tdierikx

There's my fave boy Chopper!!! I've missed him so much since you stopped making his calendars Ruth... T.

Unfortunately the DNA result from a real Pitbull and a real AmStaff would come back as identical dogmad - they are essentially 2 lines of the same breed... yet the AmStaff is legal here, and the Pitbull is a restricted breed in most states of Australia. The only real way to prove the difference between the two would be with pedigree papers - but where does that leave unpapered AmStaffs? Do we simply just blanket all unpapered AmStaffs as Pitbulls? That would then lead to the assumption that there are myriad Pitbulls out there in society, which seems kinda strange seeing as the real deal is a restricted breed and can't legally be bred or sold in most States. There are a lot of dog breeds that come with red noses - Kelpies spring to mind. My yellow Lab also has a reddish nose, which isn't uncommon either. I've seen Pei's with red noses as well... I know you aren't fussed on bull breeds dogmad, but for some of us who share our lives with our beloved bull breeds, it seems a bit unfair to have them described with generalisations. I really need to introduce you to my old girl Zeddy (who IS actually part pitbull), and my latest addition Harper (who is obviously of a "pigging" mix) - Harper's fave playmate in the whole world is a 3kg scruffy terrier (and Harper is 18.2kgs now and still growing). As for unknown mix bull breed types found in pounds, I'd be more likely to want a qualified temperament assessor to have their say, rather than just a breed assessment and generalising about possible temperament based on looks alone. The way we have come to view the Pitbull is a real shame... what if the same sort of media focus was aimed at Chihuahuas as all being nasty snappy little ankle biters... which we all know is a complete fallacy - most Chis are lovely little dogs, right? Even though the Chi is a much smaller and less powerful dog, it could still inflict serious harm to a child's face, yes? T.

Him no "prance"... him "strut"... 'cos him knows him is gorgeous... *grin* T.

I'd like to see a little more info on their committee members listed on their pages - what they bring to the table with regards to achieving the goals they are stating are their objective, etc... The only publically listed email address for the group can be found on their Facebook page, and when you google that email address, she appears to be a palm reader? Then again the email address for the registrant of the site is "rat1bag @ gmail.com", which doesn't exactly inspire confidence... T.

There are many dogs in pounds that are perfectly well rehomable... and there are some dogs in pounds that aren't. PR has a habit of advocating very strongly for the general public to take their chances with dogs that clearly fall into the second category. Not to mention the bull breeds they ship off interstate that could very well be subjected to crazy BSL laws based on the fact that they look like a restricted breed. I have no doubts that if someone in Victoria put up their hand for the red nosed dog "6359 "Rayner" Male Am-Staff 2/4 yrs", he'd be shipped there by PR post haste... what do they think is going to happen to that dog once a "well meaning" member of the public lets the local council know he's in their jurisdiction? Quite frankly, he doesn't have to DO anything untoward while living in Victoria to be declared restricted/dangerous and possibly siezed and destroyed under that state's draconian new laws. It truly does appear that the goal for PR is to just move dogs out of "their" pounds... and in many cases without a thought as to what happens once they are gone. The pound is happy they don't have to euth them, and if shipped far enough away, the dogs will never be their problem again - but in many cases they have become the problem of the council areas they have ended up in. To me, that is just shifting the "problem" elsewhere... Mind you - I got a very pleasant reply to my email asking them to take me off their mailing list. No animosity at all... *grin* T.

Yeah, but it's a good wish for all of us to have, yes? *grin* T.

My Harper got tonsillitis to go with her teething... which hasn't finished yet may I say... AND she's now big enough to reach things I put up and (I thought) are out of reach... *sigh* T.

You can be 100% assured that they probably wouldn't agree with my stance on the topic of reputable rescue practices... for starters, I am strongly in agreeance with euthanaisia of any dog that is not rehomable due to temperament or health issues. I'm also not a fan of the revolving door policies of a large number of smaller rescues - I prefer a dog to be in care for a lot longer than a couple of weeks (or in some cases days) before it is advertised for rehoming - and if that dog is not a candidate for rehoming, I'm not about to keep it in care forever... instead, I will do the responsible thing by easing that dog into the next life with dignity. T.

No - Hawkesbury does not bcc... can see ALL recipients... T.

Any pound that knowingly allows PR to act as a "broker" to have DA and/or HA (primarily bull breed) dogs released from said pound under the guise of "rescue" needs to be called into account also... PR are getting dogs out of pounds under their Clause 16D - which seems to show that the DLG sees them as a rescue group, no? Then again the 16D really only covers them not having to council register said dogs for 12 months. Pounds, however, see the 16D as a legitimiser for rescues, and in most cases, this reduces the cost of release to said rescues - and in some cases, there is NO cost for release under a 16D. The paperwork for any dog released under a 16D should be going to the owner of that 16D, and that paperwork must be up to date, and any transfer of ownership must be notified within a specific timeframe, yes? An audit of the 16D dogs released to PR would be extremely interesting methinks. Also, once a dog is released from the pound, it means responsibility for said dog falls squarely on the shoulders of the owner of the 16D - if it is rehomed inappropriately and is a public menace, surely there is accountability for that which can be followed up on? I'm a lover and fairly experienced owner of bull breed dogs myself, yet there is no way on the planet that I would take any of the dogs listed by PR into MY home... some dogs DO need to be given their wings, if only to ensure public safety. T.

