All Activity

A statistical look at wide ranging health problems in German French Bulldogs based on survey of 574 owners. I found it shocking. Not just BOAS. https://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-025-00149-8?utm_source=bmc_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CONR_40575_AWA1_GL_DTEC_054CI_TOC-251101

It seems to be not showing on this specimen, this is just an example. A lot of them have that white marking on the top of the head indeed, I would say a majority from my observations. However, would please be able to give us more instructions about what you know about the Bentley's mark? I'm just a tradesman and not a dog specialist, just got a bluey with me, that's all, I'm basically nobody against the dog society. That said I don't even socialise with dog owners when we got to the park as usually I get depressed if I extend our visit that way... so I just keep walking around like it says clearly on the park rules (to avoid the dogs to get territorial with one area of the park) I know that Bentley didn't actually draw a mark on his dogs, but here again, you can't pretend to be putting together an ACD breed chart without mentioning the Bentley's mark or can ye I believe It’s part of the story whether it’s genetics or just legend.

If this is your view I can only respect it. And listen, have a wonderful day.

Bentley mark is on the forehead of all cattledog's It's neither a type or breed

Re experience, I once read "Do they have twenty years' experience or one years' experience repeated twenty times?".

If you are not formally employed and receive any sort of government pension, the courses through TAFE are free or have a very small nominal fee under Smart & Skilled. Many courses are also free if you are over a certain age. The only course I paid full fees for was my Vet Nursing course, as I was employed at the time I did it, but I also got RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning) for a few subjects that I'd already completed when I did my other quals. For my Cert III Animal Care, I got RPL for all but 2 units, and it was free due to my age regardless. Not all campuses set a prerequisite for a practical placement either - Bankstown TAFE had no placement prerequisites for the Cert II or Cert III Animal Care courses when I did them. I would hope that any proposed legislation aimed to regulate the rescue industry would have some sort of grandfathering to accredit rescues with a long term proven track record of successful rehoming without the need for demanding completion of courses. I would expect new entrants into the industry to have some sort of animal care qualification however. Regardless if they decide to include formal quals as a prerequisite to start up a rescue or not, I would expect that regulatory legislation to focus on setting certain standards of care and the keeping of appropriate records confirming same. All rescues should be held accountable somehow, so I would also push for all rescues to be on the OLG approved rehoming organisations list (in NSW), and report their outcomes annually - none of this optional joining, it should be mandatory, and it should also be auditable. Did you know that rescues taking in pregnant or recently whelped dogs and pups are not subject to any of the regulatory codes of practice for breeding/whelping/raising that breeders are? Also not held to any codes of practice for boarding, which is essentially what foster carers and shelters/kennels are actually doing. When I have mums and bubs in my care, I meticulously follow the breeders code of practice and keep all appropriate records listed... many other rescues/carers don't. I have weight/growth charts, parasite control records, milestone logs, etc. Yes, it's a lot of fiddly paperwork, but I can prove that the tiny souls in my care are getting every opportunity to grow and thrive and become great canine citizens to be rehomed to their own forever families in due course. They are no less worthy of those standards than pedigreed pups are they? Have no doubt, the rescue industry will be subject to regulation of some sort at some point in the not too distant future... especially as the voices are getting louder to provide rescues with government funding. Funding comes with accountability, and that means legislation/regulation that sets the standards for that accountability. T.

Got only the image export clean - that'll do. You will find the commands to navigate the work at your leisure within the window - enjoy! < Preview Origins of ACD 6.0 >

I would hope that those with longtime experience could be grandfathered in, both for rescue and for the traditional boarding kennels. I know people with a lifelong interest in dogs combined with decades of experience in providing quality care, which surely outweighs a six month online course. If they drop out of the industry because of onerous new requirements, then that is likely to exacerbate the strain on over-stretched rescue and the lack of access to boarding facilities, particularly in country areas and/or during holidays.

I can't argue really (and don't want to as you offer a reasonable idea, but we're on different pages) I'm just so tired of seeing cowboys. Yes, learning new things is ideal. And yes, if you think you know everything there is to know, you become stagnant and of no benefit to the animals in your care. Of course, if it becomes regulation, I'll simply have to sort TAFE to get my Certs somehow. No problem with complying except that distance and practical placements and fees (nearly $5000 even online, no idea where that will come from) aren't currently realistic for me. More training, funding and infrastructure will be needed before a blanket formal education requirement is enacted.

