conztruct

As a BT owner I totally agree with you and I do exactly what you do. I don't allow my dogs anywhere near unknown dogs - people probably think I'm very unfriendly but when another dog is coming the other way, I move as far away as possible. While I'm very confident of the temparament of my dogs, I still don't take chances because it's not worth it.

What a fantastic setup OSS - I'm definately gonna ask you for some advice when I get some land to do something like that on :)

I love watching Samoyeds and also the German Shephards (when they're good). I have never seen one in action but I think that a nice White Swiss Shephard would be great to watch in the ring too. For entertainment value, I really enjoy watching the Chihuahua judging too - that includes the dogs that go beautifully, the ones that are pyschotic and also the owners trying to work out which one needs to go in next and trying to find where they put down their one lead.....LOL. I know not all exhibitors are like that but a lot of the ones around here are.

Not different in all states - in Qld if there is a change of judge the exhibitor has the right to withdraw their dogs and obtain a refund (less an administration fee) up to the time that the first class of their breed enters the ring to be judged. However, Royals may be a different arrangement and I imagine they'd probably have their own rules in relation to withdrawing - if in doubt, ask.

I tend to agree with your thoughts except I don't get the registered member prerequisite either. Does length of time in an organisation or number of litters bred and champions mean that someone has an eye for a dog and the knowledge and ability to judge them? Maybe in a perfect world but the reality is that people can be members for years, breed any number of litters (good or bad) and scrape a CH title with the progeny to qualify all without providing any guarantee that they know their breed or others. I'm kind of in the same position, I am good friends with several breeders who in my opinion are creating quality lines. I show their dogs and have achieved good success with them. The reality is though, if I wanted to fast-track myself to being a judge I would have started breeding by now with mediocre dogs. Instead, I have probably learnt more from my mentors and seeing what they have produced that I ever would have on my own. They have really helped me to appreciate many aspects of my breed that I never would have considered no matter how much net-surfing, breeding or research I had done myself. I think the whole judges training scheme in Qld needs to be looked at - not because I necessarily think it's bad, I just think it could be better and more helpful to aspiring judges. Especially in the north there is limited mentoring and trainee judges judge at open shows without anyone to critique their performance or offer advice, support and mentoring. I think that's unfortunate that the trainee judges don't get a lot of development activity out of their judging.

That's great that you had a good day. I've got to say after all the discussion about how awful it would be, I found it to be fine. Certainly getting in and out and the benching area were improvements in my opinion and the other things such as the ring, toileting and exercise area were adequate but as I understand it they are temporary facilities only.

I think you will find most dogs operating in a pack structure are just as likely to attack as a pack of bull breed dogs. Again it has nothing to do with breed. To an extent yes - but looking at it from a risk perspective, the impact if say a bull terrier attacked as opposed to a chihuahua is significant. I agree that owning a bull breed (because I do) comes with a great deal of responsibility of being aware of the damage a strong, powerful dog is capable of doing - but it's a type of responsibility, not a level of responsibility. I don't agree with the blanket statement above that great responsibility is a product of great power. Every dog owner should take great responsibility with their dogs, and any suggestion that the type of dog or the extent of damage it can cause (or lack thereof) absolves the owner from some or as much responsibility is the reason there are so many unruly dogs around owned by people who think their little precious couldn't cause a problem whether they were being a responsible owner or not. I understand the responsibility I need to take with my dogs - I think most responsible owners understand their breed and their responsibilities but it's just a different type of responsibility - not a greater or lesser one.

Haha really? Well, if you found the bull terrier, then you found me.......

I agree with your feedback on the venue. Benching areas are great. Ring area is a bit of a patch job, small assembly area and the carpet grass isn't my favourite. Also the marquee does become quite hot when there are a lot of people inside it and the sun is beating down on it - probably needs a little more ventilation. Exercise and toilet area is much smaller and gets smaller when there is an overflow in the ring 1 assembly area. I really liked the benching area although I'm not totally convinced that whatever they made the benches out of is going to last a long time - seems a little flimsy to me. In terms of parking - I parked at the Fortitude Valley school. I found it easier because in the morning I walked across to the main entrance and walked through the grounds to the dog pavilion - in the afternoon - you walk straight out of the pavilion to the gate on Costin St and walk two blocks and cross the road to the car park - all flat too - so not too much worse. I chose that because I really wanted to avoid hills an it worked quite well.

