm pretty sure the only major health risks transferrable from dogs to humans is worms which again you have to ingest for them to enter your body. It's not even the hairs and cockies on the sangers that are the big issues in food industries it's just basic hygiene, handwashing and food preparation surface and utensil cleaning. But from memory the biggest single factor which is often brought up in audits is temperature control - it's frightening how many people don't recognise the importance of temperature regulation. I often go to Warwick eventing but since EI they brought in a 'no dog' rule, according to their website this is for 'safety and infection control', now we could argue about the safety of dogs and horses for ever and a day but I'm very interested to know which infection the no dog rule is meant to be controlling since the Powers That Be are adamant that we have regained EI free status? Just another example of dogs being excluded which is a PITA because I used to love Warwick

How gorgeous ;) What a little fighter

I am amazed that someone who is not and never has been an ANKC member, does not, and never has owned a registered purebred dog, but owns two petshop dogs, probably sourced from puppy farms can make such an assertive statement, from a basis or no knowledge at all. Amazed Not sure where you got the idea that I've never owned a registered purebred dog, my first ever dog was a registered purebred chi bought from an ad in the paper over 20 years ago. According the rescue the little dog I got for my parents who has now come to me as my parents are unwell is also a purebred dog, they forwarded the details of the person who is confident she bred her (a registered breeder). I don't know Jed maybe my powers of observation are better than yours but I believe it is actually possible to see to the heart of an issue without necessarily being embroiled in it personally.

What barrow are they pushing that is the same exactly? Scientists present all types of research at events all the time doesn't mean they are pushing the same barrow or even presenting the same type of research, I went to an animal welfare conference about 18 months ago in which many people presented many conflicting studies, including one paper extolling the welfare virtues of caged hen egg production (!), and a rep from APRA talking about addressing of animal welfare issues in rodeos. The purebred world has a lot to do with designer mutts and puppy farms because of the fact that any laws enacted regarding them will impact on everyone associated with dogs, as you already know. All DD breeders and puppy farmers did was exploit a niche which opened up in the pet world, the pure breeders failed to both recognise that there was a growing gap between pet owners and registered breeders, and were too busy infighting to become a major player in the resulting change in the pet owning world. As has been mentioned elsewhere dogs are companion animals, the predominant role of dogs in Australia is the role of the pet dog, and the purebreed world in it's obsession with introversion and looking at the past roles of dogs has been bypassed by those who recognised and responded to the change and started marketing their animals as such. In the past registered breeders advertised pups in the paper and weren't castigated for it, nowadays it's the domain of bybs and puppy farmers and we wonder why people are buying more of them??? It doesn't mean that designer mutts are more appropriate for today's society it's only that they have been marketed as such, had the purebreed world recognised this and responded in kind perhaps registered dogs would make up more of the pet population. Complaining about the damage done to the reputation of purebreds 20 years after the first incursions isn't going to change things, only action in the form of effective marketing campaigns would change the public perception.

From the quote above surely I could be forgiven for thinking that you were lumping McGreevy and Bennet into the same camp/category. I'm not sure that breeding dogs for the pet market equates to breeding lots of dogs for profit, breeding dogs for pets isn't necessarily a matter of upping production it's more about producing a more suitable pet, based on the argument that what is winning in the show ring may not necessarily be what makes a great pet. Since Bennet doesn't show she may already be breeding towards the pet market yet isn't exactly churning out mass amounts of puppies so I'm not sure how you can equate the two? At present it is just words on a forum because all I'm reading here is why this or that strategy isn't good enough, and so nothing happens arguments just go round and round in circles while the puppy farmers are out there busily promoting themselves. It's easy to see why the purebreed world has been left behind in these matters. edited to clarify

Probably diverts attention from the real OH&S and hygiene issues that abound in food preparation places, a lot of people don't really understand proper food safety principles so it's simpler to get rid of a perceived risk than take action on the less obvious but infinetly more dangerous food safety issues.

