Steve

However, the RSPCA are considered to be an animal welfare group. It is because of this that they can advise governments and be given instant credibility when they push for more laws. Laws which have no basis in science or fact.Laws which are now against what is known to be best practice for the species. Laws which make the public and even breeders believe that we are being cruel if we managed our dogs according to what canine reproductive specialists tell us we should do for the best thing for the species. Laws which condemn dogs to death because they are judged a particular breed. Breed specific legislation. It is against the law for you to take your dog to a dog show if it has been debarked by your vet without the evidence that before it was done someone from your local council could testify that the dog was barking and would have to be put down if it doesnt shut up yet I can take my dog to a vet and have fake testicles implanted and take it anywhere I want even put it onthe telly to show it off or have it put to death because I dont like the colour of its coat. No debarking unless you can prove you have tried everything else to keep the dog quiet - consequences of debarking if done by a qualified vet - softer voice and no more recovery or long term issues than a simple tonsil op for humans. It should be my dog, my property my choice in consultaion with my vet In some places mandatory desexing - consequences of desexing if done by a qualified vet - higher incidence of cancer, joint disease and a whole list of others. It should be my dog, my property, my choice in consultation with my vet.I shouldnt have to own a recognised breed of dog or belong to an approved organisation in order to be able to make that choice. I shouldnt have to be a domestic animal business if I own more than 3 fertile dogs and never intend to breed them. In most places mandatory microchipping - consequences - huge increased risk for cancer and immune related disorders. It should be my dog, my property, my choice to make in consultation with my vet. Then we look at mandatory codes - very little in any of them which take into account what the best is for the species.I can just see them making laws to ensure a dingo sanctuary has concreted pens, how often they can mate or whelp, where they can whelp etc. Bring in laws to help every one know where every one is who breeds a dog, which are not condusive to survival of breeders or the species, give them power to walk in and inspect your paper work, your home and your dogs at will, given them the power to police the laws and have no outside accountability all the time knowing they dont breed dogs, they have no experience or knowledge of the very things they are agitating for and that they have been infiltrated by people who are anti breeding. Then tickle the Canine Councils and make em think if they go along with them they will be rewarded and they will have exemptions for their members. The fault in the system is that as a welfare agency they have been given to much credibility with government and too much money to make public an occassional breach and use them to make their case. It is government which should be targeted. Just which part of all of this is for the dogs?

On the surface there is a system and in an ideal world where no one ever got it woriong and no one ever got a ego problem or power hungry all would be fine. However, when someone can come onto your property and decide to take your animal, it is taken to a place you are not able to be informed of, it is examined by the rangers mate - the RSPCA vet. No second opinion is required and you dont get any in put - nor does your vet - because that would be a conflict of interest before they decide your dog is suffering and is put to sleep. They then destroy the evidence - cremate the body and have you charged with cruelty. While you are waiting trial you are accused and if you try to complain you will be told the courts will decide after all you are an accused animal abuser. But when it gets to court its not a police prosecutor that comes after you which means that they dont have to place all of the evidence to the court and they can hold back any which may not go well for them. They can also charge a truck load of fees because they are private solicitors and barrasters and not Police prosecutors. Now they are asking for laws which would see you having to pay a bond toward looking after your animals while the court case is coming up - or they can sell them or give them away.- so if you are broke and found not guilty you would lose your animals anyway. It doesnt take a Rhodes scholar to work out that there is a potential for collusion and corruption in this system. No point in saying it doesnt happen because history with other agencies has shown us it can and does - even now when the anti corruption and ombusdman are in place there is still lots of work for them to do and people are most definitely being found guilty of corruption. It may not ever happen with the RSPCA but ordinary every day pet owners have the right to feel they have a system in place which allows them to be able to tell their story to and be heard by someone who has no vested interest in keeping a lid on it. However, at the end of the day it is the governments who give them this power without external accountability and it is governments which need to be pressured and made to realise that its time to re think it all.

On the surface there is a system and in an ideal world where no one ever got it woriong and no one ever got a ego problem or power hungry all would be fine.

I dont think thats the fair thing to do at all. I think taking the dog back so they dont have the worry of what happens to her is more than enough. I dont think rescue or breeders should have to buy back dogs - that completely de values everything we do in my opinion.

Reality is when you take em back you get them off the hook and they can just pass on their responsibilty - for the sake of the dog this is great but the owner doesnt have the crap and guilt to deal with either. Buggered if I can see why you should have even paid one cent to them to ease their conscience and for them to ask for full purchase price is a complete show of disrespect for everything you had to do before during and after to ensure the dog was safe and well. Tell em to bugger off.

