smacka

And conceals so much of a correct neck that the head looks to be sitting directly on the shoulders..... No one can show everywhere of course, but where I participate most aren't using the stafford collars these days. Snake chains, check chains & sprenger martingales seem to the collars of choice. These types held under the jaw give an unimpeded view of the dog profile on the stack. I have about six stafford collars rolling around the bottom of my tack box that hardly ever see the light of day any more.

I am a relative newbie to dog showing but showed horses for more years than you have shown dogs . It is your type of sarcastic and derisive postings that has kept me reading rather than posting very much in the 3 years since I joined this site. If you can be so sarcastic and unpleasant to like minded people having a conversation , I can not see how you can be so disbelieving that people can encounter such rudeness at a show to people they do not know. Sceptical? Guilty as charged. I am somewhat more than sceptical that an exhibitor would approach & abuse an unknown member of the general public for simply quietly observing. However, if there was a history between these people one could hardly blame the show fraternity for such an outburst, could one? Sarcastic & unpleasant? Opinions may vary.

Forgive me. I surrender to the majority. Dogs shows are merely beauty contests & freak shows. How could I have been so blind for the last 25+ years.

Deary, deary, deary. Please read the posts in sequence, before commenting. Is that to much to ask?

Gayle. I make no apologies for defending my hobby against what I consider spurious & depreciating falsehoods. Beauty pageants? freak shows?....come on! Such uninformed insults need to be challenged. Or do you think that grin & bear it is the best strategy? Head in the sand & it will just go away? Also me thinks you should actually read the posts in sequence & in their entirety to get your facts straight before commenting/attacking. Never once have I condoned poor behaviour, nor did I accuse Trisven of trash talking. Such miscomprehension & accusation are but a classic example of the misrepresentationism that is blighting the hobby in general. Which, unfortunately, is typical. I also find your ''you don't belong here'' story very difficult to accept without a wrinkling my brow & raising my eyebrows. Very difficult. Exhibitor V exhibitor animosity on display I can agree with. Personality conflicts & all that. One sees or hears of such behaviour often. As one would at every other sport/pastime/hobby where humans gather for competition. Bitching & whinging are not the sole domain of dog shows. Go to a kids footy game for a real education in A grade whinging & bitching. But such an unprovoked assault on a visiting spectator quietly observing? I have never ever even heard of such a thing.

So you mustn't think my reply had any credibility? That's interesting. You must agree with the antiquated, beauty pageant, freak show comments? That's interesting also. Glad you enjoy the scene though. Which is really interesting, if the above is true. Many decades of dedicated, ethical people have made it possible for you enjoy the benefits of their dedication. I take exception to people who don't understand or respect that dedication by posting such trash talk in a Show forum at a pure breed site. The ignorance of your average joe in the pub? It happens. Although I find more interest than ignorance. Probably my breed though. Terriers do have a special appeal. ( & I'm not exactly a stranger to having a libation or six) Men in beacon suits with hairdresser dogs certainly do draw some curious comments I must admit. But hey, Live & let live. But why do they wear that stuff? Makes me cringe,just a little,I must admit. Just my thoughts.

