Greytmate

Help the paparazzi are after me and my dog. ;) The photo is going to be used to make stacks of money and get looked at by perverts! Wishful thinking in many cases. But it doesn't hurt to carry on like you really think you are that important.

If you don't understand something, why not listen and learn why it is not acceptable, instead of telling us you think it's a good idea if it was accepted? You cannot get upset if people here vehemently disagree with breeding to produce dogs outside the standards. It is fine to ask why, but you have given some very unpopular opinions, more in line with those of designer dog breeders than those of purebreed ones. Various colours are rare. Various colours should stay rare. Various colours can't be shown, various colours cannot be registered. Some dogs should be desexed, some dogs should be culled at birth. You learn by asking and reading, not by giving opinions Moselle.

While we are posting pictures of Rare Merle dogs, have a look at these ones. Google Images Merle Blind

That one is a cross breed! Even the breeders of them acknowledge that as fact. Also known as 'confetti schnauzers' Yes but isn't that the case with all purebreds? All purebreds started off as a concoction of different breeds. Wouldn't take too long for merle schnauzers to breed "true".... No. Selection is the most important part of developing new breeds. That means culling all the hideously deformed puppies. Nature is survival of the fittest. Artificial selection is artificial culling of the faulty, by breeders. It is a responsibility. The more you post, the more you reveal your ignorance about breeding dogs. Time to listen maybe?

If people want to keep dogs that are a visual and audible deterrent to thieves, they are quite within their rights to do so. And the public is within their rights to require these dogs to be kept behind adequate fencing, with warning signs. Having your dog declared Menacing isn't going to hurt your dog at all. This is a great dog control law.

Well behaved. I do basic obedience with them, but that isn't why they are such lovely dogs. They don't tend to exhibit many undesirable behaviours because they are typical greyhounds. Their breeders can take the credit for their good qualities and bad, not me. :rolleyes:

In QLD, different councils have different dog containment laws.

Have passed a test with GAP and has been awarded Green Collar. These dogs don't have to be muzzled. Kirty do you live in a racing area? I find kids living in those areas know people with kennels of greyhounds, and know they are generally safe with people, and don't have any fear. Also, really young kids don't know what muzzles are, it depends on if their parents have told them. Besides that, I find that children are attracted to the way a greyhound will stand still for pats instead of reacting excitedly and jumping around. Even children who are really sacred of dogs will relax at a safe distance and watch, as long as the dog keeps still.

In this case they weren't. The fence allowed a part of their body to protrude. In many QLD council areas, there is a law on the books to cover that. The owner may be served with a fencing order, as well as any thing that happens as a result of her dog biting. There is a huge problem in QLD of people allowing dogs to run along boundaries adjacent to public areas, and it is the owner's responsibility to ensure the fence is up to standard so that no part of their dog can get through. These sorts of laws are NEVER enforced, until there is a complaint in writing.

Your dog was bitten outside of the property. I would follow up in writing, describing how it happened. This person probably took down the information incorrectly, or is unaware of how the law is supposed to work. Take your dog to a vet for a check up if the bite was bad enough to draw blood.

I am crying for you Huga. I know how much you all loved Harry. He will be waiting for you at the rainbow bridge with a toy in his mouth.

Whippet? Not really small, but small enough to be controlled by a small person on lead.

No quandry. The dog is dangerous. Dangerous dogs are required to be muzzled and live behind secure fences with signs. Why wouldn't that be totally appropriate for this dog? Why shouldn't the owner have to pay a fine? Why shouldn't the incident be formally recorded so that you friend can claim compensation she may need for therapy? Good luck with finding the owner. I would make up some signs and put them around, as it is likely somebody in the area will know who they are.

ditto! Lunging in fright is almost exusable. Taking a chunk out of someone IS NOT! Yes, I agree. It sounds like from the comment that the woman's dog had reacted to joggers before. If there is any chance at all that the dog will react negatively to joggers, it should be muzzled. Joggers have a right to use any footpath they like without being bitten. Joggers are not obliged to give warning, where as people are obliged to prevent their dog from biting. It is not normal or acceptable for dogs to bite people running past. Normal, sound-minded dogs that have been adequately socialised/neutralised are not likely to bite people running past. If you have not achieved that level of trust with your dog, please muzzle it. Or exercise it on private property where you can control who runs past.

