SkySoaringMagpie

Bummer. Will post results!

Does this mean you're not coming Fifi?

Perhaps, but just getting dogs out of pounds doesn't solve anything in the long run. I cringe when I hear the Canberra pound brag about its high rehoming rates because the clear message is, it's OK to surrender your dog, someone else will find it a home. Ultimately it does not serve dogs in general for there to be churning of dogs through the system. How you have that discussion without being accused of being a PETA style dog mass murderer is beyond me right now, but the aim of getting as many dogs out of pounds as possible regardless of their prospects is not a worthy aim or one I'd want to work with. My approach has been the same as it is for other scamming - emotional and/or financial. To direct people who want to help to organisations that are ethical. I think that is what you are suggesting too later in your post. The problem of owners is also one I've been wrestling with in my head. There is so much discussion about breeders (of all kinds), rescue and pet shops, but we don't seem to have demanded a public debate about crap dog ownership. Because churn is not just a problem at this end, but also further up the supply chain.

Yay, good competition in all our breeds and we get to see an Azawakh!

Oh good, my numbers still haven't arrived, hopefully they'll be there tomorow.

Salukis and Irish Wolfhounds on Saturday at Castle Hill. We'll also have the fluffball Afghan with us for the Sighthound show.

Afghan National results... BIS: Ch Kjavu Black Tie Affair RUBIS: Ch Karakush the Meow Factor Bitch CC: Ch Suliman Suprima Ballerina Bitch RCC: Gr Ch Khandu Oh So Posh

Most awesome name in the whole thread!

Early morning doesn't bother me as I am up at 5:15, but I wouldn't do it to someone else. I put "not after 8pm" on my schedules but I FAR prefer email which is also on our schedule. As I've mentioned before, you can get to email in your own time and email provides a record of what was agreed between secretary and exhibitor. I also think there is less bullshit on the email, for example, people are less inclined to ask for outrageous favours or ask who is entered etc. because there is a record. One thing I'm wary of is FB, and while I'm happy to use our club FB page to put messages out, I am not going to accept PMs for entry related matters.

Just going to update what I said about getting a swab pre mating. I spoke with my vet about it this morning when I took one of my girls in for a pre breeding check. The vet said that unless there are signs of disease, the area that is swabbed is frequently contaminated by outside bacteria making the results not very useful. She said that she'll do them on a maiden bitch if the stud dog owner wants them, or if there are signs of disease. On a bitch that has had litters, only if the previous pups have faded or something else has happened to indicate there may be a bacterial problem. So, I learned something today!

Kicking off with the Afghan National on Saturday, thought I'd start a thread for meetups, brags and results.

I used Advantix on all my dogs on 6 March 2012 and it seemed to do the trick at the time, but I have just found two live fleas on one of my dogs (she was scratching so I ran a comb through her) and it's only 26 March. I am not sure what to do next. I worm with Milbemax so I guess the next step would be Comfortis? Edited to add that I also did the carpeted areas of the house with a flea bomb the day after I dosed the dogs with Advantix so I'm hoping it's not environmental. I guess they could have come from the yard as they were on her rear end and she'd just been out for a pee.

Ah, maybe that was it. Thank you both :)

:cheer: :cheer: Got a text from Pam just before. I am so pleased for her, she's been quietly working away for years.

I've done that before, let alone seen it. Not in class tho' come to think of it, falls into the category of "only in the car on the way home"!!

I never labeled her as incompetent, just maybe not suted to the dog/ type of dog as she was struggling. And to be Honist I was surprised the other instructor didn't do some one on one with her. I'm too glad to see she is at training but I also think she should have said in the lower class longer as it is small so she would have gotten a bit more it of it, as class 2 is rather large Sometimes instructors are out of their depth with either the person or the breed or both. A good instructor will have enough self-awareness to know that. For example, I would probably be rubbish at teaching a kid struggling with a border collie. I am pretty reasonable teaching adults with sighthounds. When out of your depth, it's best to stick with the syllabus for the benefit of the majority of the dogs and suggest alternative avenues for breed specific trouble shooting - most of us know people who are successful with breeds that we don't have an interest in.

