yarracully

a little while back (maybe 1-2 yrs??) the neuter classes were introduced. Not all shows have these classes. In fact most shows DO NOT have them.

Or set it on fire

I usually use a jewellery polish and soft cloth on mine. However I do mine after each show and the ones we use at shows are only at shows with second chains for everyday use. However it can be time consuming.Especially ten of them. I have seen an ultrasonic thing that is supposed to clean jewellery etc with sound waves, and had thought of trying one but haven't gotten one yet.

I would have thought the purpose of maintaining a registry is to ensure the purity of the breed and to provide a documented ancestory for the dog to back up its purity. But then if a breed is recognised by a registry that will register anything then that must ensure purity. Have a look at the Animal Research Foundation website. They have nothing to do with research. They simply provide a registry for anything you can think of, cows, goats,cats, dogs, you name it. And this is one registry set up by one individual that recognises the breed this topic is about. As for the minimum age, are you saying you are Ok with a pup at nine months of age having a litter of pups of her own. Or even having litter after litter after litter.Because I'm not. In my opinion the bitch is not mentally or physically mature enough to deal with a litter of pups. This attitude simply allows for bitches to be bred before all possible health testing can be done. I for one will not breed a litter of pups from any dogs with PLL, CHG or luxating patella (relevant to our breed). Yet some of these can not be tested until at least 12 months of age. So how is breeding these before all testing is done and in the process producing pups which are not healthy a benefit to the breeds future. That is why there are many people buying pups and then spending an absolute fortune at the vets because they are unhealthy. Quite often hereditory problems that testing would have prevented This is exactly why there is such a cry over puppy farms. This is the main reason I don't support the MDBA because in my view (and I will stress this is my view established after researching the organisation with a view to joining it) all they do is provide a registry for puppy farmers. I did look into the MDBAs code of conduct, in my view, really doesn't address areas of health of the dogs. It could be said that it isn't necessary to regulate a minimum age and let the owners decide this themselves. However with a written regulation as ANKC has then it is possible to prosecute for any breach. No written rule no ability to discipline. And yes there has been prosecution by state CC for breaches. I suppose though if you aren't concerned with health of your dogs then this doesn't really matter. Then again I only breed to improve the health of my breed. Anyone that will allow a mating to occur without knowing any health issues obviously doesn't care about improving health. There are many things covered by State laws but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Interesting. They are going to determine lineage for your dog on the day of a show. Obviously a lot of research into your dogs parents is going to occur there. I wonder how many might match the standard but are not actually pure. Yes and I could make my own registry for three legged dogs and can provide pedigree papers. This doesn't automatically mean that two of my new breed will produce three legged pups. As such even though there is a registry and pedigree papers provided doesn't mean they are a pure breed. At least with ANKC or FCI registries there is a governing body to ensure the registry is maintained to a certain standard. As such the pedigree papers issued via these bodies means the dog must be pure as its parents must also be pure and so forth throughout the dogs lineage. If pedigree papers are issued "on the day" providing your dog meets the standard according to one individual, then there really isn't a guarantee about the purity of the dog. This approach only serves to further confuse members of the public as to what actually constitutes a pure breed and pedigree papers, but then isnt that what the breeders of designer dogs have been trying to do - confuse the uninformed so they will believe whatever you want them to believe. The American Bulldog isn't a designer dog. They have bred true for a very long time and are recognised in other countries. All registries can be criticised including the ANKC. It doesn't mean that ANKC breeds are substandard. I never said they were a designer dog but the registry system is much the same as the one set up by certain labradoodle breeders. Create their own registry and pedigree papers and rip off and mislead the unsuspecting public. Which of these other countries have the American Johnson Bulldog on an international register, such as one recognised by the FCI. Yes all registries could be criticised including the ANKC. But at least the ANKC is recognised by the FCI which makes it a registry accepted internationally. The AJB registry is not such a registry. Although it may be accepted by some registries, none of these are international registries either. Some of the registries I seen that accepts them is the American Pet Registry, Dog Registry of America, and American Canine Registry, none of which is a guarantee of breed purity. In fact one registry they are recognised by is the Animal Research Foundation which gives recognition to(of all things) Designer Dogs. So if you were to get one of these how do you know you got a purebreed that you paid for.At least with a dog registered with an FCI registry there is a documented history to prove breed purity. How realistic can a registry be if they will issue pedigree papers based on the opinion of one individual without proof of breed purity. Furthermore they will do this at one of their events which means they don't research to verify the purity of your dog.The dog only has to meet the standard, which means if it looks like one then it must be pure breed. Using this concept I could walk down the street and pick out any dog I see and determine it to be purebreed without any knowledge of its parents or proof of bloodline. At least with the ANKC and other FCI registries there must be documented history to prove purity of breed. The fact is by saying they are pure breed and come with pedigree papers (or champion bloodlines, as some are advertising)there really is nothing to back this up. So although you may spend a lot of money buying one ( I've seen prices around $1600.00)and are lead to believe it is purebreed, there really is no guarantee that your dog has not been the result of a cross breed mating and you payed a lot of money for it. At least by the very process of ANKC and other FCI recognised registries there is automatic proof of breed purity. Now while I don't have an issue with this breed or its followers I do have an issue with a system that will boast breed purity yet the very same system doesn't appear to have the structure or integrity to reinforce such a claim.

