moosmum

Well, yes. It's the nature of any industry where animals lose their value over time. Even in the pet industry. The issue with the original plan as I saw it was that there was too little time to wind up racing activities without making keeping healthy dogs economically possible. That's a lot of dogs that suddenly have no industry support. I understand the task force was trying to find ways to enable greyhound owners to keep their dogs, but I'm not sure they had any solutions, and it's not straight forward. Some people were just gutted. It's like, what would you do with your dogs if you were no longer allowed to do nearly all the things you currently enjoy doing with them? You and I would probably not euthanise them, but we might consider rehoming them to somewhere they might be happier if we believed there was such a place. And maybe we might shake our heads in disgust over the way some people treat their dogs, but if it suddenly looked like we might lose our dogs because of them, we might do more than shake our heads in disgust next time. I think we have to decide as a society what is acceptable. Is it okay for people to make money off dogs? Is it okay if some dogs are hurt, sometimes fatally in the process? Does how much the dog enjoys it factor? Is it okay for dogs to die in accidents if there is not big money in it? How responsible should owners be for how their dogs are cared for if they are paying someone else to care for them? Is it okay for people to rehome a dog that is not successful in their chosen pursuits? Is it okay for such dogs to be euthanised? We need to answer these questions, and not just for racing greyhounds. And if we decide something is not acceptable, then there needs to be proper support in place for the animals involved so that there are options for them to transition into another kind of life. Yes. As an inclusive society.

Thanks folks. We think he was beautiful. It was over a year ago but I could not even think back on it for nearly this long. He watched us remove so many lizards he learned to alert us to reptiles and let us handle them, tho' he was put away for that if they were likely to be aggressive types- But even slight aggression and he would be sure he was between anyone/thing else and the whatever animal it was. He was besotted with newborn foals so they couldn't have been better protected, even our other dogs would not be able to check them out for a few days, when they were over any excitement. He would do the same with any visitors who weren't invited into the yard, not aggressively, just making sure they had to get past him 1st if they weren't going to be welcomed in. We never lost a chook from our pen, but when I had one separated that night he asked to go out side NOW. When we let him out he ran 'round the front of the house and we heard his thundering run as the chook came back past him from the fox he made drop it. He was not submissive at all, but very keen to please us and all training was done off lead- sit, stay, down, heal etc. Bush walks with the kids, we told them if he had a run in with ANYTHING, not to try pulling him away or stand ther calling him, but to leave the area as they called him because he would be trying to defend THEM.

I can't sign or promote a petition that discriminates against dogs based on type, or the environment they come from and not the practices or 'ethics' of the breeder. I believe this type of continued discrimination has contributed largely to the introduction of this legislation. By promoting an expectation that only a single standardized environment can or does support good breeding practices. That is not in the best interests of pedigrees, or dogs. The only environment that could be standard to all dogs is one that does not not support their breeding.

Great. Industry will be represented, while they are part of an 'Industry' with representation. You 'might' win temporary exemptions, till those who don't care about any of it prove the exemptions aren't working. The environment a breeder works in does not govern the 'ethics' of his practices. The practices of breeders (or owners) won't improve until its practices that are promoted, rather than environments. They will decline.

I believe humanity needs dogs to keep their humanity. They and other companion animals were essential to our evolution and communities. More recent science supports that, and argues that our evolution as a species is not due to 'survival of the fittest' and domination, but through co-operation. Acceptance of diversity is needed for that. Acceptance of companion animals is part of THAT. Co- operation and diversity is being hijacked by political 'correctness'. Its correct only by the standards of those who want to dominate discussion and acceptance. Freedom of speech is essential to responsibility because you can't be responsible with out free access to any information offered. But we refuse recognition of information if we don't like where it comes from. Yes, a brilliant letter. It also applies to many people breeding dogs for purposes that have no representation. We will lose even more purpose for dogs in all this B.S.

Its also part of their responsibility. To decide and act in the best interests of that dog, or other dogs. To the best of their own ability. We forget the meaning of that word 'responsibility'. Political correctness has a lot to answer for in shutting down conversation and communication. You can't take responsibility with out the correct information, and if you can't or won't listen you don't have it. You are marginalizing groups with dismissal and ridicule. Not the way to convince any you have their best interests at heart.

Rest with our love and gratitude. A giant in all ways.

another

more

For all his bulk, he won over a woman terrified of dogs since an attack in childhood. He sensed her terror and approached as meek as a kitten ( maybe lamb is a better description :laugh: ). Blew us all away. Submissive was not his nature.

another

65 kilos. His collar size was my belt size!

