yarracully

THIS!! I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this. Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders. Look, I'm sorry but for the life of me I can't see why, if breeders are responsible, really responsible, about their breeding practices, are doing the right thing by their dogs and puppies, being traceable, contactable and accountablew is a problem ???? The problem I have and which I was trying to illustrate is that a non government organisation has the power to be involved in creating a law, enforcing the law, and prosecuting the law. An organisation that can allocate power that exceeds that of law enforcement officers. However it gives this extreme power to itself. The same organisation that can set its own costs to be claimed via court and does not have any external body to be accountable to. How much stronger definition of "Conflict Of Interest" do you need? If a member of the police force exceeds their authority there is an ombudsman that is supposed to act as an independant umpire. There are also procedures in place to allow you to appeal their actions. If a solicitor acts wrongly there is an ombudsman that acts as an independant umpire as well as consquences for inappropriate actions. Who does the RSPCA have to answer to? No-one. Thats the problem. They can do what they like and do not have to justify it. Who sets the amounts that the RSPCA can claim in court for costs? The RSPCA. Do you really believe that it costs $85.00 per dog per day to feed a small dog. Of course it doesn't but thats what they have been known to claim. What can you do if you do not agree with an inspectors decision? Appeal to the RSPCA. Thats it. There is no independant body that you can go to. Are there any protocols for dealing with a power hungry inspector. None seen so far. Who deems the RSPCA inspector fit to act in the role? The RSPCA. Reality is any one connected with the RSPCA could be an inspector. Take for example a small branch of the RSPCA in a small country town. Lets say there is a vet and a secretary at this branch. The Secretary could be given the role of an inspector. They do not have to have any specific qualifications. They simply need to be appointed by the RSPCA. They may not even know much about animal welfare. They don't need to. They are now an inspector that has more power than a police officer and with none of the complications of due process and accountablility If you care to do a google search on Ruth Downey and look what the RSPCA did to her on the grounds of what an RSPCA Inspector said. Indeed one of those RSPCA inspectors involved with Ruth Downey was a former police inspector with very little knowledge of animal welfare generally. The RSPCA was not intended to be a law enforcement body. That is the issue I have. Its not specifically the RSPCA its the entire process of a non government charity that was never intended to be a law enforcement now making itself into one. Its not just being given power, it is also creating the power and then giving it to itself and in so doing does not have to justify its actions to anyone.

