sandgrubber

I was surprised in the dogs 101 discussion to read that the breed standard for the Fauve says they should be without dewclaws (from birth). Didn't know dogs were ever born without dewclaws. Are there other breeds that don't have them in the front?

double posted ... please delete. My system is behaving badly with DOL forums. Won't let me edit as I post. The only way I can work with text is to put something up and then edit it with Quick Edit. Is anyone else having this problem. I think it started when I went to Mozilla 3.6.

My experience with hounds in general is that they are inclined to follow their noses everywhere . . . sometimes ending up far from home. Our neighbourhood basset when I was a kid always wandered off to the local elementary school when he got out, which was regularly. Is the Fauve a typical hound in this respect?

Extremist infiltration would explain a lot of things. Also suggests that the way to make the RSPCA more reasonable would be to get involved.

My vet says forget ten days . . .don't encourage heavy exercise, but walking is fine after a couple days provided your girl wants to go.

Mighty interesting, Amanda! Looks like the pet insurance business doesn't reflect anything about purebred dogs generally being riddled with health conditions. Insurance companies base their premiums on risk assessment. Insurance companies base their fees on what the market will bear. This is even more skewed in their favour with so few re-inurers. Australia does not appear to have an open market. What on earth does postcode have to do with anything. SG you are probably correct but it still sounds like stereotyping and price gouging to me. It is stereotyping and price gouging. That's a basic part of marketing.

The conformation show ring is not designed to be a temperament test. . . . one reason that I'm not a big fan of shows as a way to select the best dog. Many great dogs find shows boring and do not sparkle. The show-off attitude that makes dogs sparkle in the ring isn't always associated with temperament that makes a good companion or a good working dog. Breeders should consider more than show results. But I don't think judges should try to do temperament assessments . . . other than throwing out dogs who show aggression, etc. I agree with that to a large extent with some breeds, where the breeding of show dogs is affecting the breeds integrity when conformation has a priority above all else. You agree with what? Logical development of the PDE report would have breed standards changed in ways that pay more attention to health . .. . and have judges still use the written standard and still judge on conformation. Not, as stated, that judges fundamentally change their attitude and put less emphasis of physical traits. And . . . of course . . . breeders should consider other things than the parts of conformation that can easily be evaluated in a show ring in making breeding decisions, eg, favour bitches capable of free whelping. The RSPCA would like to see a fundamental change in the attitudes of show judges, with much less emphasis placed on physical traits.[/b] There is more to a dog's compliance with the breed standards than physical traits which I believe needs to be taken into account by the judges. A dog may have an excellent conformation, but if the other aspects that make up the breed standard for example temperament which is not desirable, the dog shouldn't be winning shows, which they often do.

Given how brilliantly local governments handle dogs, I wonder whether we should be moving hospitals to local control.

I agree with that to a large extent with some breeds, where the breeding of show dogs is affecting the breeds integrity when conformation has a priority above all else. You agree with what? Logical development of the PDE report would have breed standards changed in ways that pay more attention to health . .. . and have judges still use the written standard and still judge on conformation. Not, as stated, that judges fundamentally change their attitude and put less emphasis of physical traits. And . . . of course . . . breeders should consider other things than the parts of conformation that can easily be evaluated in a show ring in making breeding decisions, eg, favour bitches capable of free whelping.

What's this 'they' business. There are all sorts of cabbies . . . . some will refuse to pick up a drunk. And for someone from a non-dog tolerant culture, picking up a dog probably feels like it would to someone who hates snakes to pick up a person holding large python. Not to say I agree with the cabbie or he didn't deserve a fine. Just that some people end out learning the hard way. If it's a first offense made in ignorance, no big deal. For all we know the cabbie didn't know what a guide dog is, and thought the blind person was drunk. They will pick up a drunk from the pub with "i'm gonna be sick" tatoo'd on their forehead, which they do all over the back seat, but they refuse a dog as it may drop some hair A bit of dog hair on the seat is far easier than cleaning up a good chuck.............doesn't make sense, especially a guide dog which is someones eyes

I'm sure he or she probably learned a lesson. tolerance. Lots of cabbies are new immigrants and haven't yet learned the rules.

The public also don't know that a Golden Labrador is a Labbie X Goldie. I get lots of puppy buyers looking for golden Labradors and get bored with explaining. And it puts me off a bit that the Retriever breed section on the general forum seems to be golden retrievers, while the Labradors have their own section. It's not just Joe Public who gets the terms mixed up, and this sort of topic naming on a Pedigree dog forum doesn't help. Not to be a grouch or anything.

I took a marketing course a long time ago. Postcode is a good predictor of ability to pay. As for the breed list, most of them are expensive dogs to purchase if pedigree . . . and have some high maintenance/expensive vet bill factors . . . APBT -- I'd guess they're pretty robust and healthy on the whole, but hell, they're declared dangerous, so why not soak 'em for a few quid. Still baffled by the GR. Mighty interesting, Amanda! Looks like the pet insurance business doesn't reflect anything about purebred dogs generally being riddled with health conditions. Insurance companies base their premiums on risk assessment. Insurance companies base their fees on what the market will bear. This is even more skewed in their favour with so few re-inurers. Australia does not appear to have an open market. What on earth does postcode have to do with anything.

