asal

Apparently the landscape is not conducive to shooting , either on foot or aerial ? anyhow , it's on LANDLINE at noon today . I am 90 % certain that my brother & his dogs could manage the task . His dogs are used to finding goats- he is a qualified shooter ..... I have a strange feeling this experiment once aired today , will attract an awful lot more negative attention, and may not be completed ... its already fait accomplai. they show you them turning them loose on the island. weird isnt it, fine for those goats to be torn to pieces (just check out the horrific photos of dingo attacks on flocks for yourself) yet beyond disgusting when a 80% suffer the same penalty for the offending 20% percentage of greyhound owners ??? and used to justify everyone guilty and shut down all who have racing greyhounds in this state? then we have Wrans daughter charged as an accessory to murder because she knocked n the door and sheltered a felon. Yet isnt that exactly what the clergy up to and including cardinals and nary an accessory charge is pending in that quarter. But dog owners with the same interests and breed of dog as the offending 20% are tried convicted and sentanced without even a hearing let alone appeal if the powers can block it. skewed world we live in

excellent point. look at the wonderful job the churches has done to "police our own" on the pedophile front. about time they were shut down too.

It only takes a heartbeat to take away people's rights - people who have never shown any sign of being party to any of this - thats 80% of them and how do you justify them having the right to find them new homes or sell them interstate rather than killing them as better for the dogs? can only wonder if its a case of don't care, as long is its not your rights that have been signed away. Then the fat would fly but same scenario here, those unaffected will just look on and say hey they brought it on themselves then too. As someone who owns and loves animals I do care very much, and I worry that my right to own them wil be taken away, but that doesn't negate the reality, nor does it make it ok for others to abuse animals while I sat back. I do what I can but it takes a majority, so I try to convince people that this is all our responsibility. Each of us every time we hear about someone doing the wrong thing but are afraid to speak up because they are more powerful, they are more respected, but they are the ones who will bring us all down so now is the time to act against them. but you do feel that the 80% are just collateral damage for the good of the bigger picture. Continue to pander to Peta no matter what name they are under you will be next, divide and conquer is what is happening. Watch Landline today especially the Sheep farmer in England. He loves his sheep, his job but as he said the city is so distanced from the farm they have no idea whats going on, the quest for cheap food means the small caring farmers cant survive, the farmers arent the only losers, their stock living a quality of life they will never experience once the whole thing is replaced by factory farms. his comment about the australian and NZ dairy industry was spot on. gone are the family farms where the cattle had paddocks and crops to graze and play in with people who knew every animals name. There were over 17,000 in new south wales alone, until as he pointed out politicans went the deregulation road, family farms fell and continue to fall like ninepin's and now even the factory farms are struggling to survive and whats at the bottom of the cutting costs chain? the cows.

I had no idea either. never knew anyone with one. a local here loves great danes and none of the 4 she has had have lived long enough to celebrate their 6th birthday although one was one day short of her 6th when she too died in her sleep. yet a daughters friend had hers to 14? He was huge, so tall he could rest his head on the counter top for a nap watching the preparation for a party and could look straight down into the food on display for the party goers. but he knew no touchie although it was a bit disconcerting. he could easily sneeze on it

It only takes a heartbeat to take away people's rights - people who have never shown any sign of being party to any of this - thats 80% of them and how do you justify them having the right to find them new homes or sell them interstate rather than killing them as better for the dogs? can only wonder if its a case of don't care, as long is its not your rights that have been signed away. Then the fat would fly but same scenario here, those unaffected will just look on and say hey they brought it on themselves then too.

It only takes a heartbeat to take away people's rights - people who have never shown any sign of being party to any of this - thats 80% of them and how do you justify them having the right to find them new homes or sell them interstate rather than killing them as better for the dogs? can only wonder if its a case of don't care, as long is its not your rights that have been signed away. Then the fat would fly but those unaffected will just look on and say they brought it on themselves then too.

Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the R.... to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing? That wasn't what I was meaning, the outrage part was because of the comment section of the link. I also think that breeder/trainer/owner should be allowed to made decisions for their own dogs in that regard. --Lhok except for the fact that obviously they are not allowed to make decisions for their own dogs now. look at the outrage of the disclosure of the mass grave of less than 100 dogs in was it five years? It read shot or bludgened, if every one had been shot then there should have been no cause for outrage, well unless its now only the ..... allowed to shoot/euth stock anymore. its euth when they pull the trigger if you arent aware of that. no mass outraged at the 58,000 or so yearly put down by the r.... even to my awful maths that over 300,000 dogs? dont even look at the cats. although they incinerate them at yagoona, read somewhere many end up in land fill from other branches. doesn't compute when looked at from that angle all to much but look on the bright side. thousands less dogs born and bred to be loved by the vast majority of their owners and perfect result for peta. I'm sitting on the fence with this debate BUT I can tell you what DOES compute - 15% euth rates nationally (RSPCA published dog figures) vs 58% (Greyhound Australasia estimated dog figures). Yes there are other issues. so nuke the lot ? NO thought or care of the thousands who don't end up in those stats or those who love and care for them. nuke em too on the grounds of the greater good? whats really doing my head in is nuke the greyhounds to protect them even if it means so protected they die. yet its fine to dump 4 dingos onto an island hoping they euthanasia/sounds so much nicer (than tear them to bits doesn't it?) all the feral goats there and what is their reward? they will die due to a late release implant

Ok? subject of another thread. BUT. its ok to end greyhound racing because 20% have not followed the rules. the grey hound industry and probably most of the dogs involved is to die because some cant be honest, a percentage are put down. then theres the dingo v goats on island story yet its perfectly fine to turn 4 dingo's loose on an island to kill out the feral goats AND implant the poor buggers with a delayed release poison?

Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the R.... to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing? That wasn't what I was meaning, the outrage part was because of the comment section of the link. I also think that breeder/trainer/owner should be allowed to made decisions for their own dogs in that regard. --Lhok except for the fact that obviously they are not allowed to make decisions for their own dogs now. look at the outrage of the disclosure of the mass grave of less than 100 dogs in was it five years? It read shot or bludgened, if every one had been shot then there should have been no cause for outrage, well unless its now only the ..... allowed to shoot/euth stock anymore. its euth when they pull the trigger if you arent aware of that. no mass outraged at the 58,000 or so yearly put down by the r.... even to my awful maths that over 300,000 dogs? dont even look at the cats. although they incinerate them at yagoona, read somewhere many end up in land fill from other branches. doesn't compute when looked at from that angle all to much but look on the bright side. thousands less dogs born and bred to be loved by the vast majority of their owners and perfect result for peta.

I doubt it. Only about 50% of dogs in this country are registered, vaccinated or microchipped. What on earth makes people think that a law (which won't be resourced for enforcement) will make an ounce of difference to people who don't obey the laws now. It will penalise responsible people and their dogs and do SFA to stem the flow into pounds I'd say. Time will tell. time has already told, its been some 20 years since microchipping came in by now and hasnt it been mandatory to register for over 16 years now? the stats are still the same olthough far fewer are being bred by the registered traceable breeders since they have been regulated into halving how many puppies they could breed in any one year. so whats next? stop em altogether and call that drop in numbers a win and ignore the untracables?

I just realised something odd. Baird is going to save greyhound "wastage" by shutting down the racing in nsw right? Tb breeders are heading for the same micromanagement to shut down "wastage" this this same government wants to shoot 5,000 brumbies in Kosiosko National park. Not allow their capture and rehoming, just blast em with high power rifles because its more humane? is it just me who is confused by this, are some less equal than others somehow?

thanks, always suspected that but never knew for sure so few were interested in those days ie, prior 2000 Well these days all you need to do is get your breeding dogs DNA swabbed and tested for it and you can make sure it doesn't show again while you also get to enjoy blue dogs. used to look at weimariners and felt miffed they are fine why cant the blue gene chi's all be too, their breeders had obviously deleted the problem long ago.