So, your point about power being misplaced is a misrepresentation. The inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 will be independent and their power will be raised to Law Enforcement, an outside agency. Unfortunately this makes the remainder of your critique redundant. The new legislation may in fact redress the abuses of power that have occurred in the past. Regards Px Tralee This is not a matter of being anti-RSPCA. Its a matter of having a state law with some form of accountability and equity. I think you might want to re-read your own posting . The wording you have quoted shows that a member of a charitable organisation (RSPCA) can enter premises without a warrant if they suspect anything being done to harm an animal or about to be done. They do not require any proof prior to entering. They only need to suspect you are harming them or are even going to in the future.Police must at least provide some justification prior to obtaining a warrant and must satisfy a judge that the warrant is required. The inspectors are not independant. How can they be when they operate under the umbrella of a body involved in formulation of the law and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the law. Recent history has already shown what can happen when a body is involved in formulating and enforceing law. The same body will also be involved in prosecuting this law. There has to be a seperation of power so that some form of accountability can exist. Under this law (As has already happened in NSW and VIC) an RSPCA inspector can walk past your front gate and hear one of your dogs bark/howl/growl. Under this act they have the right to enter your property and seize your dogs because they "Suspect" harm being done. They will then prosecute you in court and the whole time run up a huge bill for feeding your dogs which if you succeed in court (months later) you will have to pay (I believe at one point they were claiming upto $85.00 per day per dog). Thats unless they decide to rehome your dogs so that you cannot have them returned or they decide the dogs are not able to be rehomed and are PTS. All before the actual day in court. Also remember that if you do happen to win in court (Expensive to fight- they have donated money to fight with, do you?) you cannot sue for compensation or return of costs as they are acting within the law. As I have said before look at the two cases mentioned that have already occured. The new law will not redress the issue of abuse of power as this wording is the same as in the NSW and VIC laws that created the abuse of power. If you care to look at the NSW act you will find the same applies. An RSPCA inspector in NSW has the same power as the QLD law proposes. All power that exceeds any member of the states police (NSW act section 24 Power to enter land- item 2a and 2b) Those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Qld State Government are introducing legislation to help stamp out Puppy Farmers. In essence, it is a great piece of legislation, however, it falls short in one area. Where breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland, this has little impact and in fact, the requirements of breeders is based on the requirements of Dogs Queensland breeder registration. Breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland only require to obtain an ID number with the State Government, which will more than likely be issued to them free - all else remains basically the same. Registered breeders puppies continue to be registered in the same manner as currently required. Unregistered breeders will be subject to fees and charges to obtain their ID number and register puppies etc. They will be given requirements and regulations to adhere to and will be prosecuted if necessary. The problem arises with the fact that the proposed legislation only requires breeders with 10 or more dogs to obtain a Breeders ID number and therefore fall under the regulations to be imposed. They've only gone halfway. Even 9 dogs can contribute greatly to the same problems we have currently with naive or irresponsible backyard breeders and the smaller puppy farms. This leaves plenty of loopholes for the continuation of abhorrent practices and the only way the new legislation can have a proper affect on the overall situation is to delete any reference to the number of dogs owned. Their initial outline of the legislation was to cover 'any breeder, whether acidental or intentional' with no reference to the number of dogs owned or utilised in breeding practices. If you even remotely care about these poor puppies, please take 5 minutes to have your say on the proposed legislation to regulate the large scale breeding of dogs in intensive breeding establishments. We believe the legislation should cover ALL breeders, accidental or otherwise and there should be no stipulation as to the number of dogs owned, because naive or irresponsible backyard breeders are as much of a problem as puppy farmers. If you agree, you can express your opinion in the comments section of the form. Closes 5th March Follow this link http://www.getinvolv...n/315/view.html Let me start by saying I don't live in Qld but I do take an interest in the various laws being introduced in all australian states. Another place you should be concerned about is the power it gives to a non-government charity. A member of this charity would be able to enter your premises and seize animals without a warrant and without police present, simply because they think something is happening or is about to happen to an animal. Even police must provide evidence or cause to a judge to get a warrant to enter premises. And why does this organisation get this power. Because it is involved in drafting the legislation and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the act. This means there is no accountability. In normal circumstances the creators of a law do not enforce or administer. The enforcers do not create or administer the law. and the administrators of the law do not create or enforce. This law will place too much power in the hands of an organisation than it should be given. Want to see a misuse of power that can be created by this law, ask about J. Gard (victoria) or Ruth Downey (New South Wales). Both of these matters were brought about by too much power placed in the wrong hands and no process of accountability. While I don't support puppy farms and I believe something should be done, be very careful of this law as it stands. You may end up with more than you really wanted.

Whos the "we" you referred to? Perhaps if you intend to come onto a forum and persuade people to support an act which will give a charitable organisation greater power than the state police has you should fully disclose who you actually represent.

Something else to watch for with Canons. Sometimes they will allow you to compose a shot but when you press the "Shutter Release" they won't capture the photo. In some cases you get an error on screen. Or they turn themselves off altogether. This is caused by the lens not communicating properly with the camera itself. Undo the lense then refit it and it seems to solve the problem. Have seen it happen with a few canon's of different models. But only canons, hasn't happened with any of the Nikons I also use.

But that doesn't take into account the levies collected at each show.