I hear you there @_PL_, and I fully back and respect your years of experience as giving you a very wide knowledge base that you utilise to provide the very best care for each and every one of the precious souls you take in. I wish that were also true for so many others in our industry... *sigh* I also see the rise of so many newer rescues that are caught up in the "must save them all" hype. Big hearts alone are not enough... definitely required for the "job", but not the only prerequisite... the head must also come into play to get it right, yes? Personally, I have formal qualifications that give me a greater medical understanding of animal health, but that definitely does not give me permission (legally) to medicate or otherwise treat any condition that is not minor. If I suspect that an animal in my care requires medication or other professionally prescribed treatments, my medical background simply allows me to have a much deeper conversation with a vet about any condition an animal in my care has. When it comes to behavioural rehabilitation, I know my limits in that field, and make sure that animals in my care are either seen by a professionally qualified trainer, or moved to another foster home where the carer has much more experience and a proven track record in rectifying any behaviours I cannot address in my own capacity. Paper qualifications alone aren't the be all and end all to what is required to do the very best for the animals in our care, but surely some basic understanding about animal health and welfare is better than none? Knowledge gained from many years of experience should definitely be in play too, as learning shouldn't stop once you gain a certificate. Like yourself, I've been involved in rescue for many years, and have many more formal qualifications than most, but I'm still learning something new at regular intervals... constant updating of our own knowledge is paramount, yes? I think where we both are concerned, we had exceptional mentors when we first started out in rescue, didn't we? T.

Getting close to happiness - will post latest draft later

I rely fully on Vets and those in their specialist fields. Help with training must be NDTF at least. I may have learned some first aide, basic dietary, basic allergy, basic training and a very good radar for trouble signs, but I fully believe in the term 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' i.e. a shallow understanding of a subject can lead to mistakes. While the Animal Care qualifications are a good idea, I've seen enough to warrant scepticism about those who believe their Cert qualifications allow them to act as, or assume the roll of, or make the judgement calls of a Vet.

Yes, only positive reward has been a real winner in the schools

Shameless promotion of the notion that the only way to train a dog is by positive reward only methods. Not surprised that the above came from RSPCA head vet. There actually have been some changes to legislation relating to dog walking - one person cannot be in charge of more than 4 dogs in NSW, and must be over the age of 16. Unfortunately this isn't necessarily being policed, as one can still find the "dog walking services" that load up their vans with more than 4 dogs, drives them to the nearest off-lead park, and lets them loose for an hour of mayhem without any proper supervision. Personally, I'd like to see minimum formally recognised animal related qualifications (such as a Cert II in Animal Care and Management) as a requisite for working with animals of any description. Most reputable places of business do actually ask for such qualifications when hiring staff to look after pets, which is good to see. Would anyone be surprised to know that of the list of qualifications required to be an RSPCA Inspector, formal animal related qualifications don't make the list? Dog groomers should be added to the list of professions that require some sort of formal animal related qualifications too. And don't get me started on the pet rescue industry... in all honesty, if you are going to be taking in animals with any number of issues that require rehabilitation before rehoming, surely some sort of animal related qualifications should be in play there? T.

Found that amusing, if the planned extinction is on track there will be few to none left anyway Market gone anyway

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-27/pet-dog-day-care-walking-training-regulation-nsw/105908954