Interesting. They are going to determine lineage for your dog on the day of a show. Obviously a lot of research into your dogs parents is going to occur there. I wonder how many might match the standard but are not actually pure. Yes and I could make my own registry for three legged dogs and can provide pedigree papers. This doesn't automatically mean that two of my new breed will produce three legged pups. As such even though there is a registry and pedigree papers provided doesn't mean they are a pure breed. At least with ANKC or FCI registries there is a governing body to ensure the registry is maintained to a certain standard. As such the pedigree papers issued via these bodies means the dog must be pure as its parents must also be pure and so forth throughout the dogs lineage. If pedigree papers are issued "on the day" providing your dog meets the standard according to one individual, then there really isn't a guarantee about the purity of the dog. This approach only serves to further confuse members of the public as to what actually constitutes a pure breed and pedigree papers, but then isnt that what the breeders of designer dogs have been trying to do - confuse the uninformed so they will believe whatever you want them to believe.

I agree that one would think ethical breeders research the health of parents before breeding, but what does our own ANKC do in regards to being concerned about parent health prior to litters being dropped (or for that matter, afterwards) ?? Genuine question. True enough although there is a code of ethics which, if adhered to by all breeders, means that dogs with health problems are not to be bred and a breeder is not allowed to sell or transfer any such dog. Admittedly not all ANKC breeders do abide by this. However I for one am able to say that I health test all my dogs for all known breed issues prior to any breeding and I will not sell of transfer any dog that is not in perfect health. This standard is what most would expect from a "breeder". As such there are procedures in place should a CC member breach this code. I can recall one state council in its monthly journal would publish any offences and imposed punishment for breach of these ethics, so some state canine councils are concerned. However it should also be noted that the state organisations cant act if they aren't informed. My point though is there doesn't appear to be any such ethics in place for this particular breed or its "breed council". From the research I have been doing on this it seems the "National Breed Council" was setup by one person. Although there is very limited information on this council. However you would have to agree that the ANKC is working to improve the health of the breeds it controls generally. Hence the change in many breed standards being undertaken. Yet this particular breed does not seem to have this same direction of breed betterment. I have always had an issue with unofficial registries and false claims made with regard to either breeds or bloodlines. When a claim is made of "pedigree papers" or "champion bloodlines"(as in the ad in our paper) most members of the public would expect the breeder to be held to a certain standard yet this is not always the case. I'm not against this "breed" its the whole "invented registry" and "Homemade pedigree papers" that I am against both in this instance and also the designer dog area. Along with the misrepresentation to the public which only serves to confuse the public and in turn has a bad effect on the ethical breeders.

The breed is shown in Australia by the breed clubs, points are awarded by a combination of events. There you go, I wasn't even aware they had a breed club for these. Our breed club never awarded points and so until our breed was recognised by ANKC we couldn't have any champion titles and therefore no champion bloodlines. So does anyone know where to find out about their breed council and their shows. I know someone that is looking at one of these pups with "Champion Bloodlines" but it all seems a bit fishy to me. ETA: the more I search around about this the worse it seems. No requirements to register a kennel name with the breed council. "Just register the name when you have your first litter of pups" (Taken from the American Bulldog National Breed Council forum I just found) No code of ethics, no minimum age for breeding, no restrictions on consecutive litters. It may not be highly regulated, but that doesn't mean there are no ethical breeders. There may be ethical breeders within their ranks, however I am more concerned about the fact that no regulation or control leaves the way open for unethical breeders. It is usually the unethical ones that create the problems for the ethical breeders. Also the fact you can just register your kennel when you register your first litter means they obviously arent too fussed about health issues or temperment or even breed purity. It seems to me their "breed council" doesn't care about the parents until the litter is born. If they are truly concerned about their breed wouldn't they want to check up on the parents health etc before the breeding. This sort of attitude by their breed council puts them on the same level as "designer dogs" such as the labradoodle as far as I am concerned. I find it difficult to be take them seriously.