thanks, always suspected that but never knew for sure so few were interested in those days ie, prior 2000 Well these days all you need to do is get your breeding dogs DNA swabbed and tested for it and you can make sure it doesn't show again while you also get to enjoy blue dogs. my neighbor has a cute little lilac chihuahua not a hint of alopecia although looking at him I realised ive never seen a shortcoat chihuahua with alopecia even in the case of full siblings, it was only the long coat puppies that it popped up in. At the time I was discussing it with my vet I mentioned that and his reply was I should see the coats on some of his doberman, rotti and staffies all smoothcoats and one of his worst cases was a roly dog. but for myself ive never seen an affected smoothcoat? harder to express or just lucky? passed on your news about the dna test to a friend who has the blue gene in her dogs and asked to to thank you. made the comment she was at a vets the other day with an emergency delivery and on the other table was a blue fawn dog with the typical alopecia skin and coat. asked her vet whay was it out cold, to be told he was going to take skin plugs and scrapings to see what it had. she was pretty astonished he didnt know blue gene alopecia when he saw it?

yes yours are so pretty, well to you anyway

on second thoughts, very relevant. Considering greyhound owners are now being told as of this month thanks to Biard, they don't own their dogs they "belong" to the authority they registered them with?

not entirely on topic have to admit, but have u seen this? remember Maya the chihuahua stolen by peta from her owners verandah in 2014? this ruling was handed down this month. nice if they could now be banned on cruelty grounds too eh? http://www.thenokillnation.org/#!Court-Documents-Show-PETA-is-Worthless-PetaIsWorthless/c1rn0/576e6b9b0cf233125dbeca4e

so true, its tends to be dangerous to come too near a stressed out soul working on their Phd, some get pretty wild eyed at times. Good luck on keeping stress levels down.

depends on whose holding the gun and pulling the trigger. when its a Special Constable its called euthanasia.

Clare, you ask why people choose breeds. How can you quantify someone's heart? ETA on 'designer' animals, please put that in parentheses. There is no design to sticking two unsuitable dog breeds together other than the desire to make money. Hi there, so far in my reading and research I have found that while a number of people do select dogs based on loving the breed or feelings that as you say they cannot quantify, that other factors also come into consideration. For example their living arrangements, family status, work commitments and so forth. Therefore that is the reason why I have asked the question in the survey. I hope that answers your question. As for your comment of designer animals, there are a number of perspectives that my research will seek to gather and present, hence why I am seeking the perspective of pedigree owners and breeders to balance out the debate. My survey is also being directed at people with designer animals to canvas the reasons why they selected these particular combinations. I have no interests or opinion on the matter outside of pure scientific curiosity, hence why I am conducting research on this topic. I hope that covers everything for you, and thanks for your contribution. Thanks for your replies, I on one hand was concerned my suspicions may have offended you, but on the other hand know from experience nothing offends a peta advocate. You will I suspect tend to find older generations are more than a bit gun-shy as they have seen this stealth campaign from its beginnings to today. the complete lack of compassion for those who love and have pets is bad enough but their record of destruction of any animals they get hold of let alone the plans for all breeds and species of animals in their sights is the scariest part. it is as if they not only detest their own species who have pets but any domesticated species as well. as for so called 'designer breeds', they are x breds there is no 'design' to be found in crossing some breeds, feel sorry in particular for so many of the poor oodles. they need the same grooming and care as a purebred poodle , except many lack the correct poodle single coat of the purebred, the correct coat and texture is quite resistant to matting, many tend to have to also inherited the soft fluffy undercoat as well and suffer the resulting matting and horrific felting so loved by the publications for shocking the general public. a friend come home with the cutest boxer x kelpie, if the breeder thought that design was a good one I knew without even asking this cutie was going to grow into and incredibly active perpetual puppy with a strength no kelpie ever had and a tail that could kneecap an adult. lovable absolutely. kids flying like tenpins? absolutely. not a plant left in the yard? absolutely. the first 2 years were a nightmare but unlike many owners of such a high energy behemoth they stuck it out, many pups aren't so lucky and end up dumped or surrendered. she was lucky. as well the whole idea of the non shedding coat is lost in the next cross, well unless the other parent is again a purebred poodle, a percentage shed anyway and as for crossing the resulting oodles even if neither oodle parent sheds 2/3rds of the puppies will miss out on the non shedding gene and oops will not be any use in preventing allergic reactions to those who need a non shedding pet. as Rob Zammit pointed out so long ago as he had that cute little Malti tzu or was it malti oodle? any way it had inherited a combination of structural faults from its contributing parents. designer parents need to be conformation sound too or the puppies still inherit malaccluded teeth, navel and or inguinal hernias, luxating patella, hip displacia, even deafness and dry eye to name a few of the bonus genes that can come if the parents arent checked for freedom for these just as thoughly as any potential parent of any breed or cross.

