Jump to content

Keshwar

  • Posts

    902
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Keshwar

  1. Once While out walking a young Lochie I had a young guy race up to me all excited telling me he had a dog just like that at home, a labradoodle. Um no this is an Afghan Hound, was my slightly miffed reply.

    SparkyCat not sure what it is with sighthoundss and Goats but my old boy Faxon was once called a Goat. :o

  2. Do you want a protective breed ?

    What amount of shedding and grooming can you manage ?

    Anyone in the home with allergies.?

    A few to consider .Labrador- Airedale - German Shepherd- Curly Coated Retriever -Irish Wolfhound .

    Wouldn't class Irish Wolfhounds as cat friendly - they are a sight hound, if it runs they will chase.

  3. I wonder if the original point of this discussion has been lost in the side tracking??

    To me, the original question was something like "these particular colours are forbidden in the showring because they are excluded from the standard. Why have colours been excluded from the standard when colour doesn't affect function."

    I think that has been answered from a historical point of view, plus plenty of comments have been made re cases where colour DOES affect health and/or other aspects of original function. Nevertheless, it has also been pointed out that there IS already the ability to submit reasons towards changing or adapting standards, or temporarily permitted judicious cross-breedingfor good reasons, within the existing rules. It is hard work to be able to justify a change to a standard, but it can be done and has been done.

    The discussion at the moment seems to be along the lines of "standards are useless, they don't produce the dog I like" vs "standards were developed so that a breed could be identified as a distinct breed and not just a vague sort-of".

    Today, in our world, standards are mainly the province of show breeders and exhibitors. I do agree that many may have been interpreted to the point of ridiculousness in some cases, but there is sometimes a swing back again if you look at breed pictures over the years. I can't quite understand why the people who are so vocal against standards even care. If you want a dog that will perform the task that you want but does not meet the standard, go ahead and breed that type and stick to performance venues rather than confirmation ones. No great drama. It happens all the time and large numbers of performance dogs are not pedigreed at all.

    But some people seem to want to make changes to their breed without going to the effort of convincing the breed clubs (and through them the kennel clubs) that the standard should be changed.

    HW said "call me lazy" because she prefers to stick to the standard. I think it is the other way round. The standards are there, describing the breed to a T. The challenge is to produce a dog that meets the standard and still does all of the things that you think the breed should be able to do. These people pointing at examples of breeds that can't do what they are bred for are excluding those who score highly both in the confirmation ring AND in performance trials that measure abilty in herding, hunting, coursing etc.etc. It is NOT lazy people that have bred those dogs, it is people who have risen to the challenge.

    Some breed "working" lines and ignore confirmation standards. Fine. Others breed "show" lines and never make any attempt to measure their ability. That's fine too. But the really passionate breed people that I truly admire are those who strive to breed dogs that can do their job and still meet the standard.thumbsup1.gif

    I guess I'm saying I think that people should work within the rules. If you don't like the rules, either find another game or convince everyone else playing to change to your rules. And if you try to convince them by bluster and bullying my bet is that you'll be kicked off the ground.laugh.gif

    :clap::cheer::thumbsup:

  4. I think the Current frech FCI change of the Azawahk standard is madness and one mans spiteful response to the current influx of Country of orgin bloodlines. Something the breeed sorely needs as it was founded on two sets of half siblings. Limitation of white and even the regions Country of importation is allowed is EXTREMELY SHORT SIGHTED, especialy in light of recent study expeditions into the regions of west africa, and the health isssues facing the breed. Luckily the Americans saw sense and have adjusted their breed standard to reflect COO colours and state as such on their standard and even allow a wider region for COO stock to be imported from.

    good reason for standards not to be held up as unchangeable and infallible. They are not always written with all the best knowledge available, and often by people with vested interests.

    In most cases I think much of what created a breed standard is politics. Rarely were they created by geneticists or even people with a knowledge in animal movement or health. Before Kc's function defined a breed and I think thats what we should go back to. I love to see conformation become the side show with sport the main event. Lurcher and long dog shows as well as working terrier shows in the UK are working events with the beauty contest the side show for the day and a bit fun the serios part is testing the skill and function of the dogs.

