miss whippy

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be here. :) What the Americans do with their breed standards is a matter for them IMO. I am interested in owning and breeding dogs as the country of origin intended them. For Whippets that's the UK and that is the standard followed here. But it's your breed, surely you would have as much to say about that as you do about the colours allowed in whatever other breeds we are discussing here.

Generally the Americans dont' show dilutes at all. Their breed standard speciifies a dark eye and that's impossible in a dilute. Our breed standard follows the English one and eye colour has no impact on hunting ability. That, a strong preference for parti-colours (a recessive gene) and a higher height allowance in the US breed standard probably account for the genetic drift identified in American Whippets. So where is it okay to disagree with the standard and where is it not? Do you think that it is sensible to require a dark eye and allow dilute colouring and limit the genepool on what is basically a lack of understanding of genetics? Would you support this being changed? Is it possible that some other standards have similar inconsistencies and therefore would benefit from a re-visit to the colours allowed?

Yes, you have highlighted the press' crap interpretation of the results..

I'm saying that a breed standard matters. Individual disagreement with it isn't a good enough reason for me to breed outside it. If you don't like a standard, a process exists to change it. However before you change it, it pays to understand the "why" of colour specification or disqualification. Somewhere along the line, an individual is going to have to disagree with it to have it changed. Nobody has suggested that the reason why should not be considered, but the genetic health of the breed should also be considered, possibly above whatever reason may have been for the exclusion of a colour.

Perhaps not, but many use them. You'd be surprised the lengths those irrelevant pedigree dog breeders will go to for stock. In my immediate circle of friends, three have imported dogs (multiple imports in some cases), more have imported semen and I've personally got feelers out for an import. Both dogs from the mating I have done have imports within two generations - one is the daughter of an import. Perhaps we move in different circles. My breeder friends are thoughtful, knowledgeable and responsible. They take breeding very seriously and invest heavily in their hobby. Crossbreeding may be perceived you to be the magic bullet for the ills of the pedigree dog world. I happen to think that careful breeding can produce the same result. You'll need some data to prove genetic drift from the rest of the world in any breed. The last Whippet results I saw suggested the USA was experiencing it, not here. genetic drift is the loss of genetic material within the closed genepool due to various phenotypes being bred for or against, and some other genes being unintentionally lost along the way. it applies to the entire breed, not country or population related.

what are you arguing against? i'm really not sure, that was my point

Many breed standards specify temperament. What good is an LGD that is extremely dog social? Similarly what good is a protective and aloof gun dog? (although there is a gun dog that is expected to guard) I think a solid understanding of the "why's" of a breed standard should inform anyone embarking on the roller coaster of purebred dog breeding. Colour is immaterial for Whippets. The breed standard says so. But seemingly minor cosmetic issues like foot shape, top line, depth of chest etc all have a WHY. We are lucky to have some extremely wonderful books that spell out the whys for us. Is there a Flatcoat bible? We still don't have an answer for WHY yellow is a disqualifying colour though. That is the most important question of all. You don't go mucking about with an established breed standard based on a whim before understanding PRECISELY what the change will result in. For example, is the coat the same in all three colours?? Based on the history of the breed, it may be that the FC folk wanted to keep the differentiation clear between the Flatcoat and the Golden Retriever. Maybe whilst they acknowledged the need for GR blood to increase the gene pool after WWII but, they wanted to favour the dogs that more closely resembled the 'old' upland retrievers based on the St John's dog and the Newfoundland before their decline. Certainly a black or liver dog would be far easier to see in upland country - important for a working retriever. A breed standard isn't an opt in for bits, opt out for others kind of deal. If you want a yellow gun dog with long hair there is one available. Given the number of health issues currently experienced by that long haired yellow gun dog, maybe the original Flatcoat people were onto something. The last thing you want is some cowboy breeding and selling a 'rare' colour in contravention of the breed standard. That seriously is the fast track to oblivion for breed type. Again, we need to answer the WHY. And if necessary CHANGE the breed standard. It does happen. Far better than blowing it off because you don't personally agree with it. . It happens. I can think of breed standards that have been changed to include some colours but not others. But that is a process that is worked through. Lots of consultation and generally that includes overseas folks. Not someone deciding based on a gut instinct that they know better. Has anyone here suggested that colours that are not currently in the standard should be allowed 'on a whim'? Has anyone suggested that we should just throw out the standard and ignore it? I think anyone here with the view that colours not currently in whichever hypothetical standard should be included, are only suggesting that it should be done with careful consideration of the health implications and the function of the breed. I'm not sure why you are still disagreeing. The original 'why' that precluded some colours from some breeds may be lost, but why should we be stuck with that? We are in a much better position now to know the actual ramifications of colour choice or any other visible trait than those who wrote the standard were. A lot of the time these colour choices were simply omissions. Some are just a drift in definition or because at the time the standards were written, the genetics of colour were not understood. The standards should not be held up as some unassailable document of pure wisdom, they do not deserve it. It is fair and sensible to question their 'wisdom' regularly. Dog breeds are not static. Knowledge is not static. The reliance on 'because the standard says so' is frankly lazy.