In those situations I think it's too late to comment on the breed suitability. They've got the dog, even tho' it might have been a stupendously bad idea, so now they have to learn to deal with it enough to get by or the dog will wind up at a shelter or a vet. Having an independent breed myself, if I thought I might have something worth trying I'd mention it, but otherwise it's her drama, not mine. At least the lady is at obedience class. And sure, privately a lot of people including me think "what the heck were you thinking lady?" but as Greytmate says, there's a lot of unconscious ignorance when it comes to dog selection.

Agree. Also, I disagree that no health tests are required. In some breeds, including mine, there are no genetic tests available for the top three diseases of concern. That doesn't mean no health preparation is required before breeding. Often our breeds have recommended protocols like waiting until a dog is past the risk age period for the diseases of concern before breeding and I would also expect some analysis of the pedigree. By that I don't mean "there are no problems in my line mate (or luv)". At the minimum, the dam (mother) should be going to the vet to get a pre-breeding health check, basic heart check, thyroid test, swab. It would depend a bit on the breed for me, but I'd rather kiss the deposit goodbye than go with something I'm not happy with in a higher risk breed. Nothing is risk free, and anyone telling you so is bulls***ing. Edited to say, when I say nothing is risk free, I'm including buying from rescue or a pound. Animals are living organisms, with the associated risk, and all you can do is improve your odds.

I am sure I recall reading about a recent study cautioning against the use of pro-biotics in recovery. That's all I can recall and I can't turn up anything in Google that looks like that. Now I'm not even sure if it was a human or canine study. Can anyone help?

Statement by the Chair of the KC: http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67383

Showing a dog in lingerie next to a sleeping man does not suggest what we think it might. Being sprung in bed with a dog dressed in women's underwear is an inoffensive way to sell cars, the Advertising Standards Bureau has ruled. The advertising watchdog has hosed down a complaint that the 60-second television commercial, from the Australian arm of US car maker Chrysler, suggests that ''the man has had a sexual encounter with the dog'' after receiving complaints that this was what the ad had implied. The ad for the Jeep Compass from media agency CumminsRoss turns sour when a man interrupts the bond formed between a woman and her dog. One scene shows the dog, jealous of the relationship forming between the man and woman, dressed in women's lingerie and sitting on the bed next to the sleeping man. However, a complaint received by the bureau described the scene as ''highly inappropriate and incredibly offensive'' because it included ''a reference to bestiality in primetime TV hours''. ''Nothing actually takes place between the dog and the boyfriend but having to explain to a young person why the dog is dressed in her red corset and why she then gets rid of the boyfriend is something which should not happen as a result of watching a show as harmless as Antiques Roadshow,'' the complaint reads. Chrysler Australia did not respond to the ad watchdog's request for comment. ''The board noted the complainants' concerns that the advertisement is suggestive of bestiality and considered that whilst the woman in the advertisement just sees her lingerie-clad dog in bed with her partner, the viewers have seen the dog dress itself and are aware that the situation has been contrived by the dog without the man's knowledge,'' the determination reads. ''The board considered that the woman's interpretation of why the dog is dressed in lingerie and in bed with her partner is not clear cut and that whilst one interpretation, shared by the complainants, is of sexual activity, another interpretation could be that she is annoyed that the man has dressed the dog in her lingerie.'' The ASB noted that some people could find the advertisement to be in poor taste. However, it said that it ''considered that the mild implication of something inappropriate between the dog and the man is overridden by the humour of the advertisement and the fact that viewers are aware of what the dog has done.'' It dismissed the complaint, saying the ad ''did treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience'' and was not in breach of advertising codes. http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/watchdog-says-dog-lover-ad-not-suggestive-20120320-1vgnk.html

If you're on FB, friend Jacky Harnett, she makes nice matching bling ones.

So it was passed and failed on exactly the same criteria?

Are we talking about a specific case or cases where the people have disclosed the vet sheet? I think I recall seeing one vet sheet that owners had disclosed, no idea where tho'.

