Jed

A good idea in principle Jed but I dread the thought of a Media provided "Expert". It's a bit of a worry - especially in light of the "experts" they usually have .... but one could only hope that they would get someone who actually DID know! It would really help, I think

Research indicates there are a lot of different reasons for dog attacks. No dog suddenly attacks without any prior warning - but often the warnings are missed. All we can do is speculate on the reasons for attacks. Entire dogs, dogs chained, dogs running in packs, untrained and unsocialised dogs, dogs which have recently changed ownership -- these things increase dog attacks. Breed does not seem to be an indicator. Irish Setters killed someone, as did boxers, Huskies and Collie Roughs ... a Fox Terrier and a Pomeranian killed babies in separate instances. A German Shepherd, which had not been fed for 4 or 6 days, killed a baby it was shut up with in a flat while the mother went out. My belief is that the people who own dogs which attack either failed to observe the warning signals, or ignored them. The reasons for some attacks are self evident, but sometimes it is difficult to ascertain the reason. The SBT which attacked the 7 year old at school - recently changed homes, not under effective control - a couple of obvious reasons, maybe there were more. The malamute type dog which attacked the toddler - no idea. I have always thought that instead of jumping up and down about the breed, it would make a lot more sense if the papers gave the opinion of a very good dog behaviourist for the reasons for the attack. That would help people understand how to manage their dogs to prevent attacks.

Councils enacted laws keeping dogs away from outdoor cafes, off public transport, our of taxis, and away from parks --- sometimes because individual councillors dislike dogs, and sometimes in response to requests from the public. Because there was no concentrated effort by dog owners to oppose the laws at inception, they were introduced, and another area was closed to dogs. I see that dogs are welcome at outdoor cafes in Vic - and I have never seen one put a foot wrong. Polite well behaved dogs, and non dog owners at cafes seem friendly towards the dogs. Meanwhile, dogs are not allowed anywhere need food in Qld. Maybe if dog owners want relaxation of the laws they need to get together, and lobby councils and governments. If councils don't know how dog owners feel, nothing will change. Edited to add - When I was a teenager, you could take your dog into most shops (presuming it was well behaved) - and then dogs were excluded from shops which sold food - obviously in response to health concerns - maybe not justified. Dogs could and did walk everywhere. I wonder at the legality of closing some parks to some sections of the community - but not sure of the legal stance on that. Over time, the freedom of dogs has gradually been curtailed.

Dyson here. If you get a barrel, get the power head for pet hair and carpets, and a flat floor tool for the hard floors (this tool also gets spiders and webs off the ceiling Don't ask me about the spiders on the ceiling, right!?) Otherwise, the upright is great for carpets. And you should wait until Hardly Normal or Good Guys is having a sale, and whip in and buy it then. I bought a DC29 (think) for $399 from the Good Guys earlier this year. They are normally round $600. Meilie Dog and Cat one seems to be very good too,but it is bit heavier to lug around than the Dyson.

I think everyone is right - I remember hearing of the taxes too. Just didn't want people to think owners mindlessly docked their dogs over 9 centuries!!

Erny Over the next 9 centuries, more breeds were developed world wide. Some were docked, some were not. I have no idea what happened to this tax, but dogs seemed to have been docked depending on the work they did, as well as the set and carriage of the tail - for safety reasons. eg - Earthdogs - JRT were docked, and dacshunds were not. JRT were docked because once in the burrow, they would wag their tail furiously when they saw or smelled the game. As their tail was carried aloft, they could bring the burrow down on top of themselves. Although dacshunds were developed with bone, feet, legs and keel to enable digging in badger setts, the tails were not docked. The dacshund carries his tail behind him, beneath the level of his back, and no matter how excited, will not carry it over his back, so he is not likely to bring the earth down on him. I don't know many people with dalmations,but the ones I know seem to think it is a good idea. I think the paper simply used someone who disapproved, to make a good story.

Hi Raelene, you are supposed to feed pineapple or pawpaw to the poo eater ... maybe to the one who deposits the poo as well, but I hadn't heard that. The enzymes in those fruits are supposed to replace whatever is missing in the dog's nutrition

Odin-Genie No, retrievers ears would not be cropped, as the ear leather falling over the canal muffles the sound of the guns. Other spaniels which work closer to the guns have longer and thicker ears because they are exposed to more noise. Most retrievers/pointers/setters who were bred to work in the field do have "floppy" ears for exactly the same reason. And they would never be cropped. To the op - sometimes, despite the best attention, best vets, experienced owners, the cropping doesn't work, so the dog has one cropped upright ear and one fallen down ear. Or two fallen down ears. Many would be show dogs are not able to be shown because the crop didn't work. And there is no remedy Not an operation for the faint hearted, and an operation which can go badly wrong. I find it amusing that in photos of show Danes the owner often holds the ears up, and exhibitors do it in the ring too.