I remember that being on TV (when the RSPCA visited). The koala's in question appeared calm and content enough, and whilst I am no koala expert, it did appear to me that the owner/keeper of the koala sanctuary/rescue did all possible to ensure their continued contentment. I was quite stunned when to the end of the show it reported the RSPCA as having seized the koalas. Why the RSPCA seek to do this under the name of "stress" when seizing animals (that are otherwise well looked after and are very obviously not under any imminent danger of abuse) only adds and/or causes stress, is beyond me. And how sad that (both) the koalas subsequently died whilst under the 'care' of the RSPCA. Very very sad indeed. Does the "A" in RSPCA stand for "administrators" or "animals" ???? For me what was the really big deal that came out of that enquiry was the statement from the ex prosecutor and the explaination of accounatbility by the NSW president. Not only no accountability but different rules apply when prosecuting someone - the ability for collusion etc. People should be taking a good look at the various moves currently under way to introduce new laws - most recent Victoria.these will affect all breeders and rescue - look really hard at who and how what they are proposing will all be policed. It is very noticeable that when the new government was elected they had promised more power to the RSPCA yet none of that is memntioned in the published proposal notes. People should start writing letters now to tell them we dont any more laws or any more power given to a quasi police force until there is the ability for external accountability. http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=217870

Im not commenting on whether a boarding kennel should or should not do one thing or another in order to get what is owing to them. Im saying read the contract and be bloody sure you know what you are signing. Im not talking about a situation where they hold your animal until you pay. That's what a traditional lien is. I fail to see why any right minded business would want to send the sheriffs in to seize a dog as payment for debt if there's a car in the driveway and a plasma TV in the lounge. Your average mutt isn't worth much. A lien that allows property to return to the owner and then be repossessed? It will be interesting to see what the courts make of it. Its in court in the next month. And like you I was aware that some businesses had clauses which say if you dont pay you dont get your animal back. From my understanding - prior to this one I thought if you had your animal and it was no longer in their possession it was no longer possible to use your animals as surity. However, it appears there are some contracts which have included an extra clause which actually does allow you to take them home but if you dont pay outstanding amounts or if they refuse your offer of instalment amounts they can - legally - literally take your dog. Im not saying you shouldnt pay your bills or that kennels,vets etc shouldnt have some way of getting their money but once someone signs this and then cant pay and wants help - Pacers cant help much. If you come to us telling us if you dont pay a $10,000 bill your animals will be repossessed and it turns out thats true we dont have those kind of resources.

Im not commenting on whether a boarding kennel should or should not do one thing or another in order to get what is owing to them. Im saying read the contract and be bloody sure you know what you are signing. Im not talking about a situation where they hold your animal until you pay.

Steve, this isn't quite correct. A lien over property allows the person to whom the debt is owed to retain it until the debt is paid. The property can only be sold if the debt won't be repaid. Basically you don't get the dog back until you've paid. It doesn't give a right to seize a returned dog. I have to say I've never heard of it with regard to dog related businesses. I have a contract in my hand which someone signed . In one part there is the wording as you have indicated. A little further down it states that the owner agrees the lien stays whether the dog is in their custody or not until all money is paid. We have had a couple of different legal people look at it and we are being told its sticks and so is the person who owns the dogs and the people who are owed the money and are involved do not hold the animals. I does give the right in this case for them to have the dog returned to them for disposal. In other words repossessed. It will be tested and its hard to believe it could stick as worded but it sure as hell is causing a lot of stress even if it doesnt.

Please anyone who is intending to enter an agreement with a business which is dog related- vet, groomer, boarding kennel etc - read the fine print. Dont agree for them to have a lean on your dog indefinitely as long as you owe them any money unless you are very very sure that there will be no surpises which will prevent you paying the account in full when you have agreed to. It works the same way as a hire purchase agreement on a car. You cant sell them - if you do they are still legally the person who has the lean on them. They can be possessed and sold, kept or PTS. Its iron clad and even though common sense says no one would ever come and grab your dogs and do this if you owned them money it appears some do.