Two internet sources for the statement from Alison Skipper, one of the examining vets. It's a pity dogworld couldn't do her the courtesy of setting out it out with paragraph breaks because I can't get some people to even consider reading anything posted on Harrison's blog: http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/crufts-vet-alison-skipper-has-her-say.html http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67384 "One of the few positive things about being one of the two independent vets at the centre of this controversy is that I am, at least, independent. What I am about to write is my own opinion, and nobody has told me what to say, or even asked me to say it. Most of the other big players in this story have a vested interest of some kind: they are important people in the Kennel Club, or the British Veterinary Association (BVA), and so can’t speak completely freely, or they are well known people within the dog world, such as important judges or exhibitors. "Will Jeffels and I are not any of these things: we trained as vets because we like animals and wanted to work with them, and we volunteered to be the first vets implementing the new show checks because we supported the initiative and decided – rashly, perhaps – to get involved. I haven’t even seen Will for 20 years or so – we didn’t meet during Crufts – but we are united in our willingness to stand behind the reforms. I grew up on the fringes of the dog show world. My mother took out our family affix in 1952, and was a regular breeder during the 1950s. I’ve been coming to Crufts since it was at Olympia, with the clickety- clackity old wooden escalators up from the tube station. I’ve been a small animal vet for 22 years, and have had pedigree dogs of my own throughout this time. "I used to be very active in Australian Cattle Dogs, and was one of the driving forces behind an international effort in 1996 to source samples to develop a DNA test for PRA in the ACD; this was rewarded by the development of a gene specific test by OptiGen in 2004. "I wrote the veterinary column for Our Dogs for over five years. I am currently (unless they kick me out over this) a member of four breed specific canine societies. At the moment, I have four dogs of smaller breeds. Over my time in dogs, I’ve done a bit of showing, including at Crufts, I’ve bred three litters (with one DIY caesarian!), and I’ve done club level agility for several years. I work in a small animal practice with lots of dog breeder clients, including some successful show kennels, and a large proportion of working dogs. However, I have never shown dogs seriously, and the one time I judged a match at a fun day, I realised that judging was not for me. What I am, I hope, is an ordinary vet with a strong interest in, and love for, the pedigree dog, a good degree of clinical competence, and enough personal integrity to do what I think is right. I know how the dog world works, but I know very few of the main players within it, and these, I think, are the reasons why the KC and BVA appointed me as one of these first two vets. "To go from a quiet life one week to being at the centre of such an emotive controversy the next is not easy, or fun. Why did I agree to do it? It wasn’t for the money; we didn’t get paid. The KC gave me food for the weekend, a bed for the night, and the chance to watch the groups on the days I was at Crufts, which was all very nice but I could have stayed at home and watched it on TV, and saved myself a lot of trouble. I’m not stupid: I knew it would be extremely controversial, and that I would probably have to make decisions that would be very unpopular. And it wasn’t without personal risk; if I were found guilty of false certification I could be struck off the veterinary register and lose my livelihood. That’s a pretty strong incentive to be accurate when carrying out a clinical examination. "I agreed to do this because I thought it would help to improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs. Personally, I see nothing wrong in the ethical production of pedigree dogs, except perhaps for the argument that there aren’t enough good homes out there for the dogs there are already. A healthy, happy pedigree dog obviously has as good a quality of life as a healthy, happy mongrel. However, nobody is compelled to breed pedigree dogs. It’s something we all choose to do. And it seems to me that, if we are choosing to bring new dogs into the world, it’s only right that we should do what we can to produce dogs who are not physically prevented from having a good quality of life. "As has often been stated, there are two problems with this that are undeniably more of an issue with purebred dogs than with cross breeds: the various genetic issues that afflict different breeds, and the issues of health and welfare that relate directly to exaggerated conformation. For some years, ethical breeders have made huge progress in improving welfare through the various schemes for monitoring inherited disease. This is hugely important, and has clearly helped to improve lives for thousands of dogs; breeders should be proud of what they’ve achieved in this area. "But inherited disease is only one side of the coin, and until recently, the other side of the coin, the problems caused by extreme conformation, has been rather overlooked within the dog fancy. The two sides are quite separate; a breed can have very moderate conformation and be plagued by serious inherited disease issues, such as the Cavalier, or it can be relatively healthy in terms of invisible problems and yet have clear issues with some aspect of its body structure. "This high-profile breed scheme is a hugely important step towards reducing the problems associated with extreme conformation. Nobody ever said, "Oh good, I’ve produced a