AmandaJ

I agree - why treat for a problem which does not exits..Learn how to test your own dogs and only treat them accordingly when a problem exists. There are many PROVEN natural de-worming agents without poisoning your dogs. There are studies which indicate that intestinal parasites and the hosts may already becoming immune to anthalmics..no different in many ways to the overuse of antibiotics...

Large shops source from puppy farms. That is the only way they can keep an constant supply of pups. 3 times purchase price for shops in busy shopping centres. 2 times purchase price in smaller centres. Small independent stores double the purchase price. If the pup has been there too long, price will reduce. Sllight difference between pure and x bred dogs, but that is the rule of thumb Don't believe me? ir's easy to find out. Same way you would find out what any store pays for anything. You will find I am correct. None of this is important, if RSPCA continues to push to ban puppy farms, the gov MAY ban the sale of pups from pet shops. Only way to do it. Without pet shops, half or more than half of puppy farms trade would disappear and if they were unprofitable, they would close. They are businesses, NOT dog lovers Nothing will happen because the government will not grasp the nettle and ban the sales of pups in pet shops. Neither will the RSPCA push for it. Are you saying that the only way pet shops can source their puppies is by buying from someone who keeps their dogs in substandard conditions? The RSPCA is not pushing to ban commercial breeders more than they are any other breeder. Law changes which have been promised to curb people breeding in sub standard conditions dont mention pet shops. Government can do anything but in this country before they do they will need to consider federal laws and facts and not emotive animal rights led propoganda which is so easy to refute.Way before they ban them they will introduce more laws to regulate them and take away the element of anonymity of the breeder in my opinion. Either way other people can carry on if they like about more laws and chant "ban the sales of pets in pet shops" but Im not backing any law changes and Im looking for alternatives for the purposes of this discussion. In response to the piece I have bolded (above). That is not what I said, please re-read my post. Headlines - all over Australia. RSPCA & Biosecurity Qld raid Kingaroy puppy farm - two hundred and something dogs seized. People on this forum fostered some of the dogs. Ruth Schloss was a supplier to pet shops. Whether you consider this operation "substandard conditions" is your call. I'm not chanting anything. My belief is that the sale of pups from pet shops should be banned for a whole lot of reasons which have already been discussed in this thread.. You asked for information, I gave it to you. I have re read your post several times and I wasnt quite sure what you meant so I asked and as instructed I have re read your post again and I am still unsure of what you meant - you said Quote Large shops source from puppy farms. That is the only way they can keep an constant supply of pups. Given that the agreed definition of a puppy farmer is someone who breeds their puppies in substandard conditions it still reads to me that you are saying that the only way pet shops can keep a constant supply of puppies is to purchase puppies from those who are puppy farmers or people who keep their dogs in sub standard conditions. If we are each using a different definition of what a puppy farm is then the whole meaning of the post will be changed for me and many who have read what you have written and why I asked the question. "Steve" - you know me and I am by far the last person to support any type of mass production of pet animals - however - you really need to distinguish between large breeding facilities which abide by all codes of ethics and mass produced puppies for profit - there is a difference - I have yet to see a facility of good care - however - you do need to be able to verbalize the distinguishing features to the public...if you continue to only criticize large facilities you will only alienate those facilities further when the aim is to educate and improve. Provide a descriptive form which shows the difference between large sentient animal care housing and sub standard care which equates as opposed to puppy farms. Sorry - terminology needs to be addressed..

Agreed - far more concerning are the vaccination site cancers and the vaccine mediated auto immune responses than AT THIS STAGE are the "chipping" cancers.

Any chance of a copy of your "owner criteria" check list please - I'd like to compare notes.... OOPs sleping rerror

Oh yeah, that's what I mean - it's easy to sneak in to read the journals even if you're not a student. But you didn't hear it from me!