gremlins

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parl...A257793001178D0

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parl...on%20No%202.pdf

http://www.neatorama.com/2011/03/30/egypti...mummified-dogs/ In a labyrinth of tunnels beneath the Egyptian desert lies a truly remarkable catacomb containing the mummified remains of dogs and jackals. Now, since this is Egypt, mummies aren’t exactly unusual – what made the Dog Catacomb so different is that it contains an immense amount of mummified puppies: They estimate the catacombs contain the remains of 8 million animals. Given the sheer numbers of animals, it is likely they were bred by the thousands in puppy farms around the ancient Egyptian capital of Memphis, according to the researchers. The Dog Catacombs are located at Saqqara, the burial ground for the ancient capital Memphis. "Our findings indicate a rather different view of the relationship between people and the animals they worshipped than that normally associated with the ancient Egyptians, since many animals were killed and mummified when only a matter of hours or days old," Nicholson said. "These animals were not strictly ’sacrificial.’ Rather, the dedication of an animal mummy was regarded as a pious act, with the animal acting as intermediary between the donor and the gods."

I dont hate the RSPCA - however, while ever they act as a quasi police force without outside accountability I will not put my hand up to support any new animal welfare law.

Domestic Animals Act 1994 Consultation document – puppy farm legislation amendments Bureau of Animal Welfare Victoria 3 March 2011 During the 2010 election the Liberal Nationals Coalition Party made media statements and released a Plan for Agriculture included animal welfare matters that included suggestions to improve regulation of the operation of domestic animal businesses including for compliance management of illegal puppy farms. Informal consultation with a number of key stakeholder organisations and domestic animal businesses has developed the following suggested amendments to the Act that may address the issues of concern to the community. The Bureau of Animal Welfare ([email protected], ph 03 91217 4200) is seeking comment from stakeholder organisations and individuals on the following draft amendments to the Act in order to provide advice to the government for its consideration in due course. Amend the definition of ‘domestic animal business’ 1. At present only an establishment breeding ten (10) or more fertile female dogs and cats ‘for profit’ is defined as a domestic animal business. This must be registered with the Council and must operate in compliance with the Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Establishments. 2. There have been a number of animal breeding establishments found to exercise poor welfare practices and non compliance with the code of practice applying to domestic animal businesses. However the current definition of “domestic animal business” does not apply to many of the businesses because the definition requires that the business is “run for profit” and that the enterprise has 10 or more fertile females. These conditions are either not always met and or they are difficult to prove in respect of many of these “puppy farms”. Even where they proved, the current penalty under section 45 of the DAA (conducting a domestic animal business on unregistered premises) is not sufficient to discourage non compliance. 3. It is suggested to reduce the limit to three (3) or more fertile female animals of each species (dog or cat) and to delete the words “that is run for profit” from the definition. 4. A proviso will be that for owners who are members of an applicable organisation and whose animals are registered with that organisation, the limit will remain at 10 or more fertile females. Registered domestic animal breeding businesses that are not members of an applicable organisation view this as an anti-competitive proposal. 5. This number will not include animals that have a veterinary certificate that determines that the animal should not be bred again but is recommended not to be de-sexed. 6. There are 65 registered breeding (dog and cat) businesses in Victoria and it is estimated that these amendments could increase the number to 300 enterprises. Increase penalties for conduct of a non-compliant domestic animal business 7. The current penalties for operating a domestic animal business on unregistered premises or for one that is not compliant with the code standards or that is not compliant with the conditions of registration is 10 PU ($1,160). 8. It is suggested to increase the penalty for conduct of a domestic animal business that is not registered with the Council non-compliance with the relevant code to 30 PU($3,583) for a person and to 150 PU ($17,917) for a corporate offence. 9. It is suggested to increase the penalty for conduct of a domestic animal business in non-compliance with the relevant code to 30 PU($3,583) for a person and to 150 PU ($17,917) for a corporate offence. Increase penalties for selling pet shop animals from an unregistered business 10. A pet shop animal as defined in the Act includes dogs and cats. These may only be sold from a registered domestic animal business or a private residence. There are cases where persons are detected selling significant numbers of animals from premises other than these two legal outlets. 11. It is suggested to increase the penalty to 20 PU (2,389) for a person and introducing 100 PU ($11,945) for a corporate offence. Disposal of animals from a domestic animal business 12. There is no power in the Act to allow for the seizure and disposal of animals from a dog or cat breeding operation that will not apply for registration or fails to be compliant with the code of practice or where the Council or Court revokes the registration of the operation or where it is not compliant wit the conditions of registration. 13. It is suggested to provide for a court to order disposal by a Council of animals from a domestic animal business found guilty of conducting a domestic animal business on unregistered premises or that is non-compliant with the relevant code of practice or for failing to provide surety for care of seized animals until a legal case is concluded. 14. It is suggested to provide a power for a council authorised officer to seize and dispose of animals from a domestic animal business that is non-compliant with the code of practice for the particular domestic animal business or where the business remains non-compliant with the requirement by a Council to be registered, after a notice to comply has been issued that includes an appropriate time frame. 15. It is suggested to provide for a Council authorised officer to apply to a court for a bond or security to be provided by the owner for the care and maintenance of seized animals until legal proceedings are completed, including VCAT appeals, or until the animals are disposed of. Failure to meet the bond requirements will allow the Council to apply to the court for an order to dispose of the animals. 