I disagree with this point. Not a dog but I had a car stolen one month after the policy was renewed and the insurance company paid out on the policy in full with no further payments required. If someone has life insurance and dies you do not have to continue paying the year out in order to claim. I think this is just a scam to try and get money from you. I would be asking the Dept of Fair Trading (Name varies from state to state) or get in touch with the insurance industry ombudsman. Did you pay the policy in full when it was renewed? The (car) insurance companies I have worked for, if you are paying monthly and your car is written off, the remaining monthly payments are taken out of your payout. I would expect in the OP's case, they would do the same. OP, was the policy renewal date in October? It will be somewhere in your paperwork that the policy has to be paid in full. I would ask them if they can just take the remaining monthly premiums out of any payment before they send it to you. Makes sense from a business point of view if you think about it, if the policy is renewed in October, you have only paid one months worth of premiums. I *think* (could be wrong), when I was looking at pet insurance, all the policies say that if you make a claim, and then wanted to change companies/cancel your policy etc, there is no refund on whatever part of the policy is remaining. If a claim hadn't been made, a refund would be owing (assuming policy paid in full up front). Monthly payments only and no request for further or continuing payments. No money deducted from payout either. Have to say this is the only time I have had to claim from an insurance company so don't know what others do. But this is the way Shannons Insurance worked.

I disagree with this point. Not a dog but I had a car stolen one month after the policy was renewed and the insurance company paid out on the policy in full with no further payments required. If someone has life insurance and dies you do not have to continue paying the year out in order to claim. I think this is just a scam to try and get money from you. I would be asking the Dept of Fair Trading (Name varies from state to state) or get in touch with the insurance industry ombudsman.

NO. Thanks to this we have had two clubs fold in our area and another four within 330k's are struggling to survive. If these go then our nearest state show is over 700k's away, and more than double that to go to Erskine Park. I believe that it should be a user pays system. Make those that show there pay for it.As with a toll road. You don't use it you don't pay for it. After all has any of the clubs in Sydney contributed to the regional clubs? As for a fair deal you would be lucky! The city exhibitors have more members on the board than regional does and so its not a fair and balanced structure. Reality is what those in Sydney wants they get and the regional members can go jump. The levy on its own didn't kill these clubs but it did have a major role. With other circumstances alone these clubs would have survived but the levy was definitely the final nail in the coffin. As such DOGSNSW will now lose income as with less shows in the area more people are leaving the hobby. In the last 12 months we have gone from 12 NSW shows per year within 350k's to 8 shows and four of those are under threat as well. Frankly the actions of DOGSNSW over the last few years makes me think they are not interested in promoting pure breed dogs and the related activities but are actually out to destroy these sports. This is my opinion formed by what I have seen, read and heard over the last few years.

I am sorry to read this. It can be hard I know as we recently had to make the decision that you have made. Take heart that you have made the decision and yes its not fair to watch them suffer. Zedley no doubt would have preferred this to continual suffering

I would rather they still enjoy it. If that means they misbehave while having fun so be it. If the judge doesn't like it too bad, they are dogs and pets first - show dogs and robots second. I prefer that to working like a robot but not enjoying it. We have two here that started at the same time. One used to play around in the ring and another that I was a bit stricter with. Now many years later the playful one still enjoys showing and gets very excited whenever she sees a ring. In fact I can't start washing the other dogs for a show unless I wash her first. We did retire her but if I take her to a show we still have to get her out and groom her and put her lead on her just to settle her down. I can't even walk past the hydrobath without her jumping in and expecting a bath. The other gets bored very quickly and we often have to give him a break for a few months every now and then. I have often felt that their attitudes now to showing all go back to their start in the ring. If a dog doesn't mature mentally until about two years of age I feel it unreasonable to expect them to behave at 6-9 months of age.