If you have a uni library near you, you can often get access to many journals even if you're not a student - you can just walk in off the street & look at the hardcopy journals, & sometimes even use the computer database access to online journals. Even if there is an immune response involved, it wouldn't be an autoimmune response, since it's an immune response to a foreign body. Thanks "Star" - I'm not a uni student - I'm a bean counter and I hate libraries......lol

One of my concerns also - Nothing I can find (and there is very little available unless you pay for it - and membership to some of the journals is expensive) looks at an autoimmune response to a foreign body.....Hence - is it RF or is it autoimmune - or worse still - is it both? edited to say - Don't "Google" it - "Google Scholar" it!

Microchip-induced tumors in laboratory rodents and dogs: A review of the literature 1990–2006.5514622 abstract . Access The Full Text Sign In:Full text access may be available with your subscription User Name Password Forgot Username/Password? Athens/Shibboleth Sign In . Albrecht, K.; This paper appears in: Technology and Society (ISTAS), 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Issue Date: 7-9 June 2010 On page(s): 337 - 349 Location: Wollongong, NSW Print ISBN: 978-1-4244-7777-7 INSPEC Accession Number: 11484895 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/ISTAS.2010.5514622 Date of Current Version: 23 July 2010 Abstract This paper reviews literature published in oncology and toxicology journals between 1990 and 2006 addressing the effects of implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchips on laboratory rodents and dogs. Eleven articles were reviewed in all, with eight investigating mice and rats, and three investigating dogs. In all but three of the articles, researchers observed that malignant sarcomas and other cancers formed around or adjacent to the implanted microchips. The tumors developed in both experimental and control animals, and in two household pets. In nearly all cases, researchers concluded that the microchips had induced the cancers. Possible explanations for the tumors are explored, and a set of recommendations for policy makers, human patients and their doctors, veterinarians, pet owners, and oncology researchers is presented in light of these findings. ---------------- This is the same info I sent to Julie earlier today....

Chris Girling (Noahs Crossing), Lewsiton, he is a breeding specialist, only 30 minutes from Adelaide. My best recommendation too. Always very happy with them. My recommendation too.....won't see anyone else.

I have heard a lot of good about Glenside Vet Clinic but don't use them myself. Living North I use Noahs Crossing in Lewiston. I'd probably still travel to use Chris.

Microchip pups/dogs and owners. Link the chips ... You want to make dog owners have to get microchip in themsleves...are you for real? I didn't mean microchip people - I meant to have the chip linked to the breeder and successive owners for traceability...and accountability....but to do that owners need to be properly identified. All the "fixes" can be done without new laws - they just need to use the laws they have properly and target the actual problem.....and EDUCATE JOE PUBLIC

Microchip all pups License all owners (including breeders) - with photographic 100pts id Microchips only available (after a bedding in period) for pups and only to those who are licensed breeders - any others are reported. Maintain a register of owners and transfer of ownership between breeder and owners (tracks ownership changes for council registration) Any breaches of council dog control bylaws, dumping, surrendering without "trying" - results in loss of owners license - (can't buy any more dogs until certain conditions are met) Any breeder registering large numbers of pups in a year comes under scrutiny (microchip records can do this) Any vet treating an animal for a condition considered to be breeding related can have this noted on the register - when more than several problems arise from the same breeder they can be investigated and breeches can result in loss of license. Just a thought.....

To hard to know by looking at that age. They all have different growth spurts. You may want to sup feed the small one though. If you sup feed the little one now take another look at the litter at about 7 weeks.

My parasitology notes say that yes Garlic can help- the parasites don't like it...some say it's because of the smell but it could also be the sulphur content. Fleas don't generally bite people because of the high content of sulphur in our blood. Another one high in sulphur is Kelp/seaweed. And yes - to much of either is bad... We use penny royal if we get a flea "attack" but don't use it on pregnant or lactating bitches. edited to say - we spray it - never feed it...

That's BAD.... :D I must admit that my reaction to the question was biased - I'm a mother - I shouldn't judge people by the way they look. Put in that situation (being at an event) I would probably have asked who he was first...

