Jed

And where would that be, exactly? Its not my place to expose certain vets that still use these practices, tho with some research and talking to the right people you will have no trouble finding out. Your boxers have tails? No one asked for names and dates of birth, only areas. Yes they do. Docking is illegal. You are lying. Moosepup Apologies for not reading the thread with a fine toothed comb. *flogs self for missing information* Looks as if you didn't read it at all

I would never advertise my address, anywhere. When people enquire about pups, if I am satisfied via email and phone that they could be suitable homes, I organise a time and day for them to call. I will not give them the address until the appointment is set. If people want the address without a time, I wont give it out. And Iwont give my address out unless I have names, a landline number, which I have checked in the white pages, and an email address which is not yahoo or hotmail. And I suspected a couple of times in the past that people have been creeping around after pups late at night, so now I don't tell anyone I have pups, and I don't advertise until they are nearly ready to leave. Apart from that, I rely on my big girls to protect my pups, and so far, they have. Hundreds of pups and porential breeding dogs are stolen each year. I was thinking about the RSPCA and their desire for increased power. They recently busted a puppy farm in Qld, seized 240 dogs. People have been lodging formal complaints about this operation, to my certain knowledge, for the past SIX years, including 2 pet shops. No doubt there are more, but those are the ones I know about. It took them six years to do anything, and they have always had the power to seize the dogs. That emotive stuff about puppy farms is quite true, but like all their media releases, they have couched it in the most emotive terms possible, to pull at the heartstrings of the publlic. It's a tactic they always use. RSPCA spent $M1.2 on advertising to make the pubilc see breeders who docked as cruel heartless bastards. According to Jane Speechly, they got a good deal on the advertising. Why haven't they put another $M1.2 into advertising the evils of puppy farms, so the public wont buy from people on the side of the road, from pet shops, from people with a shifty ad and a mubile number? Advertising worked to encourage people to neuter dogs, it worked in the case of docking, why don't they do it again? Because they want to stop breeding, not stop puppy farms. All breeders are anathema to the RSPCA I don't think responding to the RSPCA will be effective. For those who want to be effective, I think writing to your own MP, and the minister for agriculture or primary industries in your state would be more effective. CC members should write to their state CC as well, or in the case of Vic, attend the AGM and ensure the matter is discussed, and the CC is listening to the members. As with BSL and docking laws, I'll write the submissions. I've had plenty of practise now!! I'll do what I can. But our protests are too late. We should have stood together and stopped BSL and stood together again, and stopped anti docking legislation, but some people wouldn't support pitbulls, others wouldn't support docking, because they only saw the small item, not the large agenda. And they wouldn't put aside their own small preferences for the greater good of the hobby. Many still will not do anything, because they believe puppy farms should be stopped, and don't believe anyone would want to stop registered dogs being bred. And I am sure the RSPCA has stitched up another deal with the government, and any protests will reach the aleady committed in another direction. And don't think the RSPCA hasn't already been lobbying, of course they have. For years. And me? Well, as you all know, I've been warning of this for years. I think I may have a bitch in whelp, those pups are going to previous puppy buyers who want another, and who I feel bound to breed one last time for. After that, she is going to a new home, to live with people who bought 3 pups from me over 30 odd years. The oldies are staying, the middle aged all have new homes. Seeing this coming, I have 3 young dogs to show. They will do me, I'll have showing as a hobby, and nice dogs to grow old with. I renewed my membership and prefix, but as soon as I've registered the litter (if we have one), I'm turning in my prefix. And maybe I'm getting a PO box. Even if the RSPCA loses this round, they will be back, time and again, on one thing or another, until they win. And they know they will win, registered breeders, via the state CCs, have continued to demonstrate that they will llie down, roll over and play dead in previous circumstances. The CCCQ AIDED the RSPCA and government in instigating BSL and provided advice. Why would the RSPCA expect not to win?

University study stated that the main reason for dropping the dog off at the pound was "did not meet expectations" I breed boxers,who can be hyperactive pains in the neck until they are mature, they also jump high buildings in a single bound, so containment can be an issue. The dump rate for the ones I breed is 0, because my buyers know exactly what the breed is like before the take their pup home. If they do not understand, no pup. No they have expectations, and the pups do meet their expections. Few fetch up in the pound, but I guess they are the ones which "did not meet expectations" And what Crisover said.