Of course there's such a thing. Some ANKC recognised purebreds were once crosses. The Boxers gained a bob-tailed gene from clever crossing with Corgis, and after some number of generations crossing back to purebred Boxers, they gained the title of "purebred" again. What most people have an issue with is the advertising associated with the crossbreeds and the fact that crossbreeds seem to majorily come from unethical breeders (backyard or puppy farm) who don't health test. That's the very basic jist of it. It's not all of it, but the two main ones. There is a big difference between purposely cross breeding to establish a certain breed than cross breeding (eg "oodles") just for the sake of it, mostly by puppy farmers. They are not interested in recording, establishing a new breed for a specific purpose, and wanting to have that breed recognised by canine authorities. Yes, a large number of our present day pedigree pure breed dogs come from mixtures, but that was done in most cases to establish a breed for a certain job or service, and records were carefully kept on the progress of the generations to enable registration as a pure breed. I hardly think one can compare today's mongrels with yesterday's method of establishing a breed. Um. Nobody's arguing that. She asked if there was such a thing as multi-generational crosses and indeed there are. Purebreds of today were once "multi generational crosses". Remember, it's just a label to describe crossing towards another cross of the same type multiple times in a row, nothing more. It's not comparing it to the "worthiness" of ye olde days of crossbreeding dogs compared to today's. Just a definition, don't need to get fired up A ''pure breed'' is a breed that breeds true to type everytime. Not all pure breeds are ANKC registered. Isolation will eventually produce pure breeds. Man doesn't necessarily need to play a part. The only ''designer'' pure breed I can think of off hand, bred as a cosmetic accessory, is the Bull Terrier. The Dobermann was purpose bred. The remainder, or most of them at least, are ''refinements'' of already existing types. The boxer/corgi cross was an abomination against the sanctity of the genuine pure breed dog. The progeny were crossbreeds & should never, ever, have found their way onto a pure breed register. As soon as the cross was make the line should have been terminated. Smart breeding? No way. Mongrel breeding is all. Borgis or coxers, take your pick.BTW Jack Russell Terriers aren't recognised as a pure breed by the K.C & therefore aren't listed on that pure breed register. Just thought I'd throw that in as a bit of useless information. hmmm well if you think about it mathematically there comes a point when they are back to being 100% Boxer. If you think about it logically, as soon as they cross bred, the line was broken, finished, kaput, that's all she wrote. Instead it just continued on with no mention of the corgis in the pedigree. So much for the British K.C. & their pure breed registery. Pathetic. Sacrificed integrity for a purely cosmetic outcome. Double pathetic.

http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breed/Default.aspx?group=TERR That's a British website But of course. The K.C. is the British canine body.

yes. Gold is the go. Used with a thin black lead they are attractive & unobtrusive. They don't inhibit the view of the neck & they don't get caught up in the fur. 10/10 & I have never have one tangle on me.

http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breed/Default.aspx?group=TERR

Of course there's such a thing. Some ANKC recognised purebreds were once crosses. The Boxers gained a bob-tailed gene from clever crossing with Corgis, and after some number of generations crossing back to purebred Boxers, they gained the title of "purebred" again. What most people have an issue with is the advertising associated with the crossbreeds and the fact that crossbreeds seem to majorily come from unethical breeders (backyard or puppy farm) who don't health test. That's the very basic jist of it. It's not all of it, but the two main ones. There is a big difference between purposely cross breeding to establish a certain breed than cross breeding (eg "oodles") just for the sake of it, mostly by puppy farmers. They are not interested in recording, establishing a new breed for a specific purpose, and wanting to have that breed recognised by canine authorities. Yes, a large number of our present day pedigree pure breed dogs come from mixtures, but that was done in most cases to establish a breed for a certain job or service, and records were carefully kept on the progress of the generations to enable registration as a pure breed. I hardly think one can compare today's mongrels with yesterday's method of establishing a breed. Um. Nobody's arguing that. She asked if there was such a thing as multi-generational crosses and indeed there are. Purebreds of today were once "multi generational crosses". Remember, it's just a label to describe crossing towards another cross of the same type multiple times in a row, nothing more. It's not comparing it to the "worthiness" of ye olde days of crossbreeding dogs compared to today's. Just a definition, don't need to get fired up A ''pure breed'' is a breed that breeds true to type everytime. Not all pure breeds are ANKC registered. Isolation will eventually produce pure breeds. Man doesn't necessarily need to play a part. The only ''designer'' pure breed I can think of off hand, bred as a cosmetic accessory, is the Bull Terrier. The Dobermann was purpose bred. The remainder, or most of them at least, are ''refinements'' of already existing types. The boxer/corgi cross was an abomination against the sanctity of the genuine pure breed dog. The progeny were crossbreeds & should never, ever, have found their way onto a pure breed register. As soon as the cross was make the line should have been terminated. Smart breeding? No way. Mongrel breeding is all. Borgis or coxers, take your pick. BTW Jack Russell Terriers aren't recognised as a pure breed by the K.C & therefore aren't listed on that pure breed register. Just thought I'd throw that in as a bit of useless information.

