Are You Serious Jo

Yes, collecting information on specific breeds, great. Unless they are including dogs of those breeds that are chosen randomly from the general population as a control sample they cannot gain much useful information. A good study would also include crossbreds as well, both bought into the clinics and from the population. I can already see that the sample will be flawed and the results extrapolated to push personal agendas to promote crossbreeding. I am disturbed that the scientific process is being abused in this way, despite the fact some of the existing literature from these clowns are sketchy they are being grabbed by the media as gospel.

The benefit of being an oodle breeder is that you have no paper trail, and can disrobe and mingle if accused of something. easier to track registered puppies rather than unregistered, so we won't be seeing any of the puppy farmers prosecuted. Sad thing is the told you so will be hollow when the registered breeders are forced into extinction and people then find that their crossbreds still have health issues and at higher rates as parents aren't health tested.

Their is a definite deficit in what vets know about the issues with purebred dogs, and as they are looked upon as the authorities on breeding matters it is important that they are well aware of the facts, not just the biased literature available to them.

I'm thinking that the MDBA needs to do guest lectures for each vet student cohort on the purebred dog world.

I used to work at Hedgegrove and can tell you that they don't hose the dogs when cleaning. The dogs are moved either to the grassed runs or to their outdoor section and the door closed. It is a busy place so you may have gotten someone answering the phone who wasn't familiar with the dog, but unless it has changed hands the owners were very conscious of their care of the dogs and how they were sent home.

If inbreeding and purebreds are the source of all evil, then why do crossbreds and mutts turn up at vets with the same diseases as purebreds. There does seem to be progress with this story re BSL and puppy farms, but again there is ignorance of dog disease.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand why we don't like or support puppy farmers, which one of the speakers are.

Maybe if you do some reading on the background of the speakers you might be able to put 2 and 2 together on why purebred breeders aren't happy about their interests. Most people on DOL don't agree with puppy farms or deliberate crossbreeding, and whether you know or admit it, the seminar will have people pushing both. You said you aren't a breeder, so I'll assume you don't know the politics surrounding breeding. I can't see anything other than more breeder bashing coming from this seminar, as this is what some of the speakers are known for. You can tell everyone to turn up and listen and learn, but we already know the agenda, and some of the speakers are NOT interested in hearing from registered breeders.

mlc, you have to realise that you aren't talking to a bunch of shut ins in velour pants. People here are involved in dogs in various capacities and some people also have PhDs and degrees, so when we are skeptical about this conference it is because we have seen the literature produced by some of the speakers and know their history. Most people here do not support the breeding of cross breds, and please don't treat us as thought we don't know the motivation behind some of the speakers, their own words show their philosophies about the purebred world.

Tammy, are you trying to identify another personality trait, that of "amicability"? The dog personality gurus already have sociability as one of the recognised consistent traits, how does your new trait of amicability fit with that? Are you trying to further refine one of the existing traits, or develop a new assessment instrument to identify personality traits? How does this study fit into the existing literature on personality traits in dogs? While I am a huge supporter of research, being a PhD candidate myself, I am also very wary of the way the data will be used, because the supervisors and colleagues are open about their own personal beliefs about the purebred dog world.

I would LOVE to do this as well, am not sure my koolie is suitable though as as soon as there is something a bit scary she is under my feet. I'm going to go through that website though and see if I can try her out.

A small clinic with one vet might be able to get by with a walk in system for a little while. I'd prefer to have appointments though. From the staff perspective, I've just started work as a vet nurse in a busy hospital and there is no way we could function without appointments. We check the consults for the day and get prepared for them and work surgeries around them as well. You might find that as the clientele build up walk in is not working because you may end up with more people in the waiting room than can be seen that day.

Thanks souff.

QLD was pretty bad when I was up there as well. I searched the national site and could not find any avenue to make a complaint or any contact details other than for the standard stuff, plenty for giving them money though. My email asking rspca Vic how I go about making a complaint has not surprisingly gone unanswered, will have to send some more and BCC in some extra people.

Love the poods, those photos are just gorgeous.

I agree completely. I'm afraid it's easier to just curse the RSPCA. In WA we don't find the RSPCA much of a problem (or are there people they've bothered who aren't speaking up). I'd guess that's historical accident, not a result of good organisation in the K9 community. I would say it's the VIC and maybe QLD/NSW people who need to mount a a challenge. So I take it you haven't read about how people who were identified as members of a canine council were refused membership? Serious question. It is a bit hard to run for board if you aren't a member, and a bit hard to be a member if they exclude people from certain groups. No I haven't. Where is this documented? Has it happened in WA? (We're a long way from East, often in more ways than km. When I did my PhD, one of the geography profs was fond of saying propinquity is the first element of causation.). Was there more involved than 'members of a K9 council' involved? Was 'being member of K9 council given as a reason for exclusion from membership? Can't tell you which page, but it is in the main thread about Judy Gard, and was verified, NSW I think. As far as I know, no reason given and nothing more involved than the fact they were members of their dog CC. I hadn't heard about it until now either and was disgusted, but not surprised. I take it from your pro-rspca stance that you are somehow involved with them, only employees or the very naive could ignore all of the horror stories posted on DOL over the years.

I agree completely. I'm afraid it's easier to just curse the RSPCA. In WA we don't find the RSPCA much of a problem (or are there people they've bothered who aren't speaking up). I'd guess that's historical accident, not a result of good organisation in the K9 community. I would say it's the VIC and maybe QLD/NSW people who need to mount a a challenge. So I take it you haven't read about how people who were identified as members of a canine council were refused membership? Serious question. It is a bit hard to run for board if you aren't a member, and a bit hard to be a member if they exclude people from certain groups.

Surely mita wasn't referring to writing to the minister as the complaints process? That has already been shown to be ineffective, she would have seen that if she has read enough threads on DOL or tried that herself. Since some very competent legal minds failed to find a way to lodge complaints about the rspca I'll believe their version, and mita hasn't returned to fill us in on her secret either. Another powerful reason to remove enforcement powers from a business with conflicting interests.

Still hoping mita will share her secret recipe with us, there are a few people who'd like to be able to commence and am just waiting for how to do it.

There actually is. But most people don't know how to use the system. Can someone else ask mita to explain how this is done?

Inappropriate and nasty. How is that contributing to the thread? kthxbye OK so thinly veiled nastiness. Fairly predictable though. Can you stop stalking me, if you think my posts are against the rules then just report me, because calling me nasty to say I am horrible is laughable due to the hypocrisy.

There actually is. But most people don't know how to use the system. Care to enlighten us as to how this is done? I believe people with law degrees and those heavily involved in dogs have gone through this before on here and have concluded that that are indeed no body who can investigate the rspca.

Public pressure, it is the only currency they accept.

The outcome would be different based on the fact that an independent government body would not be allowed to develop and act on their conflicts of interest. When you put the fox in charge of the hen house what do you think will happen? Are you not aware of all the areas within the rspca regarding conflict of interest recently? Don't you think this makes a huge difference in motivation. To use paraphrase poodlefan, how can you let an organisation run dog training classes for profit, THEN also allow them to develop policy and enforce rules about dog training. This is just one example. Can't you see this sort of thing is a massive issue of ethics?

Inappropriate and nasty. How is that contributing to the thread? kthxbye