I was considering smacking you one upside of the head for that one Souffie, but it occurs to me that registered breeders are already licensed with their state CCs. Now, the CC's might not do much in this regard, but they do about as much as the government does with r.e. agents, motor dealers, plumbers etc, so licensed with the CC; OR the government if not a CC member will do Except it's not happening. There wont be enough people applying for licenses to make it worthwhile having a special department with 120 people to handle registrations.

As long as you don't dock them before eating them Souff, you should be all legal. Chips with that? The law is an ass

The thing I find most concerning about this is that you can breed a carrier, sell it on limited register as a pet, provide full disclosure to the buyer, and a couple of years later, they get the s#$ts with you, and complain. Buyers, in my experience are flat out remembering what was in the diet sheet you gave them, never mind some complicated explanation about a hereditary disease where their dog has the genes but not the symptoms. So, off they go and complain. If I was in Vic, I would make everyone who bought a pup sign a waiver to say that they did know the dog was a carrier, did not want to breed, and accepted that,. Then, when pushed, they say they were "only a pet owner" and could not be expected to know or understand that. They bought the dog in good faith, they decided to breed with it, and you are in the you know what. Just the hassle of some official turning up to find out what you did and didn't do puts me off. check through your records (if they don't seize them) find the buyer and the litter, find the signed agreement, find it isn't done properly, even though you thought it was. And things like this do happen. I've been breeding long enough to know they do. Greyshaft is only one of many people like him who want their pound of flesh. And the laws are incredibly convolvulted and difficult to understand,. Despite the Gov and RSPCA saying those laws are for puppy farmers, that is not spelled out, so if you have been breeding for 30 years, whelp a perfectly normal litter, the bitch is perfectly normal, but you don' t take her to the vet for a post whelping check, you are in breach of the laws, and liable to a large fine - and again, the RSPCA can seize the bitch and pups. It's not about doing the crime for me. I am a very law abiding person - it's about the RSPCA seizing my dogs. Poodlefan If a byb can't test because there is no test developed, they are in the clear. And they are impossible to find anyhow. And it may not have been a competitor who reported them - as with Judy Gard it may have been some misguided animal rights vet. It seems obvious that they are out to collar people. It will be interesting to discover the full story behind this. Jed Oh, dear, I think that has to be the freudian slip of the year. This is quite a contentious issue, Jed. I fall on the side that if you breed a carrier litter, you should have the progeny tested gentically. You can have the result registered with the genetic company, provide disclosure to the puppy person in writing (as is required) and that way everyone is covered. The other danger in not testing a litter is that while breeders try to screen everyone who wants a puppy from their breed, there is still the distinct possibility that one day there will be unregistered litters for sale from back yarders, who have managed to get into the breed though "pet" purchases. Registration and health checks will have no meaning for them, only $$. however, eithout knowing the genetic status of the parents, you could end up with affected litters without ever knowing it. I was speaking of a litter which has been tested, Lappiemum. I've been breeding for a fair while, and although I haven't had too many problems, I've had few that I shouldn't have had, and I've seen problems my breeder friends have had. I can see someone who decides to breed, despite the dog being on LR and my having disclosed it is a carrier, getting affected pups, and going me. Easy enough for them to say they were a "pet owner" and did not understand. Whether a carrier is sold with or without full disclosure, and the offspring go to byb who do not test, I see that as their problem. I have sold the dog on limited register, they shouldn't have bred with it, and THEY should have tested, because I;ve lost control. I have had little problem with people saying they want a pet, and then breeding, but it's happened once or twice over a lot of years. People's intentions change. It's been ok with the pups I've sold Like Oakway, I too wonder about the ability of the CCs to do anything about this. DogsQld is the place all controversial legislation is tested, because they are known to be so weak by gov and animal rights. They haven't shown any signs of growing a backbone either, and I think they and the other state CCs will need a backbone. I've never yet relinquished a registration cert for a dead dog, so if the RSPCA turns up here,they will be expecting to see about 30 dogs. Oh dear!! I had my first compulsory microchipped litter a couple of months ago. I've never microchipped. With this litter, the vet microchipped them, and gave me the paperwork which was not completed. As I sold the pups, I filled out the forms and distributed them as required, so the name on the forms was that of the buyer, not a transfer from me as the breeder to the buyer. that way, I know the chips are in the buyers' names. In Q. we can register the litter into each individual new owner's name when we do the litter registration. I see this is a more efficient way of doing it - there is no option for the new owner not to register the pup. And they can have the pup in their name without being a DogsQld member. I think other CCs should do the same thing. CCs need to realise that they will have to protect breeders

