Blackdogs

I never expected to see such a controversial statement on this board. However, you express my views perfectly.

Oh that is terrible. Were the intruders armed?

Bingo! :D

But do you mean by this that you work from home? If so, should not the categories still be inclusive of this? No, i don't work from the home. I'm currently not working by choice. So that means you are unemployed. Unemployed simply means that you are not employed, not that you are looking for and unable to obtain work.

But do you mean by this that you work from home? If so, should not the categories still be inclusive of this?

Done. Now I wonder if you can edit your poll response.

Good point. Let me see if I can edit this.

Apparently I can only do three questions! :laugh: Casual interests prompts this poll. Fill it out if you're interested too!

I'll explain it to you in non-patronising, non-judgemental terms, because no doubt, you simply don't undersrand the way the show world works, and that's ok, most people don't. :) There is a gross canine overpopulation problem resulting in thousands of doggy deaths a year. There simply aren't enough homes to go around. This is why most people should abstain from breeding, because when one breeds they simply add to the problem. However, if everyone stopped breeding to ameliorate this problem there would be no dogs pretty quickly! So who should breed and why? Well, purebreed dogs are very important, because without them we would not be able to select a dog in accordance with our needs. Purebred dogs generally have predictable breed traits, including temperament and physical qualities. This means that a family who wants a laid back, small dog because they don't have the strength, time or energy to deal with a more powerful or active type can select a paticular breed to suit their needs. This leads to greater success in long-term placement, fewer trips to the pound and an abundance of great human/dog relationships. However, you can't just breed any purebred dog to any other purebred dog, because the objective of breeding is to better the breed - that is to to stay as close as possible to the stated breed requirements, so you have to breed together two dogs that complement each other. Conformation (having your dog judged by an expert as to its structural quality in the showring) is the way in which bettering the breed is achieved. If a dog with very good traits is bred to another dog with very good traits there is an opportunity to improve the breed. So. What the breeder is trying to do here is give you the opportunity to breed your dog in the right way. If your dog is deemed by a judge to be worthy of bettering the breed then you can find a mate that complements your dog in order to improve the line. Without this objective, you're just another person breeding for your own personal reasons, contributing to the pet overpopulation problem and giving the breeder a bad name for doing so. I hope this made sense. If you would like to ask any questions I am happy to answer them. :)

:rofl: changes were happening long before her TV rant. Really? Do you have link? go and look at the old news reports on the kennel club website, plenty info on there if you choose to look. So you don't think that awareness raised and the consequent pressure on the Kennel Club went any way towards expediting programmes and plans for breed health improvement?

:rofl: changes were happening long before her TV rant. Really? Do you have link? Yes & what about her lies ,the stand out was the article regarding the big winning Shar Pei . Changes are good but they where being done a long time before hand after all new testing for many issues have only appeared in the last few years . In 2 of the breeds im heavily involved with last year was the first time you could test for a certain health issue a massive step forward but we can only go as quick as the tests made available & with this test we have to send it overseas to get it done . Opportunities to use MRI 's & the likes have become a new tool to fight certain issues & it comes at great expense too . Not every state in Australia has many of the testing facilities available,i now i had to make the most of a trip east to get one of my dogs tested for an issue that affects the breed . There are many good breeders begging & pleading with certain services to be more available in some states & have testing days maybe 1 or twice a year with very limited spots certainly not enough to to test all & often funded by those people to fly testers over or pay the daily fee some charge. People shouldn't be bitching about the breeders one should look at the Veterinary world & ask why they expect so much from breeders yet don't offer the services to assist ,it cuts both ways I'm not sure I would classify it as 'bitching'. I'd say 'raising awareness' and 'showing concern'. I can unerstand why breeders would get defensive about her work, though. Not all breeders are as willing to test as you are. It's definitely of concern that important tests are not widely available.

