Mille

Even if the evidence is not accepted, it will lead to another round of media reporting and re-fresh the public's memory. So will each of the investigations under way. It is like shining a light under a rock. Oh joy for an industry used to getting its own way through the cover provided by the various gaming ministers. Lyn White's report on News media today says it all.

Whippet if thats true then the whole industry must become heavily government regulated or completely shut-down - preferably the latter. Any form of dog racing is now illegal in 39 states in the US - its time for us to go the same way. High time -- evidenced by the proof exposed on Four Corners.

The ABC did do a story last year on greyhound wastage, people were outraged at the death of thousands of greyhounds for about 5 minutes and then it was business as usual Yes, but this time there are names attached to those who are doing this and indisputable evidence available. It is up to every one of us to make sure it isn't just business as usual - now we all know the truth. Well said Sign petitions and participate in objections at animalsaustralia.org & RSPCA.org.au also ABC.net.au Four Corners very interested in any information.

I have twice tried to respond to the survey on the link provided on the home page but it keeps timing out preventing any input.

My ProDen from UK has just been seized by DAFF customs as not meeting Australian quarantine requirements.

Keep it somewhere safe. When they total 100 points (and assuming enough of then have come after the dog has turned twelve months) you will need to provide them and enter all of their details onto a form to have the dog's Champion title issued. And then the Grand Champion when/if you get to 1000 (plus 4 BIG or a BIS). What if all records and certificates are lost e.g. fire/flood? Does any registry exist where points can be verified? Thanks.

Meant to, I think, is the operative phrase there. It is the judges' prerogative to withhold if entrants are deemed unworthy. And some dogs don't get shown at all, some of whom are brilliant examples of their breed. I don't want to get into the regular round of 'if you don't show, you're a puppyfarmer' nonsense because that's precisely what that argument is, but showing doesn't indicate brilliant dogs, it indicates what dogs show up. Sometimes they're brilliant dogs. True, better examples might never be shown but I would choose from a line of winners for a show prospect. The dog show system is not without flaws, like anything human. Shows always produce more sour grapes than sweet ones too.

Meant to, I think, is the operative phrase there. It is the judges' prerogative to withhold if entrants are deemed unworthy.

I don't use it. People don't like being treated like idiots. I wouldn't buy a dog on limited register, and I don't put them on the limited register before I send them to homes. If you can't trust the people they are homed with, then don't send them there. Px Pardon me but are you really going to put inferior stock on the main register. If you do you will not have much credibility with other breeders for long. That's why we have the Limited register so puppies that are not show quality can go it and not be shown as the REAL thing. No wonder we have people complaining about the ethics of SOME breeders. Dog shows are meant to decide what is 'best' - titles are awarded as proof.

I don't use it. People don't like being treated like idiots. I wouldn't buy a dog on limited register, and I don't put them on the limited register before I send them to homes. If you can't trust the people they are homed with, then don't send them there. Px I agree. Purebred dog ownership should be encouraged, people should not feel excluded by limitations. Most people do make responsible decisions. Those who do not, will not be stopped by limited register. Everyone started somewhere - many big timers would have begun with a dream of owning a purebred dog of their own. Also, experienced long term (purebred dog)owners are not all above reproach.

Tralee said people don't like being treated like idiots - I agree with that fact. It would not matter how many puppies were bred, that fact remains true.

Precisely the sort of conditions why I won't co-own. The breeder can trust me or not when it comes to owning a dog and I'm not there just to look after their dog for them. A dog lives with me, it's my dog and I have the say over what the dog does and where it goes. I agree. You buy the dog - its your dog. You sell the dog - its not your dog.

I am still trying for a reasonable contract. Thanks Everyone for entering the debate. I will limit further reply, at the risk of repeating all ad nauseum. Feel free to PM me if you like.

It seems reduced to that.

I agree , however, the agreement to lease the bitch has already been made and the mating has already been done. It appears though the SDO has agreed to allow Millie to use her own prefix which means she will need the service certificate but with no money changing hands the service certificate may not be handed to her until the pick pup has been chosen and in their possession. Signing the service certificate at time of mating and giving it to the bitch owner is two different things and still keeps the SDO within the regs. Fact is some stud dog owners do have conditions in place for people who are using dogs at stud - most in my opinion are unreasonable because I believe that the only issue for the sdo should be whether they think the dog is suitable and that it is registered and so is the owner. If the bitch owner doesnt agree they simply dont use the dog at stud.Where this one has blown up is because the conditions were not discussed and agreed upon and signed off on before the mating took place. These conditions - though unreasonable in my opinion, are probably quite the norm for the SDO and as the SDO they are entitled to place thiose conditions on. In all probability the reason these werent discussed pre mating is because they thought the dog would be leased to them and therefore it would be in their control anyway and not something which should concern or be approved by the owner. its only changed because the owner now doesnt want to lease the bitch but at the time of the mating she did. +1 All this discussion goes to show is, get it down on paper before ANY matings ever take place. Don't forget the owner of the bitch had a good deal going if she had kept her word and leased the bitch. All the bitches prior owner had to do was feed the bitch and pups(these were her conditions) and then she reaped the reward of the sale price for all the pups but one. Don't forget people the owner of the bitch IS the one responsable for all the fees no matter what either party may THINK, unless separate arrangements are made and recorded. Keeping word works both ways. I had it all down on paper before any matings took place. The dog people offered no contract. I TRIED to reach a contractual agreement.

