WoofnHoof

No one said you do stuff all, more that there is no point denigrating the AWSC for not asking the ANKC to speak when the ANKC is not pursuing the many opportunties available to offer their views on this type of platform. There are many organisations running events for animal welfare and IMO it should be the job of the ANKC to represent it's membership at these events and actively pursue opportunities to do so. It's good that this happens to a certain extent in the ACT but the groups whose view you oppose are acting nationally and it would make sense for the ANKC and it's branches to do this as well. As for what I do, I watch and I learn, I don't own pedigree dogs and I don't belong to any breed clubs my interest remains in animal welfare as a whole. Erny that's the thing, your ANKC membership is paying for this PR bloke Peter Higgins to spend his time representing your interests, why isn't he doing just that? It is his job to pursue all available opportunities to represent you that is what he is paid for.

I managed to snare that one secondhand it was a bargain at $300, a brand new carryboy is over $3000 so it's well worth checking ebay and auction houses for secondhand canopies

Gotta love the way everyone is whining about how Peter Higgins hasn't been invited to speak, why would he be? What are the ANKC doing in terms of pedigree dog representation? Do they make their role known to anyone outside the insular world of pedigree dogs? Are they on the advisory committee for the AWSC? If not why not? What about DPI advisory panels? What about RSPCA committees? Has the ANKC put submissions into these organisations to seek representation? Have they sought communication with any of these organisations? The only way to get your opinion heard is to get off your bum and get onto a committee or ten. No point whinging about others pushing various agendas when you aren't pushing your own beliefs, you expect everyone to come to you and ask you what you think about legislation and guidelines regarding dogs? Aint gonna happen and governments don't go to the RSPCA looking for advice you know, they take the RSPCA's advice because they are the only ones out there pushing their message. But no people would rather sit around whinging about how they weren't invited to speak and wont bother going because they disagree with the 'agenda'. If you want to speak put in an application to speak at the next one, and at every other event remotely concerning dogs, you can't whinge about not having a voice if you can't be bothered seeking avenues where it can be heard.

All topics being presented at the seminar are about dogs. The findings being reported apply to dogs. Including pedigree dogs. The seminar's aim is not about promoting crossbred dogs. The presence of McGreevy and Schoeffel would indicate otherwise. McGreevy never seems to waste an opportunity to stick the boots in. And there seems to be some question over Bennett. I am, by the way, still waiting on your link to where McGreevy praises pedigree dogs. Can't you find one? Were your seminar balanced I'm sure more would consider going. Why hasn't, for example, Peter Higgins been invited? Someone who can read a standard and actually understand why dog breeds have particular traits? Cos the ones I've listed don't seem to. I thought some registered breeders were supposed to be part of this. Who are they and what do they breed? And if the purpose is not to pedigree bash, what exactly is the purpose? Cos I'm not getting it from what's been spruiked thus far. Dr Bennett is a breeder of purebred dogs she advertises on dogzonline I posted a link to her profile in the other thread but of course that was ignored because it didn't support the conspiracy theorists. As mlc stated before the speakers who have been invited are actively involved in the AWSC who are the ones running it, maybe Peter Higgins and the ANKC and MDBA should look into having some involvement in this group since it is an area of interest?

Wish I was in Melbourne it would be quite interesting to see this, I hope a good number of people go it would be pretty boring without a cross section of opinions.

I saw some the other day at a rural store and you can buy some step in electric fence posts to tie it onto they are really light and easy even I can put them up and I'm pretty weak

Probably worth investing in some of that temporary orange netting like the sort councils put up to keep people out of developments etc, they do that at the lure coursing club when they set it up at the MPW stops the dogs nicking off and stops other dogs getting in

We used to get kibble for salmonella testing at the lab I used to work at, but we also used to get compost in as well. I think there is a minimum requirement that anything that people handle should be free of salmonella but that was about it, we never did any other tests on it like we did on the human food.