    What created most standards were people who were passionate about their particular breed. People that spent a lot of time working out the ideal breed type for their particular breed. No they probably weren't geneticists, but I bet they knew a hell of lot about how their dogs worked and what traits they wanted in their particular breed.

    Remember that most breed standards are over 100 years old and were developed in a very different world from what exists today. The dogs that the standards were/are based on had to work as well as show. Shows were meant to show off excellent breeding stock. That breeding stock needed to be able to produce dogs that were able to do what they were bred for. Sighthounds were used to hunt, terriers were used for ratting etc, gun dogs used for retrieving, pointing game, and working dogs actually worked.

    No they weren't geneticists but I bet they knew a hell of a lot about correct movement and health as for these people their reputations, their livilihoods, their passion all depended on knowing what was a good dog.

    If you want to through away the standard go for it, but don't come back crying to those of us who have stuck with it that your dogs don't look like X and can't do Y anymore. Because ultimately what you will end up with is just another cross bred with a fancy name.

  5. Coming from the horse world; if were entering a multiple day competition we just pay a one off catalogue fee and the catalogue covers all days. Is this the same with the dogs or do I pay two catalogue fees if the show runs over two days?

    Also can someone run me thru how you enter online - just a rough overview. I have a 3month old bitch so she will be in the Baby puppy bitch class 1a if im right?

    Two days = two shows = two catalogues. :)

    3 month old bitch is in Baby puppy bitch so yes 1a.

    Online entries.

    Depends which one you use, Ozentries, Easy entries or Show manager. I've used all three and find them all pretty straight forward. However, they are all different so a bit hard to give a general overview. :(

  6. Here is the entire note from the bottom of the report on this study. ;)

    NOTE - This study received considerable press because of controversy among breeders and the public about whether purebred dogs are more afflicted with genetic disorders than mixed breed dogs. The study demonstrated that for 10 of the 27 disorders examined, purebred dogs were significantly more likely to be affected than mixed breed dogs (see the first graph above). For one disorder, ruptured cranial cruciate ligament, mixed breed dogs were more likely to be afflicted, and they were also more likely to be hit by a car. For the remaining 17 disorders, the study failed to find a difference between mixed and purebred dogs in the probability of being affected. The statistical statement of failure to find a significant difference between mixed and purebred dog populations is not the same as saying that a particular disease is "equally common" in mixed and purebred dogs, which is how it was generally interpreted by the press and also apparently many breeders.

    "A new study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, indicates that mixed breeds don’t necessarily have an advantage when it comes to inherited canine disorders." UC Davis press release

    "A new study on the prevalence of inherited disorders among American mixed breed and purebred dogs has negated the common assumption that a mixed breed dog is always healthier than a purebred dog." (Quickfall 2013)

    "It has been publicly discussed for years that hereditary disorders would be a direct consequence of the strict selective breeding of pedigree dogs and that for this reason the purebreds would have a much greater risk of developing hereditary disorders than mixed breed dogs. According to the latest research by Bellumori and his group, this assumption does not seem to hold. Indeed many diseases seem to be as common in mixed breed as in pedigree dogs" (Moller)

    "A new study on the prevalence of inherited disorders among American mixed breed and purebred dogs has negated the common assumption that a mixed breed dog is always healthier than a purebred dog" (Quickfall 2013).

    It is true - a mixed breed dog is not "always healthier than a purebred dog". But it is the case - as this study showed - that purebred dogs have a greater risk of developing some of the hereditary disorders examined in this study than mixed breed dogs. And certainly in the case of genetic disorders caused by a single recessive mutation, purebred dogs should be far more likely to be afflicted because they are also more likely to inherit two copies of the defective allele as a consequence of inbreeding. Most of the disorders examined here are likely polygenic (i.e., involve complex effects of multiple genes). For the dozens of genetic disorders afflicting dogs that are caused by single recessive mutations, purebreds will surely exceed mixed breed dogs in frequency.

