m-sass

I will buy a better card and only have the one card at present, but that's what my D7000 was doing when the burst almost stopped, it was writing to the card and noticed the light on indicating that. Very funny lol, I did jump the fence to Nikon from Canon film cameras and a compact digital. If I had enough money at the time, I would have bought a Canon 7D where the Nikon D7000 sat between the 7D and 60D. A friend has a Nikon D90 which I have used a few times and liked the feel of, so we took the Nikon plunge in the end after weighing up the pros and cons.

My D7000 came with the 18-105 lens also a lens in the cheapie bracket, but it's actually a good lens, same with the 18-55 for kit lenses, I think they do a fine job. The 18-105 was just too short for capturing good doggy shots on field where the 55-200 would be a great start, enjoy :)

Lovely shots,thanks for sharing. I too was amazed at the versatility of the 70-300 lens, I love mine and apart from the weight of it, the stability without a tripod is excellent also, they are good value for money in quality versus price :)

Although we don't want our dogs to hurt another, if an off leash dog gets attacked by a dog on leash the off leash dog is at fault especially if the incident occurs in an area where dogs are required to be leashed. The owner of the off leash dog breaches leash laws, breaches the laws of effective control, breaches laws of their dog rushing/attacking another animal and the leashed dog is exempt from retaliation through the defence of provoaction, however I would be making a firm statement to the effect that the off leash dog's aggression towards my dog triggered the defensive reaction and in those circumstances, a leashed dog can't be condemned of any wrong doing regardless of size differential or injury result. This has been tested before in civil matters and the leashed dog wins the case. The only time a leashed dog is at fault causing injury is when the leashed dog has previously been declared dangerous and was exercised without a muzzle. Even if the leashed dog is massively DA, it doesn't matter, dogs unleashed at large have little rights.

Does anyone own a Nikon D7000 and experienced shutdown after about 10 shots in continous bursts? Capturing dog action, 10 odd shots is generally enough, but I took some shots for a friend with her Canon 450D last weekend and although my Nikon is faster intially, the Canon seemed to fire shots off as many as needed, but I believe the D7000 is short on buffer and wondered if anyone else had experienced it or perhaps have I got some settings wrong?

The Nikon 70-300 VRII is a much faster focusing lens than the 55-200 and 55-300. I had the same predicament what to buy in a zoom for my D7000 and went with the 70-300 with great results, although the lens is quite heavy compared with the other two. The 70-300 is an FX lens which on a DX camera like the D5100/D7000 etc is actually a 105-450, the zoom in is awesome. I have always been advised that the Nikkor lenses are better than the aftermarket Sigma etc?

I get the impression the motivation of some vets is to upsell the job........would you like fries with your burger or a thick shake, perhaps some preventative hip surgery for $3000 so she doesn't get HD oh, and you should be feeding our food we sell which is 3 times the price of an equivilent and have you seen our nice leather leashes we just got in.............makes you wonder

I had a Flat Coated Retriever in the early 80's where I think at the time there were only two or three Flatcoat breeders in the country. She was quite breed unique back then but never once in her 13 years of life did anyone correctly identify her, she was mostly indentified as a LabX or sometimes a Gordon Setter by the supposedly more breed knowledged people :laugh: a long haired Labrador or a black Golden Retriever were other indentifications she often had with people who like to guess breeds, she was a fun dog to have then in the breed identification stakes :D

Firstly you need a "proper" diagnosis from a vet experienced with the condition, I have a had a couple of HD diagnosises in the surgery over the years from over enthusiastic vet's having a guess, one was a splinter of wood between the pads on the foot making a dog limp diagnosed as HD a "good" and documented diagnosis is essential. If the dog does have a condition preventing you from using the dog for it's intended purpose like breeding, then the breeder hasn't supplied a breedworthy dog and needs to compensate you in some way for that, either a refund adjustment on the purchase price or a replacement pup, however I don't believe that the breeder is responsible for funding treatment to keep the dog for a pet when buying a dog for breeding IMHO, you either fund it yourself or PTS and start again with a better breeding. Although we know and understand that with the best breeding intentions and health screening pocesses things can go wrong, but having said that, some breeders tend to like sharing the burden with the purchaser, a mentality I think is wrong. The breeding and selection of parentage and bloodlines is the breeders responsibility not the purchaser's and if the breeder messes that up from a genetic perspective, they need to sort it out with the purchaser in a proper manner.