16. This will require consideration of the methods by which a court or Council authorised officer may dispose of the animals from a domestic animal business that are consistent with Part 7A of the Act eg through sale, destruction or giving to a registered domestic animal business. 17. The penalties and the proceeds from disposal of animals are to be directed to a fund for the purpose of providing grants to animal welfare organisations for provision of responsible pet ownership education programs. Currently the Act permits Councils to receive the penalties imposed by a court for the cases they proceed with and they object to such redirection. Penalties for cases raised by Police and RSPCA (note election commitment to authorise its inspectors under the Act with regard to puppy farm compliance) and for seizure and disposal of animals (after retention of costs of seizure and disposal) go to Consolidated Revenue and these amounts could be redirected. 18. It is suggested that the animal welfare organisations be defined by their service to a. Provide an ‘animal shelter’ service; or b. Provide subsidised veterinary treatment services to the Community; or c. Promote the considerate treatment and responsible ownership of animals. d. Provide services as a community animal foster care organisation or emergency animal relief services to the community. Court imposed ban on ownership of dogs and cats for breeding 19. There is no court power to ban ownership of pet shop animals, including dogs and cats, by a person or their agent, who has been found guilty of conducting a domestic animal business on unregistered premises or for conducting a business that is not compliant with the relevant code of practice. 20. It is suggested to provide for a court to ban ownership by a person or their agent, or to impose conditions on a person or their agent with regard to being in charge of pet shop animals for the purpose of operating a domestic animal business, for a period of up to 10 years if found guilty of an offence under the Act associated with registration or conduct of a domestic animal business. <H1 style="MARGIN: 3pt 0in">Auditing of a registered domestic animal business</H1>21. Council authorised officers may use their powers to audit a domestic animal business. There is no power in the Act to permit a Council to require a registered domestic animal business to provide evidence that they are compliant with code of practice. It is suggested that a Council may require a registered domestic animal business to undertake an audit for compliance with conditions of the relevant code of practice or the conditions of registration. The audit will be required by notice from a Council to the domestic animal business and permit use of a Council approved independent auditor or by a Council authorised officer or by a veterinary practitioner appointed by the Council. 22. Council to be able to set their own fees for such audits. The domestic animal business is liable for the cost recoverable by Council in court for any audit requested by the Council. 23. Failure to conduct and report the audit results to Council within a reasonable time frame would be grounds for a Council to revoke or refuse registration of that domestic animal business. Notice to Comply 24. The Act provides for a notice to comply to be issued by an authorised officer if reasonable grounds exist that the person has committed an offence against the Act. No penalty is associated with failure to comply with that Notice. 25. It is suggested to introduce a penalty of 30PU ($3,583) for a person or 150 PU($17,917) for a corporate body to fail to comply with a Notice to Comply issued by a Council authorised officer including for a non-compliance with a code provision by a domestic animal business (ie an offence under section 63A of the DAA) or a requirement to register as a domestic animal business. Welfare of dogs impounded pending the completion of legal proceedings. 26. Dogs can be seized and kept impounded for a number of offences in the Act. In the cases of restricted breed dogs or dogs that are suspected of causing an attack the court and appeals processes may leave the animal incarcerated for several months with deleterious effects on its welfare and behaviour in most circumstances. 27. It is suggested to allow for a person to apply to the court to apply for custody of their impounded dog pending completion of legal proceedings where these are likely to take longer than 6 weeks 28. The court will be able to place conditions on the release to the owner’s custody that ensure public safety and to impose a surety on the owner for compliance with the conditions. <H1 style="MARGIN: 3pt 0in">Measures to improve administration of the Act</H1>29. The definition of an animal shelter is to be amended to mean a premises on which cats and dogs are kept and maintained for the purpose of rehousing. This is to exempt foster care and animal rescue volunteers keeping animals on their private residential premises in compliance with council planning provisions. 30. A Council registered animal shelter will not be required to register with Council a cat or dog that is in their possession. This is the general and accepted practice which could be considered as non-compliant with the Act. 31. An amendment is required that defines a ‘community animal foster care organisation’ as an organisation that provides for the housing of cats and or dogs in private residential premises of a person approved by the organisation. 32. In addition an amendment is required that excludes a ‘community animal foster care organisation’ from the definition of an ‘animal shelter’. 33. A registered animal shelter is to be permitted to release microchip identified and desexed animals (they will be provided to the shelter desexed if they were seized by Council under current provisions in the Act) under a S.84Y type written agreement that requires desexing, vaccination and worm treatment prior to rehousing. The shelter is to be able to amend the microchip entry registry to make the rescue organisation the new owner. 34. Animals are often advertised for sale or giving away in various ways that prevent a Council checking on registration or ownership or source (eg an unregistered domestic animal business for breeding). It is suggested to provide an offence for a person or organisation to advertise or give notice or to accept advertisement of the sale or giving away of a dog or cat unless the microchip identification number (or the domestic animal business registered number) of the animal is included in the advertisement or notice. Animals that cannot be microchip identified based on veterinary advice could be advertised with the microchip of their bitch or queen. Registered domestic animal businesses will be able to use their Council domestic animal business number as an alternative given the understanding that the Act requires their animals to be microchip identified prior to disposal. 35. The reduction for a Council registration fee for microchip identification of a cat or dog is to be removed for all new registrations as this is now a compulsory requirement. It is suggested that in future the reduction should be for an animal that is both de-sexed and microchip identified.

