conztruct

Agree - but can someone who only breeds ordinary dogs even a specialist? Not to me I think it depends if they know what a good specimen of the breed is, can recognise it, can recognise that their own dogs are mediocre, and can judge objectively. Although one would hope that someone who knows what a good example of the breed is would be able to build a line that would produce just that.

Beating other dogs is irrelevant. Your dogs are judged against the standard, if the Judge doesn't consider them worthy of Champion/Grand Champion, they will non-award them and they won't get the points. If dogs that are getting point uncontested shouldn't be getting titles that the issue is with the Judges, not the points system. Getting there with uncontested six pointers is just as valid as getting there by beating a lot of dogs (and arguably shows a lot more dedication and effort). I didn't say ''beat other dogs'' "Placed before" is entirely different. Dogs that haven't been placed before an other entrant don't deserve the title is my opinion, set in stone. Edit:- one competitor with two entries doesn't count for much either. IMO Dedication? Dedication is turning up & competing with expectation, not certainty. The gentle applause when a judge actually has the balls to non award regular single dog entries tells the story. I agree with you that more dogs should be non-awarded but that is an issue with the judge. I don't understand the bolded part - I think this is penalising the exhibitor for the judges decision - if the judge decides the specimen is worthy of challenge points that should be it.

As a few have mentioned, there is no easy fix to this issue that will please all parties. I guess the thing for me is that even though I love showing and achieving title requirements (only CHs for me - a Grand is a distant dream at this point - LOL), these titles really don't impact on my perception of a good example of the breed. There are many dogs in my breed and others that have CHs and Grand titles but I would never consider using them in a breeding program. Would be interested to hear what bearing the title a dog has, has on others breeding decisions? Regardless then, whilst I'm not saying there's no point in showing (because I love it), do the titles really mean anything except for a sense of personal achievement and maybe a good advertising point to create interest in a dog? I know if a dog has a Grand Ch., I'm pretty keen to have a look at it - sometimes I'm really impressed, other times I'm disappointed.

That is not the point of either of those pieces of equipment. No training through fear is good training. I know it's not the point Nek, but this is frequently how they are used. I use a check chain myself but not to instill fear in the dog.....

Sorry but I just don't agree with your idea of cutting back the number of shows. At least not as it stands. Perhaps with some more thought but as you have already mentioned it I don't see it working in fact I only see it making the decline greater. I don't agree with you at all, but I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Shows, especially in smaller and regional areas are already failing to attract sufficient numbers to make them financially viable which means that club members either have to chip in personally or if they're lucky enough secure some sponsorship (difficult) - those people who are burning themselves out are providing the extra entries after show secretaries literally beg people to enter because they are facing a massive loss (eg Caboolture show in this Show section seeking entries and it's in a metropolitan area where it's a 50k drive for Brisbane people - only 150 by the original advertised date). Declining entries are here already with out system of a multitude of shows and at a point where it's really only the committed people showing anyway. Think of it this way - there are so many shows on throughout the year (yes my minimum travel out of my local area is mostly 300k minimum too), where CH points are available. If the number where the CH points were limited it would not only place more value on the CH title but would increase entries at these eligible shows. It's a juggling act - is it better to have 3 shows or one show with 3 times the entry? It depends on perspective - yours is that you'd rather have the 3 shows, the alternative is greater participation and less expense (time and money) having one show. Since the question was about the declining numbers at shows, the latter is the perspective I have taken. Sorry but you're making an assumption that the decision you'd make in that situation is what everyone else would do. There are lots of people who don't show now because they don't see any value in the CH title because anyone can pretty much get one by going to shows all over if they have to - maybe a lot of those people would join the show scene again if there was a little prestige attached to it. That would be an assumption and not a fact, but every bit as valid as your assumption. Too much of something makes people complacent, reduce supply and it makes it desirable (for most anyway).