That's true in very rare circumstances with extemely hard dogs, but it's not the norm with the average pet, most dogs will shut down with aversion and stop the aggressive behaviour fairly quickly, but smacking the dog is not the most effective way for implememting punishment based behaviour modification. I would think "extremely hard dogs" would be the least likely to respond to being hit when in a high level of arousal. Even "the average pet" would have a raised pain threshold when experiencing a high level of arousal which makes correcting them at that point useless. I wasn't talking hardness of nerve, I was talking hard in active aggression where aversion elevates aggression or creates redirected aggression, hitting or giving out hard corrections with dogs like this during an aggressive episode does make the situation worse, but there are not many dogs around like this IME is quite rare. Many assume that correcting all dogs showing aggression will make things worse, with most dogs it doesn't only the odd few.

Megan, the difference in the old days in this situation is there wasn't the litigation we have have now so if a child got bitten by a dog, not much happened, bad luck basically. Prevention was higher on the agenda back then to protect children from protential bites and some people I am sure in this day and age think having a dog owner charged and their dog PTS fixes the mess, it doesn't, and it doesn't reduce the pain and suffering one little bit for the child when the dog owner receives a fine and an order to send the offending dog to the bridge, blame and litigation for the child's sake is not of any benefit to the injured child's welfare in the slightest, so IMHO the importance is to prevent a child from suffering trauma in the first place with good parental child/dog education that most effectively creates preventative measures as the priority.

