conztruct

I show but I know this could be part of what happens. I think a lot of face-judging does happen but I'm not sure it's as insidious as people think it is. From my limited experience in the purebred dog world, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to remember all the standards and information required of a judge, so sometimes I think a lot of judges play it safe and put up the successful dogs and exhibitors when they're not sure of what they're doing. Regardless of why they put someone up, I don't think exhibitors can be blamed. The judges are required to judge a dog on it's merit against the prescribed standard - if they do not do this, then the judge is deficient, not the exhibitor...... I don't think this will ever stop me showing though - I enjoy the social side of it, and while I've seen some absolutely shocking decisions in the ring, winning just isn't important enough to me to make it much of a factor.

Yeah Yeah - ban it and it self markets itself, give an R rating and it will as well. I dont know what the answer is, Conz. I still dont understand why people reported it, though - it just makes it more popular. Do the people on here who reported it have an android phone? I'm not sure if that would make a difference at all - just tossing around ideas. Yeah - I dunno either. I don't think I've ever reported anything. If I don't like it or agree with it, I'll say so and that's it. I'm not "the law" so if what they're doing is legal, no matter how offensive, there's not much I can do although I must agree that drawing attention to it is probably not the best way to go. I think people used to care what others thought about them and had a little morality with such things but that's kinda gone out the window......if it makes money and gains attention, it's all good.

I dunno Raz. I don't think we'll ever get rid of things like this - even outrage and opposition gives them much wanted publicity and of course, sparks interest so people are bound to have a look or try to find out more. Same thing with R ratings - I totally agree with blocking it for general access but it again flags it as something that isn't necessarily nice or good and sparks interest............ Sigh......

My question is more faced with if these were your two options full stop, whether due to limited gene pool... As a judge these are the two dogs presented in the ring etc. Perhaps you have the ideal bitch, but the dogs you are faced with either have one or the other...all dogs have faults I hear quite a lot any mutt can be sound but it doesn't distinguish a breed, therefore type is more important.. Unfortunately it would seem this is the reality for some breeds with a smaller gene pool they dont have the luxury of having it all. I know what you're saying but I have to agree with Dante's comment above. All too often judges will put up a less than good specimen of the breed over other less than good specimen/s of the breed. I think they should non-award more when this is the case - if they don't it encourages mediocrity and it also gives (especially inexperienced) exhibitors a false impression of the quality of their dogs and may encourage them to breed dogs that are not going to contribute to the betterment of the breed. How do I know this? I have a bitch who is just lovely and loves showing but not a strong example of the breed - I would never consider breeding her because there is not enough virtue and there are many other superior examples of the breed. So we used to show just because she liked the run and getting out and about - of course, she got her points. Sometimes I think we make it too easy and focus on making everyone happy instead of being realistic. I know there are many schools of thought on this and I'm not saying I'm right (I'm happy to hear other points of view because there may be things I haven't considered and it could change my opinion) - just saying what I think.

Poor dogs.

That's the problem with factors in multi-factorial problems. You have to make a decision where to draw the line. You wouldn't expect video games to be a large factor and I don't think anyone really expected to find that video games would turn people into serial killers, but they did investigate whether it was a factor or not and the evidence tells us that it is. So if ministers are looking at it and saying "it's only a small factor" then I hope they understand the limitations of the research and are taking into consideration the range of violent materials available to kids these days and are tracking the changes in attitudes towards violence. The study where they interviewed high-school shooters can at best show us whether violent people are attracted to violent video games, so I'm not sure why that was even reported in that article or to the ministers involved? People have been killing each other since the dawn of man. When I was a kid there were rules about how to fight. If you got into a fight there were boundaries. Then, at 16 I was attacked by a large group of kids with weapons; bike chains, baseball bats, pipe, even knuckle-dusters. Where do they get those ideas from? That is not normal behaviour. Thankfully, someone in a car saw what was happening and I managed to jump into their car, they probably saved my life. But that's fairly normal now, kids use weapons, they keep going when someone is on the ground or incapable of further defending themselves. If you're female, you can't leave a drink unattended in case someone spikes it. How did we end up with that many deviants? If we think we can blame one thing, we're really missing the point. It's not just video games, or just parents, or just movies. The question for me is how do we maintain healthy social norms amidst all these factors? I would argue that we should control an industry where there seems to be a race to see who can hit the bottom first. We live in a bystander society where people are afraid to say "that's not cool", men in particular. How did we get like this? Because it is now everyone's right to do whatever they want - there is no such thing as social norms just what people think is ok. And if they get called on their behaviour, well, "it's my right to do what I want and how dare you question me - I'm going to sue you with some far-fetched lawsuit and become rich". People are now rewarded for being precious, selfish and antagonistic and the wonderful thing about it is that if you really get stuck in a corner, you can tell everyone you have ADHD or didn't get everything you wanted as a child and get off with a stern warning........ What happened to us is that we've now got soft and only care about ourselves and what someone owes us because it's our right. I think some boundaries are good but we're a free society and nobody has the guts to impose them.