I understand exactly where the OP is coming from. And I think it relates a lot to her often being the only entrant in her class. As a relative newbie I too have had similar confusion on occasion of who is awarded what and if I have been awarded at all. Often in a class where I am the only exhibitor, we've done our usual thing and at the end of the go-round and coming up to the entrance of the ring again, the judge just looks away.. the steward already knows your number, you are the only one in the class, and you just leave the ring, nothing said by anyone. It is assumed that if you are the only one there, and the judge has not said anything to the contrary, that you have been given the class placing. A similar thing often happens in a small class when the judge awards in order of entry, so that the first dog that went round gets first, and the second got second. The judge often just gives a subtle nod to the steward, and the steward makes note, and you leave. You have to be looking up at the judge to see it. It doesn't make it easy for newbies and kind of takes away from the thrill of any of the class wins, as they seem to most of the seasoned showies to be insignificant, and therefore, they don't bother with ribbons or acknowledgement. On the other hand, I have come across some great stewards and judges who make showing clear, easy and enjoyable. Theres a fair bit of reading body language involved I think, especially with some of the international judges. If you are new to things, let the steward know, and even the judge when they go over your dog, and they will usually keep an eye on you and explain things a bit more to you. And if you don't understand something, ask. You paid your entry, they are there for you.

I applaud you for persevering with your little neglected souls. I'm sure they thank you for rescuing them and giving them a second chance at a normal life. It's a shame they miss out on play because they don't speak doggy but I'm glad to hear of the 'reactive rover' class. I hope it helps, even if just a little bit. I don't think a lot of people understand the importance of socialisation. It is a shame that you question getting a rescue again, as it sounds like you have the understanding and dedication needed to take on these kinds of dogs.

A well bred Cocker with a correct coat is not hard to maintain. I organised a nice registered dog for an old work colleague, who had always had unregistered Cockers before. She had always had them clipped because the coats were too much work. When she got the one from the top show breeder, she managed the coat on her own with no problem. She was delighted to find that the correct silky texture does not matt like the woolly incorrect coats do so regular baths with conditioner, a little hand stripping and once or twice a week brushing were all this dog needed. Stripping a Cocker is nothing like having to hand strip a wire coated terrier. We did have a registered dog from a top show breeder, but we found the stripping too much, and so did our dog. Maybe we were just unlucky with her coat. I have had discussions with some dog-owners walking cockers about the upkeep of their coats, but I admit I did not ask about their pedigree. Sometimes when recommending breeds we forget to mention the upkeep or the downsides: I only meant to offer my own experiences and I'm sorry if I've mis-represented the breed, I had no intention of doing so. I also missed the fact that the OP was a groomer. Sounds like a Cocker would be a good fit, and as I said, I definitely second that they make great family-members and are great with kids.

OK, so we'll take our enormous population of Staffordshire Bull Terriers and destroy the lot then shall we? My reasoning about this is similar to the reason behind our country's policy to not allow it's citziens to carry firearms. Are you saying that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are bred with the intention that they will attack other dogs or humans, unprovoked? If that is the case, yup, or at least neuter them all. I don't think you are saying that, and neither was I. I do have a bit of an issue with the fact that there are the sorts of breeds that do have an instinct intentionally and selectively bred into them to ignore another dog's signs of submission or defeat and with no provocation, attack and fight to the death, with no reservation and no consideration of their own preservation. That owners and breeders freely admit that bar bashing them on the head with a brick or shoving something sharp up their arsehole, there is nothing you can do to make them let go. I'm not saying that every example of the breed is going to do this, but there is a much higher potential for problems with a breed that has been developed to have these characteristics. Instinct is a very hard thing to counteract, even with the best of trainers. Take for example the Fila Braziliero, which seems to be the possible cause of this debate. If the standard set out by the CAFIB was the standard exclusively being followed, I would not want those dogs in our country. What possible use could we as Australians have for an animal with these characteristics? The FCI standard has a different requirement, as was quoted 'nicer temperament', which may be reasonable enough to feel that safety with these dogs is not such an issue(I don't know, I haven't read the standard). Do we know which is which? If not, surely safety is more important than the ability for people to choose to have a particular breed of dog. Just thought I'd make sure I was properly informed. Had a look at www.boldhart.com, staffordshire bull terrier breeder that came up when I googled the breed standard. standard makes no mention of aggression towards other dogs or humans. 'Generally speaking the Stafford will not be indiscriminately aggressive towards other dogs' 'Always be aware that whilst a Stafford should not be the aggressor he will respond if challenged by another dog' are comments made about the temperament expected from a staffordshire bull terrier. much as I expected, given this, I'm not sure why you thought I was suggesting someone should come and put down your poor little pooch?