I see that remark as being rude & insensitive & quite stupid under the circumstances. Even if the child was a silly little brat that ran up to the dog, which he obviously is not, no mother with a child that is badly injured & traumatised needs to be told this or be told how to feel about the dog at this moment. Hopefully the child will come out of this ok mentally & physically & kind words to this effect is all she needs right now. The rest can be sorted later, including the fate of the dog. Agree. It is totally the dog owners responsibility. An even tempered dog doesn't just snap. If I take my dog to someone's house or stall in this case, how my dog behaves would be totally my responsibility. If there are kids around, it would be my responsibility to ensure that my dogs don't harm them. I am sorry but I disagree with that and feel in this day and age "everything" is lumped onto the dog owner where in many cases these incidents could have been avoided with some good parental education for children how to behave around other people's dogs. We don't know the exact circumstances of this case, but if the dog was leashed and under handler control, there is no need for a child to be within a close proximity of the dog with the assumption that the dog is ok. It's getting worse by the day in general where parents allow their children to rush at and want to pat everyone's dog, then blame the dog owner when it turns to s&*%. As a child, I went to many shows with my nanna, she was an exhibitor and my mum was a trainer/handler and the golden rule I was taught from an early age was to leave other people's dogs alone, don't approach them and don't pat them because they can bite. It wasn't about blame, it was about proactive bite prevention management for children in those days I am talking 40 years ago now, but the system worked and being raised to respect what a dog may be capable of and learn the truth of potential dog behaviour didn't effect me or cause me to fear dogs, quite the opposite in fact. We were taught with our own dogs never to stare them out at close range, never to blow in their face or poke at them stupidly etc, we were taught the good and bad things about dogs and to respect an unknown dog's personal space and I have to be honest to say that many of these incidents involving childen had the children been taught the old school rules that I learned, most of these incidents wouldn't have happened. Putting dogs to sleep and having dog owners charged with offences after the fact doesn't undo the pain and trauma inflicted upon a child, but preventative manangement with proper eductation does prevent many these terrible situations occurring in the first place, it's not about right or wrong, it's about protecting childen from the vulnerability of suffering injuries from dogs when we are dealing with animals who can be unpredicatable. No dog is 100% bullet proof and no child IMHO should ever be led to believe that they are for my 2 cents worth. I agree and disagree. Parents are responsible for educating their children on the appropriate way to approach and interact with dogs and need to monitor their children when they are with dogs. At the same time, a dog owner has no business taking a dog that may attack a person (child or otherwise) to a public event, especially without a muzzle. Regardless of whether the child did something that triggered the dog to attack or not, the owner of the dog had the responsibility to protect both her dog and anyone the dog may interact with. A dog that is not solid around children should not have been put in a position where it was taken in to a small, partially enclosed environment (such as a marquee) with children and the owner should not have allowed the child to approach the dog. Unless that child did something terrible like poke the dog in the eye, pull it's tail or something else to hurt it (and I find it difficult to imagine that this was the case) there is absolutely no justification for the dog attacking him and the onus of responsibility is entirely on the dog owner. I don't disagree with the situation of taking a potentially reactive dog into an area where children are if that's what happened, the dog owner in that case took a risk by doing so but on the other hand, the dog may have been at a safe distance away from the children and the child approached the dog, in that case from my childhood education, I wouldn't have done that by placing myself in a vulnerable position to get bitten, especially at shows I remember as a child when people were moving dogs around we were taught to step back out of the way. I am thinking how things have changed when we would get into massive trouble for approaching someone's dog and if children did so 40 years ago, the dog owner would abuse the child's parents for lack of parental control like a protocol of what was required on a child's part around dogs to best prevent bite potential, nowdays in many cases, children are often allowed to do as they please like "oh here comes a dog, so I will approach and pat it", we were taught to move away from the dog and give it some space. It's much easier to teach a child to keep a safe distance away from a dog than it is to teach a dog not to bite a child and if more children were taught the protocols I was taught, the less children would get bitten IMHO. I agree that people tend to blame the dog when they should blame the parents of the child for letting them approach an unknown dog however, assuming the information is correct that this dog was on a leash and by its owners side then the the onus is on the dog's owner to say "please don't approach my dog" if their dog would not be comfortable with it. Had the child run up to a dog whose owner wasn't present and able to prevent the interaction then that would be a different story. We don't know the exact details in this case, but in general my belief is that children should be taught not to approach other people's dogs in the first place. The amount of times which I might add is increasing in frequency as the years pass, mothers allowing their children to run up to unknown dog walkers to pat their dogs is such a dangerous practice that makes me shudder to think of potential consequences. The dog might be HA or fear aggressive and perhaps should wear a muzzle, but it's too late when an incident has taken place to undo the trauma suffered which could have easily been avoided with a better level of parental education. Not long ago, I had a little girl run over to me wanting to pat my dog and her mother abused me for telling her no she couldn't pat him because he has never been exposed to a little one just over head height. I don't expect my dog would bite a child, but I don't want to place myself or a child in that position, but the scary bit is, this little girl and mum were sitting on the grass 20 metres from the walk way where I was, she saw my dog, jumped up and ran straight towards me, mum sat there watching her without a word said, even if my dog play jumped, he could have knocked the little girl flat on her back or scratched her with his front paws, the little girl just kept coming at full steam until I yelled NO and then mum got up and wandered over. This type of parental education allowing children to do what happened here isn't an isolated incident and similar things have happened to me too many times. The parents who allow this behaviour seriously need to re-evaluate their child/dog education programs to prevent disasters that are waiting to happen, it's no wonder some children get bitten by dogs and the sad thing is IMHO, it's all so easily preventable.