Kiesha I've solved the door dashing problem by putting a yard off both front and back doors, not very aesthetically pleasing but my piece of mind was worth more :D

I know that Paul McGreevy has commented on his research regarding F1 crosses but I was unaware that Pauline Bennet was in any way endorsing crosses, it's been stated about a million times that she is a registered breeder of purebred animals, surely if she were in favour of breeding crosses she would already be doing so??? No one can control how information is used, seminars are held to present the information, if the public decide that F1 crosses are the bees knees it's because they haven't been told otherwise. The gardener hasn't been on our screens for many years now, of course the promotion of crosses has resulted in an explosion of people breeding them - that's what promotion is - maybe the purebreed world should give it a go At the end of the day it's all just words on a forum, maybe I'll believe it when I see it on tv

justin19801 what animal welfare industry are you talking about??? I think you are confusing animal welfare with animal rights, while the two do impact upon each other they are still very different things. Steve your suggestion that Monash uni has somehow endorsed the view of the puppy farmer by 'giving her the floor' as you put it, and apparently 'backing her up' with academics is very curious, universities provide venues and vehicles for all kinds of events and speakers and I'm pretty sure that doesn't equate to endorsing the content? Feel free to bring it up with the university though I'm sure they'll let you know whether or not they endorse puppy farming. Since the AWSC organised the event perhaps you should raise your concerns with them, I am sure they would like to know if their event and organisation has been associated with the promotion of puppy farms.

Is the MDBA going to be contacting the 7 30 report to offer up an alternative view on the issues? The MDBA has already spoken to someone via the 7.30 report. Good to hear, hope to see a good follow up story from breeders or rescue

Is the MDBA going to be contacting the 7 30 report to offer up an alternative view on the issues?

That's a good idea, I think someone from here should write into the 7:30 report offering to be interviewed about ethical dog breeding, offer a tour of their kennels to show what it should be like, it would be a great counter story to the PF one and showcase the ideal This page has contact details for the producers and reporters if any breeders want to contact them ;) Any breeders or reps contacted them? Perhaps rescue could ask to do a feature since the Easter school holiday period (aka peak dumping season) is almost upon us?

Thanks SM

That's a good idea, I think someone from here should write into the 7:30 report offering to be interviewed about ethical dog breeding, offer a tour of their kennels to show what it should be like, it would be a great counter story to the PF one and showcase the ideal This page has contact details for the producers and reporters if any breeders want to contact them

I can't watch it till it's on the net for some reason my tv antenna picks up everything but ABC

That's a good idea, I think someone from here should write into the 7:30 report offering to be interviewed about ethical dog breeding, offer a tour of their kennels to show what it should be like, it would be a great counter story to the PF one and showcase the ideal

I wonder what they expect "responsible dog breeders" to do to stop operations where dogs are treated as little more than profitable breeding machines??? Maybe they mean dobbing in puppy farmers where they are suspected? I've seen posts on here that suggest a lot of breeders have some knowledge of who is ethical and who is not in the dog breeding world. I don't know enough about the dog breeding world but I know in horse breeding there are people I would consider unethical in their breeding practices by churning out poor quality animals that have a high likelihood of ending up as meat, the ones who will listen are lectured ad nauseum about it, I would like to report the ones that don't listen but since the horses have shelter and food nothing can be done.

Nothing on the news Raz, I can only find stuff from the 23rd. Hope they were able to reattatch everything, I can't imagine how painful that would be

Correct, just another way to end pet ownership. The link between ending pet ownership and animal rights/welfare groups was made in the US over a decade ago. We are still behind them on that one. Use of positive reinforcement at least involves people training their dog and can't be all bad. The greatest problem is isolation of dogs. In the 70s mums were at home as the kids grew up, now they're out working and kids are in kindy etc and the dog spend most of it's life alone, not good for a social companion animal. Council fines etc reinforce this problem. Education is the key and that's where we should be directing our resources IMHO. What do you do to get a license? You pass a test. What do you do to pass a test? You learn the material. Learning = education. Most people who have obtained a license know the basic rules, they know when to give way, when to indicate (sometimes) and when to stop or go. They didn't learn this via osmosis they learned it by reading the rule book and practicing under supervision. Sure there are plenty of people who drive unlicensed and do the wrong thing but overall the system works - most of the cars on the road don't crash because most people are following the rules. At present most dog owners don't know the rules, they don't understand basic dog behaviour and the basic needs of their dog. They don't know the reasons their dog behaves as it does and they are currently under no obligation to learn this before getting a dog.