Because he deserves the recognition. His lines are my heart dogs. All of them. So to Pids, for being my hero, my cuddle forever puppy dog, live stock guardian, fierce defender of the vulnerable or weak, vermin eradicator, clown, the most loyal of companions and child minder. You leave shadows every where I look to remind me you were here. Awesome! A sudden and very traumatic loss to snake bite in the line of duty at 8 yrs, 2 weeks after this picture. Love you forever and hope you feel my arms around you.

Agree. I am disgusted with the lack of leadership by people who demand 'recognition' as the 'legitimate' authority on dogs, but can't even recognize DOGS as the subject. Only pedigrees and standards. There can be NO leadership if there can be no unity. No unity with out recognition.

A lot of good intentions do seem driven to think if we can banish death and pain in one environment, that its gone. They don't look to understand the consequences. Was asked to sign a similar petition to shut down knackeries in Aus. I would have signed gladly if it were to improve over sight and conditions to try and ensure there was no pain or fear. To shut down knackeries would lead to worse conditions for many.

My boss has two and while they are stunning to look at, they are the most skittish dogs I've ever met. They were socialised and treated like normal dogs, but nobody except my boss can get near them. And if they are at the park and get a fright, they just take off. One sighthound breed that I have definitely crossed off my list! Here is my Borzoi with one of my boss' s Ibizans: Oooh but they are beautiful!

Pony foals dads. R.I.P my heros.

*squee* it's a pony! Nah, this is a pony. You just have to guess which one.

and here

and here

here

I have all I want here. Its a matter of being able to keep it.

it will be interesting to see how long it takes the dog and cat owners to wake up to the elimination of their democratic rights to innocent until proven guilty before or after these laws are passed, won't it? this is a pretty good message although its on a different subject https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/11898581_985454184830311_5714031444219459086_n.jpg?oh=fbdcfb1a3c0afd58cb0a8beedbd49408&oe=589D6FB5 Yes to the message! Taking away choice doesn't make people more responsible, it just means they have less ability to respond to the conditions that affect them as individuals. It might take people a while to wake up, It will be interesting. It will depend on how its enforced and lots of other stuff, but people are used to the idea that responsibility is for Govts. and not the people they represent. I think most will suck it up. Steve, where are are you with this? Do you think some thing like this is possible?

I have no idea how you would go about setting some thing like like this up, or what level of interest you would get. Maybe more along the lines of an 'Animal Companions Alliance' might sound more appealing? A sort of promoting mutual benefits thing. At 1st glance, a Dog breeders Union sounds more straight forward and simpler. Theres precedent. But when you think about it, Simply bringing all the various groups together in co operation is a union any way. Providing they join as individual members rather than group memberships so every one receives equal representation and recognition. More about what values you can contribute to making this work better for every one than conforming to any single group standards. So people can take responsibility from the pooled resources.

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now. We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable. Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms. Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights. Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats. They will suck that up too as a 'different' representation of their membership. One thats no longer fit for the self image of a K.C member. While The K.Cs can't recognize diversity they can't support it. If you won't support diversity, you are a barrier to diversity. Which is why we are in this situation that can only get tighter while WE accept a representation from from a group that demands diversity not be recognized. They can't continue to claim they represent the interests of all dog owners if they can't recognize all dogs. They can't expect members to make use of protocols to out cross as a means of improvement, when needed, if their own statement is that such an out cross is not recognized. If you push the idea long enough that breeding dogs is a pursuit for professionals backed by 'standards' only, it should be no suprise when that pursuit becomes industrialized. So we are now an industry. It should be representative. I could support a Union. Maybe over time that could see dogs, with diverse representation, return to some semblance of a community concern with hobby interests proving best results. If you can't support diversity, you can't defend anything that threatens the identity of that statement. You are right Asal, re; professional support. Maybe a broader union definition than dog breeders? Actually ALL dog owners need to stand and be counted, I had mine as pets all my life, My Dads dog Blue guarded my cot when I was born and I never went anywhere alone, he was always beside me, it was not until I was nearly 30 I actually bred a litter. All dog owners should have the right to decide if they only want to have theirs as a pet or if they may one day decide to keep their dogs line going. Our politicians want to take that right away. There is not a dog born today that is not the legacy of those who loved and bred its parents and ancestors before it. AR want to break that chain from the past to the future. Yup. Maybe we need a companion Animal enthusiasts Union. As an errosion of rights, at its most basic, we are being denied the right to choose our own companions and act in their best interests, as individuals in our own environments. We are forced to source from a 'standard' list of acceptable candidates and keep them in 'standard' conditions deemed acceptable, but not adaptable. So when either is no longer acceptable in a changing environment, they are gone. This is NOT responsibility. Its a denial of any ability to respond. Its the only reason A.R has any influence worth mention. This is what predictability as the only valid goal does. It removes the ability to respond any other way than the Standard. It comes from recognizing nothing out side of a standard. You lose responsibility. If you lose the ability to respond you lose the ability to adapt. The 'Standard' of available response can only shrink.