Inability or unwillingness. I am a pretty lax on rules/boundaries myself and will defend my right to be so. I don't care if the sofa gets ruined or the floor dirty. Consider it an opportunity to find out whether your BF and you have similar enough standards to continue the relationship . . . or perhaps you're better off in the 'just visiting' style of bf/gf relationship.

I sense that definitions given range from "happy to start" and "slow to quit". Personally, I avoid dogs that don't have an off button . . . and a dog with a low engagement threshold who won't give up is, in my books a nightmare. I've never used the word 'game' for a dog, and I guess I'll avoid the word in future given how many different meanings the word seems to have.

I hope some judge had the wit to check if he had fully descended testicles.

Not to mention that the extra $5.00/month is applied to crossbreed, pure breeds, and pedigree dogs alike where these breeds are involved. Interesting to see Golden Retrievers on the list Seems the article has produced another overgeneralisation. This time it's dearer to insure purebreds. I looked up the website of the Australian Vets Own Pet Insurance company. Figuring they'd have the sense to look for evidence. They say there's only a small number of pure breeds, which they claim are brought for vet attention more than the average. List is here: http://www.vetsown.com.au/faq1.asp (Actually that throws cold water on the overgeneralisation that the purebred group of dogs is extensively riddled with problems. If that were so, a hard-headed pet insurance business, would have higher premiums on them all.) By the way, the RSPCA runs a pet insurance plan....so there's some clash of interest in their making that statement.

SICK! I wish someone could get through to such crazies before they end out with a couple dozen animals.

I get a little sad when the Iditarod is on . . . . wish Susan Butcher were still around.

If you're breeding and required to chip, might be worth putting out $220 and getting your own scanner . . . they're available at that price from whelpingsupplies.com.au. I would not want to mix up the pups once they've been chipped. Not again . . . I did it once and it caused a lot of drama/trauma.

Rose actually threw herself on top of Barbara in an effort to stop the Labrador-cross from doing more damage. The attack happened so quickly. Another neighbour who heard the screams and Rose's cries for help, phoned the Police. Rose's son was 19 years old. It was amazing how the local press ran with the suggestion that it was a Pit Bull cross. Anyway... that fatal attack changed the Local Laws forever. The resulting Court case was horrendous for both Barbra Stringer's Family and for Rose. That's where the quote that the 19 year old was going to make his dog a killing machine originated and every Pit Bull Terrier in Queensland paid the price for that brag. What a horrible and strange story. I've never seen a dog be waggy friendly, then turn vicious, jump the fence, and attack (much less kill) someone who wasn't doing much to provoke attack (waving a wheel lock and saying 'you naughty boy' doesn't sound that offensive), then go back to waggy friendly at the vets. Making a dog savage requires some dedication and skill . . . the kid's brag sounds to me like hot air. Makes me wonder if someone missed something. It's Australia, so unlikely the dog was rabid . . . maybe a tumor or something? Guess we'll never know . .. but it's a poor reflection on governance that the case has fed BSL.

Here's another charmer: What is the dog show circuit like in Australia? The dog show circuit is active in Australia and is taken very seriously by the pedigree dog breeders who frequent them. The dog show circuit uses the written breed standard as the basis in determining ‘winners’ just as they do in the UK. The RSPCA would like to see a fundamental change in the attitudes of show judges, with much less emphasis placed on physical traits. Unlike footy, rugby, cricket, basketball, cycling, and a dozen other sports, whose supporters don't take the game seriously at all. What is the show circuit supposed to use for judging conformation if not the written breed standard? The judge's reading of the dog's aura? Fine with me if they say some standards should move back toward earlier, less exaggerated forms . . . I'd agree with that . . . though respect people who would be opposed. And I think it would be good if some standards included more health-oriented criteria, such as making signs of allergy or shortness of breath explicit faults. As for 'much less emphasis' on physical traits . . . health criteria are physical traits. You can't say on the one hand that standards should include health criteria, and on the other that standards should place less emphasis on physical traits. Not to mention totally ignoring other parts of the show circuit, such as agility, obedience, herding, tracking, retrieving, dancing with dogs, and the rest. The person who wrote this stuff must have been asleep at the time . . and not known much about pedigree dogs.

Could add, Labradors . . . and most pedigree dogs . . . aren't any more prone to joint disorders than humans. What fraction of us will suffer some sort of arthritis in old age? I'd guess it's well over 20%. yes. Idiot owners who dont train them, feed them a rubbish diet, let them get to double the ideal weight, let them jump about as pups then complain all the problems are the 'lines' or 'genetics'.

Their comments about individual breeds are, in some cases, quite silly. For example, my breed seems to be praised with faint damnation: "Are Labradors predisposed to any disorders? Labradors in Australia can also have eye and joint problems. Responsible breeders screen their animals via the Australian National Kennel Council/Australian Veterinary Association Canine Hip Dysplasia/Elbow dysplasia and Eye Scheme" Duh! Most breeds and most crossbreeds can have joint problems . . . in Australia, and everywhere else. Registered Lab breeders are required to screen for hip and elbow problems, and if you do breed comparisons, Labs come off pretty well. And they can't even get the names of the screening programs right, or make the distinction between genetic screening for PRA and annual checkups.

No. I'm crazy. My dogs are all sane. But I'd be crazier if I didn't have dogs. :D