We get "Ohh look at the Dulux Dog" - they ain't Old English......and when you say Bearded Collie - they go "that's not like any border collie I've ever seen" or "how can it see with all that fur? - you should cut it's hair so it can see"

Ohhhh! First impressions can be a killer!....I gather the police didn't ask for his credentials either..

Old guy, long hair, 3 day growth, sandals. Well dressed woman, couple of gold rings, nice makeup. Would either of those two examples give you a different impression? (there is a point to my question - I'll get to it in a bit) even though i think i know where you are going with this i will answer honestly. the guy would make me more suspicious if you dont go the way i am thinking i will post later why i am wrong I see where that's going too......if you look suspicious then the use of the photo looks suspicious too....

OK here's a question (so many questions, so little time :D ) I've got a group shot where the entire focus is on one person. Why? Because I like her scarf. Nothing creepy about that, right, but is it OK that it's a crowd shot even though she's the only one in focus? Great thread, by the way. :D That would look good with a bit of selective colouring on the scarf.... :D

Lowell Ackerman's "Skin and haircoat problems in Dogs" also has info on nutrition. Adited to add---Catherine O'Driscoll's "Shock to the System" is a good read too...not just about nutrition but is an holistic view on animal health

:D

Do I need permission from people I photograph? Copyright Council of Australia http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/InfoSheets/G011.pdf Copyright is granted on this document free for non-commercial use. Do I need permission from people I photograph? A person’s image is not protected by copyright. However, in some cases, using a person’s image without permission may be prevented under other laws, such as the law of passing off, the Trade Practices Act 1974 and State and Territory fair trading laws. These areas of law concern conduct which may mislead or deceive the public and may particularly come into play if the photograph you are taking is of a well-known person, and is to be used, for example, as a poster or as a postcard or in advertising. In some cases, uses of photographs may be defamatory of people in them. If you are commissioned to take photographs, it should not generally be your job to check these issues. However, it may be a good idea to alert clients to the fact that they may need to seek advice from a solicitor with the relevant expertise (note that the Copyright Council does not advise on these other areas of law). Generally, if you have asked somebody to sit for you, you should get a “model release” from that person which will allow you (and others) to use that person’s image for purposes which will generally include commercial uses. (For a sample photographer's model release, with explanatory notes, see the Arts Law Centre of Australia website http://www.artslaw.com.au/). In other cases, photographers may take more casual shots—for example, photographs of people in the street or at markets, or playing sports. If you know that you might later be using such a photograph commercially, it’s generally a good idea to get a model release from the people you have photographed. If it’s impractical to get the people in your shots to sign model releases, or if they refuse to do so, your ability to use or license the use of the photograph in certain ways might be limited because of the laws discussed above. Privacy! It is generally not an invasion of privacy to take another person’s photograph. However, in some circumstances, you may be required to comply with the National Privacy Principles in the Privacy Act 1992 (Cth). For further information on this issue, contact the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner or see the website http://www.privacy.gov.au/. The Copyright Council cannot advise on this area of law. Yes Ellz - it's about where you look and the intepretation

there are NO photos of me on facebook and there never will. you cant use that as an argument especially when there is a backlash against facebook after a couple of people were murdered. Jaxx - it's not intended as an excuse for anything - just an example of how peoples photos are used - intentionally or otherwise on the net. There are sites that you can even upload your own photos to and sell them as advertising/marketing shots.

From the perspective of the partner of a "photographer in training" - (yes he is doing classes) - quite often what we mere mortals see as plain boring is actually something quite unique when they have finished with it. They have so many options in the camera settings that just a normal photo is no longer a normal photo. One of the aspects of photography is to capture the feeling not just the image - and they can change the feeling with the exposure etc. OH has been told never to delete an image off his camera as what looks bad there can always been turned into a piece of art. With taking photos of people - he always asks - especially if it's a child. People are getting used to seeing him wander around at dog shows now - taking photos and trying different things - but he will ask. He only ever puts his best work on RedBubble but some of his shots will go to a friend of ours (dog only shots) who does mirror drawings. As for having a persons photo available on the net....FACEBOOK.....