When you win an art union house or car you can give it to me instead of making money off it :p

"It's a Dog's Life" 1955

Yeah - I'd definately be obtaining legal advice and pursuing a resolution through Fair Trading, etc. I am in no way legally qualified but I think the fact that you have the dog and there would forseeably be evidence of where money was transferred to the seller or money drawn out to pay in cash. Hopefully you have a receipt though to really finalise things. You also need to look at what communication you had with this person - hopefully you have something in writing from them saying that the puppy will be suitable for showing and breeding with - that will come back to being fit for the purpose described. I'm perpelxed as to why a guarantee of suitableness for breeding and showing was made.....most breeders don't do this unless there is a pretty clear written agreement that if the pup turns out not to be suitable they'll refund and/or take it back. Seems like the breeder you are dealing with isn't a very nice person. Although I must say that most breeders can become defensive (probably not in such an extreme way) when a new puppy buyer rings up to say they aren't happy with their purchase because some of the reasons can be pretty poor. In your case there seems to be a perfectly reasonable justification for your concern and to be honest I'm surprised that the breeder didn't take a more active interest in the potential health conditions that may have resulted from the breeding they did. I think you seem to want to keep the pup so maybe an appropriate resolution is determining the fair price of a pet quality puppy of the same breed and asking for a refund of the difference between that and what you paid for the pup. That way you would be getting a pet quality puppy at a pet price, which is fair. Although you may wish to pursue the issue of the skin condition based on advice. I have an old girl who developed a terrible skin condition after having a litter of pups.........I have no idea what caused it but after a couple of scary months of her losing hair, leaky sores, swollen glands, etc over $1000 worth of test revealed only that the only bacteria was normal skin bacteria which seemed to have got into her system. Fortunately some strong anti-biotics and some change in diet has seen things come good again. I don't regret any of the expense though to heal her so I do understand where you are coming from about trying to help the pup. I wish you good luck in finding a resolution to the problem that is fair for you and the puppy.

I agree - it's unfair to enter under a judge when there is an association through breeding. Firstly, you are potentially putting the style of a breed that the judge prefers under which isn't fair on them, you or other exhibitors. (Although not every specimen that a breeder breeds is to their liking - lol). Secondly, the judge is in an untenable position - if they put it up, the association is considered the reason why by the gossip mill and if they don't, then again the gossip mill will rejoice in the judges admission that their breeding is no good. Personally, whatever rules are in place, I think it's just unfair on a number of people involved.

LOL - that's awesome :) Hahahahahahahaha.

Dare I say it - FAIL!!!!! I don't mean to make fun or take away from the content at all but I must admit it stuck out like dogs balls to me as soon as I watched it - LOL

LOL - look at the background on these two vids: Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPp756NvckI Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFCR1ZQ3OYs This made me smile - LOL - an excellent tactic by Dogs Queensland to get people's attention :)

I think that the judge in question should have known the standard well enough to know it was a disallowed colour and excused the dog on this basis, but it didn't happen so the thing is that no matter how much we disagree with the decision, and how incorrect it may seem to be, we have to respect the judges decision. There are many decisions that judges make which I've heard many people quite overtly call into question - unfortunately, there's no appeal system in dog showing even for what seems to be a very obvious incorrect decision. That's dog showing - anything can happen. I think in the situation, I would very quietly and politely mention to the judge that perhaps they may like to consult the breed standard before making their final decision and then it's up to them. As for the exhibitor, I'd be very curious as to their reasons for exhibiting the animal when they know there is a very clear disqualifying fault. However, in the absence of a rule that dogs with disqualifying faults can't be taken into the ring there's no reason why they shouldn't exhibit it and they have every right to so I think should they is a redundant question. Again, while they have the right to show, I'm completely intrigued as to why they would though.

PS - perhaps if the council find it difficult to prove you should suggest they take their dog for a walk past the house and see what happens?