Drove from Toowoomba (QLD) to Sydney for expensive liver shunt surgery, according to many non-animal people that is crazy :D

I work in a meat works and believe me, humans waste very very little of the offal and meat in a bovine. In fact it you would be very surprised what gets consumed. I know of a few people who eat the heart, liver, kidneys. In fact I am sure lots of people do. Same here I worked at a pork abattoir and the bits people would eat would make me quite ill, I used to have to micro test the bits as they were for export, lets just say if you go to a restaurant in Singapore and ask for pork make sure you specify what bit of the pig you want to eat! A lot of the condemned pigs would go straight to the rendering section so pigs with tumors or crook looking pigs that wouldn't be good for human eating, there are also less restrictions on chemical content, the latest thing I have read about euthing horses is that the meat can still be used for dog food which is interesting. It's all pretty nasty really if you think about it too hard, oh well my dogs will be ok they had roast chicken for tea tonight :D The other thing I found out recently is that apparently there are quite tight restrictions on certain toxins in dog food, more so than humans because dogs are more likely to eat the same thing from the same batch over several days/weeks therefore toxins will build up whereas humans you can get away with a higher level because they are less likely to eat the exact same meal day after day. I found that really interesting.

I don't think people get hung up on the clip I think they don't realise that they come in other styles :D If I didn't know anyone that had a poodle in lamb clip I wouldn't have even thought about it to be honest, if poodles in lamb clip aren't identified as poodles people will automatically assume they are a cross or something because that is the image which is associated with labradoodles and the like. It's all down to whether the name is associated with the look, like I said a lot of people think I carry my chi around in my handbag because of the image that has been presented over the years.

That's the thing, poodles have never been associated with the short clip in media, dog shows or dog breed books, the poodles in the show clip are the ones people identify as poodles because there has never been a concentrated effort to change the image, they only have to see it once or twice in a this context to cement the 'image' of the poodle, similar to the 'handbag' association that chis have. I think so much could be done to show how versatile these dogs can be and how versatile their look can be. :D

Not always the breeders fault, though, the "continental" clip is the common show coat - I would LOVE to see poodles shown in "sporting" or "lamb" clip - they look like REAL dogs. THIS is not a "fooffy" poodle Is there enough motivation to attempt this with the breed clubs? It might be worth putting it forward as an experimental class to get the profile of the alternative clips out there and in the public view and possibly get more people participating in the classes as well since a lower maintenance coat would probably appeal to people who may have wanted to show a poodle but didn't want the hassle of the traditional clip. I understand that the traditional clip has great historical signficance but perhaps it's time to move forward to keep the breed going into the future? I might agree - but it puts many people off becasue they think that is how poodles look - when poodles don't look froo-froo in their natural state. The whole DD thing has really taken off because people want a poodle that doesn't look like a poodle Agree, I know so many people who are put off by the look, it might only be a haircut but when people buy breed books or see images of poodles in the media it invariably invokes that association. A haircut can be a powerful thing, anyone remember the "Rachel"??? ETA frufru looks do have an influence on people's decisions on buying a dog, I mean if huskies weren't so damned good looking no one would put up with their more challenging attributes, I think if they had been an 'ugly' breed they would have been relegated to the history books as soon as dog sleds were no longer mainstream transport lol

Here's a pic of the one I had:

How quickly we forget. From his website here And yes, that wonderful puppy farm was the same horror story that features on the ALV website. :D And of course, what did Mr Burke own himself? Pedigreed dogs of course That might be what's on his website but that's not what he said on the show I remember it very clearly, that was back in the days before websites where if you wanted to know more you had to write to them and ask for a factsheet ;) The thing is he didn't come out with the above rot until after he had already planted the seeds of doubt, once that was done he could come out with the harder stuff. Anyway it's clear my point has been well and truly missed, good luck with the 'our dogs are better than yours' campaign let me know how that goes

Yep the carryboy canopy I had you could open and lock the windows both ways so the mesh was in one side and you could open the other side and acess the inside without the mesh as well, I had an ARB one prior to the carryboy and the carryboy was far far better IMO it had much better quality finish and fittings, I can't speak highly enough of them. I changed my car to a trayback and I couldn't transfer to carryboy onto it and couldn't afford a new one I was devastated about that