The breed is shown in Australia by the breed clubs, points are awarded by a combination of events. There you go, I wasn't even aware they had a breed club for these. Our breed club never awarded points and so until our breed was recognised by ANKC we couldn't have any champion titles and therefore no champion bloodlines. So does anyone know where to find out about their breed council and their shows. I know someone that is looking at one of these pups with "Champion Bloodlines" but it all seems a bit fishy to me. ETA: the more I search around about this the worse it seems. No requirements to register a kennel name with the breed council. "Just register the name when you have your first litter of pups" (Taken from the American Bulldog National Breed Council forum I just found) No code of ethics, no minimum age for breeding, no restrictions on consecutive litters.

there is an ad in our local paper for this breed. Advertiser is about 300k's away though. But they advertise them as being "Champion bloodlines" I am wondering how they can say that with honesty when the breed can't be shown in Aust. Still someone will read it and believe it, mores the pity.

Congrats on your title. Were you staying at the caravan park. I did see some silkies at one of the sites there. Must say I find it disgraceful the way some people think they have some higher right to spots and just move other peoples stuff. We had something similar happen to us once. Arrived and set up gazebo ready for the weekend. When we came back next morning someone else had moved us back from the ring and setup in front of us. As they weren't there we moved their gear out into the car park area behind everyone else and put our gazebo back where it was originally. Got heaps of dirty looks from them all weekend but they didn't actually say anything about it. Probably knew that what they did was wrong. I was waiting for something to be said though.

Lucky she didn't want to give you a kiss right away.

Thank you elz. (There were 3 brush coat adults, the same height of ~ 35 cm. The owner said they were miniatures) And I suppose the owner would have told you they are very expensive. They are not a recognised breed and more then likely not a purebreed. If they are smaller then a proper Shar pei then chances are they are a mix of Sharpei and a different smaller breed. We once had a person knock on our front door and wanted to know if we would be interested in using one of our males to mate with her pure mini Jack Russell. Apparently some vet told her it was a mini Jack Russell pure breed and so she thought it was a pure breed and wouldn't have it when it was pointed out that no such breed exists. Sometimes I think people will believe anything

This alone would get my hackles up. It might just be me but it seems the vet is more interested in dollars than alternatives. I would be even less impressed if the vet was trying to hurry me out of the office as this would reinforce the vets priority is dollars. If it were me I would get another opinion and another vet. Another opinion should be your first priority. Another vet later is upto you. I don't think you have upset any breeders so don't feel that you have (Quite a few breeders will tell you if you had upset them). However if you didn't ask the question you would not have been any wiser and could have made an expensive mistake. Asking questions is how you learn and it is better to learn from others than make the same mistakes as others. Thats why forums like this exist and why many breeders and dog owners are on them.

How old is this dog? If the dog is young and still growing the diagnosis could be inaccurate- it shouldnt be done before 12 months as the leg is still growing. what is its weight? An overweight dog can cause knee troubles.Especially if overweight at a young age Has the parents been graded prior to breeding? Dont know if its required by all breeds but in our breed we had to have patellas graded for the issuing of the stud book by the Aust Breed council. ANKC doesn't require it but I still get mine graded anyway so I know what I have to work with. Has this dog done anything to cause this? Not all patella luxation is genetic.It could be the result of a knock or blow from running around the yard. Did the vet actually grade the patella luxation? Within our breed we have patellas graded at 12 months of age and the severity of the luxation determines if the dog can still be used for breeding.For example a grade 1 means that considerable force must be used to dislocate the patella whereas a grade 4 means it slips in and out very easily. I would be getting a second opinion before considering surgery or desexing. I have heard of a few dogs that got extra opinions and it was determined that surgery was not required. You wouldn't want to spend a lot of money on surgery which isnt really needed. The problem is the ability of the knee to slip in and out of a groove in the leg bone. If you see a dog walking along then it seems to kick out a hind leg or stretch the one leg that is the dog trying to get the patella to reset back into the bone groove. Surgery often involves deepening the groove to resist the slipage. In some cases it also requires tightening of the ligment to hold it in place. What made you seek an opinion on this in the first place? Not many are aware but this problem can affect large breed dogs. Although more common in small breeds.

Kylienmatt try this Sunraysia dog clubs and go to Other Schedules link. It should have the schedules you seek when they come out. Just looked and not there but it is a few months off.