I don't know what anyone else would feel comfortable with, but I could not agree to lease my bitch without a written contract, agreed, signed by both parties, witnessed preferably by a JP. That is the reason the bitch is NOT LEASED to the SDO. The dog people ASKED me to apply to have the litter in my own prefix. They pointed out a loophole between 2 Dog Q rules that would facilitate applying for a prefix after a mating. I have it in writing via email. The dog people have just since emailed saying quote "the litter registration/service certificate can be signed by [dog owner] once you have completed it with puppy details etc. when registering the pups & he can do that when he comes up to look at the litter to choose his pup" Apart from no specified time frame, they can withhold signing for any reason.

If the dog owner presumed the whole litter would be his, why ask me for PICK OF LITTER?

Hopefully Dogs Q can convince him that he must sign the certificate. Have you explained the current situation to them? I would be taking everything into consideration right now and weighing up whether it is best to abort the pups rather than have to deal with this person any longer. I think you are lucky he never bothered to do the lease paperwork. But the stud dog owner allowed the mating on the premise that the bitch would be leased even if the paper work wasnt done there was still a verbal contract. If the stud dog owner had honoured the VERBAL CONTRACT there would not be a problem. Also the original request for pick of litter did not stipulate leasing the bitch. It was decided later since his prefix is synonymous with whippets. I have it in writing that any lease was to be IN NAME ONLY.

Hopefully Dogs Q can convince him that he must sign the certificate. Have you explained the current situation to them? I would be taking everything into consideration right now and weighing up whether it is best to abort the pups rather than have to deal with this person any longer. I think you are lucky he never bothered to do the lease paperwork. I explained it to Dogs Q when asking for a late prefix application. I also sent it in writing to Dogs Q. Aborting might only limit the number of puppies. She might still have one puppy also whippets are more susceptible to drugs than other breeds. I do thank goodness I was not able to send the transfer of lease in, I would have sent it in if he had signed it.

My bitch was never to leave my keeping or my property, that is why he brought the dog to my property for the mating. I was to handle the whelping and litter, meet all costs and work. The dog owner said he did not want a percentage of sales but would pass on any enquiries he might get for puppies. He only wanted first pick of the litter. He said he had no experience with whelping a litter, whereas I have worked in a veterinary field that including a lot of dog work. I took that to mean he did not expect to handle the litter.

My bitch is still in my name. She has not been leased, firstly because the dog owner failed to sign anything at all including the transfer of lease. He did not sign anything because, he said, he wanted to 'run it by his partner'. I wanted the documents signed but there was no argument or ill feeling when he left my property. Yet 5 days AFTER THE MATING it was demanded that the entire litter be de-sexed except pick of litter, which they said, could not be decided for months (unspecified time). Only AFTER THE MATING the dog owner said he did not want anyone 'making a profit' from his prefix. These people, the dog owner and his dog show partner, enjoyed the hospitality of my home, there was plenty of discussion about puppies, they knew I had plans for my share of litter, it followed I expected autonomy over my share of litter whether they leased my bitch or not. There is a lot more I could add but suffice to say, I no longer trusted this person to hold a lease on my bitch and he refused to accept any service fee in lieu. I offered to run on a short list of 3 puppies for 4 months rather than the whole litter for unspecified time. He subsequently agreed to having his pick of litter bred under another prefix as he was only precious about his prefix - not the puppies. When my bitch's breeder kindly offered use of her prefix through a lease, he refused a 'third party involvement'. He said he only agreed to a litter in my name (albeit knowing I no longer had a current prefix). In the circumstances, Dogs (Q) gave permission for a late application for my prefix. The dog owner was advised, invited to view my application and sign the service certificate....he did not reply. I enjoyed a happy pick of litter arrangement years ago. Nothing like this. Having an unregistered litter seems the lesser of two evils.

From the Dogs Qld Rule Book Rule 36f. The application for registration is accompanied by a duly completed service certificate which must be signed at the time of stud by both parties. Thank you for that legality Dracdog. So if the date signed does not coincide with the service date, registration of litter probably denied. In my case, where the stud dog owner would not sign anything, he has already waived his rights along with mine for a registered litter.

Signing a blank certificate is also dodgy. And you wouldn't allow your stud dog to mate with a bitch without knowing her details, because that would also be dodgy. Millie, a sperm count test is measured in motility. I can't recall the exact details, but there is information you can get about what figure is viable and what is probably not viable. If you are in any doubt you could ask for the actual result of the test, rather than accept an assurance that it is ok. Might be too late to do that now. The priority is getting them to sign. I will have her scanned after 28 days - do preg.scans on dogs show how many pups accurately?