Nope I say again this applies to all breeders and groups and indivuduales, it is almost an automatic response with different levels of severtity. Go look at Refferences require post. Just count the assumptions, count the negative thoughts or comments and note the general postion of judging the breeders motives and behaviours. When in fact we know nothing bad about the breeder who states she wants a referrence prior to handing someone a pup. Granted if you don't want to give a reference then go elsewhere where they do not ask, but there is no reason to bash the unknown breeder for wanting them. BTW if they said on their web site no referrences required, what would we say then about this breeder?? This is what I am talking about and it has nothing to do with just show breeders or any group of breeders, it seems just about everybody has to judge everybody about everything. On that note we should curtail this converstation..that was a joke. Is your criterium the discussions on this forum? I think it is in many people to be critical - older people to criticise mothers, teachers to criticise other schools and so and so forth. Many classes and types of people do it. I

If you like the dogs, give it a go Fleuri!! Probably a good word from the vet would be enough. Mita, did the breeders tell you they wanted references? That's a bit different from asking on a website. And yes, I have dealt with people who wanted referees, or references but they were more covert than that :D

If you are seriously seeking to buy a dog from these people, why not ask them? But apart from that - what Bundy said --- your vet, your training club etc. Some breeders are so far up the tree (not themselves, the tree :D ) that you DO need a reference. They always have heaps more orders than pups, and you need something extra to actually get you onto the list. And they usually have gorgeous dogs. But those breeders wouldn't put that on their site. Thinking about it - I don't think I would someone who wanted "referances" - coz it is crass!!

My personal opinion is that Jemima is a radical animal rights loony. I have said this before, and nothing she has done since I said it has changed my mind. It is only an opinion, based on what she says and does. On the other hand, she may have wanted to make a name for herself,and she has certainly done that. I think McGreevy et al have seen an opportunity to be carried up and away on her coat-tails. And I would think there is some spite and angst against registered breeders, as Don Burke is mixed up with McGreevy, and Don Burke just brims with hatred for registered breeders. Things may look simple enough, but mostly they aren't. You seem to specifically mention "show breeders". Do you think they "breeder bash" more than others? I am not quite across this "breeder bashing" - I do see what I consider bashing on this forum - people complaining about breeders owning too many dogs/rehoming dogs/having too many litters blah blah, and the complaints about puppy farms and byb. Most of those complaints come from pet owners. It is too late.

Boxerheart Bobtail lines do not, in themselves, have a gene for ARVC. And you could mate a NBT to a non BT from NBT lines without any fear of ARVC Boxerheart And you shouldn't have any trouble avoiding them, as all pedigrees in Aus are notated "NBT" where a bobtail appears in the pedigree, so if you can read a pedigree, you'll be right. Better than the rest of us. I don't want CM etc in my lines, so I have to work through lots of pedigrees without notations, to avoid those things Shortstep, the pedigrees are notated so the RSPCA doesn't drag the owner off, and presumably so that when the exhibition of docked dogs is forbidden, the owner can prove the dog is a NBT. I understand the other reason is that people who do not like the bobtail gene can avoid it more easily. I have no idea whether they are required to be DNA tested or not. I hadn't heard it was a requirement - but who knows?

Jed I am confused again, sorry to mince words around but I want to understand exactly what you are saying. When you say only one gene was introduced, you mean they were only after one gene from the corgi? Or do you mean that after the generations have now transprired, that there is now only one corgi gene left in the boxer? Or something else again? LOL I think you should go to the site www.steynmere.com Left hand side of the page - I think it is "bobtails" - click on the link Dr Cattenach can explain it far more lucidly than I can, although I do understand it. :D

Janba, in the case of the boxer, one gene only was introduced. And in case, the corgi had no nasty recessives. www.steymere.com

Shortstep Which breeders do you think are trying to make other sections look bad? And why do you think that? Is that the fault of the breeders? If so, what gives you that impression? Something "show breeders" have said, or written? Where? Or something which has been said or written about them? Or are you talking about attitudes perceived from reading this forum?

Shortstep, I read what you wrote more carefully. I don't think a dog can carry two genes for bobtail. Agree with Felix, but none of these outcrosses are done without full permission from the controlling body. And yes, brown (liver) spots are acceptable, bit of dodgy reporting. And shortstep, problem is that these articles in the paper - most of which Jemima engineers - do absolutely no good for purebred dogs at all. Whether they are true or not is unimportant - as whether PDE was true or not is important. And it is more difficult to refute the blurry allegations made in the article than to refute the truth. So what if some breeders don't like it? It is not important. If they ALL went one way, there would be media articles about the reducting of the gene pool blah blah. So there is no winning, is there?