Read back through the thread. That should give you an idea.At this point though any further discussion on "what happened" would not be wise due to possible legal process by various parties involved

I would be heeding Haredown Whippets advice regarding the actual details. A wise person indeed. I saw the news footage having just gotten home from Merbein show at Red Cliffs. However I do wish your son a speedy recovery and hope that he does not suffer any longterm effects from this.

good idea. Main one I want is Wentworth in July. Found the others on ozentries but this 1 isnt. might be too soon yet Wentworth is in August. Dareton KC is in July but held at Wentworth grounds. Either way a little too soon. However if you PM me I might be able to point you in the right direction for when the schedules are out.

Couldn't tell you when they blocked the other turnoff. I don't use it as for us it is the furtherest entry whereas for you it is the closest entry.

This is because they no longer use the oval where the cricket pitch is (furtherest from caravan park). They now use the oval closer to the caravan park where the brick building is. As such it is easier to go through the next gates to get onto the oval. The old gateway closer to Red Cliffs would have meant driving in and around the ovals and almost back onto the main raod again. to get onto the oval being used.

Many terriers had the tail docked so that when they chased vermin underground they reduced the risk of the dogs tail causing a cave in from excited wagging of the tail.

I would not be getting involved in this. If you do talk to your parents and do get the dog desexed you could be creating a much worse issue. The only person that can desex the dog or arrange a rehome would be the legal owner. Perhaps get the dog signed over to your parents first. but don't do anything until the dog is in either yours or your parents name. Frustrating as it may be but do you really what to be accused of theft (if you rehome). Not too sure what you would be guilty of if you desex a dog that is not legally yours. Either way it could create a massive disruption to your family. Possession is not 9/10ths of the law by the way. If you happen to be renting a property and leave stuff behind when you move out, the landlord can't just get rid of your stuff even though it is in their possession. Even though the property can be deemed as abandoned. as for ownership your brother really only has to provide evidence of ownership in a court of law. This can be vets Vaccination papers. If your brother can provide these then you do not have any legal standing in what happens to the dog. This could be very messy with no real winners. Best thing would be for your parents to put their foot down and make him collect the dog. Or get it signed over to them.