Just voted We already have a single tank hydrobath but some things I would like in my next one would be: Adjustable thermostat. Ours is an older bath with LOW, MED, HIGH for the heater. However Low can still get too hot. I would prefer a thermostat where the temp could be set at X degrees and the heater maintains this. With ours we have to put the heater on and let it warm up the water then turn it off and if it gets too hot you have to wait for the water to cool down a bit or add cold water in. Then as we use it occassionally have to turn the heater back on and off again to reheat. Then we have to test the water temp using the digital extremity insertion method. Whereas an adjustable would take care of this for us A water level guage would be a nice little luxury too so you can see how water levels are at a glance without having to look into the tank. Easy to clean filter system. I can see an advantage in having a hydrobath on castors. I had thought of doing it with mine but I haven't needed to move it so its probably a feature that I don't need. But it could be handy. Good pump with good pressure. I find it annoying when travelling and using a bath at public venues and the pump puts out very little pressure. (in some cases my male could pee harder than some pumps work at)Also adjustable shower head type handpiece so you can have a fine spray or a concentrated jet of water should you need it. Optional accessories: Stable insert for smaller breeds. With our dogs if I put them in the bottom of the bath I can't reach them. Some inserts can be a bit unstable which can spook younger dogs/pups. Small shelf or tray to hang on the side for bottles of shampoo etc. This should be movable so that it can be located whereever the user finds it most useful. All Weather cover. Our hydrobath is located outside which in itself is okay but during the summer we get a lot of duststorms and a good all weather cover would help keep the weather out. This could be a full cover or just a slip on cover for the top. Personnally I would prefer just the top so that all the males don't pee on the cover as they would if it were a full on. These last two I plan to do to our current unit, one day. With our bath the entire bath tub removes and allows access to the pump and single tank. This does make it easier to clean and service. The bath unit itself clips onto the base with two hook type latches. I do like this method. Also our pump and heater is switched on and off by switches similar to outdoor light switches. These are ok but can be a bit tricky to use with feet. And too low to bend down and switch as this would mean letting go of the dog. I suppose a couple of ways this could be fixed is either mount the switches higher up so then can be used by hand or fit bigger switches so that people with clumsy big feet (me) can use them easier. Also the heater and pump indicator lights is mounted down with the switch which means if you get a bit distracted you could forget the heater is on while you shampoo a dog and then the water is too hot to rinse them. And to view the light you have to step away from the bath which again is a bit of an issue if the dog happens to be a jumper. Pump light is not a problem as the noise of the pump means you don't need the light. Adjustable thermostat mentioned earlier would solve this.

Judging by their website link, Rottweilers. Hopefully a good start to a big future

At this point nothing here either 4/12

They certainly can. Our baby took out Best of Non Sporting group and then won Reserve Best in Show. But then she was a stunning baby and went on to be one of the most awarded Bulldog bitches in NZ in her time. Some babies hate the show ring LOL and people still drag them out and then some just love it So in theory it is possible for a baby puppy to go best in show and yet get a not qualified? So that really no points are won at best in show level? Not too sure I like that idea. I could imagine some of the ringside comments if a baby puppy got best in show, especially from the runner up in show. I would be pretty peeved if the only dog to beat me at a show then ended up not being awarded any points. Perhaps if they were able to get the points it might be different but to win and get not qualified, no. I also don't go with the NZ requirements for a ch title. For us to go down that path I think would really lessen the title value. But then thats just me personally.

Same as they have been for years now. And unless changes of some type occur it will continue. I know of quite a few exhibitors when, the grand title requirements changed, that once they titled their dog at Aust Ch level they stopped showing. I know of quite a few that stopped showing even before they titled their dog. I myself have even stopped entering a few of mine as I know that not one of our breed would reach the requirements so why bother entering them and one of them was awarded best bitch and RUBISS (but they don't count anyway). I am in favour of the 25 points having to be obtained after 12 months but if a 25 challenge is required that is not likely to happen so again why bother trying. Within 800k's of my location there are only two other breeders of our breed. Now if we all showed up at the same show even then a 25 point challenge isn't available unless its a BIG ( and in our breed since recognition the number of these Aust wide are still only single digits). Reality is as ANKC figures show membership is dropping. Numbers at shows are dropping. Shows themselves are dropping. Putting a 25 point challenge as a requirement for a ch title will add to this. At least the ANKC have looked at this and are trying to stop the slide. This change may stop it, it may not but at least they are trying now rather than wait until its too late. I would be very surprised if they just made the changes without some form of rationale behind it. However I also am not in favour of a dog being able to get any title without beating another of its own breed which at both Aust Ch and Grand Ch can happen. But reality is in some breeds (varies in different parts of Aust) a 25 point challenge is impossible. Especially when you look at areas away from major population centres I can think of better things to do with my limited income than waste it chasing something that I know I won't achieve. I also know that if people stop showing for whatever reason they inevitably move onto other things and they do not return. As such the slide continues. However I am now beginning to see why many people simply breed and don't bother showing