Why have less shows. A number of reasons: 1) Less CH shows would mean that there was more prestige to a CH title than just travelling around to the shows people know they won't have competition at - if there were say 12 shows in a region a year where CH points were allocated anyone who was going for a CH would have to turn up to them and go for the challenges against greater competition (in most cases). 2) Less CH shows would mean less recycling from a limited judge pool. 3) If there were only say 12 shows where CH points could be obtained there would be more prestige attached to them and CH titles. Another way I could ask the question is why do we have so many? Is it so everyone can get their average dogs titled giving them a sense of achievement which will make them continue showing? If so, it's not working because numbers are dropping. Is it so people don't have to incur travel expenses by having shows everywhere and anywhere? If so, why are entries falling? As I said I don't pretend to be the expert it was just a suggestion. This would only cause more people to turn away from showing altogether. Why? If there are less shows in your area would you honestly keep showing or would you look for something else to do as a hobby. Well yes! I'm prepared to travel, I have competitive dogs that are capable of winning challenges so if there were a limited number of shows where CH points were available of course I'd go to them because I'm competing for the points. It would make me work harder with my dogs to have them in awesome condition and ready for these big events instead of just relying on the fact that if I go out to whoop whoop with 75 entries for their Ag show I'll be unlucky if I strike another of my breed. We only have three shows a year here. At that rate it is hard to even justify doing these shows. Why is it difficult to justify doing shows in your local area? In order to stay interested we travel away a bit for shows. If we didn't travel then I wouldn't even bother with showing at all. Local shows simply arent enough to justify. Now while that may not be the situation in other areas that is how it is here. Fair enough but having less shows doesn't mean that you don't have to travel to them. If you're saying the travelling is an enjoyable part of showing, there wouldn't be anything stopping you from travelling with your dogs just for a holiday rather than a show (?) If people are feeling "burnt out" then they should simply give themselves a break. Why do we have to lose a few shows simply because some people cant be responsible and miss a few shows of their own accord. So even if numbers are falling at shows people should have a break - isn't that encouraging decreasing numbers at shows? In my area I know a lot of people who will put entries and travel to shows even when they don't really feel like because there are low entries and they want to support the small clubs here, in fact many almost consider it an obligation....if they didn't have the personally appointed obligation of attending a great number of shows, then it would be less tiresome I see no reason why a local show should be cancelled because some one else is burnt out. No one holds a gun to their head and forces them to enter every show thats on. They choose to enter the show. If they want a break they can have one, but not at the expense of others that want to show. I'm not saying that all local shows should be cancelled just the number of them reduced. I can only speak for my area in Qld which ranges from about Gympie I think up to around Mackay - the suggestion I'm proposing is that rather than all the clubs in the area hold a minimum of 3-4 champ shows a year they maybe be given 1 each which would add up to about 12-15. Of course there should still be an even distribution in different locations so nobody is disadvantaged. As I said just a suggestion I came up with from observations and listening to discussions at shows. I really like the English system where there are limited shows at which CH points can be obtained although their CH system is different I think and you have to win a certain number of challenges - I'm not absolutely sure on that..... but it would mean that to get a CH title you would more than likely have to compete against the best to achieve thereby putting some prestige to it and qualifying it as an award earned by beating competition instead of driving far enough to avoid it.

Why don't we have less shows? Some months there are shows on every single weekend and people seem to go to lots of them and travel as well - maybe numbers are declining because people are getting "burned out". I see less shows - actually make that less CH shows, something that may also address the issues raised in this and other threads of: recycling judges making the CH title more difficult to achieve (less shows means less points on offer requiring exhibitors to go to the CH qualifying shows = more competition, bigger show, BIS, BIG a pretty awesome achievement - this happens in England although the rules to qualify as a champion are different too - maybe we should look at these) less exhausted club volunteers I don't even pretend to have all the answers but maybe it's worth thinking about......people are leading busier and busier lives so maybe if there was a bit of prestige and value attached to some shows and they weren't so readily available it would result in better patronage.

I quite enjoy showing but I agree, that there are some absolutely perplexing decisions at times but that's what you get with subjective judging I guess. Yep - I'm sure face-judging happens which is a shame - there is little in the way of accountability for judges decisions though so unless something is done about that, things will continue. If you don't have a system that encourages excellence with appropriate checks and balances then it's not going to work really well. From my perspective, this year was the first year I did the Brisbane Royal. Showing in the indoor venue, with people watching was totally different and to be honest it was much more of a buzz that the usual shows I do. We were also lucky that one of the judges was excellent at "whooping" up the crowd and getting them involved so it was really enjoyable. Maybe we need more shows like this - I see it as a possibility in our areas and north in particular as it would also take unseasonal weather out of the equation - problem is finding an appropriate venue. I also really enjoy the Ag shows moreso than the other champ shows but have noticed that the dogs kind of get pushed off to the side where nobody really sees them. I think this is a bit of a shame because a lot of people like looking at the dogs. I agree with a lot of the reasons people have advised for declining numbers but I think the time factor is a really big one - we are leading busier and busier lives and more to schedules. Sometimes being at a dog show all day waiting just seems like unproductive time when there's other things that need to be done at home, etc so I think that may be a bit of a deterrent. I know this tends to happen in our regional area where we only have 2 judges and the day can really drag on - I wonder if it would make a difference if we did get some extra judges to further split the groups and reduce the time of the show - I also see it as an excellent opportunity for new judges with one or two groups to be used and to gain experience. I wonder whether it would be worth a few people involved in shows getting together and talking about it and maybe making some recommendations and trialling a few of the suggestions and providing some feedback so others can consider similar initiatives.