Steve or anyone who knows. Is this the same breed as the Mini Fox in Au? http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/ToyFoxTerrier Looks like it to me. One of the office bearers of the mini foxie club will be able to answer better than me and Im sure she will see this any minute . There is also a story about their name - something to do with the name they wanted being blocked by someone within the ANKC so it explians why they are called mini foxie in Australia but Im not sure of the details. there is also some big deal between the Tenterfield terriers and these guys too. Something about Don Burke and the shape of the foot but again Im not posh on th details and Im sure to get it wrong. No doubt MFCA will educate us.

Under what rules? - only the ANKC has published rules To achieve what qualification? - only the ANKC awards titles in obedience. If you are interested in achieving titles to national standard under a published set of rules, and under trained and accredited judges then right now only the ANKC offers that. Its all well and good to say there can be other options but it would be a huge effort to introduce a system that matched what the ANKC has to offer. Individual affiliates may run the trials but they are run and judged to an agreed and nationally consistent standard. The qualification I get in WA can count towards a dog's title in Qld. Most obedience trials here struggle to break even on a costs basis - there isn't even a financial incentive to create another scheme. Thanks PF thats what I was getting at Steve I did not mention agility, if I want to compete in Agility I can go to ADAA, however what if I though my Mini Foxie was the best at Obedience in the whole country, how else could I possibly test that theory in Australia? Also ANKC has the trained judges and they can be threatened with loss of thier licence of they come and judge my mini foxie obedience trial, so none come. What now? I am sort of backed in a corner and like you said now have to make up my mind if breeding or obedience is more important. What a dilemma! Not one I would have with an ANKC recognised breed. Yes for you it is a dilemma - I hear you and understand you - and I agree its not one you would have with an ANKC recognised breed but that still doesnt say the breed doesnt exist as a breed. if competeing at national level in ANKC events with entire dogs was a primary concern for Mini foxie people then they have the option of going after ANKC breed recognition.

Under what rules? - only the ANKC has published rules To achieve what qualification? - only the ANKC awards titles in obedience. If you are interested in achieving titles to national standard under a published set of rules, and under trained and accredited judges then right now only the ANKC offers that. Its all well and good to say there can be other options but it would be a huge effort to introduce a system that matched what the ANKC has to offer. Individual affiliates may run the trials but they are run and judged to an agreed and nationally consistent standard. The qualification I get in WA can count towards a dog's title in Qld. Most obedience trials here struggle to break even on a costs basis - there isn't even a financial incentive to create another scheme. Under any rules they want and anyone can award a title in obedience - to achieve any qualification they want to call it. Right now it may be only the ANKC doing it that way on a National level but that doesnt mean someone else cant if they want to whether it would be a huge effort or not. Mini foxie people may only want to be judged against other mini foxies to enable them to choose breeding dogs based on their obedience success - not everyone wants to have a national title competeing against other breeds and other types of dogs or maybe they would want a national Foxie title - who knows - but its not something that the ANKC have to have a monopoly on and any club at any time could walk away and become affiliated with any other as well as or instead of the ANKC.

