Salukifan

I think that owner behaviour and lack of hunger account for a fair bit of fussiness. If the dog has not accustomed to eating a given amount of food in a given amount of time then it may not feel inclined to eat. That doesn't apply to old or sick dogs. And of course, dogs do have particular likes and dislikes, regardless of how hungry they are. I don't think its all that big a deal for the most part.

Doh

HELL YES For a start, those of us over the border would know what/when shows are ON. Fortunately, those running the Gippsland/Bairnsdale shows each year have seen the light and use Ozentries.

No argument here. How this is going to contribute to "new blood" in the ring is debatable. We need to think outside that square IMO in addition to continuing junior handlers. In my immediate circle of show buddies, I'd say 3 out of a dozen or so have come up through juniors. Given that's about 25% we need to be thinking about how the other 75% find their way into the fancy, and more importantly, stay there.

Or you'd have had to borrow one, as quite a few kids do now. And isn't experience with handling different dogs what wins the big Junior Handler prizes? I like it when JH judges put up the kids who are having to work to get the dog to show, rather than going in with the push button dog they show every time. Sometimes I wonder if JH classes wouldn't be better judged in categories of experience, not age. Its a hard ask to ask a starter to compete against kids who've been doing it for years. Some of the more experienced kids are pretty hard core.

Tangential thought: should dogs be tested and certified as "junior handler dogs"??? EG. a dog that has been used for a certain number of 10-13 comps is then "certified" as suitable for the 7-10 year olds. Just brain storming...

Yeah that is the part I don't understand either. Neutering doesn't make a dog easier to handle, less likely to be aggressive or anything else that I can think of, it simply renders it unable to procreate. I actually see children in junior handlers showing dogs they are less able to control more frequently than I do in the breed judging. Most children I see who are handling in breed judging are handling their own dogs and often alongside their parents. Do you think that's acceptable for other handlers/dogs in the class?

Because generally speaking, it would be less likely to behave aggressively towards other dogs of its gender. Double that up for stud dogs. I expressed my views as to the "why"s" of why I'd like to see some restrictions on the 7-10 year olds in the other thread. If we allow children to exhibit any breed and we cannot guarantee control or supervision, it seems to me that some restriction would be warranted. I don't honestly expect anything to change but I do think very young children in the main, have neither the foresight, nor the control of adults and yet we are placing them in situations where that is exactly what we require them to demonstrate. ETA: here's my other post

None. Junior Handlers have won classes using my dogs though. :) How many young children have I watched drag exhausted or unhappy dogs and pups around at shows?. Several. How many times have I felt obliged to intervene for the safety of the dog? One, so far. How many large dogs under the 'control' of a child have attacked mine? One so far. How many incidents involving unsupervised children with dogs creating aggression issues have I witnessed? Several more. I don't expect my views on children being responsible for dogs to be popular or influential but I do have concerns. I support junior handler classes but I want them to be conducted with safety of children, dogs and bystanders paramount., One thing that it might pay to bear in mind is that a child handling a dog in an "adult" pursuit (think breed ring) can be held to to an adult standard of care for their actions. I don't find the idea of a 7 year old being legally liable for a dog bite on a member of the public all that ideal really. No doubt nothing's going to change...... but I still have an opinion. That opinion is that very young children should not be expected to control dogs or demonstrate an adult's foresight when handling dogs unsupervised amongst the public. FYI the youngest a child can handle a dog in ANKC Agility is 11. Are there children younger than that capable of doing it? Absolutely.

BUT you raised it here and now. And have consistently failed to answer my questions. Start a topic on it Trish and I'll be happy to discuss my views. They are safety based. I'm talking in an all breeds context by the way. We have no restrictions on what breed t a child handler can take into the breed ring and I'm no fan of relying on common sense to sort the issue out.

Why? What would be so insulting about restricting handlers under 10 to neutered dogs? Why should young kids who are outstanding in their handling skills and able to go into the breed ring be restricted in that way? I don't understand what that would achieve? It would achieve a higher degree of safety for those very young child handlers who aren't outstanding in their handling skills - and for those of us who have to manage our dogs around them. We can debate the wisdom of 7-10 year old children in the breed ring another time.