Good post shel. I agree with you, lilli, and I wonder why a charity is able to mandate on laws which affect a proper organisation which they have nothing to do with. I don't believe the RSPCA wants suggestions, I believe their course is already charted, and I certainly wont be writing to them with suggestions, I will make any effort I make count

How horrid. what a bogan woman. What don't these idiots understand about "keep your dog on a leash". Do they not know, or not care? both probably. Good vibes to poor David and his poor guide dog.

You are in Brisbane City Council area, I believe? That is good to know. Gecko Tree, apparently you live on the wild side of the law, where rabbits, ferrets and pit bulls abound whatever breed the dogs were, they were uncontrolled, untrained, and uncontained, and probably savage, and they did a terrible thing. The owners should be fined. They have also done another terrible thing to pitbulls. When will people learn there is no place in society for dogs like this? It was the partly the action of a similar criminally stupid owner which allowed the Qld Gov to legislate bans. When will these stupid people learn? A woman has been mauled, one dog has died, and another will die. Because of stupidity. Jed, I my question was, are these dogs called American Staffs and NOT APBT so they can legally be kept. I have a feeling that in Victoria, APBT are supposed to be sterilised, do that the breed will eventually die out. I have no idea. The owner of the dogs involved in the attack stated that the dogs were American Staffordshires. Who knows what they were, and the owners may have been calling them Amstaffs so they could keep them, but they may in fact have been Amstaffs. The breed is not what did the attack, it was lack of training, and lack of containment. And probably bad temperament, and bad breeding. Maybe all of those things. One council in Qld banned both pit bulls and APBT because they couldn't tell the difference. The big flaw in the law is that it is almost impossible to tell whether a dog is an APBT or a cross or not, or simply a big brown dog, as has been tested in court. The thinking behind the laws in all states, even when the dogs are not destroyed, is that they cannot be bred with, and yes, the breed will die out - genocide. Much better for existing laws to be enforced, about dogs having to be contained. It would help too, if stupid people didn't own dogs. In the case of these 2 dogs, they had been barking a lot, and trying to get out. Sounds as if they had recently moved into the area, the dogs would not have known exactly where their territory was, and perhaps perceived the woman next door as a threat to their territory. Maybe they just were savage buggers too, but I would go for the first option. the owners should have realised what was happening, and taken steps to prevent the dogs escaping. Any big strong dog is capable of doing a lot of damage. It is the responsibility of the owner to contain and control the dog, so no damage is done.

Yep, save up, otherwise you will have another pet. Can you pick a show quality pup? If not, I suggest you go to shows while you are waiting, and watch the baby puppies, see which ones are winning, and watch them grow up. See how they turn out, and whether they grew up as you thought they would While you are doing this, you will be able to see which exhibitors and which lines consistently win, and which types of dogs you like the best. When you have this knowledge, you will probably have saved a little more, and be in a position to know which breeder you would like to buy from. Remember though, that "show potential" pups do not always reach the giddy heights. So many things can go wrong. Mouths which were good in a pup, can go wrong as the pup grows, coat may not be profuse enough, or the pup may not have the right attitude and outlook for the showring. The latter can be difficult to ascertain in a baby puppy. the pup might have the right attitude, but may not like the ring, or may be frightened when being shown. But when you begin showing with a pup, even if it doesn't turn out to be a big winner, you are gaining knowledge and experience, which will be invaluable to you Good luck.