Yeah, pretty sick if you ask me but of course it's going to hit a raw nerve with me being a dog owner and lover. There's all sorts of games around the place now - killing, torture, drugs, rape, etc etc and a seemingly never-ending quest to create the goriest, most offensive game out - the public lap it up too. I think it reveals some sad lessons about our society when this kind of thing is considered entertainment and I don't understand the mindset of parents who knowingly allow their children to play these type of games (NOTE: I'm not saying they're unfit parents, I'm just saying I don't understand the rationale behind allowing kids to play games where the level up bonus is based on the number of "bitches you rape"). I know games are make-believe and most people can draw the line but geez...... However, it seems that all we can do is register our displeasure with the app - according to the creators (in the other thread) what they are doing is perfectly legal and I guess they're just looking at the vehicle that can deliver the $$ for them. I do wonder though where we will stop - will it be at the point where there is a child rape game or the taliban destroying the USA game?

* Evening shows - i love them, especially in summer and it's a lot better for the dogs as well. * Good judges - and some objectivity in the selection of judges by committees - it really peeves me when someone wins under a judge and within 6 months they're judging at the shows that person is on the committee for...... * Designated walkways to rings where people are not allowed to set up gazebos etc * My friends being at the shows I go to - showing is very social for me so it's nice to be around good people, I also have a lot of respect for committees who "call" people on poor behaviour or sportsmanship..... * Nice grounds * Food/drinks * Decent toilets and showers (absolute must for me)

Very interesting discussion but can we take the "self defence" defence to a different topic please? If you're not referring to the the situation posted by the OP then it doesn't belong in here. In reference to the OP, I'm glad you now know and will have your dog on the lead in future. If you had done this before, the incident you described would probably not have happened. Whilst I would never react the way this gentleman did, I simply WON'T take any chances that an illegally off-lead dog is going to behave ok (even if they are perfect). Given that a lot of people share a similar viewpoint, it's incredibly selfish to flaunt the law with "but my dog is an angel" because it means that there is a reasonably sizeable group of dog owners who will be deprived of the use of public spaces. Where I used to live, I couldn't even get down the end of my street (about 5 houses) without someone's dog rushing out at mine.........I asked all the neighbours if they could please keep their dogs contained in their yard and got all the "but he's just being friends", etc - some of these dogs probably were but there was no way I was going to risk them being ok or my dogs being ok with them in their face or jumping all over them.

If you want to debate home schooling - start another thread in the OT section. Mice - I don't like them but unless they're causing a lot of damage, I leave them alone and am conscious of making sure my home is not a good environment for them (not leaving food around or unsealed etc). I thank those who have revealed the realities of these so-called "humane" traps - I never knew these things. I've never had to kill a mouse and don't think I'd like to do it but I can see the reasons why some want to get on top of the situation right away. I don't agree with cruelty, but for the most part, those who don't like them dispatch them quickly and without suffering.

I understand what you're saying and it must be very frustrating but the best advice I can offer to you is to call the breeder as they've invited you to do. Some people don't have brilliant written communication skills and the message may not have come across in the best way. Trust me, if they didn't care or weren't interested in you as a prospective owner, they wouldn't have responded to you at all or invited you to call them. I think this is where it gets difficult - when puppies are sold it is a business transaction but a lot of breeders aren't breeding for commercial purposes. For a lot it's a hobby, something they do to improve their breed or to breed a pup to run on themselves. Most don't produce litter after litter to cater to a market so we really can't judge their sales or customer service skills - their motives are usually quite different from a sales/customer service perspective ie they aren't just selling to move stock, their primary objective is to find a suitable home for their pup. You may find after a discussion that a breeder may be brilliant at what they do but just not a strong communicator. Any written communication needs to be taken objectively - please don't try to guess the intent or underlying meaning of written words. I can tell you from personal experience that my opinion of some breeders from their written communication diminished but when I actually called and had a chat, they were just brilliant. This will give them the opportunity to ask you questions as well as you ask them and you will know from the discussion whether this is someone you want to deal with rather than guessing.