I'd say word of mouth. Ideally the dog will not see the inside of a pound or shelter.

RSA: That depends on whether or not you're happy for her to deal with the puppy as she sees fit. I'd be stepping in before that. I don't see why she should have to tolerate being bounced on by pups. If the pup's owner won't heed a polite "please keep your pup away from my dog, she doesn't like pups" then I would be stepping in to remove her before she feels the need to defend herself and snap. If she's actively seeking your legs to distance herself and hide, I'd pick her up. Ignore anyone who tells you "this will make your dog dominant". Its crap. I see myself as responsible for my dog's well being. If they aren't happy and trying to get away, I step in. You might find reading this article useful. Personally, I don't see why we expect all dogs to love pups, when there's nothing loveable about some pups behaviour from our dogs' perspective. I have a dog that hates puppies. He simply never gets to meet them. I don't put him in situations where I know he'll respond aggressively to warn them off. I don't blame myself or him for his behaviour. However he does have an ongoing back problem that makes him particularly wary of being physically tackled by strange dogs and he's not socially confident with any strange dog. Its just how he is

And those purebred puppy buyers who obey veterinary advice and desex their pups aged 6 months THEN find out they've got a good one aren't that uncommon. Or, as happened to a friend of mine get told by the vet nurse "oh you can still have your pup desexed and show it"... glad she knew better.

There are plenty of show quality dogs that find their way to pet homes. The assumption that a neutered dog is automatically of lesser quality is a wrong one, particularly in my breed where monorchidism sees quite a few pick pups out of the running for the show ring.

Why? What would be so insulting about restricting handlers under 10 to neutered dogs?

What Mystiqueview said.

Of course they should!

If he ends up covered in poo, I'd shampoo him each and every time it happens. You are not going to get poo out of a coat with water and you don't want it staining a white coat. You can wash just the affected bits though. However, I suggest you rethink how you're housing him when you're out. Is a pen outside out of the question? I'm no fan of toileting pads if the weather is mild and the pup has shelter. Get him outside and get him a good dose of Vitamin D and have his toileting behaviour reinforced, not set back.

If I was looking, I'd start with Eddybul BB's here in the ACT. Good sound dogs from what I can see.

Well, I'd have tried to explain but given your self confessed red haze and my reportedly narrow mind, what's the point. Ask yourselves what the point of neuter exhibits is. I see it as somewhat different in purpose to allowing existing exhibitors to put another title on their dogs. My narrow mind I suppose. Maybe we need an 'amatuer owner" class like some horse breeds have to give ADULT new handlers a soft entlry into the dog world. Hate to break it to you but IMO encouraging new blood into the show world is what we need to boost numbers, and yet we put all out efforts to date into mostly the next generation of the same families. In the USA, in Quarter Horses, some of the most committed, most cashed up and hardest competing exhibitors haven't swung a leg over a horse until they aged over 40. What does the dog world do to encourage new adult handlers? *insert crickets sound here*

Plenty of titles to work towards on the other end of their names. Or change the rules and allow juniors to show any dog entered OR a neutered CH.

Bugger the linky! I want to see a pic of your dogs wearing head torches!

Best I've found are Guardian lights I like the fact that they come in different colours. I have different ones for each dog. Ted gets a plain white one too at the front of his collar to help him see. He's pretty night blind They are BRIGHT!

One pretty obvious difference is the number of dogs competing for those prizes. A dog that beats hundreds of dogs for BIS is IMO entitled to a larger prize than a dog that beats perhaps 20? Neuter in Show shouldn't be a shabby prize but it's not equivalent to BIS from where I sit. It's a class in show win. If all the Neuter competitors are past entire Champions, I have to question why people are getting upset about it. Hardly a level playing field for someone cutting their teeth on the first dog they've ever exhibited in the neuter ring. Personally I'd like to see past entire Champions prohibited from entering neuter classes. Let it be a class where people can learn the ropes before entering the entire classes. Mind you, I'd like to see the most junior of Junior Handlers limited to exhibiting neuters... that might improve the number and quality of neuter entries rather smartly.