    The authors of this study tackled a very important question that is very difficult to address because collecting the "perfect" data set is impossible. Using data on clinical occurrence of disease is fraught with difficulty because of many sources of potential complication - perhaps purebred dogs are more likely to receive veterinary treatment than mixed breeds, comparisons among groups (e.g., afflicted vs not, purebred vs mixed) are confounded by unequal sample sizes or differences among groups in the age, sex, etc of animals, and many other things that are a statistician's nightmare. In fact, the "perfect" comparison will never be done. But this study presents a large compilation of data and thorough analysis that is the first (and might be the only) attempt to explore differences in predisposition to disease in purebred and mixed breed dogs.

    Moller F Mixed breed dogs are not protected from breed disease heritage. MyDogDNA website. (pdf)

    Quickfall L 2013 Kennel Club welcomes study looking at health of all dogs. Dog News, Vol 29(30): 134, July 26, 2013. http://issuu.com/dognews/docs/072613/134

    UC Davis press release (4/2/2014) Purebred dogs not always at higher risk for genetic disorders, study finds. (pdf)

    Wood R 2013 Prevalence of genetic disorders compared in purebred and mixed-breed dogs. CABI VetMed Resource. http://www.cabi.org/VetMedResource/news/23088

  7. thankyou! :worship::thumbsup: the 90degree thing had me confused for a while because I'd read it as no MORE than 90 degrees when it really should say no LESS, but your wording of no sharper makes more sense and is easier to understand. I'll study the course you've posted.

    Another thing to take into consideration is that most courses are run in both directions so you need to make sure it works both ways. :)

  8. Keshwar, I love this article! Thankyou! :thumbsup: This is the kind of stuff I need to start learning about.

    Coursing

    One of my favourites.

    Helped me learn to layout safe courses. :)

    Bear

    any other advice about how to lay a safe course, especially your own experience will be gratefully received. :thumbsup:

    No corners sharper than 90 degrees, I try to keep 90 degree corners to a minimum, I don't like cross overs so try to avoid them if I can, I don't like to many short straights followed by tight corners. :)

    I've attached the course I designed for the Judges exam.

    Bear

    post-13483-0-25893600-1428359515_thumb.jpg

  9. With a Dachy smooth you aren't going to have a lot of grooming to do. :)

    Best bet is show training at EPIC on Wednesday nights.

    Probably good to do some lead training and practice stacking on a table, your Breeder should be able to help with this. I wouldn't worry to much tho' as the Judges are pretty forgiving of new exhibitors and baby puppies.

    There are a number of shows in the Canberra region coming up, Gunning, Canberra Royal, Yass Ag etc, go to them and come talk to the hound people, we don't usually bite. ;) The Dachy people are around Canberra are all pretty friendly so don't be afraid to talk to them.

    If you want an intro come find me and I can introduce you to a number of Hound people, I'm the crazy person showing Afghans, Irish Wolfhounds and Saluki. :D

    I won't be at Gunning but the Hound people should be easy to find as they get a bit rowdy at the Gunning show. :rofl:

    The best thing to remember is that it is all about having fun!

    Bear

  10. It used to take me about 5 hours over three days (including show day) to get my boy ready for the ring. That's five hours win or lose for EVERY show weekend. Then there's the bathing out after every show, and the wrapping and coat maintenance between shows. Not for the faint hearted.

    :offtopic:

    And people are always telling me how hard it must be to get an Afghan ready for a show! :p

    Back on topic:

    You might also want to check out the FAQ up the top of this topic. ;)

  11. 'Dressing up' for a show was originally done as dog showing or the art of the 'dog fancy' was a hobby and pastime for the more 'affluent' upper class members of society way back when. This was how they dressed in the 'elite' pastime they indulged in. To become a well known and respected judge in those days and for many years to come took many, many years of being in a breed/s and being respected as an 'expert' in your field. These doyens of the breeds were much respected in the dog world and often paved the way for many breeds and were instrumental in ensuring the continuation of many of the breeds we have today. Dog showing was a special thing and you dressed for the occasion!