Ummm... I seem to recall a couple of dogs shipped interstate with no chip detail recorded or transferred to the new "owner" I'd love to see them get through a Charity Dept audit also... T.

Then they really have no right to call themselves a "national" body, do they? The blurb on the website lends one to believe that they wish to speak and act for ALL of us... T.

What "rattles" you about using your DSLR perse? Try clicking it to one of the presets (I like the Sport one), hold it to your face, look through the little hole, point it at something, then just start snapping... *grin* Well, that's what I do with mine... T.

Steve - policing CURRENT laws might be a start - we know that PR are flaunting enough current laws and regs already, but no-one with the power seems willing or able to call them on it. T.

I have googled the registrant, and the results clearly show lots of activity as an AR activist, links to AA and the like... that's where I'm getting MY "assumptions" from... and I'm not totally convinced that their current rescue members are people that I'd like mine to be listed alongside either. I also suppose that what galls me the most is that these people have set themselves up to be the spokespeople for all rescue - or all rescues they deem to be acceptable under their philosophies - WITHOUT actually consulting the majority of the group they wish to speak for... T.

I'll agree with that Kirislin - but that was a BIG snake! Which is sorta OK if it was non-venomous, which it doesn't appear to be... errr! T.

Ooooh - dogmad - you know what sort of response you are going to get from that one... and now they know that your email address is a live one too... T.

Well - I could have ranted, but that would only have made them direct their ire at me... and I really don't have the time nor inclination to get into a slanging match with them. T.

Well - the registrant of the websites is an Animals Australia supporter - going by my google searches... which kinda raises the scepticism factor for me... As for the scoring hearts system - the questionnaire is rather comprehensive and is judged solely on THEIR decisions on "best practice" for rescuing and rehoming. There are some pretty dodgy rescues out there that would score highly on their scale, yet have proven track records of less than great success at doing the job in reality. How many stars can you score dogmad? In my opinion you should get the maximum as you have a proven and consistent track record of getting it right for your charges, but I bet the NARGA system would score you lower than their maximum if you are truthful on their questionnaire. T.

I think you may be onto something there Tapua... he's as close to perfect as I've ever met... *grin* I wonder if Katdogs can remember back to when Stevie was teething... 'cos that will be coming up in a few weeks with Master Sammy... aarrgghh! Once Sammy has had all his shots and is more even in weight with Harper (who was 16.1kgs last weekend), we'll have to get them together for a playdate... and take LOTS of photos! Mind you, one of Harper's fave playmates is a small scruffy terrier girl who weighs around 3kgs, and Harper hasn't broken her yet... hehe! T.

I'm thinking of politely asking to be taken off their mailing list... ETA: This is what I've sent them... T.

I like photographing dogs (funnily enough), and am really lucky to not only have 4 of my own, but also have a friend that runs a dog rescue - so I get LOTS of practice at it... lol! I also have a lovely neighbour with 3 beautiful black dogs that can be a challenge to get great pics of... gotta get the lighting just right for them, and as I prefer natural light, practice is definitely the key... I'm also a complete novice - I just tend to point the camera in the right direction and snap away, letting the camera do all the hard work for me. The most adventurous I've ever gotten is to take the lens off AF a couple of times. I've not yet tried any of the manual settings on my cameras, and get very confused when reading all the stuff that refers to manipulating those settings manually. I tend to do a lot of my photography on the Sports setting on my cameras - and as I shoot a lot of moving targets, that is what suits me right now. I have 2 DSLR cameras, a Canon 450D, and a Canon 60D - and the 60D does take better photos in lower light scenarios - so I'd recommend going for the highest ranked camera that you can afford if you are lazy about the afterwards processing work. All the photos I post here are not post processed apart from a little sharpening that my batch resizing program does when I resize photos for posting to websites. And I don't shoot in RAW... but that's something I'm probably going to have to look into if/when I get a macro lens... *grin*... I don't even have any software on my computer to do post processing - except Paint that comes with Windows, which isn't the best piece of software for doing much with. T.

So - if you get the Tamron 90mm lens and attach a 36mm extension, do you get an active length of 126mm? Do the extensions cause any loss of focus or increase sensitivity to shake? T.

Sounds very much like what Pound Rounds professed to be in the beginning. Not to mention that a quick google search on the registrant of the website(s) brings up all sorts of armchair activism references... I would prefer that these people DON'T speak for me or my group without any consultation thank you very much! T.

I'm pretty sure they got my email address from the Hawkesbury mailing list... seeing as it's the only public one that has it... and you can see ALL email addresses it's sent to. Just what I need - PR telling me what I already know... that there are dogs in pounds... *sigh* T.