puppy which is going to suffer pain as a result of the body shape I chose!”, but it’s all too easy to overlook chronic low-level discomfort, and I think it’s undeniable that some breeds are associated with issues of this kind. Dogs that have always had exposed, irritated inner eyelids aren’t going to scream with pain or stop eating because their eyes hurt; they don’t know any differently, but surely the same dog would have a better quality of life if its eyelids fitted better to the eyeballs. It must be better to be a Pug who can chase its friends in the park than to be a Pug that struggles to walk along a path. Surely these things are not in dispute, or they shouldn’t be. "The brief that Will Jeffels and I were given by the KC was very clear: we were not meant to assess conformation in the same way as a judge would, and we were not meant to penalise a dog because of any aspect of its shape or structure, unless we felt that attribute had led to a problem with its health or welfare. So we couldn’t reject a dog just because it had a short face or lots of skin folds, for example, or because we didn’t like the way it moved; only if it had trouble breathing, or a skin infection, or was lame, as a result of its structure. "We were chosen to do this, rather than specialist vets, because Steve Dean thought it would be unfair for judges to be over- ruled by, for example, specialist ophthalmologists, because they might notice things that no judge could be expected to see. He thought that experienced general practitioners would know what’s normal and what isn’t – we earn our livings doing it – and would be able to see obvious problems that a judge could also see. "The KC told us exactly what they wanted us to do, and then left us to go and do it. They did not try to influence our decisions in any way. We could have passed – or failed – any or all of the 15 dogs quite freely. It is sad that some dogs failed, but I think it shows that there is a need for this scheme: if we had been assessing a group of Borzois or Cairns or Dalmatians I don’t think any would have failed. Obviously, I am bound by professional confidentiality and cannot comment on any of the dogs I examined. The owners are not so bound and I would be happy for any of the owners of the dogs I examined to make public the form I signed, in its entirety. I wrote several comments on most of them, and many of the comments I wrote were positive, even on dogs I failed. I have enormous sympathy for the owners of the dogs that were failed. It must have been disappointing, embarrassing and humiliating, and it gave me no pleasure at all to do it. "There are several general points from the examination process, however, which I think are worth emphasising. Firstly, there are many possible reasons for failure. Some of them may be temporary: lameness, for example, may have gone by the next day, but one fundamental rule of veterinary certification is that you can only attest to what you see before you at that moment; you cannot speculate on what the animal might have looked like five minutes earlier or five minutes later. Also, as with judging, there may be problems that are found on close examination of a dog that would not be visible from the ringside. Secondly, it’s obvious from the photographs on the Internet that some of the BOB winners which failed were indeed of more moderate conformation than some other dogs within that breed. It must have been particularly galling for those owners to fail. However, we weren’t being asked to judge whether a particular dog was better than the breed average; we only examined the winner, and if the winner still had a problem that affected its welfare on that day, our task was to say so. "If it displayed the least extreme conformation in its breed, then the judge had done the best job they could from the stock available, whatever the end result; and if the winner showed far more moderate conformation than would have been the case a few years ago, then that is still to be praised, even if there was still a problem. "One thing that I am angry about is that the media coverage is focused so exclusively on the dogs who unfortunately failed. I wish there were more attention on the dogs that were passed. Nine dogs were judged the best of their breed, passed as free from issues that were affecting their health and welfare, and went on to compete in their groups, with several being shortlisted by the group judges. Those breeds should be enormously proud of what they have achieved, because in many cases the winners were indeed of far less exaggerated conformation than they would have been a few years ago, which is a great cause for celebration. "Those breeders have done wonders. For example, even Jemima Harrison has written positively about the winning Bloodhound on her blog, which is remarkable. I was really glad to see ‘my’ Bloodhound in the big ring, moving soundly and with eyes free from discomfort. That’s what it should all be about. "It’s natural that emotions should be running high; change is often difficult. And it’s inevitable that there will be teething problems in a new and unprecedented process. Everyone who was involved in this endeavour will have learnt from it, and certainly there are some aspects of it that can be improved. "Will Jeffels and I strongly feel that the initiative is worthwhile, and we are continuing to support the KC in its efforts to promote healthier conformation. Dog showing is a sport, a hobby. The world would still spin on its axis if there were no dog shows. If we choose to spend our leisure time, or in some cases our careers, in the world of dog showing, we should remember that we wouldn’t be able to do it without the dogs, and the least we can do in return is to choose healthy body shapes for them to live their lives within.”