thanks, always suspected that but never knew for sure so few were interested in those days ie, prior 2000

thanks Diva, interesting. bit like the pearl gene v the cream gene in horses. each is a dilution gene located on the same locus, therefore no horse can have two pearl genes and a cream, or two cream and a pearl. but they can have two pearl or two cream or one cream and one pearl. the results are a dilution but each expressess quite differently. One copy of the cream turns a chesnut palomino, a bay buckskin or a black smokey black. . with two copies the palomino becomes a cremello with blue eyes, the buckskin a perlino with blue eyes and the smokey black before almost unable to be realised is a dilute since the creme gene can only dilute red in the coat, suddenly with the two is perlino with blue eyes. the pearl on the other hand cannot express singularly, like the blue gene it cannot express unless present with two copies and then presents a diluten with a noticibly pearl sheen to the the coat . Yet if a horse inherits one cream gene and one pearl gene the result is a seemingly slightly different shades of cremello or Perlino but the eyes are believe it or not, green or green flecked. in the case of a smokey black pearl the shade is almost beyond description. fortunately alopecia isnt anywhere in the mix http://www.hippo-logistics.com/newdilutions/pearl/index.htm https://www.google.com.au/search?q=pearl+horse&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsmM2Wlv7NAhXMnpQKHew7Au8QsAQIIw&biw=1920&bih=971

the chocolate gene is also a dilution gene but its entirely seperate on a different locus. hence why a puppy can be both blue and chocolate and visually present as the ultra light lilac. the chocolate dilution does not develop alopecia, although it is quite subject to fading from sun exposure two blue genes on a black or a black and tan dog gives you a blue or blue and tan dog with a blue instead of a black nose. two blue genes on a sable or a fawn gives you a blue sable or a blue fawn, which presents as a pale golden with blue tips in the case of the sable or simply a blue sheen in the otherwise golden coat. both will have blue instead of black noses. Stringy is a blue fawn and you can see his lighter nose colour compared to his sister Lace and the golden girl Dancer. oops forgot to mention, dancer is yes a golden, but she is also a double chocolate which cannot express on a gold dog, but her nose does express it, her nose is chocolate instead of black. hence so many golden labradors who do not have a black nose. they are actually disguised chocolates hidden by their gold coat. only their nose is the giveaway What breed are you talking about here as this is all incorrect for border collies. at the beginning I listed some of the breeds my vet said. as others commented they haven't seen it in greyhounds and I can say neither have I but after I did learn about the 1 in 4 average in the breeds he told me , did wonder if the alopecia was not actually linked to the blue gene itself but an alle that piggy backs on some and isn't passed onto others, hence the 3 unaffected. If only unaffected were bred from would it cease to appear. My vet could not find any research on this so no idea or where to find out if such research has been done. but then many blues are born from carrier parents so no way to select for non alopecia in the blue carrying parent/parents as they arent blue so coats ok anyway

Scary how fast this was done, hope all greyhound owners are warned to keep their dogs safe if they travel with them then.

so it may not comes as such a suprise then that a friend who breeds, trains and races her own thouroughbreds recently received notification from henceforth she can no longer move any of her horses from one paddock to another, not even on her own property, to take to the vet or anywhere else for that matter without notifying the AJC of the intention of doing so. (I think she said but dont quote me on it till I recheck with her) She didnt mention what the penalty for non compliance will be. she cannot euthanase any of her stock regardless of the severity of injury, or even dispose of a body, not even a stillborn foal without reporting first to a body whose sole supposed purpose is the administration of Thoroughbred Racing in this country? What is going on by stealth? anyone notice a whiff of Peta in the breeze ? or is it just imagination?

Read Jed. I knew nothing of what Jed knows but I can smell Peta a mile off. beware peoples.