Please don't feel bad - you may have actually done the dog and it's owner a favour - that is, if the owner is clever enough to realise they need to keep the dog confined in the yard. In my old neighourhood - I could even go 2 doors up the street without a snarling dog rushing out. I love how councils tell us they need photographic evidence - have they ever tried to assess the situation where there's an aggressive dog rushing you, trying to protect your dog and/or yourself and have time to take a nice picture to send them. A dog up the road once copped a kick in the head (I didn't mean to get it in the head, I was actually trying to fend it off with my foot as I picked up my 30kg bull terrier to avoid a disaster) and the owner thought it was a hilarious sight. Of course we all know who would have been in trouble and had their dog taken away and put down if anything happened.........Her dog used to and probably still does roam the neighbourhood at will and the funny thing is, when her kids walk it, it has a muzzle yet the rest of the time just does what it likes freely. I got sick of sending photos of this dog on the loose to our council to do something and their constant assurances that they were taking the situation seriously. You did the right thing reporting it - animal control in most council jurisdictions needs a major overhaul. I certainly wouldn't say it's an easy thing to manage, it's not but a lot of money is received through registrations and it should be used for the correct purpose.

Good Morning All, On behalf of the Callide Valley Canine Club (QLD), I would like to thank everyone who made the shows such a success and a great weekend. Thank you to our two championship show judges Mr Ben Luxton (SA) and Mr Albert Reading (SA) who did a tremendous job in quite hot conditions - we hope you had a good weekend and a safe journey home. Thank you to our three open show judges Mr Duncan McAllister, Mr Keith McGinn and Mrs Maxeen Hobson who also braved the hot conditions admirably - we do hope you enjoyed yourselves and had a safe homeward journey. Thank you to our stewards, table-writers, trophy handlers ;) and anyone else who assisted in any way to keep the shows running so smoothly throughout the weekend - your contributions and willingness to help are very much appreciated. It was great to see a lot of new people at the writing table and with some of our regulars as mentors they did a wonderful job, and we are so appreciative of your help. Thank you to our Show Secretary, Mrs Sue Cook and Mr Jim Cook who produced another stellar effort and performed many tasks too numerous to list out to make these shows possible; Mr Les Funch our president and the committee of the club who worked tirelessly all weekend and really pitched in to make the shows a success. Last but not least, thank you so much to all our exhibitors and their dogs - we hope you enjoyed yourself and had a good time despite the very hot conditions, congratulations to the winners and we hope to see you at our next show weekend in July. Without your support, the shows would not have been the success they were. We trust that all involved enjoyed themselves and had a safe journey home. I've said a lot of thank you's but the club really do appreciate everyone's support - we had a wonderful weekend with many good times even though we are all completely knackered now........so once again..... Thank you :) Craig Pettett Secretary - Callide Valley Canine Club Inc.

It must be very frustrating dealing with people who aren't considerate for the poor show secretaries. Quite a few years ago now, I witnessed on show secretary who must have had enough of an exhibitor not cutting their entries to size and gave them their numbers on A3 sheets - LOL - so funny.

Agreed and I would like to thank you for being a gentleperson throughout our debate, thankful we managed to keep it civil, unlike what seemed to be going on on some of the other lists. So I am hoping that the DQ committee and all the members who are interested in being part of the process can come up with an acceptable constitution that we can all vote yes on in the very near future, meaning incorporation can proceed and we can finally leave home, so to speak. I know - it's great, and thank you too for your input - a lot of what we discussed actually enabled me to further strengthen and flesh out my own case and justification for my position and modify it to a better result, so it just goes to show that even if people don't agree on things, if they work together on achieving an outcome and keep asking questions to cover all possible weak points it results in a better outcome. Obviously if DQ and RNA are reading, they should have left this whole thing up to us :p. Finally we can get on with the job of becoming our own entity, owned and controlled by our members or at least start on the path to it, there's still a lot of work to be done, but the absence of the over-riding conflict will go a long way to ensuring a smooth transition. Edited to add: It's now up to the RNA to make a similar commitment to working together with the DQ council for the benefit of DQ members and whilst communication from RNA suggests this will happen, I would like to see their commitment and assurance (from both parties) that past disputes are going to be put aside for the objective of achieving a result - they can fight as much as they want to afterwards.....when it's not going to impact on us.