Wrong. No police force anywhere is involved in formulating a law. That is the role of politicians. Politicians create, police enforce, courts prosecute. Its called seperation of powers. What you have here with the RSPCA is Conflict Of Interest. As for the inspectors quote An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds. And that means they can enter property and sieze animals on a suspicion without a warrant. Greater power than the police themselves. Further the RSPCA comes under the umbrella of the RSPCA of Australia. As such the queensland branch is the same as any other. As a charity non government organisation they have no ties to any government. As such a government body may take a complaint but cannot act on any member of the organisation if that person is acting under the powers of that organisation. Members of the RSPCA executive have even admitted there is no accountability to any body outside the RSPCA. And QLD would be no different. However as I have already said I don't live in Qld so this law won't affect me. We already have it in NSW and its caused alot of pain and achieved nothing. I'll just wait and read all the comments about it in time to come- when others realise the mistake these laws, as they stand, have made. I have already seen what can happen when this sort of thing occurs. As it has already happened in NSW. There have already been two large scale incidents that have resulted from this type of legislation. One a cattle farmer who ended up losing an entire herd (all perfectly healthy but never the less shot by the RSPCA inspector) as well as the farm itself, the other involving a wildlife park. And all because of the RSPCA and the abuse of power that these laws brought in. Further the information you claim to be incorrect is based on facts of incidents that have occured in other states by this organisation under similarly worded legislation. Learn from history. If you think the police have no input into developing the laws they enforce then you are kidding yourself. We have experts in policing, years of knowledge and experience - are you saying everyone just ignores what they have to say regarding what works, what doesn't and what is needed, and leaves it up to a politicians who has no idea on the subject, to formulate law? Of course not! Public servants are there to provide "frank and fearless advice" to their elected members, and the police are no different in that respect. RSPCA Qld Inspectors do not have greater powers than the Qld police. In fact, Qld police under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act have the SAME powers as an Inspector to enter a property without a warrant to take action in specific circumstances. I would familiarise yourself with the whole Police Powers and Responsibilities Act before you make such a ridiculous statement again - you will find Qld police have more powers than you think. Yes RSPCA Qld does come under the umbrella of RSPCA Australia, but it is still a separate organisation AND the law its Inspectorate enforces is different to all the other states. Just because they are part of the RSPCA does not override the fact that the Qld Inspectors appointment comes from the state government and they must abide by the provisions of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 and DEEDI guidelines in the course of their duties. If they did not they would be acting outside of the law and there would be no authority to support their actions. I understand there have been problems in NSW but I have tried to make it quite clear that I have been talking about the situation in Qld. Because at the end of the day, this is the state where the proposed legislation is being considered. Not NSW, not Vic. They have different Acts and different lines of reporting. Are you also aware that the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 is not a new situation - it has been enforced by RSPCA Qld Inspectors since its introduction over 10 years ago. So in those 10 years, they have run around unfettered with this great power and the ability to abuse it - and you can only bring up a case in NSW (with different legislation) and a case in Victoria (with different legislation) to say it clearly doesn't work? I am well aware of the law making process. And Qld police are no different in their powers than any other state. But at least there is a police ombudsman which can be brought in for accountability. The RSCPA in any state has no such independant umpire. As for who makes the laws do you think that anyone with knowledge was involved in drafting the ridiculous laws that are now in place in Victoria. No it was done by politicians with direct guidance and input from a charitable organisation with a very powerful PR image. By the way public servants that you refer to are people like teachers, nurses etc. Politicians make the laws. Thats what they do in Parliment-debate and create laws.Not have tea parties. The public servants only supply the information to them but other forces guide them. As for the law itself the wording of this law that gives power to the RSPCA in QLD is the exact same wording that appears in the laws of NSW and Vic. Also in all cases the organisation has no independant umpire or system to which it must answer. As for the DEEDI you mentioned, if they were tasked with enforcement good. Then you will have an accountable system with due process and seperation of powers. Furthermore the law being proposed in QLD is one being pushed by RSPCA Australia federation. Of which QLD is only a branch of. It is not a seperate organisation. It has the same structure and guidelines to work within as any other state branch. It has the same lines of reporting and the same potential to be exploited. However the involvement of the RSPCA Australian federation tells me the law is intended to go Australia wide. Its not the legislation that is the issue. Its the ability for it to be abused with no outside control. This is something that people in NSW and Vic tried to point out years ago and yet the law went through and the problem has occured. How hard is it to see that QLD will be heading down the same road as NSW and Vic have already gone. Then again it is always easier to agree with anything and then realise later that it was the wrong way to go. I don't have a problem with the intent of the law. Its just the Judge, Jury and Executioner are the one and the same and they shouldn't be. I have already posted about a document that will give insight into what can and has happened. Read it and see for yourself how individual inspectors will go outside the laws and due process and the victim had no recourse. Be informed, or you could just pretend it wont happen then cry foul when it does. Its easier to fix the problem before it becomes law-impossible to fix afterwards. As I have already said I and others tried fighting this before it came in in NSW, now it has been realised how big a mistake this power creates but its too late for some here. Make your own decision about it, but try to be fully informed first. Remember this though, what you decide now is what you will be stuck with forever, but also quite likely so will others in every other state in Australia. Because this will go Australia wide. Kind of reminds me of the way the docking and debarking ban was brought in in one state and all the other states said "It won't happen here" yet it did. Interestingly enough same organisation, same powers granted, same tactics- history it seems does repeat.

Wrong. No police force anywhere is involved in formulating a law. That is the role of politicians. Politicians create, police enforce, courts prosecute. Its called seperation of powers. What you have here with the RSPCA is Conflict Of Interest. As for the inspectors quote An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds. And that means they can enter property and sieze animals on a suspicion without a warrant. Greater power than the police themselves. Further the RSPCA comes under the umbrella of the RSPCA of Australia. As such the queensland branch is the same as any other. As a charity non government organisation they have no ties to any government. As such a government body may take a complaint but cannot act on any member of the organisation if that person is acting under the powers of that organisation. Members of the RSPCA executive have even admitted there is no accountability to any body outside the RSPCA. And QLD would be no different. However as I have already said I don't live in Qld so this law won't affect me. We already have it in NSW and its caused alot of pain and achieved nothing. I'll just wait and read all the comments about it in time to come- when others realise the mistake these laws, as they stand, have made. I have already seen what can happen when this sort of thing occurs. As it has already happened in NSW. There have already been two large scale incidents that have resulted from this type of legislation. One a cattle farmer who ended up losing an entire herd (all perfectly healthy but never the less shot by the RSPCA inspector) as well as the farm itself, the other involving a wildlife park. And all because of the RSPCA and the abuse of power that these laws brought in. Further the information you claim to be incorrect is based on facts of incidents that have occured in other states by this organisation under similarly worded legislation. Learn from history. ETA: look on the internet for a document called "The Ruth Downey Inquisition". Have a read and see for yourself what can happen when a power hungry organisation gets involved in creating, enforcing and prosecuting a law. What you will see is the result of a law with the same wording that was introduced into NSW. A law that gave the RSPCA extrordinary powers. And it doesn't matter what state you are in this is RSPCA Australia being given the power.