Some solutions- Not that I expect ANKC will implement any, or that they would support even those not aimed specifically in their direction while they feel it could benefit breeding beyond their membership. 1. No 'penalty' fee for entire dogs, but all must, have comprehensive genetic testing for health and breed. Available on public record on request. Linked with chip no. Reason- Any legally kept dog capable of procreating will have have some known genetic history. Even if only one parent is known, there will be at least a partial understanding of possible risks to offspring for both the owner and any purchasers. Liability for faulty or compromised pups by breeders only where due care not taken taken from use of existing information and genetic availability. This puts equal responsibility for all pups sold with their breeders and purchasers, enhancing the ability to respond, and making that knowledge implicit to either action. The more reputable testing facilities are provided a much greater base to draw on for future research, and/or testing to aid in increasing its comprehension. 2. Life time registrations in all states for a once only fee attached to ownership of dogs, with a single national data base Reason- To make registration and compliance simpler and more affordable, and access to information contained more easily accessible with a single source and regulatory system. 3. Said data base to provide service, not just demands, in the form of a) a Breeding registry to cover all purposes in breeding. b) a public forum similar to DOL for discussion and dissemination of all things dog related including research and proposed legislation for public discussion education and dissemination. This could be overseen by either invested member of the public or paid for by advertisers, but remain unbiased and focused on education over censure as a resource available to anyone. regardless of their circumstance. Help 1st. Mistakes, no matter how ignorant, will be having a cost already and others will learn from the examples given.c) To provide an advertising media for all things dog related. This would include litters, adult dogs rescues and pounds. These would be listed under purpose. ie; Rescue, pound, Pedigree standards, Apartment living, childrens, family or elderly companions, work descriptions or even accidental.etc. Reason- Information should be easily and readily accessible with a common source to unite all aspects/stake holders in the purpose of keeping and breeding dogs or the the welfare issues training and assimilation surrounding those practices in and to the community. Promotes a better understanding of the inter relationships of these practices and promotes alternative or undiscovered perspectives that could benefit other 'fields'. Dog ownership is multi billion $ industry and the stake holders would be supporting it more effectively with advertisement monies funding its growth responsibly and sustainably through funding the establishment of a body dedicated to the purpose. Listing Dogs for sale according to purpose establishes that there is expectation there be one, apart from from profit. That profit only comes with 1st providing a value,(companion, work, and for what situation?) and what what value you are seeking from dog ownership also needs consideration. The sites people use for advertising are not the problem- but divided systems provide no ability for common expectations of responsibility to be informed. And, ANKC specific solutions where I believe resistance may be impossible to over come and fail us all: 4) The ANKCs to formally accept recognition of dogs not bred according to to either Pedigree standards or closed Pedigrees- Cross breed dogs. Even if they have to break from other bodies to do so. Reason- This is essential 1st to their own survival, and that of the breeds whos pedigrees they do record, but also to any hope of establishing that there can be such a thing as expectations held in common for responsible breeding and keeping of dogs. It would in no way impact the way their own system of registering pedigrees operates, nor or the 'purity' of those, except by creating a more accepting membership of practices for which they have no stake in unless by said common expectation. More open to solutions for existing problems within that might not require placing further restrictions or barriers to either membership or genetic diversity. Allows the implication that Pedigree standards are kept for the purpose of dogs- Not the other way around. 5) ANKCs to establish separate registries specifically for the purpose of recording appendix registered dogs where only one parent might have a pedigree under their rules and regs. This to be kept separate from the breed standards/clubs. Reason- This opens up membership to possibilities, and re-enforcement of the recognition given. It provides a 'control group' to measure and recognize the effectiveness of the 'closed' registers, and the solutions being implemented for 'improvement' and their effectiveness against what the environment is actually demanding. Enforces recognition of environment to their success and the support afforded them. Allows for more diverse and increased membership , which may also help to drive down associated costs and impositions. A 'control group', and possible ready source for out crossing where/if thats deemed needed by breed clubs. opens up communication and information sharing between ANKC and environment where each can benefit from the other. I believe this 'drastic' action which I expect to be rejected is only but desperately needed due to the damage already done over nearly 200 years now, and may have been instigated my membership long ago if environmental recognition had not been ruled out of their 'constitution' - their genetic instruction if you will. Will it happen? I doubt it, and we've run out of time for debate. I doubt I can do more. But I've taken the responsibility I've earned to try, and will place further efforts else where than ANKC. Faith is too hard to over come. , 6. No further legislation for a minimum of 10 years. Reason- To allow affects of the new systems to be felt, assessed and most effectively co-ordinated so that stake holders have a better understanding of their own responsibilities in regards to any legislation proposed, the means to be aware of it and any implications, and to make informed response. These proposals are informed by many years of informal research and an intimate understanding of the root causes for the current situation. They are based on sound biological principles of purpose, responsibility, and the role of environment in informing those expectations. The oppositional systems in play at present will not allow responsibility, while the environment is not recognized wholly and equally. All parts are equal to the equation, or it can't achieve definition. Even if the values contributed are not equal to each other, they are to any definition achievable. 1 +3+1+ 5 achieve a definition of 10. The Objective they serve. Five has more value, but 10 is not achieved with out the least value of 1. If there is no 1, there is no foundation to support the existence of 5 of them. 10 has no value of its own as the Objective. It only exists because of the values brought by its subjective constituency. Its built on the foundations they provided. deleateing the constituency of 10 to 5 because it carries greater value does not serve the Objective. 2 x 5 no longer works either, because there is no foundation to support. 5, or 10. They can't exist in a vacuum. Without the environmental foundations in place. Thats just reality folks. Built from the bottom up. Form follows function- is emergent from it. Reduce the functoning parts and it doesn't

Thanks for that Some absolutely wonderful photos A lovely way to start a Sunday .

