yarracully

Must get one of these books and put it in the tiolet for a back up supply when the tiolet paper runs out.

[Not wanting to go into different training methods used by people but I personally am amazed that the judge should take it upon themselves to try and train the dog in the first place. If the owner chooses to train their dog in this fashion then that is their choice. But the ring of a show is no place to train the dog and the judge should not be the person training it. No matter what the method or purpose. Thats my opinion anyway.

In the same line...and prohibiting children from buying pets....who would sell to a child unsupervised by an adult anyway? It would depend on the definition of a child within the act. Obviously one at five or even six years of age should have a parent with them anyway. But what about a teenager of thirteen, fourteen or fifteen that goes to a shopping centre after school and buys a pup on a whim without parents prior knowledge? In this case I can think of quite a few places that would sell a pet to a teenager without a second thought. Don't always think that a legal instrument when it refers to "Child" will always mean the same as you refer to "Child".

I would agree to the above myself. I can see some merit in this part. Not too sure about some of the other points though.

I always assumed ( Must stress ASSUMED) that you would have to be a member simply because they put your membership number on the pedigree certificate. Mind you that could also be because I am a member anyway.

One thing to consider in this is if the OP has bought the dog as a pet then I assume they are not a member of their states canine council eg DogsNSW, DogsSA or DogsVic. So filling out the back of the pedigree adn sending it in isn't going to do anything. In order for them to get a pedigree certificate showing them as the owner they would need to join the state canine council. Otherwise the pedigree certificate really has no value to them.

Would have to agree with this. I had a discussion with local authorities on something similar (at the time all hypothetical regarding school kids teasing our dogs on our own property) but the general drift was if the dog was provoked and was defending then a prosecution would not stand. Problem then becomes how can you prove the dog was provoked. Basically it comes down to your word against the idiots. Pity sometimes that dogs can't speak.

I've done it in both NSW and SA as well as Vic but make sure I provide the number before the pup goes in the ring for the first time

Ive never owned a GSD so this may seem like a silly question but why do you tattoo a GSD anyway? ETA. Disregard above question. Just looked at GSD club of Vic site and found the answer. However it poses another question. If tattooing is done to provide a permanent individual identification of the dog (according to GSD club of Victoria), and microchipping also provides a permanent individual identification why do both. Surely chipping means that tattooing is no longer necessary? After all they are all done at about the same age. Why the need for two forms of ID?

Accurate DNA requires the microchipp detail so I cannot see your problem. I had to do DNA profiling for proof of parentage and it was done the ribbon colour for name. Once the dad was established I registered them and then told GT the name and got new DNA papers. BB what you are referring to is DNA testing for parentage. This does require the chip number. However what Tentie Lover is reffering to is voluntary tests done by an overseas laboratory so that we can control and hopefully eliminate a health issue which has recently come to light. This is not a mandatory test it is only voluntary for breeders to make informed decisions about future potential breeding stock. As it is voluntary it is not required for the microchip to be in place. Should it need to become compulsory then no doubt the chip number will be required. We as breeders are working on trying to eliminate the problem before it becomes mandatory to test. However Tentie Lover we have just had a batch of ours done for the test I am sure you are referring. We did get a response via email from the lab within about 4 weeks. We are about to test a few other dogs one of which is only a few weeks old. I do know of some that have tested as young as four weeks, providing they are off the mother. However I will agree with your comments about it being difficult to place pups in homes once they start to get beyond the 8 to 10 week age.

I'm not quite sure WHY the ANKC cannot place restrictions on things like exporting entire litters - it is a voluntary organisation, people are not forced to join. If they don't want to abide by the rules and regulations, they have no place being part of the membership. Because its the Federal law - restriction of trade. Can the ANKC refuse to sign off on the exportation application so they cannot be sent overseas with their papers? May have a bit of an issue being able to justify the rejection of an exportation application. Especially if it were to find its way into the courts. I can't say I have seen any rule which would allow the ANKC to refuse. However if they did I wouldn't be surprised to see those selling the litters will simply stop registering them and therefore stop applying to transfer the litters The breeder marks the box not for excport, then no pedigre will be given for export. This will not stop the dog from being exported but it will not have any registration from ANKC going with it for a transfer. Yep I know the breeder can tick the box but is there any avenue for the CC to refuse to process the export? I have not exported a dog so may be a silly question, sorry, but the CCs obviously process the export certificates as they print them in the gazette? Okay, if Federal restriction of trade trumps ANKC rules & regs, can the ANKC reprimand someone for exporting an entire litter as they do if someone breeds a bitch under 12 months or more than 2 times in 18 months etc?

Trouble is that federal laws will always override CC rules. So if a CC brings in a rule that you can't sell overseas, those that want to sell entire litters will go over the CC rules and preach restriction of trade. The issue then becomes at what point do you say this can be sold overseas but this can't. No matter where you put the line some will go along with it but others wont. The alternative is they will simply sell teh pups OS and not notify the CC. Or they will get others to act as dummy buyers to break the litter up and then transfer them individually. Personally I am against entire litters going OS. But I can't see where you can draw the line without doing away with this trade restriction issue.

