~Anne~

To my knowledge, this is correct. I'd like to hear what the case names were for any that have been successfully taken to court for breach of contract. That would be like selling a car and telling the new owners they are never to change the colour of the car wouldn't it?

I only put the cushion and cover in the machine. The external part I wash down with a hose, brush and soap. I agree about the cushions and once washed they tend to eat lumpy or thin but I put a blanket underneath them and the pugs all seem happy with that,

I have one of these that my pugs share. They come in sizes up to xlarge. I like that they are washable and durable. It has soft sides that hold their shape and a removable cushion with a washable cover inside it. I purchased a couple of extra cushions with covers, one in a faux lambswool and the other two with a cotton cover. I have had it now for 2 yeas and despite weekly washing of the cushions and monthly of the external bit it is still going strong.

Hilarious and so typical. :laugh: I agree that this thread should moved to suggestions. It's clogging up an area that is otherwise usually reserved for things more worthy of discussion. I think the palliative care and aged threads are just fine they way they are and obviously many others do too given that they are used. Sheridan, go find someone else to be argumentative about.

Well said Bindo. I agree with what you have written. It is a more intimate forum and like a small And I think that, if people want more responses then they're free to post in more general areas.

I think the forums are fine the way they are. It is a choice as has been said. I chose to post in that area because it was specific to my needs at the time. The same as when I post in off topic or any other specific area. If people who are posting are not getting responses, and that concerns them, then surely they'd just post elsewhere.

You could be right. As I said, it is only my understanding of it. I know that some vaccines against bacteria aren't actually protecting against the bacteria but the toxins the bacteria generates. Maybe ohocolatelover can provide some input as she seems to work in a similar field and might understand it all better.

In NSW the dog must be microchipped and registered before being released, which is enforced under the Companion Animals Act, unless it is released under a clause exemption. The exemption allows approved orgs and rescues to take the dog unregistered but it still must be chipped.

I'm so sorry. It's heartbreaking I know.

Actually, the 'strain' concept isn't entirely correct as far as I understand it. Kennel cough can be both viral and bacterial. Most of the viral elements are able to be vaccinated against although I do believe there are some viral elements that there is no current vaccine for. You cannot vaccinate against the bacterial element at all. When a dog is vaccinated against the virus, it does give protection. In many cases, more than 1 virus maybe involved at the same time. If your dog is vaccinated, it prevents the dog from suffering the full effects of the illness.

I choose not to vaccinate. In my situation, my dogs were very likely exposed to various contagious diseases when I ran my rescue and I believe this exposure, along with their annual vaccinations they received up until they were about 5 or 6 years of age (before I decided to opt out of annual vacs), has left them with a healthy immunity. I spoke at length with my vets about my decision and they were very comfortable with it although they did stress at it was important they receive the KC vaccination yearly. I must confess that I did this only twice and haven't done it since. My dogs have not had any vaccinations at all in 3 years. I do not board my dogs, they do not mix with other dogs very often any more and I am well aware of potential risks. I'm happy with my decision for my individual circumstance.

Thank you again everyone.. I find myself thinking of him a million times a day. I wonder if Olivia and Boof understand that his absence on this occasion is forever. He really was the sweetest and cuddliest of dogs. I received a beautiful card from my vets the other day.

Hi Anna, sorry I didn't realise my inbox was full. I've cleared it again. I actually have another unopened bottle of phenobarbital as well that I had momentarily forgotten about. I'll email you.

Re bolded bit. The same for me. I keep trying to think of ways I could create some thing that would be roughly the same size and texture, be able to be stored perhaps by freezing and not cost more than my weekly income.

What commercial food companies say not to mix dry with anything? Hogwash I say. I don't need to research Wikipedia or find a 'research' paper to throw 'evidence' at you to prove an invalid argument. For the one paper you've found supporting this theory I am sure there are a million more to say otherwise. You can deflect your argument seeking 'evidence' from me and it will make no difference. The argument is very weak when millions of dogs, including my own, successfully mix kibble and 'other' food and thrive. As for the counter argument about dogs being scavengers, it's no argument, it's true. It's plain to see so far in this thread that most have met your statement with strong scepticism so perhaps you should provide 'evidence' to support your theories. Why aren't my dogs having problems with digesting both dry and raw?

Adapted to what? Mixing kibble and raw? Or are you switching the focus to the argument that dry food itself, and not the mix, is wrong? Saying that a dog's digestive system can't handle the mix of raw and kibble is rubbish. Simple. If you said that some commercial foods aren't the best choice I might agree but why on earth a dog, which is essentially a scavenger, can't digest both leaves me muttering 'horsesheet' to put it bluntly. The millions of dogs, who are healthy and happy, who eat both dry and other foods are the crux of the argument. Some dogs do well on raw, some don't. Some dogs do well on commercial, some don't. As Staffyluv says, the best food for your dog is the food your dog does best on.

The benefit isn't the argument. It is the claim that a dog's digestive system cannot manage both and that it is detrimental that is on question.

But the results hybrid vigour are not something that occur within one generation. Doesn't it take repeated breeding to accurately claim hybrid vigour regardless of the species?