I think this law is a really good one. It gives councils an option other than to declare a dog dangerous, which is what they have to do now if there is a validated complaint of even a minor or once-off incident of aggression. Also, it enables a council to take action about a dog before it can actually cause harm, instead of having to wait until the dog does something. There are so many properties in QLD, with really poor fencing, where instead of being confined to the backyard, the dog has the whole run of the property. It can be really scary walking past some of these places. Traffic on one side of you and a really vicious, lunging, growling dog inches away from your head on the other. When a flimsy old fence is the only thing keeping you safe, it is good to know that we now have an avenue to force a owner to upgrade their fencing to an appropriate level fro their dog. Dogs declared menacing do not have to be muzzled, but they do have to be behind fencing of a good standard. That is a good thing.

No. Nobody is saying that at all.

Interesting. Those labs are exactly the colour of Woody. The gene that gives both labs and greyhounds the brown pigment is a recessive that modifies black. Earlier in the thread I thought that Woody may also have the dilution gene (that turns black dogs blue), but now (after reading this thread and all the links) I think it might actually be the chinchilla gene that has washed his colour from chocolate to taupe. If that is the case, then given that both the chinchilla gene and the brown gene are in labs, I guess that those silver labs could be pure. However they would have very limited selection in breeding stock if they were breeding for colour, instead of being able to breed for best conformation, so that is why they don't look like labs much. Good example of how type can deteriorate so much when you do breed for 'rare' colour.

There are some people breeding for blue in labs in America. (LOL, rare like blue staffies) The type looks funny to me, almost as if the dilute gene snuck in via another breed somehow.

I'd probably qualify the above with something more along the lines of "backyard bred, undersocialised, and undertrained dogs tend to develop poor temperaments anyway" Not all backyard bred dogs are going to be problem dogs - it really does come down to getting out what you put in - well bred dogs can be nasty little things when owned by idiots too... T. Sorry, rant time. Not aimed at you personally T, just at everyone saying this lately. It is the hugest myth going around this forum these days. That dog's bad temperaments are formed by owners and not by breeders. Hello people, we are on a purebreed forum. If breeding doesn't make any difference to what a dog is like- WHY ARE YOU HERE? To admire a dog's fluffy coat? I keep dogs as pets, so I rely on good breeders to produce good pets way more than I do on my own ability to do a bit of basic training and socialisation. Not to say all purebred dogs have good temps either, but if you do not breed for good temp, you LOSE IT. Same as you do with conformation. And if a dog has a bad temp, NO amount of training and socialisation is going to make it a good one. You cannot always blame owners for bad dogs, if the dog was badly bred to begin with.

This dog has bitten people. If the owners are too irresponsible to fix this problem, it should not just be made somebody else's problem. There are too many nice dogs needing homes as it is, that have never bitten anyone.

In Australia, a dog doesn't have a legal right to life. But we do have consumer rights in all states. A pet puppy buyer has the right to buy a pet that is healthy and fit for the purpose of being a pet. Breeders are legally obliged to provide these dogs for sale, and withdraw from sale any dog that is not of 'pet quality'.

I just think its funny that Brisbane actually has a law basically saying that every dog has to be vaccinated to the satisfaction of a vet. Anyone here ever had a visit from the BCC enforcement team to inspect your dog and check your vacc cert.

I can't say I blame the Stafford breeders for not wanting some colour pups associated with their name at all. Thanks to the damage that unethical breeders have done to the breed. As long as they are willing to take a hard look at how they produced that pup in the first place. But in some ways, not registering the 'faulty' colours is hiding valuable information from future breeders who want to study pedigrees, perhaps at a time when we know a lot more about dog genetics. Some colours are not allowed to be shown, and that is fine, but to not register them at all can leave other breeders in the dark and prevent them learning about avoiding faults themselves.

I'd say most are purebred unless the colour is genetically impossible within the breed. A black and tan or solid liver Whippet would be examples of that. Some coat genes are genetically impossible within a breed, but some coat genes have been lost or never existed within a breed rather than it not being genetically possible that the gene might be there. You would have to be very sure of the history of the breed to say there can be no such thing as a solid liver whippet. It is expert knowledge. But there are other breeds where you could say certain colours are genetic impossibilities. No need to know the breed history. No dominant coat gene can be carried and hidden through generations without being expressed. You don't have to know the history of whippets to say that there can be no black and tan whippets.

I would call that chocolate and tan, not red. In my mind a red rottie would be solid red, like a red min pin is.