I see that remark as being rude & insensitive & quite stupid under the circumstances. Even if the child was a silly little brat that ran up to the dog, which he obviously is not, no mother with a child that is badly injured & traumatised needs to be told this or be told how to feel about the dog at this moment. Hopefully the child will come out of this ok mentally & physically & kind words to this effect is all she needs right now. The rest can be sorted later, including the fate of the dog. Agree. It is totally the dog owners responsibility. An even tempered dog doesn't just snap. If I take my dog to someone's house or stall in this case, how my dog behaves would be totally my responsibility. If there are kids around, it would be my responsibility to ensure that my dogs don't harm them. I am sorry but I disagree with that and feel in this day and age "everything" is lumped onto the dog owner where in many cases these incidents could have been avoided with some good parental education for children how to behave around other people's dogs. We don't know the exact circumstances of this case, but if the dog was leashed and under handler control, there is no need for a child to be within a close proximity of the dog with the assumption that the dog is ok. It's getting worse by the day in general where parents allow their children to rush at and want to pat everyone's dog, then blame the dog owner when it turns to s&*%. As a child, I went to many shows with my nanna, she was an exhibitor and my mum was a trainer/handler and the golden rule I was taught from an early age was to leave other people's dogs alone, don't approach them and don't pat them because they can bite. It wasn't about blame, it was about proactive bite prevention management for children in those days I am talking 40 years ago now, but the system worked and being raised to respect what a dog may be capable of and learn the truth of potential dog behaviour didn't effect me or cause me to fear dogs, quite the opposite in fact. We were taught with our own dogs never to stare them out at close range, never to blow in their face or poke at them stupidly etc, we were taught the good and bad things about dogs and to respect an unknown dog's personal space and I have to be honest to say that many of these incidents involving childen had the children been taught the old school rules that I learned, most of these incidents wouldn't have happened. Putting dogs to sleep and having dog owners charged with offences after the fact doesn't undo the pain and trauma inflicted upon a child, but preventative manangement with proper eductation does prevent many these terrible situations occurring in the first place, it's not about right or wrong, it's about protecting childen from the vulnerability of suffering injuries from dogs when we are dealing with animals who can be unpredicatable. No dog is 100% bullet proof and no child IMHO should ever be led to believe that they are for my 2 cents worth. I agree and disagree. Parents are responsible for educating their children on the appropriate way to approach and interact with dogs and need to monitor their children when they are with dogs. At the same time, a dog owner has no business taking a dog that may attack a person (child or otherwise) to a public event, especially without a muzzle. Regardless of whether the child did something that triggered the dog to attack or not, the owner of the dog had the responsibility to protect both her dog and anyone the dog may interact with. A dog that is not solid around children should not have been put in a position where it was taken in to a small, partially enclosed environment (such as a marquee) with children and the owner should not have allowed the child to approach the dog. Unless that child did something terrible like poke the dog in the eye, pull it's tail or something else to hurt it (and I find it difficult to imagine that this was the case) there is absolutely no justification for the dog attacking him and the onus of responsibility is entirely on the dog owner. I don't disagree with the situation of taking a potentially reactive dog into an area where children are if that's what happened, the dog owner in that case took a risk by doing so but on the other hand, the dog may have been at a safe distance away from the children and the child approached the dog, in that case from my childhood education, I wouldn't have done that by placing myself in a vulnerable position to get bitten, especially at shows I remember as a child when people were moving dogs around we were taught to step back out of the way. I am thinking how things have changed when we would get into massive trouble for approaching someone's dog and if children did so 40 years ago, the dog owner would abuse the child's parents for lack of parental control like a protocol of what was required on a child's part around dogs to best prevent bite potential, nowdays in many cases, children are often allowed to do as they please like "oh here comes a dog, so I will approach and pat it", we were taught to move away from the dog and give it some space. It's much easier to teach a child to keep a safe distance away from a dog than it is to teach a dog not to bite a child and if more children were taught the protocols I was taught, the less children would get bitten IMHO.

I see that remark as being rude & insensitive & quite stupid under the circumstances. Even if the child was a silly little brat that ran up to the dog, which he obviously is not, no mother with a child that is badly injured & traumatised needs to be told this or be told how to feel about the dog at this moment. Hopefully the child will come out of this ok mentally & physically & kind words to this effect is all she needs right now. The rest can be sorted later, including the fate of the dog. Agree. It is totally the dog owners responsibility. An even tempered dog doesn't just snap. If I take my dog to someone's house or stall in this case, how my dog behaves would be totally my responsibility. If there are kids around, it would be my responsibility to ensure that my dogs don't harm them. I am sorry but I disagree with that and feel in this day and age "everything" is lumped onto the dog owner where in many cases these incidents could have been avoided with some good parental education for children how to behave around other people's dogs. We don't know the exact circumstances of this case, but if the dog was leashed and under handler control, there is no need for a child to be within a close proximity of the dog with the assumption that the dog is ok. It's getting worse by the day in general where parents allow their children to rush at and want to pat everyone's dog, then blame the dog owner when it turns to s&*%. As a child, I went to many shows with my nanna, she was an exhibitor and my mum was a trainer/handler and the golden rule I was taught from an early age was to leave other people's dogs alone, don't approach them and don't pat them because they can bite. It wasn't about blame, it was about proactive bite prevention management for children in those days I am talking 40 years ago now, but the system worked and being raised to respect what a dog may be capable of and learn the truth of potential dog behaviour didn't effect me or cause me to fear dogs, quite the opposite in fact. We were taught with our own dogs never to stare them out at close range, never to blow in their face or poke at them stupidly etc, we were taught the good and bad things about dogs and to respect an unknown dog's personal space and I have to be honest to say that many of these incidents involving childen had the children been taught the old school rules that I learned, most of these incidents wouldn't have happened. Putting dogs to sleep and having dog owners charged with offences after the fact doesn't undo the pain and trauma inflicted upon a child, but preventative manangement with proper eductation does prevent many these terrible situations occurring in the first place, it's not about right or wrong, it's about protecting childen from the vulnerability of suffering injuries from dogs when we are dealing with animals who can be unpredicatable. No dog is 100% bullet proof and no child IMHO should ever be led to believe that they are for my 2 cents worth.