Yes - Rufus in 2006

Very wise advice. As a bully person who has handled a lot of dogs with both good and bad behaviour patterns, I have never used a prong collar or had to "jerk" any other type of choker, and it's not because my dogs are perfect - some of them have been absolute demons. It takes training and perserverence with training - very few bull terriers are naturally going to do what you want. You have a choice, you can use a prong, jerk a choker, etc and have a dog who's obedient because it's afraid of you, or you can train and be positive and have a dog who's obedient because it finds a pleasurable result from doing it.

This!!!! I use a choker on all of mine because they tighten quickly and don't slip off the unique bully head like a lot of other collars, etc do but get the book and start some positive training. There is NO better control method in a bull terrier than positive training. If you crack that, the lead will just be there for assurance.

I really feel for you. In my old neighbourhood - we couldn't go out for a walk without all the neighbours dogs rushing out and trying to have a go at my dogs. There was one dog that was always on a muzzle when it was walked on lead by the neighbours kids yet allowed to roam around the neighourhood unmuzzled all the rest of the time (!??!) This wasn't so much as issue for me except that as I owned BTs, if anything happened then of course it would be all my fault. Their dogs also used to cr@p all over the footpath out the front of my house. What made it worse was one of the neighbours who was one of the worst offenders for letting her dog roam the neighbourhood got up me one day when I was cleaning it up about how it was spoiling the neighbourhood me letting my dogs do that!!! Whatever, I very politely asked her if she would please continue on with her walk immediately or she would be wearing some of what I was shovelling into the bucket.

Glad you got it sorted out. I am having a similar issue with my old bully bitch. She came up in a lot of great big welts that started weeping, then one of her glands became very very swollen. After clear tests she's the same on anti-biotics and cortisone which seems to be clearing things up. I also got some Triocil medicated shampoo for her as Malaseb reacts badly with MY skin and since she has a few skin and allergy problems I wasn't game to try it on her.

Agree with Lowenhart - dismissing the remainder of group before the group judging has been completed is against the rules, but asking the exhibitors to take their dogs to shelter/shade is ok. Coming from a rather hot part of the country, when I've been stewarding many judges have advised exhibitors to find some shade/shelter at times, in fact, I ask most judges if they are happy for me to offer this option to the exhibitors - they usually say "Yes" as long as they're allowed too as well....LOL.

Yeah of course it happens but I don't think it happens as often as people think it does. If any judges allow themselves to be influenced enough to make a blatently dodgy decision, I think they forget that many exhibitors are club officials and involved in the organisation of shows. The judge is doing themselves a disservice because when those same people are organising shows and selecting judges to approach they are very unlikely to consider them.

I feel your pain - as a BT owner apparently everyone in my neighbourhood thinks it's fine to let their dogs roam around but when they charge my dogs when we're on a walk, it's my fault because I've got an aggressive dog...what the? In these incidents if you have the address and description of the dog, phone the council and report an attack. Remember this dog at a garage had a go at YOU - what if a kid is walking their dog that same way and isn't quite so capable to fight it off? I really do feel for dogs who have irresponsible owners and I know it's not their fault, but they can't continue to be allowed to terrorise their neighbourhoods. Report it.

Totally agree!! But unfortunately, common sense is something that is no longer "common sense". There have been successful actions brought against manufacturers of say a cordless drill because their usage warnings did not include such gems as "Do not use this to trim your nose hair", "Do not use this to clean your ears", etc. Ah yes, common sense - such a wonderful thing, yet apparently we are all too stupid to use it and our legal system of apportioning blame agrees . More is the shame. Back on topic - look I know it's my house etc but if I had a child coming over there is no way I'd let them roam around with my dogs...I'd put them away because they haven't been around kids and I don't know how they'd react.