OK, so we'll take our enormous population of Staffordshire Bull Terriers and destroy the lot then shall we? My reasoning about this is similar to the reason behind our country's policy to not allow it's citziens to carry firearms. Are you saying that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are bred with the intention that they will attack other dogs or humans, unprovoked? If that is the case, yup, or at least neuter them all. I don't think you are saying that, and neither was I. I do have a bit of an issue with the fact that there are the sorts of breeds that do have an instinct intentionally and selectively bred into them to ignore another dog's signs of submission or defeat and with no provocation, attack and fight to the death, with no reservation and no consideration of their own preservation. That owners and breeders freely admit that bar bashing them on the head with a brick or shoving something sharp up their arsehole, there is nothing you can do to make them let go. I'm not saying that every example of the breed is going to do this, but there is a much higher potential for problems with a breed that has been developed to have these characteristics. Instinct is a very hard thing to counteract, even with the best of trainers. Take for example the Fila Braziliero, which seems to be the possible cause of this debate. If the standard set out by the CAFIB was the standard exclusively being followed, I would not want those dogs in our country. What possible use could we as Australians have for an animal with these characteristics? The FCI standard has a different requirement, as was quoted 'nicer temperament', which may be reasonable enough to feel that safety with these dogs is not such an issue(I don't know, I haven't read the standard). Do we know which is which? If not, surely safety is more important than the ability for people to choose to have a particular breed of dog.

I think generally we interfere too much too. Isn't that crazy?! What a shame the obedience school was so shortsighted and 'breedist' in their approach. Thank goodness his natural good temperament shines through, and probably his owners still trying to do the right thing without the benefit of the class.

Does anyone else feel that there are an unfortunate number of dogs around that are, by bad breeding, or bad/missing teaching unable to communicate with each other properly? I find some dogs able to play and interact with each other on all levels of hierarchy, including in sizable groups where the dogs have not met before, without the fear of dogfights erupting. However others do not seem to be able or willing to read the signs, either ignoring obvious displays of submission or running into the face of a dog that clearly presents as unfriendly. Is it our fault for not allowing our dogs to properly interact and sort it out with each other, teaching them that our command is all that counts? Is it because our dogs are often taken from their litter-mates at an early age, before they learn how to speak their own language? Are they picking up on our own fears and reacting accordingly? Do you think dogs should be able to play together without fear of someone ending up in a bloody mess? Is this an untenable idea? Would love to hear what you think.

I feel that in Australia, we have no place for breeds that have been bred to attack humans or other dogs, unprovoked, especially if intended to cause heavy injury. That said, 'that would lead to' is rather unclear. Also, a problem is where to define provocation. Is a breed that has for generations been selected to ward off trespassers to the extent of injury if said trespasser persisted, or selected to catch vermin or hunt deer under the same umbrella? There are guarding breeds that are bred to protect the family and property, but rarely is it part of the intention that these would do so without so much as warning, and without trespass or threat being part of the equation. The hunting/game breeds are carefully selected to focus on their quarry, the mouse, the rabbit, the deer, not to mistake another dog as it's target for unprovoked attack. There are breeds that have a much higher risk of mis-use, in that with a little questionable breeding and foolish or uneducated handling, can become a danger, but this can be said of many breeds to varying degrees. This is already a problem to which we may not have a workable answer. I wonder whether we should be required to obtain a license to own a dog, but judging by the number of apparently licensed drivers creating havoc on our roads, I doubt this would solve a lot! Maybe a license to breed dogs would be more possible or effective to enforce. Mostly our problem is ill-intention and foolhardiness, human traits, we will have trouble breeding out. As well as deciding where to draw the line. I don't have a lot of answers to give, but a lot to think about.