That's true in very rare circumstances with extemely hard dogs, but it's not the norm with the average pet, most dogs will shut down with aversion and stop the aggressive behaviour fairly quickly, but smacking the dog is not the most effective way for implememting punishment based behaviour modification.

I don't understand your point ... no one is forcing you to purchase a limited reg dog as the only option. If you want main register, go buy it and do as you want I'm sure you'll find a breeder who will sell you whatever you want with main reg. As far as making choices with 'your' dog as you see fit, the trading post is littered with people with your attitude. See how far that it got them. And you wonder why people put dogs on limited reg. You should do what is in the interest of the dog and its lines, your attitude seems to reduce animals to nothing more then an object. Will you throw it out when you get sick of it or need to update the model? And this is why any dogs I breed will come with big fat contracts, you decide to neglect the dog or breed willy nilly you will have a knock on your door. What is left of the bloodlines won't be ruined like others that are now dead due to your attitude. If a person isn't worthy enough to sell to on mains, they are not worthy enough to sell them a pup at all is my philosophy. Limited reg doesn't protect the dog from the array of other dispicable events that can happen when selling to the wrong people, willy nilly breeding possibilities is only a minor part of the big picture IMHO

Everyone has their ethics questioned at some point, that's just life in dogs. The key point at issue is whether your practices stand up to reasonable questioning or not. There are people who sell on mains to people that everyone else will not sell to, and that is not something you could describe as being in the dogs' best interests. And yes there are people that will not sell on main to God himself but that doesn't make selling on main to anyone who comes along some kind of virtue. It's just a signal, among all the other signals out there about which breeders you can envisage buying from and which you cannot. When it boils down to comments like this in a gerneralised sense: The point I am making is that people start to believe that the limited reg routine is how things are supposed be done which it isn't, there is absoultely nothing other than a trend set by breeders I term control freaks in the scheme of ethical breeding practices that requires pups for the pet market to registered on limited unless there is serious breed fault evident at the time of registration would be an exception. Personally I would be more cautious of breeders selling supposedly quality pups on limited, are they perhaps not breedworthy examples with non disclosed faults? or if they are breedworthy examples on limited, the breeder is already pulling stunts to restrict your rights of owning a pup with a registered pedigree. I disagree with assumptions that caution should prevail in regard to breeders selling on mains and would advise prospective puppy buyers myself personally to the contrary.

How would they enforce that? I don't think they could. Giving breeders the option of selling pet quality puppies on limited is better than some of the alternatives for breeders that produce some pups that are not quite up to breeding standard. I totally agree that pups not quite up to breeding standard is the purpose of the limited register, however not all breeders use the limited register for that reason and a simple test of that is asking a breeder if the pups sold on limited are lacking in breed quality and the answer is usually something like this

Perhaps you should lodge a complaint against them with their kennel council for doing so, except they are in breach of what exactly??