In that case, it would make sense for shelters and breeders to look very carefully at people's rental contracts before selling them a dog or pup. Do you really think someone with a dozen cats and a few dogs should be able to withhold that information on a rental application? Do you really think it should be illegal to ban pets in a large, hi-rise apartment complex with no parks nearby? Do you really think a community where the grounds are unfenced and a gardener is hired to keep them stunning should be forced to accept digging puppies who get the zoomies and trample the flower beds? Remember that story back a few months ago where three APBTS kept in a 3rd floor apartment in a drug-ridden slum killed a toddler who was saying the same apartment. A variety of neighbors stated that people had been pressuring slumlords to ban pet ownership because the slum dwellers tended to go for fighting dogs, and didn't pick up the dog pooh. "You break it, you pay for it" sounds great, until you try to enforce it. Lots of renters have the means to skip town, but lack the means to pay. Plus, someone with a dozen cats probably can't smell l'eau de catbox that tends to permeate everything where a large number of cats are kept in a small house . . . so in their books they have done no damage, while the landlord ends out with a house that is going to need a lot of work to get rid of the smell. I'm hoping, in my next transition, to end out with a semi-rural property with two rentals specifically set up for people with dogs . . . washable wainscoating, concrete floors, lockable doggie doors, and large secure yards. Where such an investment hasn't been made, I would only rent to people with very well trained and low energy dogs, or people without pets. Yes, I really think all that. Contracts should be written to cover gardens, odour and anything else that deminishes the value of the property. If people break the law by fighting dogs and neglecting to pick up faeces, then they should be prosecuted. It has nothing to do with the landlord and these people would probably own dogs regardless of whether not it was permitted. Renters can skip town, neglect to pay etc, for any kind of damage. This is a problem with enforcement and needs review. Again, I think pet ownership is irrelevant to this.

After working 3 jobs at once to save to afford my investment property I think I have every right to say what potential tennants have in MY home. Personally I really like the idea of a pet bond but think it should be more in the vacinity of $1000-$2000 to cover potenital damages. We had a tenant who fell behind in her rent by the time she was evicted (so that used up the bond)and discovered she had 2 large dogs (which being nice - never again) which we said were fine to stay so long as she repaired any damaged done by them. When she moved out the dogs had done almost $2500 worth of damage I think if landlords are forced to accept tenants with animals then perhaps there may be a few less rental properties available. That's hilarious. The person paying the mortgage has every right to be given applications by the property manager and say No, No, No, No...this one looks good - young professional non smoking skippy couple with no children and no animals. Accept it. The more demands that are placed on investment owners, the faster they'll ditch their investment properties and sink their money into something else. Then tenants will really have something to complain about. And then let's see them complain there's nothing available to rent... I've had tenants where just one of the parents earnt more than I did, so I was surprised they didn't purchase their own. I worked hard and saved hard, but it's not impossible. Turns out when I went to do a repair on something, their kids had EVERY toy they ever wanted, the house was PACKED and looked horrid. Each to their own, I just rent it out, I don't dictate how someone should live. I currently rent to a family with 4 kids and an ACD - rent is paid, and PM says property is in good order, though I'm scant to believe that myself as I am yet to find a PM I can trust sufficiently. YES. Panto has one... my friends think it's hilarious, then they sheepishly ask if they can copy it because they would like to move somewhere pet friendly :laugh: That's a total load of BS. It's tenants not prioritising things in the right order - like living a little further away or looking just that bit harder. It's not not being able to find, it's not trying hard enough. Unless it's someone with health issues that needs to be very close to a particular hospital (or other such circumstance), it's not that hard. And if its because they've got a bad credit/rental history, and get knocked back from the pet friendly rentals, then that's the reason, and not because there isn't pet friendly rentals available. As someone who has looked for some time for a suitable property, I don't agree.

:rofl: changes were happening long before her TV rant. Really? Do you have link?