I can second any recommendations on Cocker Spaniels in regard to temperament. Lovely sweet creatures. My family had a beautiful one when I was little. They can be quite boisterous at times though, and the upkeep on the grooming side is not for the faint-hearted. The goldens generally seem to have an easier coat from what I've seen than the blacks or blue-roans, but is a bit of pot luck. As someone else mentioned, if you clip them, they need to continue to be clipped quite often, which is a big job or a decent expense. If you don't clip them the coat needs to be stripped, I dont know how many groomers will do this. They need to be brushed regularly or they will end up with matting in the armpits. You also have to be constantly on the look out for grass seeds in the ears and feet and ear infections from not enough air in their ears due to their pendulous nature. Ours hated being bathed too, not the kind of dog you can just turn the hose on and wash off. We loved her to bits and she was reasonably easy to train, but was always a bit doggy-smelling, not a dog we could have had in the bed, like the whippet. Just a heads up on the possible joys of owning a long-haired dog!

lol, totally awesome!!

surely you can't get much cuter than this pic 039 by lime*blue, on Flickr pic 049 by lime*blue, on Flickr Picture 047 by lime*blue, on Flickr Picture 048 by lime*blue, on Flickr Picture 050 by lime*blue, on Flickr Picture 052 by lime*blue, on Flickr

I'd suggest a whippet, as long as the kids are fairly sensitive. Whippets aren't usually ok with much rough play. They are basically odourless, so indoors is not a problem, but outdoors they will at very least need a warm kennel and a good jacket in winter (you might be tempted to use one as a hot-water bottle though, they love getting in bed with their family). They are great family dogs and great with kids. They don't require a heap of exercise, but will love you for taking them for a walk, and especially a run in a good off leash area once a day. No road sense however and not marathon-runners. 10-15kg medium size dog you can pick up if you need to! Very sweet-natured and pretty intelligent, but not 'eager to please' many train quite well, but do have a 'what's in it for me' attitude. Can't recommend them enough though! forgot to mention very sound breed very rarely any hereditary conditions etc

Try a thicker needle and go slow.

Speaking as a previous owner of an aggressive dog, no I would not. I'd feel furious that the other owner's negligence had probably put back my dog's training and rehabilitation by weeks if not months. my point was that the case did not involve owner's negligence not much point me arguing the case though when you view the world as you do

I think that young kids should not be walking any kind of dog on their own, and definitely not one that is heavier or stronger than them. Particularly stupid if the dog is aggressive in any way. If you know your dog is at all likely to bite another dog, (unless of course it is being attacked), it should be muzzled. Full stop. If you are worried about what it might do if somebody's dog comes up near it in an off leash area or out on a normal walk, where you are minding your own business, it should be muzzled. Not all dogs off leash are there by fault of the owner. What if a dog got a fright and slipped is collar, was let out somebody's front door by accident, the owner was not there to re-call it or control it. Wouldn't you feel terrible if that dog was injured by your aggressive dog? In response to the idea that no dog should approach another dog in an off leash area unless invited, I don't understand. Many owners go to off leash areas to let their dogs socialise, and the rules only state that you should be in effective control of your dog, meaning that you can re-call it, stop it if necessary. There are plenty of places you can walk your dog on lead, there is no need to bring your dog aggressive animal into an area you know will be a challenge for it and spoil the good-natured fun of the other dogs there. I reckon I'm probably going to get hung drawn and quartered for my opinion, but meh, I can have a vent too.

I think the first post had it on the money with whippets

Hi guys, that's my girl Pixie! Thanks for the great pics Evolving and Kirislin. Had such a lovely day yesterday. I think I'll have to get my old camera out next time and see what I can come up with. I haven't previously because Pixel get's so upset if her mummy leaves her, but she makes so much noise anyway trying to make it her turn sooner, that I might as well try and get some photos. If I can get some other family members to come along that would help too.

pixie has her good days and bad at obedience. she is very sociable, and i have noticed that she is most likely to settle when we have gotten to class early and had time to 'say hello' to each and every other dog there!! she is just so full of beans some days, she doesnt listen to me, other days she seems equally as energetic, but is putting it all into behaving... who knows? but, as i said, i reccommend a good socialisation beforehand.. especially with the other dogs in the class that they will be working alongside i also find when the instructors are talking to us, and there are extended periods of waiting, that telling her 'ok' and not worrying that she is sniffing the ground or rolling around, until we are working again breaks it up a bit.. but we will work towards a longer attention span!! the other thing that helps i think, is that our obedience classes are broken up periodically for a short social session or a run through the agility tunnel and a practice on the weaving poles. I think they can see it as a reward for doing all that boring obedience stuff, although she seems to enjoy the obedience sometimes. ok, waffled on long enough!! good luck, and have fun!