I don't honestly think cost has all that much to do with it......people spending amazing amounts of money on completely stupid things, without batting an eyelid. If someone really wanted to show dogs, they'd find a way to afford it. Those here who've said cost is a factor are still showing......they might be showing less but they still find a way to afford the shows they do enter. Don't you think statement that is just a little contradictory?...... When people speak of cost I think they are talking total cost. Not just entry cost. Petrol being a biggie. Petrol being two- three times the price it was just ten years ago for .e.g. Depending where one lives fuel/food/accommodation could severely reduce the amount of shows an individual enters this days. Run a line through the 10,000+ members of Dogs NSW & the reduction in entries would be substantial. 25-30% p.a. maybe? Couple that with disenchantment & an aging demographic & think you are getting close to the mark. The Bill Spilstead complex might serve western Sydney o.k. but is a hike for everyone else. 1/2 a tank of fuel would add $30-$40 to the day. Which in turn could mean only one show that w/e where previous two days were the norm.

Interesting theory. But I think cost, dissatisfaction with the controlling bodies preoccupation with nest feathering & protecting their own against any criticism, the limited register & the sudden unpopularity of the previously docked breeds have all contributed more to the fall off more than the rise in popularity of designer mongrels.

I don't think the whinging & bitching constantly referred to here is any more,or less, than any other sport/hobby/pastime participated in by such a diverse variety of people. Some will always find something to whinge/bitch about no matter what. What is mostly being termed here as whinging & bitching is, in most cases, actually a release of frustration expressed by informed comment. The majority of breeder/exhibitors, if not all, could be correctly described as breed experts. Breed experts appreciate & admire outstanding examples of their breed. These people know the worthy winners. They also know the not so worthy.It's the awarding of the latter which sometimes results in uncomplimentary comment. If you took the time to listen and/or ask the "thë whinger" the whys & wherefores of their "whinge" you may just learn something about that particular breed. "Ïn my opinion" is incontestable & as such is open to abuse, which it often is. Too often. Hence the frustation. It has also been my experience that the majority of exhibitors are more than happy to chat about their breeds in particular & the show scene in general. There is always the exception of course, but they are in the minority, a very small minority.

If your dog looked like a ''staffy'' walked like a ''staffy'' & yodelled like a ''staffy'' they would probably concede it was a ''staffy''. (or a derivative of) Albeit unregistered & poorly bred. They would probably offer you some good advice regarding the breed to boot. Point you in the right direction so as to speak. Which is precisely why the ADBA standard has the validity to be used as an aid to I.Ding APBTs, be they well bred & well nurtured or unregistered &/or poorly bred. (Or a derivative of) I will concede the conformation of the breed in general does lend itself to doubt when declared to be of mixed breed. Anyhow, it seems pointless butting heads over whether or not a standard is an appropiate document for the purpose of breed identification. I say yes you say no. And never the twain shall meet. Is an alternative available for the Vics to apply? Utilise the Queensland 22 point check list perhaps? Now that would be an even bigger problem for the breed. It will be interesting to see if anything developes from the ADBAs declaration their breed standard isn't valid when I.Ding their breed though. Could get really interesting if they have the balls to pursue the matter. Really interesting. Messy even. Edited to add. Well bred pure breeds do fit their standards. That's the reason they are so readily identifable.

The standard is a made up ideal by people in the pure breed dogs registries to measure their dogs against. How is it the ideal IDing tool when it can encompass cross breeds of unknown origins? Actually standards are a registered blueprint for the breed faithful to BREED to. Breeders come before judges. Breeders have to know what they are supposed to be breeding. The standard is the description of the ideal example of the breed. And is a matter of public record. It's public domain. Anyone can access it & use it as a reference. In a dog show, with bona fide ethical judges, dogs are judged against the standard, not the other dogs. This would be why the ADBA lists the maximum points available for different features of the exhibits. An ethical judge who considers no exhibit satisfactorly answers the written description would just pull the pin & move on to the next class. The ADBAs attempt to disassociate their breed from their published standard as a description of their breed has no wings. No standard, no breed, pure & simple. Which, of course is the object of the exercise. Nice if it they could pull it off. Doom to failure though. IMHO Cross breeds don't have standards btw.