I, personally,show to compete against others in the breed, but I breed to improve the breed and get the closest example of the breed to the standard. If there is only one dog in the breed at a dog show, it is still being judged against the standard... and therefore it is down to the judge to judge it correctly against their interpretation of the standard, not up to the individual to prove their dog against other dogs of the same breed, if there are none to compete against because of geographical location, time or money constraints. as showdog said, around 14 of the 50 champ shows are country. The rest are in one location in Perth, except for the royal. I'm not disputing your costs, just curious, what are your expenses getting your dogs to Sydney from your location that makes it so expensive? it's probably a bit over $1000 to take just two adult dogs and myself to Sydney return not including accommodation and other costs. Not sure if you are addressing this to me but for me to get to Sydney one way flight $500.00 However airline that services here does not fly dogs. As such to go to Sydney takes nearly two days driving each way. As such I am not able to fly over Friday Night and Back Sunday Night. As such the cost is four days of work (and loss of income accordingly) then the other costs of fuel and accomodation. As for the number of shows in different states this is directly related to the population spread across Australia. I am curious what some expect those on the east of Aust to do for those on the West. I also am amazed at how a few want the title made harder then complain about the number of shows. I can see that if you make the titles too hard to obtain you will see a greater loss of exhibitors and as such even fewer shows. I would be interested to see what the percentage of Americans are that show compared to total population. I think you will find that Australia has a greater percentage. Apparently there are some that can't see that the rules have been changed to try and keep the hobby alive. Or should we make things harder then whinge when there are not enough people left to hold a show. I am just someone that supports shows by entering so that someone else can have the glory of winning. I would be better of not entering. But if enough of us did that then the winner won't have a show to win. Personally I applaud the ANKC for making changes in order to try and keep dog showing alive. But then I happen to have a breed that rarely gets a best in group and has never gotten BIS and I am not a judge so obviously my views are not valid. Frankly I really don't care anymore. I'll just keep doing what I have been and then when all the shows continue to disappear and exhibitor numbers continue to drop, I'll read the posts about the hobby dying and will be able to sit back and say "It had to happen".

Sorry I find this post very condescending. I live in WA. WA is a LOT bigger than NSW, I was asking for the whole state as over here you do not get any country shows on the same weekend as Perth metro shows. So yes I am interested in all of NSW as you have that option ;) Actually you have the option of crossing the border a bit easier than us too :D A lot of people on here are saying that you shouldn't be able to get a Championship title until you get a 25 point CC (which to make it fair should be a 25 point BIG so that the dog breeds with less than 20 entered who have to win BIG beating those breeds with more than 20 entered are on the same playing field ;) ). To do that at breed level I have to travel around 3,500km. So giving me a lesson on how big NSW is in comparison to England is a tad harsh! How many times does NSW fit into WA? I think you might be a bit confused here. There are a lot saying that a dog should acquire 25 points after it turns twelve months of age. This is the old rule that will be superseded. This does not have to be a 25 challenge just 25 points must be obtained after twelve months of age. That could consist of 2 13 point cc's. I really dont get why some are bashing on about dogs having to beat other breeds. This way of thinking makes me wonder if these people are in this sport to better their breed or are they just in it for their own sense of glory and importance. The way I see it: The points awarded are for dog challenge and bitch challenge and best of breed. THe points awarded are for number of dogs within the breed. The whole purpose of showing is about determining the best example of the breed. The dog when it is being judged should be measured against its standard for its breed. The purpose of the standard is to define the ideal example of the breed. The purpose of breeding is to improve the breed. As such any titles awarded should be based on the dogs standing within its breed. Which to my way of thinking means if the dog can beat others of its own breed then it is a reasonable example of the breed. I don't go to a show to compare my dogs against an Alaskan Malamute or a Great Dane or even a Japanese Chin. I show to compare my dogs against others of their breed. As for the number of shows in WA had you thought that if more clubs existed then maybe you would have more shows. May I ask then where are the majority of the shows that you do have. No doubt located around Perth. Much as most of the shows in NSW are located around Sydney. As for travelling 3500 k's for a specialty you are of course aware that a flight from perth to Sydney for such a specialty would only cost you less than a quarter of what it would cost me to get to Sydney. And I live in NSW. Not that it would do any good as none of the airlines that service our area will carry dogs. As for being a tad harsh, I'm sorry you feel that the truth is harsh. But it is what it is.