Matthew - such a shame to have to go through that. I know what you mean though - I was bailed up by a BTX in the street as a I went for a walk one day - it came from a yard that had no fence and the inhabitants were sitting on the verandah having a giggle as the dog gestured, growled and curled up it's lips. Scary experience but I got away from it unscathed no thanks to the stupid owners. Sure if the dog was banned, I wouldn't have got bailed up or maybe I would have because these people would have just got another breed and raised it as poorly. What was more apparent to me is that if these owners had their dog (no matter what breed) contained in their yard as they should have or had even bothered to call it off or help instead of having a laugh, it would have been the same result - I wouldn't have been bailed up. I now own that same breed and love them - my dogs are all awesome and very docile because that's the way I've raised them. But at the same time, I am serious about my obligation to be a responsible owner and my dogs are contained so they can not get out and annoy people even if it is just being friendly. It is true that a number of breeds were originally bred for fighting (dogs), but you'd be hard-pressed to find any registered breeders who breed for this purpose. I can't however, speak for the bogans who cross all sorts of things and treat them like crap to intentionally make them a volatile menace, however, that is not restricted to any particular breed or cross, again, it is the owner. I doubt there's anything that can change your mind about banning APBTs given the traumatic experience you've experienced and this is undoubtedly the basis of your hysterical calls to cull the breed altogether.

Great solution - so then what will we do when the former pitbull owners get a new breed or cross-breed and that attacks a person because of their inability to responsibly control or own the animal? I'm sure the victims of that attack will be very grateful that the pitbull was banned for ownership and nothing was done to ensure people are responsible about dog ownership. What is proactive is making sure that idiots who are unable to be responsible with dogs are not allowed to have them. The licencing/registration of owners makes a lot of sense to me, even moreso than dog registration.

And some lose their cars if they break the law. If you tell me this dog was unknown to council, I'll be surprised. But when we write off the attack due to breed, what's to stop this owner from getting another dog. And how did the fact the breed was already banned stop this from happening. It didn't. It probably just ensured that this dog didn't get the kind of socialisation that well raised family pets do. Bring on licensing for owners, not dogs. This - the sad part is this owner will probably just think that it was the dog and not him that is responsible but the owner has everything to do with it. Any dog with even the potential to inflict damage must be kept contained and if that means having expensive enclosures etc then that's what you do as part of owning them. We have to be extra careful (without exception) with the bigger, stronger breeds who can cause serious injury and/or death. Owners have to be responsible and capable to deal with their chosen breed (or x-breed) - PF is right on the money with what really was the cause of this - the owner. That also includes owners of small fluffies who think it's cutsie that their little precious growls and carries on - while the little dog can't cause the same damage as a larger one, the owners have no control and are clueless - all that needs to happen is for them to buy a bigger dog and that same incompetence leads to disaster. ETA - this has NOTHING to do with the little girl and her behaviour - she was in her home and the neighbours dog shouldn't have been there - it shouldn't have been out of it's own yard. I know we are all protective of dogs but to suggest in any way the victim contributed to this tragedy is not correct and a little offensive to be honest.

Gosh - that's a leap - what now if this irresponsible owner happens to not keep her dog contained in it's fenced area and it does bite someone? The council were aware of it, classed it as menacing and over-turned the decision forseeably in the face of negative publicity. I know neighbours can be pretty vindictive at times but at units it's a shared area and people should be able to enjoy that area without someone's pet encroaching on their enjoyment. I think this owner is extremely lucky to be allowed to have a pet at all. If the lady making the complaint isn't popular, it was fair warning that there'd probably be an issue if the dog wasn't under control. Some people are unbelievable - they feign outrage and victimisation when they are caught out for doing the wrong thing and get the media involved so someone will feel sorry for them and pay their way.

Yeah - a bully too so they usually have skin that's prone to a bit of irritation too......apparently he has been pretty good but scratched today so it's a bit of a mess . Thanks for the suggestion - I've relayed and it's a good idea in addition to seeking the vet's advice.

Thanks heaps Pers - that's what I originally suggested - apparently he's been to the vet and had anti-biotics although I wasn't sure they would be for treating a burn (unless it's to avoid infection)....? Dunno, I'm sure the vet will be able to shed more light on it.

Hi All, Not my dog thank dog but a friends dog lay on some ground (this was at a dog show) and his whole underbelly and chest has burned and the hair has fallen out. It appears this was caused by fertilizer - a few others there said that they thought it might be blood and bone as the dogs were sniffing a lot (that might be completely wrong). Any suggestions on how to get the hair to grow back and soothe the skin? My friend is going to the vet and getting a skin scraping which might reveal more, but if there are any helpful tips or if someone has experienced this before, I'd be so grateful. Thanks

I think it's just what happens but pup will get there. It's been ages since I had a puppy to look after but I have a little fella (3.5 months) who I've got to socialise and start some really really basic training. He's come from an environment where he was in a pen so could whenever (are wherever) he wanted to a crate and he's done a great job so far - a few little accidents but it's to be expected. You're just starting out soon and I'm sure your pup and mine will get there . The biggest problem at the moment I've got is convincing him that it's ok to walk on cement - LOL.