I think the concept of not being able to feed both raw and dry is hogwash personally. I feed cooked raw these days. One of mine cannot tolerate raw meat as well as others so we cook it. I also add a variety of vegetables and they get sardines, egg, yoghurt and other little treats separately.

Sorry for going off track.. I *think* I am getting what the crux of the discussion is meant to be about. Are you seeking discussion on what the actual physical environment should be in kennels and the conditions the animals should exist under when they are kept in kennels for breeding purposes? Ive just read another thread discussion so I I think I can see where this sprang from. We're talking grass vs concrete vs any other material types that may suit the purpose and socialisation etc - is that more on the mark?

Cute. :laugh: c'mon, you know I understand that there are breeders who are more farmers than breeders. Why don't we call it farming then? Why confuse commercial farming and breeding to produce a dog that meets a set specific criteria? Why not clarify in your first post you are talking about farming (as opposed to breeding as we consider it to be here on this purebred dog forum). In my view, and these are long held views, breeders do not need to own excessive numbers. I recognise the difficulties - attachment means you are hesitant to move them on, peer and public views consider you cold or cruel if you do, but all that aside I am not sure there are any valid reasons for breeders to have large numbers of dogs. Edited to add: :confused: what happened to your post Steve?

Why is it necessary is open to debate but reality is some people have many more than that and sometimes I think that's justified - sometimes I don't. Some of the best breeders of purebred dogs in history owned many more than 6 to 8 very few chi breeders would only own 8 but in the real world there are breeders who own too many dogs to be able to have free run of the place as every day pet dogs but there are also breeders who only own a few which could be kept in a back yard as pet dogs which have to house their 6 or 8 in conditions they would prefer they didnt. Most commercial breeders Ive spoken to have told me they would prefer to use their acreages as simulated back yards rather than have to construct traditional kennel buildings. Though what do they do with 25 or so plus litters at one time - cant see them being housed in simulated back yards while they whelp ?????? You didn't answer the question though. Why is it necessary to have 'too many' dogs. What is the benefit? If the dogs are being kept kennelled because there are 'too many' dogs to keep any other way, what is the justification for having 'too many' dogs. If there is no relevant justification then limiting the number of dogs is part way to resolving the issue isn't it? No government agency is ever going to limit numbers - breeding dogs for profit is seen as a legitimate business and is recognised by the ATO .The answer is always going to be introducing more laws and more regs to control what can and cant be done - but the problem is there is no distinction within these laws and regs which determines the difference between someone who has 2 dogs and someone who has 100 dogs. Answering why do they need or want 'too many ' is impossible due to the variables and at the end of the day you may be able to restrict too many on some properties but you will never be able to stop anyone having 'too many' to be able to live as pets especially when its not the breeder who gets to determine how many is 'too many' to live that way. Your assumption that this is necessary if the breeder has too many isnt the case its what is required for breeding dogs regardless of if there is too many for them to be treated and live like pets or not. Correct me if I am wrong. You're saying that the taxation system in this country recognises that commercial breeding of canines is acceptable and this will not change and therefore you are asking what is acceptable housing for dogs being farmed? In my view nothing is acceptable because I don't accept canines as being animals that should be farmed. If 'breeders' are farming, they're not breeders they're farmers. Farming animals for food to sustain life is one thing. Farming animals purely for pleasure of humans is another. So, we have two different subjects in my view. Perhaps I'm missing something? Farming and breeding purebred dogs to me is like apples and oranges.

What lovely sentiments you have expressed in your poem. Although no-one expressed such sentiments to me on the recent passing of my Monte Bear I sometimes felt they may have been thinking that.

I'm not sure if anyone needs them but I have an almost full bottle of 30mg (phenobarbital) Phenomav that I am sad to say I no longer need. I also have a small number of Frudix tabs and injectable Valium (5mg) which is about half full. I also have almost full packet of Keppra tabs. I am not sure the Valium would be safe or legal for post?? I'd prefer pick up anyway as I have never felt comfortable with posting drugs even within regulations. Please let me know if you are interested and we can work out a way of delivering them or collecting them through the various networks available.

Why is it necessary is open to debate but reality is some people have many more than that and sometimes I think that's justified - sometimes I don't. Some of the best breeders of purebred dogs in history owned many more than 6 to 8 very few chi breeders would only own 8 but in the real world there are breeders who own too many dogs to be able to have free run of the place as every day pet dogs but there are also breeders who only own a few which could be kept in a back yard as pet dogs which have to house their 6 or 8 in conditions they would prefer they didnt. Most commercial breeders Ive spoken to have told me they would prefer to use their acreages as simulated back yards rather than have to construct traditional kennel buildings. Though what do they do with 25 or so plus litters at one time - cant see them being housed in simulated back yards while they whelp ?????? You didn't answer the question though. Why is it necessary to have 'too many' dogs. What is the benefit? If the dogs are being kept kennelled because there are 'too many' dogs to keep any other way, what is the justification for having 'too many' dogs. If there is no relevant justification then limiting the number of dogs is part way to resolving the issue isn't it?