The easy solution is to allow registered breeders to continue to be regulated by their state CC. Yeah, sure, that allows the registered puppy farms to continue, but the CCs could clean that up if they wished. And in all fairness, they do ride the registered pfs quite a bit, making things difficult for them. But I don't think that is what is required - so it wont happen. RSPCA should then, if they wish, try to have legislation enacted to prevent pups being exported, except to proper registered breeders, and to accompany their owners. I don't think they will win that one. Christina Because it is not a matter of how many, or what is done, it's the WAY it is done. And we cannot know that without seeing, which is why any 'one size fits all' rule is never going to work. I know people with 30 dogs, all well cared for and happy. I know people with 4 dogs which should be removed. I know people with 2 dogs which look ok, but which are unhappy. Making laws about walking dogs daily, not using dual feeding bowls are not solving the problem either. They are simply making it more difficult for people to comply with the laws and keep pets. There are breeders who do close matings, and we would fall over to buy a pup - there are other lines that we would avoid if we saw the same dog twice. I don't think you can regulate something which is more art than science with any degree of success, particularly when it is a hobby. I feed my dogs together - they share bowls. This is because some of my dogs are princesses, and if I feed them individually, they look at the food with disgust, and turn their heads away. They are waiting for roast turkey, or salmon mousse. When they discover that if they don't eat it, someone else will, they decide they will have chicken and veges thanks, and not wait for roast turkey. So they muck in with the common herd. This includes the dogs I show, and no one has ever thought they were mal nourished. This system would not suit all dogs and all breeds. I used to feed individually, but some dogs simply didn't eat enough, despite being in very good health, and were very light in condition. This system works better, bearing in mind the best interests of my dogs. I don't do it because I am lazy or stupid, I do it for the welfare of the dogs. If I lived in Victoria, I could not do that. It is against the law. So, to obey the law, my dogs would suffer. Numerous dog breeders use the same system, because it does work with some breeds.

And where would that be, exactly?

I agree. *nods* Fined for practising in a state where he wasn't licensed to practice.

This is exactly what I meant, thank you for understanding Natsu chan & Steve. I think what puppy farms do is abhorrent and I DO care about all dogs but I also see the reality of the issue- more regulation (ie: on puppy farms) equals more regulation on the little guys (responsible, ethical breeders) which equals more fees, more 'hygeine' recommendations = no more whelping the litter in your bedroom! Nope, it must be in a correctly constructed kennel xxx amount of metres from any residential premesis and you must follow xxx regulations on weaning, vaccinating, worming, feeding. No more old family remedies. You will be required to take the dog/puppy to a veterinary professional for every little cut or scrape it may get. If you look at the situation realistically- the puppy farms DO have the time, money and facilities/space to comply with these proposed laws. I certainly do not and I don't know any registered breeder who does!! They also have the money to fight legislation against them- otherwise why has it taken so long for Clover Moore's bill to go through ??? Because the PIAA and co HAVE THE MONEY that we do not. I knew what you meant, and I agree with you and Natsu Chan. The pf will circumvent the laws, brecause the have the income to do it. And it's not, imho, all about puppy farms. They have shown they do have registered breeders in their sights. Under the POCTAA acts in all states, they have the power to compel puppy farms to do things right, and they simply don't do it. Now they want more, and as far as I can see, unconstitutional and over-riding powers. Woofnhoof Interesting that you read it as two separate registries. I read it as state CC members having to pay an additional licensing fee to the gov. A pup costs about 1/20 of the price of a car. A car yard is a business, with employees. Breeding is a hobby, with no employees, run by people who mostly work full time, have house and garden chores, and care for dogs, as well as undertake their hobby. I don't want it to a business. I don't want my puppy buyers to be "customers" My buyers already sign a heap of paperwork, all of which needs to be explained to them. If they do not understand it, later they can say that they signed something they did not understand .... and that is a viable defense in court. Anyhow, I want them to understand it, I want them to be happy, I want them to feel that they can contact me whenever they want, whether they have a problem or not. I want to be the first point of contact if there is a problem, not to be contacted when their numpty vet has cost them a few grand for no resolution, and they are feeling pretty shitty generally. I don't want that relationship to be one of "business" and "customer". The point is, breeders don't want to be bothered. So they will walk away. I don't think people who are not breeders get it, and I don't think they will ever get it unless they actually do it. And I again ageee with Natsu Chan - the RSPCA wants to micromanage dog breeding, despite having no practical knowledge, and no interest.

Where does it say that in either post?

According to the owner, the dogs were Amstaffs. No, not the same breed. You will have to delve into the histories of both breeds to find the difference two doggies. What do you want to have legalised? lillysmum You are in Brisbane City Council area, I believe? That is good to know. Gecko Tree, apparently you live on the wild side of the law, where rabbits, ferrets and pit bulls abound whatever breed the dogs were, they were uncontrolled, untrained, and uncontained, and probably savage, and they did a terrible thing. The owners should be fined. They have also done another terrible thing to pitbulls. When will people learn there is no place in society for dogs like this? It was the partly the action of a similar criminally stupid owner which allowed the Qld Gov to legislate bans. When will these stupid people learn? A woman has been mauled, one dog has died, and another will die. Because of stupidity.