Breeders don't sell on limited reg to stop BYB's and puppy farmers that's the reason given to excuse the practice of controlling someone elses property. They sell on limited reg to prevent you breeding with their bloodlines for two reasons generally. One reason especially in the show scene, they don't want to get beaten by another kennel establishing a better line on the original kennels dogs, and the other reason is producing substandard progeny with their dogs in the pedigree so inexperienced breeders don't use a good male over a poor bitch and produce poor pups for people to say that XYZ kennel's stud is a poor producer. Limited reg is about "control" for the most part, to control who has the rights of owning a pedigree dog and who doesn't for my opinion on the matter. A quality litter should be sold on mains and no rules within the ANKC structure suggests otherwise, the limited reg thing is merely a trend for control freaks misconstrude as ethical breeding practices directed towards people naive enough to accept it. I sell my pup on limited to try to protect them from being used by BYB - unfortunately I failed and have been screwed over a pup that was sold on a desex contract on limited registration. Personally I don't give a fat rats ares if you think that makes me a control freak for trying to protect my pups from pricks who only see them as a cash cow... Your comment is very distasteful and disgusting.. So why haven't the ANKC addressed this supposedly "major issue" demanding that pet puppies be registered on limited, given that they don't and neither do they proclaim this should be the case, until the ANKC step in and make this trend a mandatory practice, to me it's a load of nonesense. What annoys me more than anything else is breeders who sell on mains "as they should" is people questioning their ethics for selling on mains, WTF is this all about

If you like the idea of other people taking control of what is righfully yours then I guess the limited reg is perfect for those people, I don't like that idea personally and owning a pedigree dog I prefer "all" the rights associated with owning dog of a registered pedigree with the freedom to make the choices with "my" dog as I see fit. If a breeder wants control over my dog, how about they pay half it's care and upkeep too IMHO, there needs to be a "deal" on limited reg dogs like the days when you either bought papered or not, unpapered were at times half price and were still technically a pedigree dog and the buyer had the choice papered or not. Limited reg, desexing contracts, co-ownerships on mains etc etc I think is getting out of control to be honest

SIGH, you may as well do this. The same people who are asking for this poor dog to get a chance & saying the breed shouldn't be reported in the media, are the same ones who have a different opinion when it comes to "other breeds". The media will go out of their way to try & pin all attacks on certain breeds, because it whips up hysteria & gets them better ratings. Unfortunately not much mileage out of a cute family dog attack. Have to agree, while I'm happy for any dog to get a second chance, there seems to be some pretty clear double standards at work. Case 1: Pit Bull x attacks small child - dog is PTS and all Pit Bull types banned Case 2: Goldie attacks it's own family - gets training and a nice new home.... Perhaps this happens because Pitbull's are restricted breeds already and Goldies aren't? Whether it's right or wrong for Pitbulls to be rectricted or not is a different debate, the fact is they are and have been for years in most council areas throughout Australia, so a Pitbull is not on the same level of playing field legality wise as non the restricted breeds. It's human nature for people to think a Goldie should get a second chance given the amount of them owned as family pets and renowned for having a friendly and placid nature.

Breeders don't sell on limited reg to stop BYB's and puppy farmers that's the reason given to excuse the practice of controlling someone elses property. They sell on limited reg to prevent you breeding with their bloodlines for two reasons generally. One reason especially in the show scene, they don't want to get beaten by another kennel establishing a better line on the original kennels dogs, and the other reason is producing substandard progeny with their dogs in the pedigree so inexperienced breeders don't use a good male over a poor bitch and produce poor pups for people to say that XYZ kennel's stud is a poor producer. Limited reg is about "control" for the most part, to control who has the rights of owning a pedigree dog and who doesn't for my opinion on the matter. A quality litter should be sold on mains and no rules within the ANKC structure suggests otherwise, the limited reg thing is merely a trend for control freaks misconstrude as ethical breeding practices directed towards people naive enough to accept it.

Doesn't the legislation permit breed determination by a vet? Ultimately as I understand it, if you could find a vet to declare in their professional opinion the dog is not a restricted breed such a declaration will rectify the situation is that correct?

After a report is received, the outcome of an investigation process into the alledged incident determines the grounds on which a seizure is justified. Council doesn't just knock on your door and request to seize your dog for a rushing incident that supposedly happened yesterday. You could say to council that my dog and I were at nanna's place all day yesterday and I have 14 wintesses to verify that, the dog involved in this alledged incident wasn't my dog, then council would be required to consider that evidence in the balance of other evidence compiled regarding the case.