Shortstep So Animal Network has a better balance sheet? I think that is a lot of codswallop. It's a dominant gene, why would anyone (except cretins) be breeding to produce a lethal homozygous gene? www.steynmere.com

Very inflammatory reporting imho. "Brown spots instead of black" -- I ask you? And Jemima never misses an opportunity. Maybe is part of the problem? I didn't think UK had Gr Ch, but I haven't taken much notice.There are breeders who think this is a great idea, others who think the dogs are not pure, and would not have one. Diversity , I guess. Breeders who are not in favour of NBT boxers have asked the CCs to notate the pedigrees with NBT so they do not accidentally introduce Corgi into their lines ... the rationale is that some generations on, they may not otherwise know whether the ancestors are NBT or not. I don't see the introduction of genes into either boxers or dalmations as a problem. If breeders want to avoid these genes, they can simply go to another line which is not problematic in their opinion. Inflammatory media reporting with Jemima Harrison jabbing the mixmaster in at full force, exacerbates the division, and indeed, makes it seem worse than it is. I wouldn't use some lines under any circumstances - because I would introduce a feature which I do not want in my dogs. I don't see any difference with Dalmations and boxers .... some will, some wont. Do those who disagree fully understand genetics? I have no idea, but it is their choice for whatever their reasons.

Breeders who understand genetics will embrace outcrossing. Those who think an outcross makes a purebred dog a mongrel, even after 20 generations will not embrace it. Breeders who have spent 20, 30, 40, 50 years producing a top quality line of dogs - of any breed - which display success in the ring, good health and temperament and the abiliity to breed on will not embrace it. We have previews of this from the dalmations and the bob tail boxers. Rather than making blanket rules, the CCs should investigate ALL the research (there is much that does not agree with McGreevey) lay it on the table for those breeders who are not au fait with research. And, inconsultation with breed clubs, maybe decide whether back crossing is necessary. there is no point in making rules which breeders do not agree with because they will not adhere to them. They will either walk away, or lie. I personally don't think it is necessary. And all the reseach on in breeding is negated by some other studies. In all breeds. I wanted to breed purebred dogs, I am not interested in mongrels, and I don;t want to breed the numbers or within the time frame to breed back to pure. Most of my friends of similar age will walk. And the loss of knowledge will go a long way to sinking the hobby. JMHO But I have always been pessimistic about this.

Horse supply places. Saddlers' supplies. Your local produce might even have one.

Yes, Zug Zuz, you ARE a worrier. It is most unlikely the breeder let you have a top show prospect - probably will keep it for himself. Even if you show, it's difficult to get a top show prospect out of a show breeder. But if it is a decent breeder, your pet dog will be a good quality dog which does fulfill the standard ... and his faults will be small ones, so when people look at him, he fillls their eye. A decent registered dog from a good breeder will do that every time. And it may be if the breeder has a show prospect and wants it shown, you can take it to shows, and the breeder will show it for you. If you want to do that? Not big noting myself, but I bred some beautiful boxers - stunning - but they were just too gentle for the ring - no ooompah, no zing! They made the most delightful pets, and one was a helper dog for a quadraplegic. One went to the vet for castration and the vet refused - said the dog was too good!! So don't think you will get some shabby dog. A good breeder will fit you out with a good dog. My breeder shows, but she would rather sell a show quality dog to a lovely pet home than to a poor show home (so would I) Cowanbree Yep, there is that.

Mystique You are right, but what is the answer for rare breeds? The Sussex Spaniel is so rare he is almost endangered, and you can go to fifty shows without seeing one. But if they are not shown, no one ever sees them. Clumbers were just as rare some years ago, then people began seeing them, and "got into" the breed, and they aren't so rare any more. And a Sussex was BIS a few weeks ago. Most of the people who show rare breeds do so because they like them. Great post Crisovar. And if you were sitting next to one of those breeders, and asked why that dog carried his head low, was it his neck placement? They would kindly say no, his front legs were too short. And next time, you knew why. And you knew there would be no snide remarks about the quallity of the dog, or about your lack of knowledge.

Maybe I should have gone with the long explanation, maybe I thought I wrote enough. Who knows, who cares? And there was nothing personal.

There's really no argument now. The course has been recommended. Not that I agree with what Jed originally said (because if that were the case according to you, Jed, no-one would ever or should ever venture into unknown territory), but regardless, it's a moot point now. No, Erny, no one should do something without finding out about it, and possibly finding someone who has done the same thing .... and we have a recommendation from AmandaJ .... so that is good. I give the same advice about trainers (sorry Erny), about boarding kennels, and about breeders .... time after time after time. And I will continue to do it. Not everyone is going to recommend the same thing. There are numerous people on here (or who were on here) who are happy with the pups from breeders I recommended, who have well trained dogs by trainers I recommended. I will not recommend anything or anyone unless I know them and what they do .... or someone trustworthy has recommended them. And that is not unreasonable.