These proposals are not about doggy welfare. The RSPCA committees contain many animal rights members (read PETA), and their aim is to stop people breeding dogs. Consider, why are registered breeders included in this? Sydney Uni has the pedigrees of registered dogs, and has had them for quite some time. They and the RSPCA are aware the registered dogs are NOT inbred, yet they intend to prevent the inbreeding of registered dogs. Which doesn't happen anyhow. Registered pups comprise 3% of the pups produced annually. Various studies have shown that properly raised registered pups are superior to those raised in pf. Why then do they intend to legislate against registered breeders? poochmad, the RSPCA has now shown that they are targetting registered breeders. Witness Judy Gard, and some other "visits" which have not produced any action and which have not been publicised. Some breeders have stated in the past few months that they will no longer breed. RSPCA already has sufficient legislation to deal with problems, as has been shown in some recent cases. That area of the proposals shows they want limitless and unbridled power, with no checks or balances. If someone is charged with cruelty, how just is it that their dogs are disposed of BEFORE the court case? Guilty until proven innocent? I don't have a problem with prosecutions of the rotten, but history has shown it is not always the rotten who are targetted and prosecuted. There are many cases where people who are doing nothing wrong have been prosecuted and have lost everything. There is something in that legislation for every registered breeder. Each one of those regulations will stop many breeding. Instead of only 69,000 pups being available annually, the numbers will drop to 30,000 - 20,000 as breeders walk away. The hard core and very devoted wil remain, but they will not produce enough pups to meet demand. And some of them will breed less, only to supply their own needs, and the remainder of the pups will go to exhibitor friends. 69,000 also includes pups which are exported to McDougall. So realistically, there are probably only 50,000 odd pups available for sale in Australia annually. However, PIAA, as well as puppy farmers who are supported by the AFF have the clout to fight it. Additionally some of the recommendations are in breach of trade practice laws, and privacy laws. So, most of it wont progress through parliament. What will succeed are the regulations which will deter registered breeders from continuing.

Absolutly it can shorten the lifespan faster than someone in the prime of there life I do hope she makes a recovery but i dont like her chances much. You can't seriously believe what you just wrote can you? I know that is theoretically what would have been. but the laws cant prohibit dogs in reality. I dont meant to sound negative but the Pit bull laws a farce no matter what council it is anywhere in australia not just Qld. They are everywhere, no matter how blood thirsty and cruel a council might be. 10,000 dogs were killed as pitbulls or crosses in the 12 - 18 months following legislation in Queensland. That's a fairly conservative estimate, by the way. After the first 12 - 18 months, I estimate another 10,000 were killed. As most councils weren't prepared to release figures, the figures available were extrapolated council by council, depending on population size comparied to the average number of pets in a population area. One smaller semi rural council was killing 20 dogs a day over a 6 month period. Some councils allowed dogs which were already resident and registered as pitbulls in the shire to live, burt they were the minority. So, there were 20,000 (probably more like 30,000)dogs killed. The others are classed as dangerous dogs, and are kept accordingly. Why, then are two unrestrained pitbulls, not being kept as dangerous dogs, in cages, with muzzles on in public, at large in a suburban street in Glasshouse, attacking the neighours? Maybe they were kept as dangerous dogs, and chewed through the weldmesh of their cages to escape and attack? Due to prompt action by the government and councils, the pit bull menace in Queensland has been completely eradicated, so this cannot be. 30,000 dead dogs prove it. Of course, the question is whether there were 30,000 pitbulls or crosses to begin with. And, of course, the killing continues. Jusrt not on the same scale. So, this attack cannot be. Because the government said that killing all the pitbulls would ensure the citizens were safe. And it must be so, as the government took action to protect the citizens. Besides, the government said.... Do you actually know what happened in Queensland, Gecko Tree? I don't remember seeing you around, so I doubt it.