I just did a count (+- here and there to allow for Ag shows that aren't listed and run or those that are listed and don't run) NSW has 550 Championship shows scheduled for 2012 (including Specialties). In our part of NSW within 600k radius there are only 12 shows for the year and that is between end of may and end of October. Its easy to say that a state has x number of shows but where they are located needs to be taken into consideration. NSW is larger in area than the whole of England (if my memory of high school geography is right)and for some even though there are that many shows many would be too far away. AS an example to travel from western NSW to show on the East Coast of NSW is 1400k's. As far as travellinmg from Southern NSW (Albury) to Northern NSW I can't comment because I haven't done it. So while 550 Champ shows sounds a lot in some areas of the state there really aren't that many. I was simply answering the question (ie. how many shows does NSW hold each year)... FYI it's about 5.5 hours from Albury to Sydney and about9 hours to Northern NSW from Sydney. Thanks Aziah for the info on North to south. As I posted earlier I haven't travelled it and don't plan too. As for the East to west I have done it and don't plan to again. I realise you were only answering the question but I though a bit of perspective needed to be put in in regards to distance etc. The number of shows does seem a lot but when you take in the area its not a big average. Admittedly some areas are probably a bit saturated where as other areas shows are a bit light on. Much of this is linked to the population spread within the state.

you can veiw SA Yes but not all schedules get put up. I think its a great idea especially for those travelling from interstate looking to see what shows are on.

Personally If I knew that my baby puppy could go in challenge line up but was going to be classed as not eligible I wouldn't bother putting it in the lineup. I'd leave it out and focus on one of my others (if they also got to the lineup). I can't see the point in taking the dog in when you already know it won't get anywhere. I'm all for them staying out of the challenge. I only enter baby puppy class to let the new ones get used to being handled and walking in the ring. Its all for experience with mine.

I just did a count (+- here and there to allow for Ag shows that aren't listed and run or those that are listed and don't run) NSW has 550 Championship shows scheduled for 2012 (including Specialties). In our part of NSW within 600k radius there are only 12 shows for the year and that is between end of may and end of October. Its easy to say that a state has x number of shows but where they are located needs to be taken into consideration. NSW is larger in area than the whole of England (if my memory of high school geography is right)and for some even though there are that many shows many would be too far away. AS an example to travel from western NSW to show on the East Coast of NSW is 1400k's. As far as travellinmg from Southern NSW (Albury) to Northern NSW I can't comment because I haven't done it. So while 550 Champ shows sounds a lot in some areas of the state there really aren't that many.

Not all states give a certificate for class in group. I regularly show in three states and your state is the only one that I have seen that gives certificates for class in group. Also not all breeds have a specialty. Thats why a BIS at a specialty was not accepted under the grand requirements currently in place ubtil next year.

Getting back to the OP. Perhaps they have a genuine reason for wanting another male. I know many people that only have either all males or all females. For them it seems to work. Perhaps they don't want a bitch because they have no intention of breeding or having hassles of a bitch in season. Really people, some are posting about people just wanting to breed anything with anything and flaming them and yet here is what seems to be some people that obviously do not want to be in the same category and they are still getting flamed. It seems that these people would be damned by wanting the male and yet in all likelihood, judging by some of these posts, would also be damned if they decided to take the female instead. Personally I would be encouraging these people as they obviously are not after the bitch to mate and make money from. Isn't that what BYBs do? So rather than support them lets flame them because they don't want to go down the path that registered breeders don't want them to go down.

You can in every other state except Victoria. Legally that is. Also you can take a debarked dog from NSW or any other state into Vic to show it. again providing the dog has never been resident in Victoria