I'm not arguing that this or that specialised breed isn't better at it's job than a cross I'm just pointing out that if you base a marketing campaign around the generalised concept that purebred is a better 'dog' you will only do harm to the cause. You can say this purebred is a better guardian, a better hunter, a better retriever, better sled dog, better companion or whatever but if you go out there and say 'purebreds are better dogs' you will alienate the majority. I know plenty of people who walk their crossbred horses with pride so I don't really understand the analogy, maybe that's because shows have classes for specific crosses? Back to topic think of it this way if I went out and said 'oh my breed is awesome at agility they always top the results' versus 'my dog is better at agility than any mutt' which comment would be received well and which comment would get you shunned from the agility set? Remember that when all the DD stuff began it didn't begin with DB saying 'you should buy these dogs they are better than purebreds' he started off with things like 'by crossing these two breeds you get the best of both worlds' he wasn't stupid he knew that he was marketing mutts and he had to choose the wording carefully. So do we, we need to say something like 'by breeding true to type you get predictable traits and a more specialised dog to match your lifestyle'.

I would. There's no mutt that is half as good as my pedigree dogs. No mutt can guard better. No mutt can defend better. No mutt is as sound pound for pound. No mutt has better physical resilience. No modern mutt can survive and thrive in environmental extremes like my pedigree dogs can. No mutt can do what my pedigree dogs do. Not a chance. And I bet every dedicated breeder/owner can say the same for their pedigree dogs and their specialisation. Everyone thinks their dog is the best at whatever job they think it does well at, but if you take that slogan to the people I can tell you now it will drive people away from purebred dogs, it's simple PR.

Canopies are great I had a carryboy canopy on my bravo with a whirlybird and steel mesh on the windows so I could open them right up.

I much prefer this strategy than the elitism connotations, elitism goes through fashions and phases whereas practicality will always win out. Not to mention that denigrating mutts alienates every person whose ever had a good mutt. It's well and good to say that a purebred might be a better choice, but I certainly wouldn't go with the motto that it's a better dog.

Sounds good I'll pop them an email.

Getting a few groceries today I was fairly dismayed to see an ad for siberian husky pups on the notice board and was wondering about the appropriateness of putting up a notice of my own with the web address of the siberian husky club and a little note to encourage people to research the breed here. Or alternatively the web address for the breed info here on dogz? So since I'm not actually a member of any breed clubs at the moment do you think this would be an appropriate thing to do? I'm not a fan of pulling off byb notices I think it achieves nothing, but I would like people who are thinking of buying a pup to have some idea of the characteristics of the breed and at least make them aware that the need to research the breed exists and I think a little card with a weblink and a line such as "Please research this breed" might be useful. I had thought of printing off a page of info but I doubt people would linger to read it as it's quite a high traffic area. So I guess what I want to know is would breed clubs object to some random (i.e. me) putting up cards with their web address on them?

Thanks for the feedback guys I will be keeping an eye on him and working to get the excess weight off hopefully we can avoid meds for a few more years

The only thing I've really noticed is that he's panting more than he used to (he used to hardly ever pant) but it's hard to know how much to put down to him needing to lose weight and the fact that it's been awfully hot. Other than that he seems fine they did say it was loud which apparently means only a minor leak.

Hi again, hoping to offer some clarification... 'all of these follow on studies' = Tammie's one current research project to develop an assessment protocol. The survey cited in my earlier post was conducted to set the direction for her PhD research. Keep in mind the general Australian public might know what they want in a dog - I wouldn't want to write them off without consideration for their point of view, would you? And again - I feel I need to emphasise that just because it may be different to someone's individual point of view, doesn't make it wrong or not valid. If Tammie doesn't use the results of what almost 1,000 people reported they wanted in a companion pet, then what do you propose she use to guide her? The survey did ask people about their current dog, their level of satisfaction with that dog and took into consideration if the reported 'ideal' dog matched with the 'profile' of their current dog, so it did capture information about successful matches, but also revealed a lot about unsuccessful ones. As do the shelter figures. Lol I would totally write the Australian public off they are notoriously awful at knowing what they actually want, just look at our pollies I do see your (and Tammie's) point but I would rely far more heavily on the data from the successful (and unsuccessful) matches than anything else, the proof being in the pudding and all that. Similarly people who have completed breed compatibility tests and ended up with completely different results than the breeds that they currently own and are happy with suggests that either compatibility tests are faulty (possible) or that people's perceptions of what they really want in a dog are faulty (also possible).