Don't read this if you are squeamish, please If you sshoot something - a kangaroo for instance - correctly - there is still the possibility it will jerk a bit - I think the policeman used "best practice" to ensure that life had ended. He couldn't get too close, because that would have stressed the poor roo even more.He didn't have his stethoscope and the second shot was just insurance. That's normal in those type of situations. I've seen vets do it - for exactly that reason. I am sure the policeman was familiar with his weapon, was a reasonable marksman, and the bullet went where it was supposed to. This is simply another example of Wirth using his position for publicity. It would have cost him nothing to say "job well done" - he still would have the publicity. Trouble is, he seems incapable of saying anything reasonable. And when he comes out with one of his frenetic outbursts, it's all too easy to think of Ruth Downey's cattle, how horrible was that, and those poor, poor horses. Nothing deserves to die like that, but Wirth doesn't care.

Sorry, Damois, I didn't make the comparison clear enough. There aer endless forms, paperwork, fees, fines, threats, all of which make things quite complicated for car dealers and real estate agents, but in fact, the consumer is no better protected than pre legislation. Gove introduced new forms, new procedures partly to curtain marketeers. And then on the forms, it says that marketeers do not have to complete this section. So it's all pointless. Nothing to do with liability insurance, although that is a good point, if this becomes law, liability insurance for breeders would be necessary, I think.

Overtly, it seems to be promoting greater welfare for dogs. However, reading between the lines does not paint such a cheerful picture. In the preamble, they state that "inbreeding" of purebred dogs is a problem. They have the ANKC pedigrees, they know "inbreeding" (or, I would say "linebreeding") is rarely carried out. If they could read pedigrees they would know that linebreeding was only done in the interests of best practice. Boys and girls, if you would llike a registered purebred dog, buy one now. In a couple of years, it will be too late. I have quoted the proposed recommendations which will be made law, bolded the items I believe are problematic, and made comments. These are the items which will make the type of breeder you want to buy from walk away. And notice, they do not define puppy farmers in these regulatons, they will apply to all classes of breeders, including registered breeders.

That's really interesting about the guinea pigs, asal. Maybe you should send it off as scientific research to Sydney Uni? The kids had guinea pigs, and due to the inability of the kids to correctly sex them (and my not checking), added to their unbelievable libidos, and a lack of morals, we had about 5 generations of inbred guinea pigs - all very hale and hearty!! Bet Hargraves I would be interested in knowing the inbred lines of cavaliers. When the breed was originated, it is generally believed that Welsh spaniels, cockers, the longer faced and flatter headed king charles spaniels and papillons were used to create the breed. It has been speculated that Ann's Son was sired by a Papillon, and indeed in a lot of photos he does resemble a Papillon (Phalene). That is hardly in breeding. That's outcrossing to the nth degree. Amice Pitt, the breeder of Ann's Son who was the model for the standard was a very good breeder, with a lot of experience with Chow Chows previously. In England during the war, it is well known that many dogs were destroyed as part of the war effort, and at the end of the war, when breeding resumed, some breeds were left numerically lean, and were closely mated to each other to keep the breed going. No frozen semen then, and no imports. Most breeds seem to have survived that quite well, and I cant see why Cavaliers would have been the only breed to have detrimental resuts from this, particularly considering the slew of breeds used to create the breed less than 20 years previously. The genetic pool would have been huge, I imagine, with all those breeds. Grandmother x grandson, g/father x g/daughter etc is a valid way of setting a line in every species, and also a valid way of not allowing detrimental recessives into a line. Unless the dogs used had major faults, there should be no problems. because no detrimental genes are being introduced. And the pedigrees that I have researched of major dogs over the years don't show any degree of inbreeding. A dog having a COI of 44.6% tells us nothing. Is he a good dog, or a bad dog? Was he bred from well conformed and healthy parents, or unhealthy dogs who were badly conformed? Is he healthy himself? These are the important questions, not what his COI is. Is he used at stud, or is he a pet? COI is a tool, not a definitive answer. The pedigree of Ch Alansmere Aquarius is basically an outcrossed pedigree, with not one dog the same to the 5th generation. After that, there is little influence. Most of the pedigrees of "good" dogs of the past I have read are similar. Some have a couple of crosses of Daywell Roger as the GG G/father, which is acceptable in all breeding programs, such as Crisdig Merry Matelot, who has 2 crosses of D. Roger, giving him 12.5% of Daywell Roger in his pedigree, which is hardly inbred. Most of the better known dogs of days past show similar pedigrees. A very important line of Welsh Mountain ponies, which has survived the test of time was created by a mother / son mating, and produced some of the best pones of the day, which bred on. I am fortunate enough to own a mare who is a descendant of a son of that mating. She is nearly 36, is strikingly beautiful, and has never been ill for a second in her life. I owned another pony who was very closely line bred to a luminary of the breed, long dead when he was produced. On the 10th line of his pedigree, there was only one stallion. I am not too sure what the % of that cross was, but the actual results in terms of the horses produced, were outstanding. It's not the closeness of the cross, it is the quality of the stock used in, and produced by, that cross which is important. I would also suggest to you that in the case of the Cav. bitch mated to her son that from 39 pups, if there was a recessive gene in the line, it would have surfaced in one of those pups. I believe 40 pups is the scientifically accepted number to check for a recessive gene. If it didn't, that is a good test case for the line being free of nasty recessives. Only a check of the 39 dogs and their health status would be important, not the cross itself. If none of those dogs were affected by anything, something worthwhile has been achieved. If not, something more worthwhile has been achieved. We can be upset about line breeding, but to understand it, we need not just know the pedigree, but the dogs themselves. Conversely, there is no point in going for a totally outcrossed line, unless you know the health status of the dogs. With outcrossing, you continually introduce recessive genes into a line, and if you continue to outcross, it can take some time for those genes to surface, but as soon as a dog is mated to a carrier of the same recessive from another line which may be totally unrelated, you have a problem. and you have no way of backtracking to find where the gene came from, because the pedigree is so scrambled. However, it is all speculation. Until there is a known mode of inheritance for MVD, no amount of speculation will change anything. Independent university studies show Syringomyelia tends to be found more often in the smaller breed dogs such as Pomeranians, Chihuahuas, Maltese and Poodles as well as Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, and it affects humans and cross bred dogs as well. I don't believe there is any definite proof one way or another that syringo is hereditary, and speculation may lead to a great deal of harm being done. With MVD, it is presumed to be hereditary, and breeders tend to check hearts to breed away from it, but with syringo, it is only believed that dogs with the chiari malformation are more at risk of producing dogs with syringo. Dogs who are clinically positive are not always affected, and the cysts in some dogs regress for no known reason, and I understand that dogs without symptoms of syringo, and without the chiari malformation, are siring affected pups. This either means syringo is not hereditary, or it is due to a recessive or an autosomal recessive,, and test matings should be carried out with affected dogs to try to ascertain the mode of inheritance if there is one, as "scientific study" does not seem to be producing any results which breeders can use to avoid syringo, despite breeders from all over the world having poured an unconscionable amount of money into research.