Message sent on behalf of Show Secretary.... To competitors who have not noted the location of the Callide Valley Canine Club shows in their schedules,the shows are being held at the Rockhampton Recreation Grounds 1 Miles St North Rockhampton. Looking forward to a fun filled weekend. Sue Cook - Show Secretary

No need for a flame suit. I think exploring all possibilities is a basis of good decision-making so I would hope that concerns like the above would be taken into consideration when making the decision. I can't talk to the competency of AWL or any other organisation - I'm only talking about a rigorous decision-making process. It doesn't matter what people's concerns are but taking them all into account eventually results in a better and more informed outcome.

I'd contact the ANKC if you want to proceed with a complaint - they should be able to advise what the process is.

I only received mine yesterday, voted and put it in the post yesterday afternoon. I hope it gets through to meet the deadline set. I must say that there's been very little notice provided to do this.

Agree with those who say that people with multiple interests including dog showing tend to be happier in it and ignore the rubbish. Sports psychology is a great thing to look into as well - b1tching and the cr@p goes on in the background of all sport. I don't really like to provide advice like toughen up or anything like that - I'm pretty new to showing myself but if I find someone wavering, I always try to make sure I introduce them to all the people I know in different groups etc so that they realise that showing isn't just about running your dog around the ring but it's a fun social occasion as well. I think what this highlights to them is the fun side of it and they can see that all the idiots who make the snide comments are usually huddled by themself under their gazebo or everyone trickles away when they move into a group. It can be hard when people don't like the snide comments or how to deal with them. I've never had a problem with it - I have a big mouth and usually tell someone being a snide smartarse to stop being so bloody childish......

After reading the particulars of the scheme my honest opinion is that it's a nice theory but any quality registered breeder would meet all of these criteria without have to pay for a logo. Unfortunately, the requirements will not do anything to prevent poor quality or unethical breeders (which the scheme is attempting to differentiate) from becoming accredited. As for the reference from a vet, do you really think that if a dodgy breeder who pumps out litter upon litter of puppies and brings the vet great income takes their business away because the vet doesn't give them reference they want for accreditation, that the vet won't think twice about being pious again? Look - the concept of it is very nice but these are all the things that should be happening to become registered anyway? The alleged purpose of the scheme is to differentiate from dodgy breeders but the scheme can't deliver this, so why have it. I'm not saying it's anything insidious by Dogs Qld - they need to be seen and feel like they're doing something to address the dodgy breeder problem but this doesn't hit the mark or achieve the outcome, so it's only adding a layer of bureaucracy and costs for no gain. I'm a newbie so you can dismiss me as someone who doesn't understand or know enough to comment, but that's how I see it. From my perspective if I wanted to do something or know that someone was a good breeder, I'd be gathering my own references. Personally to try and become a good breeder myself, I'm looking at accreditation through MDBA so I have actually done some competency based learning rather than just a few references that I'd easily be able to dodgy up if I wanted to....JMHO. Happy to be berated and educated if I'm not looking at it the right way.

I'm from regional Qld and I wouldn't consider where I live very dog friendly - for different reasons than what most posters are referring to. We have expensive dog registrations but not too many restrictions. It's a real lottery to take your dog out in public because you never know if someone else's unruly dog will be roaming the streets. Where I used to live - I couldn't take my dogs for a walk more than about 2 houses either way of my property because of neighbours unruly, loose, aggressive dogs. I think that most dog restrictions and laws are way over the top for the responsible owner who unfortunately has to be impacted by the very irresponsible actions of a number of other owners who think it's their god-given right to allow their dogs to do whatever and go wherever they like. I also think that a lot of the general public are far too precious and selfish about what they want - ie if they don't like dogs they whinge and whinge to get them restricted.....Guess what, I get really annoyed by unruly children in the shopping centre destroying everything, stealing and shoving their dirty hands everwhere they shouldn't be but I don't see them being banned anytime soon unfortunately.....