Just had to say AWESOME PICS!

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. Not sure why you would equate controls with banning breeds? Going back to my driver's licence analogy, if you obtain an open license you can own and drive whatever car you want. There don't seem to be any moves to change that as far as I'm aware (unless you count people whining about 4x4s in the city) so why on earth would ensuring people have demonstrable knowledge of dog behaviour and breed-specific requirements become a ban on certain breeds? It's well established that a ban on specific breeds has no impact, however enforcement of education is likely to have a positive impact. A driver's license doesn't restrict anyone from doing anything, it's merely a certification of competence, if you are deemed competent you get one if you aren't you go back to the books until you can prove you are. Hell it might even be useful for people to demonstrate a basic knowledge of chihuahuas before getting one too! You may prefer the current status quo where you can get a pup without having to prove you know anything about dogs or the breed in question but it's fairly clear to me and others here that the status quo isn't working for humans or for dogs.

I'd love to know where you got the impression that myself (or anyone else here) is agreeing with banning large dogs. I have a husky which could be called a large dog (although technically they are a medium breed) so I'd hardly be advocating the banning of large dogs would I? You are also assuming that I haven't trained him, which isn't true he is less agressive than he was when the issue became apparent, at the end of the day though were I to do a risk assessment on the impact of his agression on myself or any other human the risk would be negligible. It's a simple fact that a large powerful breed has a greater potential for the sort of damage in the OP than a smaller, weaker one does. Acknowledging this fact does not somehow morph into supporting BSL. It wasn't a chi or a JRT or any other small breed that tore this woman's arm and that is what needs to be looked at - what type of dog can do this damage and what sort of strategies should be employed to try to prevent it happening again.

My 45kg Deerhound needed extensive surgery to reattach his thigh muscle after an aggressive 5kg Jack Russell grabbed hold of him. Four years later, he still has a 20cm scar down his leg, and some muscle weakness there. I don't thinks that's very funny. An aggressive dog is an aggressive dog. I don't care about it's size. And for the record, my dog never even TOUCHED the JRT as it attacked him. He was running away from the little turd and it latched onto my boy's thigh. We are talking about dogs with potential to sever a human arm, a chi cannot sever a human arm no matter how hard he tries, I don't know about JRTs from what I can tell their jaw structure is entirely different to that of a chi though.

Even more so IMO, humans have bred a dog which has the morphology which allows it to bring down a large animal on its own. The gray wolf or the village dog or whatever form of ancestral canine you prefer never had this ability, they hunted large animals in packs using slashing wounds and hounding the animal until it bled to death. Those dogs of the past would never have even tried taking down a full grown bovine, it was humans who developed the jaw and the front end of these animals which allowed them to tackle the job. 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. This is the attitude that angers me, total double standards. It's OK if a little dog is an aggressive little shit, we won't try & get help for it, it's only tiny & can't cause harm, except if it attacks a baby or small child. One of my sisters has an aggressive little shit of a Chi, it will bite anyone who gets near it except her, she also laughs about it, saying he thinks he's a big dog. I have tried trying to change it's behaviour, but my sister starts yelling at me saying I am scaring it, sure just trying to talk to it & pat it must be scary for this little bastard, it has bitten me many times. She has two daughters who are late teens & early twenties, soon they will possibly be getting married & having children, I've told both girls that when they have children, NEVER to take them to their mothers house, unless the dog is confined & can't get near their babies, they both agree. Of course it's not ok if a little dog is an agressive little shit but it's not exactly a tragedy waiting to happen is it? My dog would have to have access to a baby or small child to bite it and he doesn't so it really makes no difference to anyone else if he is agressive or not. There is going to be a difference between the management and potential of a large animal versus a small animal, it's common sense it's got nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with the practical implications of large dog vs small dog irrespective of breed.

Yeah but if you don't make education compulsory how do you ensure that it happens? People don't seem to want a mandatory licensing system that would be a way of enforcing the necessary education, getting it into schools is the best way but too long term for the pollies to even consider so what's the answer?