So terribly sad. I hope the poor woman recovers completely. The evening news claimed the dogs were pitbulls. I find this rather strange. Every pitbull in Queensland has either been euthanased over the past several years, or is living as a dangerous dog, in an enclosure, muzzled in public, depending on the council area,. So, how can there be pitbulls at Glasshosue, at large and attacking people?

hotfurball When kangaroos are badly hurt they tend to lie like that and of course, if they have a broken leg, they can't get up. Taking them to the vets for treatment does not always work,they get so stressed, and they cannot be confined for treatment. I have had a few pet ones. One was sick so I took her to our wildlife vet - she sort of coped with him handling her, as I was nursing her but she was not happy. She returned home needing twice daily doses of nasty tasting medicine. She hated that so much, that she was never as quiet or friendly again. Taking wild ones anywhere in a vehicle is so much trauma for them, it's as likely to kill them as the original injury And while Dr Wirth is being over critical and issuing advice on how to shoot animals perhaps he should have spoken to the RSPCA inspectors in NSW who shot Ruth Downey's cattle? Photos show them being very unprofessionally shot, and many shots being used. Disgusting.

I have been advised by the RSPCA that I could be prosecuted for doing that. No doubt you could be prosecuted too. Next time I find on the road (I've never hurt one when driving), I shall leave it there, phone the RSPCA, and if they do not attend in a timely way, I intend to make a huge song and donce to all the media. Someone will come and take photos of the suffering. Police, in my experience, have always been wonderful at attending and ending the misery of injured animals. I feel for the poor policeman in this instance. He probably shot the roo quite correctly, and shot it again "to be sure" and is now being pasted for doing the right thing. I s'pose a "few roos" and a "few horses" are jusr like a "few chooks" that a big bu$ine$$ like the RSPCA couldn't be bothered about, unless there's some publicity. Remember Clifford. We remember you, Clifford. Used and killed.