I know exactly what you're talking about - I have a boy who's more on the full-on, boisterous side with the familiar but put him in an unfamiliar or uncomfortable situation (and shows can be....) and he's a mess....... You can show them and I have but I really try to work on making him enjoy or at least tolerate it. I train him in as many unfamiliar places as I can or if training at home try to have a lot of activity happening around him - eg radio on, or have someone he doesn't know stand there (yes, i feel sorry for my visitors sometimes.....). At shows I try to play games with him and lots of treats at first away from the ring and when he becomes more comfortable we move a few metres closer and repeat. I think it's better for them to be a bit hyper and maybe not standing exactly perfectly rather than have them fixated in one position totally terrified. It's tedious and a lot of work but very rewarding when you see improvement. Don't kid yourself though - with the hesitant temperament in the show arena, you'll have good and bad days and I find I have to put in a lot of work just in the lead up to shows every time. When we're finished my dog still always practically drags me back to the gazebo - lol. It's not that the dog is bad or has a bad temperament etc - it's just who they are, like some people don't like being in crowds. If you want to show, I say go for it but try and work with your dog so that it's at least a bearable experience for them - if it's a bad day and they just don't want it, I'd rather withdraw my dog than make them do something they clearly don't want to. Good luck.

Don't worry about it - maybe if he was aware of the full circumstances he wouldn't have been so judgemental. People are always giving feedback based on their assumptions but don't let it worry you - say thanks, and then think about whether any of it is relevant to you - if not, file it away in your mental bin. Unless it's particularly derogatory, it shouldn't be anything that worries or upsets you. He probably was trying to be helpful but like I said, he's made an assumption and isn't aware of all the details...................

Dunno how well you know your neighbour or how much you want to keep the peace with them but I'd probably be straight up and say that he didn't need to invent a fictitious law if he didn't want your dogs go to the toilet on the nature strip outside his house - he should have just asked.....

Absolutely. I totally agree with you and as people on this forum keep saying, it's the responsible dog owners who get shafted every single time the irresponsible few decide to just blatantly ignore a regulation. It just brings in more regulations. Yes it's so sad that we will not manage the exceptions rather than the rule. If there was adequate monitoring and adequate penalties for the very small minority doing the wrong thing, sure some will never learn, but it would do a lot to address poor, inconsiderate behaviour. Unfortunately, our society isn't geared to manage these exceptions - we just bring in blanket rules that usually impact more on those that are doing the right thing anyway. It's part of our culture where we are unwilling to have difficult conversations or make people take true accountability for their actions and apply penalties that are sufficient to influence future behaviour.

I get this and agree that not everyone likes dogs or wants to have them around. But do you think they can also put up signs saying that also unwelcome are: Obnoxious children Parents who change their kids nappies and leave them on the beach Vehicles People wearing ill-fitting or inappropriate beachware (blerk!) ...and the list could go on. Ok I know I'm being smart and people have a right to be there but all of these things happen (which I find quite offensive and spoil my enjoyment of the beach) but the council aren't erecting signs to this effect. I think the dogs bans are a knee-jerk reaction to people who have loose dogs on the beach running amok rather than the majority of responsible owners who are simply taking their dogs for a walk. It just seems that enough whingers who want their way have lobbied those in power to bend to their will. I'm really going to have to start work on my lobbying about unruly, uncontrollable, noisy, destructive children in shopping centres whose parents refuse to do anything to address the behaviour............

Are some of our posters who have the "good" words to use for a response to this able to provide some guidance. I'd like to respond, but a united message would be better I think? Any ideas?

It's economics and the way a market works - a rare or more desirable colour presents an opportunity where a consumer may be willing to and usually does pay more than they normally would and some breeders will take full advantage of it. It happens in consumption of all types. Earlier this year, I was at a show where a breeder was talking to a member of the public watching the show and quite loudly said "yes, I do breed blue, but they cost quite a bit more than standards" - I'm sure everyone inside and within about 20 metres of the ring would have heard exactly as I did. Unfortunately, dogs are not cars but living breathing creatures. While a rare car can be repaired and upgraded to a good standard if it is in a poor state, a dog is what it is and if it's a poor specimen it can't be fixed. It really surprises me that people simply take the word of the person trying to sell them a dog as gospel. Sure, there are some colours and markings that I am partial to and have a preference for but to breed specifically for that one trait is simply asking for a whole range of issues to potentially come back and bite you in the future, and in any case it's totally against the ethics associated with purebred breeding - it's about breeding a specimen that meets the standard - if you are focussing only on colour in breeding, you simply can't claim that you are doing this.