    Since that time - dressing up in the ring has simply been the done thing and is done as a mark of respect for the judge and for the fancy of showing and breeding as a whole. It is a small sign of respect to the institution of the fancy which has seen many hundreds of years and dedication poured into it by many people over time and a nod to the magnificent dogs of the past and the history of these dogs that formed the foundations of many of the dogs of today.

    As we all know times change and some of these old traditions get forgotten, or deemed as not necessary anymore and get lost along the way. I for one am pleased that people still dress up for the ring. I don't care if they're only doing it because everyone else is. I don't care if they've forgotten it's about showing respect. I also don't care if they wear runners with a skirt or they want to wear a fluro pink suit that can be seen from space ..... as long as they're not slopping about a ring in trackies or jeans with holes in them! Dog showing isn't glamourous - there's poo, drool, copious amounts of dog hair etc. We get up at ridiculous hours to travel to shows - usually after spending most of the night before grooming dogs, packing supplies etc. The fact that the time is also taken to take a suit and dress up in it - even if it's 30 degrees and you're covered in flies or it's hailing and you're ankle deep in mud shows a special kind of dedication to our hobby! Good on us all I say!

    :clap: :clap: :clap:

  12. """ Re the sign - legal advice was that to have a sign saying "beware of the dog" acknowledged that the dog could be dangerous, so if he bit someone and they took you to court, you had already admitted that the dog might bite. Advice was to have a "neutral" sign, such as "Dog lives here" which didn't admit anything. """

    This is the same as my Lawyer told me years ago .

    This comes up frequently.

    Can you quote any case law or anywhere where a person has been prosecuted in Australia for having a "Beware of the Dog" sign?

    "My lawyer said..." doesn't cut it.

    To date I haven't been able to locate any evidence of this being true. Happy to be proven wrong. ;)

  13. So God Made A Dog

    And on the 9th Day

    God looked down on his wide eyed children and said they need a companion

    So God made a Dog

    God said I need somebody to wake up and give kisses, pee on a tree, sleep all day, wake up again, give more kisses, and then stay up till midnight basking in the glow of the television set.

    So God made a Dog

    God said I need somebody willing to sit, then stay, then roll over then with no ego or complaint dress in hats they do not need and costumes they do not understand. I need somebody who can break wind without a first thought or second thought. Who can chase tails, sniff crotches, fetch sticks and lift spirits with a lick. Somebody no matter what you didn’t do, or couldn’t take, or didn’t win, or couldn’t make will love you without judgment just the same.

    So God made a Dog

    God said I need somebody strong enough to pull sleds and find bombs, yet gentle enough to love babies and lead the blind. Somebody who will spend all day on a couch with the resting head and supportive eyes to lift the spirits of a broken heart.

    So God made a Dog

    It had to be somebody who would remain patient and loyal even thru loneliness. Somebody to care, cuddle, snuggle and nuzzle, and cheer and charm and snore and slobber and eat the trash and chase the squirrels. Somebody who would bring a family together with selflessness of an open heart. Somebody who would bark, and then pant, and then reply with the rapid wag of tail when their best friend says lets go for a ride in the car.

    So God made a Dog

    God said I need somebody who would stand at your side when the world around you collapses. Somebody to lie next to you during the long nights of pain and sorrow when it hurts to move, or talk, or think, or be. Somebody to stand guard, play games, snore for hours, and repeat as needed. Somebody to give you strength when you have none of your own. Somebody to fight when you have no fight left, to hold onto your soul as if it were their favorite toy, playing tug of war to keep you in this world. Somebody to be your companion and guide in this world and the next. Somebody to wait for you on the other side or stand guard in your absence until they can join you for eternity.

    So God made a Dog

×
×
  • Create New...