At Wagga Ive seen with my own eyes crates destined for one transport company's use simply opened - old paper out new newspaper in - new puppies in. Not that it mattered much puppies stunk to high heaven and were destined for a well known pet shop in Sydney. Puppy farmer.

Yes but then if I live in one of the smaller states that does not have alternate dog sports groups and I decide I would love to do obedience trials with my mini Foxie brood bitch, well they are only offered by ANKC, so that means to be eligable to compete in those trials I must desex my mini Foxie in order to register it as an associate. (Hence why we now have a sporting register for some breeds - entire working BC's and Kelpies can compete). There is no registery in Australia that is close to what the ANKC offers in terms of variety of sports, not just everyone does conformation shows and agility(which is also offered by multiple external registres). Yes thats right but that is a decision that you as an owner make if agility with that dog is more important to you than breeding - its a system issue its not that the breed doesnt exist.The ANKC dont run shows or obedience trials or agility trials the various clubs do most of which dont have a regsitry at all and they apply to be ANKC sanctioned. Any one anywhere can run an obedience trial and allow any dog they want to compete. This is all about the way we have come to see things and its blinded us to the options.

Maremma Sheepdog are not recognised by the AKC. Being recognised by one registry over another or working towards being accepted and recognised by one registry over another doesnt mean they arent recognised as a breed as this clearly demonstrates. Maremmas have been a recognised breed in their own country for thousands of years. Whether or not one particular registry recognises them doesnt just rub out the fact that they are a breed and recognised as such by all but a particular registry. I guess it all depends on who is recognising them. People all over Australia can look at a mini foxie and recognise it as a mini foxie. At that point of recognition whether the ANKC do or not isnt going to mean much to anyone other than ANKC members who cant get their head around the fact that the ANKC isnt now nor has it ever been the only purebred stud registry. If you want to breed registered mini foxies you buy one with Mini Foxie breed registry papers and when you make your babies you register them on the mini foxie registry and give your puppy buyers registration papers. If you want to show your mini foxie you take it to a Mini Foxie sanctioned show. So its not recognised by the ANKC - so what? Fact is that the way the ANKC has their system for even getting to a spot where anyone could try for their breed to be recognised by them they have to work and be castigated at every turn by people who own already recognised breeds for a couple of decades. What difference does it make if somewhere when they are working toward a specific goal they add in a different breed or type as long as their end goal is consistency and predictibility? Who cares if they used a chi or a pap in there somewhere? I dont want to know the recipe they used and if I did how would I find this recipe for those breeds already recognised by the ANKC. How is this any different to how any breed developed over the last couple of thousand years? Before anyone starts jumping up and down and accusing me of being anti ANKC - Im not. Im just saying that there is more than one registry and if people are doing the right thing by the dogs and working toward predictibility and consistency so their puppy buyers can know what to expect from the breed when they take it into their homes - whether or not it is now or if the people involved ever want to be able to be recognised by one registry isnt all there is to it.

Really? How do you find out about them. I guess the same way you find out about any show - if you are a member you are informed when a show is on and if you are interested in a breed you research where the shows might be Here's two http://www.minifoxie.org/index.php?option=...6&Itemid=16 http://american-bulldog-champions-league.w.../showevents.htm

It is recognized here already, in the UKC registry. ANKC is not the only registry in the world. Dogs are not only recognized in ANKC. Now I suppose we have to talk about what does it mean to be "recognised". You won't be showing or getting ANKC papers for a Klee Kai in this country until the ANKC recognises the breed. For a dog of US origin, that means that the Registry the ANKC recognises as the American purebred register (the AKC) does. Same deal for Silken Windhounds. They are recognised by some FCI countries but until the AKC does, they won't be shown here. They can be shown here - just not at ANKC shows. Lots of breeds which are not recognised by the ANKC hold their own shows without a problem - If they want to hold shows. Some breeds dont want a bar to do with the show scene.

Funny you should say this. I sent a Maremma pup home to Armidale - flight from Wagga to Sydney - change from Sydney to Armidale about 3 months ago. I always activate the Petplan insurance as they are leaving. Anyway the pup got kennel cough about 5 days after it went home. Ive never ever had kennel cough here and no other of the pups from the dozen in the litter contracted it either. The owner tells me they picked the pup up from the airport and the dog hadnt left their yard between when they got it and when it got sick. The most likely source of the virus exposure appears to be the flight