Thanks for the link; lovely photographs.

The ANKC of the state your pup was bred (ie if in Victoria, Dogs VIC, in NSW Dogs NSW, in Qld, Dogs QLD and so on). will contact the breeder to get a wriggle on and send your registration certificate

True insurance far as I've seen insured any puppy have never asked to see registration certificate. As for being late arriving Any number of reasons, computer glitches, late deciding on puppy names, the most frustrating of all . . . Certificates arrive, put in "safe place" n can't remember where Guarantee after u give up and get replacement ones, the missing magically turn up . . .

We should be doing much better, all 'round. I can understand DonnaMairee too, so the apology at my frustration. But there are breeders with genuine and worth while goals who health test amongst them getting discredited under that banner and so finding it impossible to get any credit nor being held up as better examples- Which is how people decide to emulate and improvement happens. No one has the perfect set ups or outcomes, look and you will find fault. And thats what we are training to look for. We promote fault in breeders to such an extent no one can raise their head for notice with out it being shot at. There should be no "stuck between". Its one space here, of people who want dogs in their lives in one capacity or another. Its in bad shape. But its what we have. We can recognize that, and improve it, which means value adding. Or we can keep refusing to understand its all one space we share, and trying to delete our way to a pure state. Discard value. One way works and the other leads to nothing worth having anymore. Basic biology and evolutionary science teaches us that. Those same laws are repeated in social science. Recognize your environment and show your value to gain favor, or attack. People are for the most part trying to do the best they can. It falls woefully short, no argument. Ignorance comes easy when information is with held. It absolutely is. Breeders- because thats what they are when they breed dogs, are berated, ridiculed and abused for their ignorance. And learn nothing but 'Don't ask, Don't touch. You don't have what we want and never can'. A great show of response -abilty in that! I do understand the sheer magnitude of ignorance can be over whelming. Thats our collective fault that there is so little familiarity that even the best display it beyond their own fields, often just as overwhelmingly. Because we refuse to accept things can actually be other than what we know of our own. There are solutions, but so little time left to implement them and there needs to be a huge paradigm shift before they will be. This process has been underway for too long already, and it gains momentum at an incredible rate since we have set up all the conditions needed to end it.

I do see where DonnaMariee is coming from in regards to backyard breeders. Looking through my rescue goggles.... Out of the dogs we take in (small breed rescue), and pound inmates, small breed crosses and Oodles have skyrocketed after Covid. And if their breeders join alternative registries, they don't seem to be any kind of education resource for their members. Bad knees, weird eyes, fatal heart problems etc. Pedigree or not; Frenchies, Pugs and Dachshunds seem to be a mess of BOAS and/or IVDD or skeletal issues. Chi are being bred so tiny that they clearly have hydrocephalus. Cavalier's hearts seem no better than when it was first acknowledged there was MVD in almost every dog. Worse. Heartbreakingly, pounds are packed full of bull breed and working breed crosses going nowhere fast. I don't know the answer for that one but without owners desexing and literally ending the cycle, many many more of their puppies are going to outright die or spend a year in no-kill waiting for a home. @moosmumI don't want to see pets go extinct. I don't want to see excess killed. And I don't want to see poor breeding practices regardless of their status. I feel stuck between all outcomes. We should be doing better.

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1373073214175148&set=a.276258920523255 https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scotsman/20251022/page/1

A couple of years ago (2023) Victoria held a "pet census" which was purported to be an exercise in just finding out what types of pets people had and what services they used in relation to them. The census was voluntary, and received around 30,000 responses in total... out of a state population of approximately 6.5 million (approximately 2.5 million households). The data produced/extrapolated only came from a small slice of that 30,000, coming from only around 5,000 responses that had been received as part of a targetted focus group and verified as "real" responses to the questions. Various levels of government swore blind that the pet census was designed to only get a better idea about the numbers and types of pets owned in the state, and what services were used in relation to them. Interestingly, there were some very stupid questions posed in said census, such as how many times an owner walked or had their pet fish groomed... so one could be forgiven for calling the data produced not exactly accurate or even valid. Fast forward to this year, and many Victorian councils are reviewing their domestic animal management plans (DAMPs) and what do we see starting to factor into the process... pet census data being used to further restrict pet numbers/types per household, doorknocking to check pet registrations, and other restrictive practices designed to make pet ownership harder. Very few have used the data to try to provide more services for pets that may be housed in those LGAs. Food for thought... T.