Sorry, but your rationale is a little leftish leaning skewywhiff. when under the pump, who in their right mind would admit, to authorities on a mission of destruction, their dog was an unregistered pure breed APBT, or even a cross of a pure breed APBT No one. No one of sound mind & body anyway. If, by some cataclysmic alignment of the planets, someone did, third party I.D. (opinion) wouldn't be necessary, would it? Which brings us full circle. Those on the other side have sought a definitive breed description to assist them in their endeavours. What could be better than the criterior by which the breed club supplies to their accredited breed judges to choose what they consider to be the as near as possible perfect representation of the breed? As previously opined. Any protest from the ADBA re the use of their written description will be just pissing into the wind. IMHO Even if we did accept that the breed standard could be applied to any dog in order to determine if it was an APBT or not (which I don't personally believe it can as the breed standard provides ideal physical characteristics for the APBT, characteristics which may fit a dog that is not an APBT), the way in which it will be used by councils to make a breed determination violates the integrity of the breed standard. A dog does not have to meet every aspect of the standard in order for a council to declare a dog to be all or part APBT, only a certain percentage of it (although I don't believe exactly how much has been made public). This means that application of the standard will not be consistent and breeds or crossbreeds of dogs who may fit only some elements of the standard, may be incorrectly declared as an APBT. Absolutely. But that isn't the discussion.

Hey, this could be the away around the BSL, if everything ending with ''oodles'' is good. How about? Pitboodles

If ''In my opinion'' decided your herding results your comparison would be valid. But it doesn't, so it's not.

Sorry, but your rationale is a little leftish leaning skewywhiff. when under the pump, who in their right mind would admit, to authorities on a mission of destruction, their dog was an unregistered pure breed APBT, or even a cross of a pure breed APBT No one. No one of sound mind & body anyway. If, by some cataclysmic alignment of the planets, someone did, third party I.D. (opinion) wouldn't be necessary, would it? Which brings us full circle. Those on the other side have sought a definitive breed description to assist them in their endeavours. What could be better than the criterior by which the breed club supplies to their accredited breed judges to choose what they consider to be the as near as possible perfect representation of the breed? As previously opined. Any protest from the ADBA re the use of their written description will be just pissing into the wind. IMHO

Staffords don't chew through their beds, they dig through them. There isn't much that can withstand an industrious stafford for very long. Anything with a weave is doomed. If you can get your hands on some used conveyor belt, you will stand a chance.

Face judging, ever escalating cost, lack of accountabilty of the ''in crowd'' together with no real vehicle for the voices of the great unwashed to be heard, or listened to. Mix well with aging exhibitors & you have the answer. the oldies slowly fade away, the youngies wont cop the corruption & find something else to suit their style.

So it would be reasonable to assume the stud fee alone would be in the vicinity of $3000? Nice work if you can get it? Do breeders work together like in most other breeds? No puppies no fee & a litter is two or more whelps? Just curious.

I did waffle off track from my original question. Which was not about BSL per se, but rather the disclaimer & attempted veto by the ADBA to prevent anyone using their own breed description as an aid to I.D. their primary breed. This tactic would be impossible to enforce to my way of thinking. It , their standard, is posted on their web site, together with numerous photos of a variety of APBTs of different ages, sizes & colours. Their standard even states an APBT should be easily recognised as such from the other side of a show ring (or words to that effect) Anyone can access this information. That's public domain. Therefore I can't see how they could legally stop anyone from using their own description as an aid to i.ding their own breed. Their standard could even be helpful if a suspect dog was not of the restricted breed. I wonder if the ADBA would complain about it's use if that was the case? Personally, I don't think the ADBA disclaimer will fly. Crash & burn more likely. Your suggestion of cross breeds fitting the description is a more feasible course of action for satisfactory outcomes. IMHO.