I believe we're at a point where we can defer discussion in this thread as the DQ president has advised that the SGM has been deferred from proceeding at this point with a recognition that a joint progression by DQ and RNA, and development of a better constitution is necessary. Hopefully this joint working can proceed without delay to achieve incorporation under a constitution that has been rigorously developed to provide a strong basis for our future.

I am very glad to see that after spending so much time attacking and spreading misinformation about one another, that DQ council have taken the lead and established a commitment to working with RNA to move forward. I hope this also re-opens the way for a more rigorous and comprehensive development of the constitution which has been so necessary and the point of contention all along; and I hope we get to see a management committee made up of representatives from each zone to provide statewide leadership to take us forward on our journey. I am heartened that DQ has finally listened to members and recognised that the constitution needs more work. Congratulations DQ council on doing the right thing by the members in deferring the special general meeting and making a commitment to working with RNA to progress to a better outcome for members. Over to RNA to hopefully making a similar commitment to work together.

The point I was trying to make, and I am not being insulting, is that there would be those who would think that once the regions had a designated councillor that that would be enough. Those people would not think anything further would have to be done as far as the regions were concerned as they would have a representative. The "what more do the regions want" statment refers to the mindset of those types of people. It might be just as hard or even harder for the regions to be heard, that was what I mean by being short changed, but I'm not sure if I am using the right words to explain what I mean. But ultimately yes you are right, there probably should be three designated councillors from each zones, with the rest of the positions up for grabs. Although I am a metropolitan member now, I have been a regional member in the past so I am very sympathic to the issues of the regions. I know you weren't intentionally being insulting but that is certainly the way the regional members would be inclined to take the comment if you know what I mean. I guess you have to consider from the perspective that under the proposed constitution, regional members MAY be consulted with when and if the MC sees fit or feel it is required. This has been the method used to date and it has proven to be ill-advised and insensitive to the diversity of our membership, resulting in a number of decisions that have impacted negatively on the regional areas. The appointment of allocated regional reps is only the start of the journey so it isn't a case of the regions wanting any more, they are getting the voice on the MC and in the decision making discussions which is what they have been calling for, for some time and it progresses from there - the regions don't have the expectation that they will always get their way but need the mechanism to have their arguments and recommendations made as part of the decision-making discussions rather than having to fight to change aspects of decisions after the fact because all perspectives have not been considered. On the surface this would seem like a good idea, my concern is that if there is a high percentage of new councillers elected every year, then 12 months is not a long time to get to know the ropes of the position. In we are to have a clear deck maybe the elected term should be two years? Otherwise that is why I think the staggered terms work better. This is an assumption though that newly elected councillors don't have any skills or the ability to quickly acquire a working knowledge of the mechanics of the organisation (if these are clearly spelt out in a constitution it is even easier - this isn't the case at the moment - too many gray areas and contradictions and not enough detail). Most nominees who stand for committees have experience and skills which support their ability to function effectively. Additionally, in some committees I have been involved in and I know it also happens in parliament, "newbies" (LOL) are given information and/or attend an induction to cover all these aspects - I think this is a great idea and should be incorporated in our organisation. I think democratic election of all MC members every year is the best way to ensure democracy allowing the members to judge on performance. If councillors are doing a great job, they will almost certainly be re-elected which rewards their performance. On the alternative side, if someone isn't doing a good job the 12 month term may limit the impact of this. I understand the arguments of stability and consistency but this is based on an assumption that everything is being done well, which is a rather unrealistic idea and has been proven to be false. Re - the constitution. I would urge all members intending to vote or just interested in the process to carefully read the proposed constitution in addition to the key points that the Dogs for Democracy campaign notes in it's advertising because upon reading the detail, these guarantees are only correct and true some of the time. The absolute statements made are actually not technically true because they all have exceptions where they may not occur and I believe it is highly misleading to make them without clarifying the exceptions. The members have the right to and should be provided with a full and complete understanding of the truths in order to make an informed decision.