Sorry to read of your loss Moselle. It's always hard to let them go. However had you not done what you did her suffering would have been much greater later on. You have done the kind thing that none of us wants to do, but one day we all must. She would have wanted you to end it with no suffering for her. In regard to the not surviving the surgery I can understand this. We had an 11 year old that underwent emergency surgery earlier this year, although the vet did warn us she might not make it. She went through surgery but when we put her into the recovery cage she passed away. The vet asked if I wanted her revived but it was better that she went the way she did as she was anaemic.

Shame they want a JRT. Otherwise I might have been able to help out.

In all fairness it could be argued that if correct procedure had not been followed then the hearing with the CC would be the place for this to be redressed. However since the decision was upheld by the CC then the actions of the club really don't count. Providing the CC followed procedure then the matter is dealt with accordingly.

Not doubting the decision in the slightest. The dog if it was unwell should not have been shown. The owner knowing the dog was unwell should not have put it in the position. And the judge had every right to report for the actions as they occured. We once travelled over 500k's for a show, arriving two days earlier, we had a dog that was off and under advice from the vet gave it treatment and on the day of the show the dog was OK. But having said that if the dog had not recovered it would not have been shown. But I still fail to see how its chances of the title are damaged. When the dog goes in the ring under any other judge neither the dog or the owner should be identified. So even though we all know his name and the dogs name if you were the judge at a future show and a dog is presented to you, you should not know who the dog or the owner are. So in reality its chances of titling have not been deminished or damaged in any way. Although he himself has actually identified himself and his dog by certain statements provided in court. In other words the judge should not know who I or even you, Fit For a King, are and so his reputation does not come into it. Unless he likes to follow certain judges for some reason. As far as I can see by the owners own claim in court he has done more damage to his reputation than the judge, show committee, CCC, and courts did. Also in court evidence it was mentioned that the judge themselves stated they had no doubt the dog would pass a temperment test. But on the day involved it was not to be. However upon reading up on the final verdict of the report there seems to be a lot of misdirected blame for various reasons

Had something similar where I took A bitch in for BOB and my mother brought one of my males in. Now my male at the time didn't like working for anyone else even if he knew them, so as we went around the dog kept looking behind for me. The judge obviously picked this out and mentioned it to us. The judge then asked us to swap dogs as this would allow the dog to present better. So it does happen, although in this case it was with my own dogs. Not been asked to run someone elses although I can see why the judge did it if it gives the dog the chance to show its potential. It can be frustrating when you see a dog that should go better but can't because the handler either * doesn't know what to do (may be new and never been shown how to gait or stack their dog properly) * or is not capable of doing it for what ever reason (may be medical impairment or similar) For this I am all in favour of someone else giving a hand to help the dog show better. After all it is about the dog not the handler, so if another handler can get a better performance from the dog why not do it?

I'm curious how such an incident could "Jeopardise his dogs chance of becoming a grand champion". Apart from a spell from the ring, which would probably benefit the dog (I know mine are always better after a spell) there is no other reason why this dog could not obtain this title. Except if it isn't good enough in which case this matter would not be the only reason it won't get titled and would have no affect. We have found with many of our dogs that after a period of constant showing the seem to get bored with it. So we spell them from the ring for a few weeks and when they come back they are all excited and rearing to go.

Can never have enough storage compartments. My trailer has a storage area in the front as well as a storage area in the middle between the berths running the width of the trailer. We also have a carrier on the front for trolleys but also had a huge box made up underneath the front of the trailer for cages and other stuff. It sits low but has never scrapped on anything. Has drop down doors on each side. We found that although there are a few trailers around with wardrobes they never seem tall enough for us to get a forth berth trolley into. The way our trailer is setup everything we need for shows such as 2 gazebos inc sides, trolleys inc covers and bedding, chairs, umbrellas and stakes, cage fans, water containers etc are all packed in it. None of the dog stuff gets packed in the car. This way its always packed in for when we need it. Thus we can chose at the last minute which car to take away and all the dog stuff is sorted out.

I would have thought that both the runner and the non runner would both be deemed as exhibitors and were thus both allowed within the ring at the same time. Bearing in mind that no discussion should occur between them and only one actually with the dog at any point. The purpose of this ruling is to prevent others not related to the exhibiting of the dog from being in the ring. EG friends, members of the public etc.

Sorry to hear you lost your little one Rysup. Yes I keep getting told that chances are the baby in there is quite big. Lets put it this way my girl is looking VERY preggers so i can only imagine just how big that little grub is :D I really thought she would have atleast 2-4 in there, just the one really is quite annoying! ;) We once had an ultrasound done on a bitch and the vet said he saw two pups for certain. He did also say that there may be others but wouldn't say for sure. Also said if it were anyone else he wouldn't have mentioned the possibility of more at all. Ended up with 5 on the ground, which is a fair size litter for our breed. I was always of the view there were more than the vet was letting on. Her size just seemed too big for only two. She was huge and her belly was nearly touching the ground.

And let that be a lesson to you never to be late home again

Would that be a Cav???? Maybe Sway means a Cab Sav I see CC was thinking along the same lines.

Yeah but your only using that as an excuse to ignore him.

Thing to remember. A small dog doesn't know its a small dog. Some of our tenterfields enjoy playing with malamutes. The Mals seem a bit more wary of the Terriers. As for leads it doesn't need to be a very lightweight an average sized lead will probably do the job. How old is the puppy?