Obviously Terrierman is not a fan of the Kennel Club - seems he has some very definite opinions but are they really of relevance to what the objective of the film is or is there some old wounds. My favorite critisism is that he felt the Kennel Club was an Aryan grouping.....only white people showing dogs? mmmmmmm strange thought Surely this film could be looked as a step forward, at least they are looking at themselves. I thought that was a little odd as well. Racism whether it exists or not is kind of besides the point. However, although I don't agree with everything he says and he does seem to have a chip on his shoulder, he does raise some other valid points. If the changes mentioned in the video are actually taking place effectively and progress is being made then that is fantastic. I think it's important to bear in mind the timing of the vid, though. PR projects can't always be relied upon to be reflective of reality. :)

In my opinion, I don't think tenants should be forced to disclose whether or not they have pets. This would end any discrimination. Instead, it should be a simple matter of 'you break it, you pay for it' regardless of pet status. Tenants not being able to find a rental property that allows pets accounts for an enormous number of shelter surrenders.

An interesting response to the short film can be found here Excerpt:

Very interesting. Thanks for posting. :) I would like to see these changes take place globally and be implemented effectively. Well done, Jemima Harrison, for inspiring change.

Not a breeder, but I've rehomed a few rescue animals. I dislike it when the adoptee answers minimally when asked to tell me a bit about themselves. Then when they get offended at more specific questions. When they tell me horror stories about their last animals involving irresponsibility. I had one guy come to pick up a kitten. He seemed fine over email/phone, though lacked knowledge in some areas. As a standard practice, I go through worming, flea treatment, FIV/FELV, diet etc, on collection and give them a sample bag. When I tried to do this with this guy he completely tuned out, looked around the room, kept giving me placating phrases and body language and seemed eager to pay and leave. By the time I'd finished going through vaccinations he seemed downright offended that I would waste his time (important looking businessman) and told me curtly "I'm sure we will be fine", then rose to leave! That anoyed me.

Not foolproof, but maybe worth considering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_gastropexy

Chesapeake Bay Retrievers? Weimaraners show more protective qualities than GSP's or Pointers. Is there a particular look you are after?

I don't think you ever get over it. It's now 3 years and 4 months since I lost Sophie after her battle with cancer. I think of her and miss her every day. I couldn't watch that video. When I think of Sophie's last minutes I still feel the sting of tears. Death can't take my love for her away from me though. Losing her was a life changing event for me. R.I.P Oden I think it depends on the individual and how they respond to grief. I don't think you ever stop missing your dog, but the pain decreases over time. I can look back now and appreciate the good things about my last dog's relationship with me, rather than dwell on the fact that she's not with me anymore. When I think of her now, six years on, I smile rather than cry. I'm not very religious, but I do hope more than anything that there is a place where we will see each other again. That is what I cry about - the things I miss about him (and I miss him like crazy but it is early days, he only went at the end of October last year).. I miss our early morning walks - they were so slow and chilled out, I miss how happy he was playing under the sprinklers at the park, the way he used to make snuffling noises at my door to wake me up of a morning if he slept on the lounge and not with me... Gee, I could fill this whole thread up with what I miss about the old man.. All those wonderful things that used to make me smile - he bought such joy to my life... I still smile everyday about him.. I also hope there is a place where we will get to see them again.. If there IS a heaven, they ssurely would be there. Dogs are pure goodness. I'm so sorry for your loss.

You're right; s someone who witnessess euthanasias on a regular basis I can attest to the fact that grief is a very individual thing. I don't think this individual meant any disrespect to his dog by doing things the way he did; just the opposite. I think it was a beautiful tribute. However, I can understand how it would hit close to home and be disturbing to many people.

I think you raise a very valid point. In the goal to achieve a better specimen, breeders should not overlook the welfare of the individual dog.

yes I agree. Death, whether it be a person or a dog, should be a personal, diginfied thing. Not something for people to watch on youtubes (especially since there is no educational value). I see where you're coming from, but I think there is educational value. The video tends to illustrate the importance of the dog human relationship and how the life of a dog can change someone's life.