yarracully

Just going through a proposal for NSW to introduce a breeders licence and I noticed they referred to a trial being conducted in Queensland. I am curious to know peoples thought on it. Especially those on Queensland that were included in the trial areas. Not interested in politician bashing just actaul thoughts and opinions on the concept

$40 for desexed animals or entire animals owned by a dogs NSW member $150 for an entire animal. I really cant see how yearly rego will change anything- the same people will register their dogs, the same people wont. For non members of Dogs N.S.W its $150. $350. for an Entire dog. Pensioners get registration reduced to $15. unless its an entire,in which case they pay the full $350. it used to vary from council to council,but sounds like thats no longer the case? Cost for an entire dog is $150.00. Desexed dog $40.00. Desexed dog owned by a pensioner $15.00 A member of DogsNSW only pays $40.00 for an entire. Working dog or assisstance dog $0.00 This is set in state legislation according to: City Of Sydney Council website (updated Feb 13 2013) The Blacktown Council website. Orange City Council Division of Local Government Don't know where the hell the figure of $350.00 comes from.

According to the NSW Road Users Handbook(p134) when parked: If you are more than three metres away from your vehicle you must: Remove the key out of the ignition. Lock all doors and windows if there is no one in the vehicle. My dog's comfort comes first. And there's no offence for leaving a vehicle unsecured (although insurance companies might not like it - again, tough luck. Dogs are more important). But there is for leaving a dog to suffer in a hot car... Might want to check on the no fine bit http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/drivers-face-fines-for-unlocked-cars-20100517-v7db.html In NSW it can be a breach of rules Rule 213 (2) Not restrain vehicle properly Rule 213 (3) Leave engine on Rule 213 (4) Not remove ignition key (vehicle unattended) Rule 213 (5) Not secure windows/lock doors (vehicle unattended) Penalty of 2 demerit points and $99.00 fine per each offence. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/0712_demerits_general.pdf

Dyzney I can be as diplomatic as a brick through a window when the need arises. These were advertised through a local buy, sell, swap page on facebook, so no doubt one day someone will call me an arsehole to my face then I will know who is selling these pups.

Yeah they are here too, but they said PURE. Gotta wonder sometimes. I asked the person with the ad about this and they said thats what they were told the dog was when they got it. Pure English Wolfhound, my butt. Frankly I suppose it could be worse. They could have said Purebred pups, mother Pure Ridgeback father Pure English Wolfhound. After all if both parents are purebred then the pups must be too. (sarcasm)

A local person has advertised pups for sale. "Mother is pure Ridgeback, Father is pure English Wolfhound." Now I heard of Rhodesian Ridgebacks. I have heard about Irish Wolfhounds. And I have heard of English Mastiffs. But I can't say I have ever heard of an English Wolfhound. Even google is only throwing up Irish Wolfhounds. So I was wondering if anyone has actually heard of or seen an English Wolfhound.

Probably with the import ban on GSDs in 1928. I would have to do research to see if this was the first. ETA in Australia Even if you were right, which your not. The law requiring greyhounds to be muzzled when off their owners property, as in being walked or racing, was introduced in 1927.As previously requested....do your homework before you jump in. Yarracully Wikipedia is a contributor driven site....not unlike D.O.L. Did you read where in another thread where the general consesus was you can't educate fools? Don't be included. Read the link I previously provided. You'll be informed....for a change You asked when BSL was introduced and I see you use the example of Greyhounds being muzzled as BSL. Yet in an earlier post when I mentioned the muzzling of greyhounds you stated that this was not Breed Specific Legislation. In fact you made a similar statement in an earlier post yet they were required to wear muzzles long before the Dangerous Dogs legislation was introduced. And yet even earlier again Now make up your mind, either muzzling of greyhounds is or is not BSL. Muzzling a grey has nothing to do with banning it or restricting the breeding. Whatever you decide doesn't matter IT IS BSL by definition I have read your links and one of them is by definition BSL as it identifies a specific breed. That being greyhounds and only greyhounds are specified. As for wikipedia since the definition has been there since 2009 and no-one has edited or altered it it must be a correct definition according to the masses. Same one used by the following: Animal Legal and Historical Centre-A branch of Michigan State University of Law ASPCA RSPCA There are more but I really couldn't be bothered going through the 1 140 000 responses that google found. As for trying to educate fools, your right, but at least I tried. Obviously you are the type that doesn't respond to the wisdom of others being shared. And once more I apologise to all other D.O.L users that this has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic.

Had something similar happen to my fathers station wagon when I was a teenager. Stone flicked up by back wheels on car, hit the front of the trailer and shot forward and smashed the tailgate window of the wagon. Mind you this was on a dirt road from town out to the sheep station( about 200k's). Drove that road thousands of times and it only happened once. So not something unique to ARB canopies. You will find that on nearly every car made only the windscreen is ever laminated so it stays in almost one piece when smashed. All the side windows and rear windows are only safety glass so they go into little cubes and not slivers. But they are not laminated and so do not stay in a sheet when smashed. Mind you, you could probably drive another million kilometres and never have this happen again. Good old fashioned mudflaps were good at stopping this. I was always worried about the dual wheels on our motorhome flicking stones up but we have now got big mudflaps from a truck on it and no worries now. Another thing some 4WDers do is to put loose fitting shadecloth across the front of the trailer on an angle so any stones are deflected downwards

BSL= Breed Specific Legislation. What part of that do you not understand? Obviously you need to do your homework. As I said before you are refering to laws that ban certain breeds. That is one type of BSL. THe reason why it is called breed specific is because it identifies the breed within the legislation. However banning a breed is not the only form of BSL. Encyclopedia (Wikipedia) definition of BSL: "Breed-specific legislation is a law passed by a legislative body pertaining to a specific breed or breeds of domesticated animals. In practice, it generally refers to laws pertaining to a specific dog breed or breeds." No reference there to the words banned or restricted. What does it matter when the restricted breed list was introduced? Or even why? That has nothing to do with what BSL is nor does it have anything to do with this topic. But seeing as you seem to have such immense knowledge of this matter, even though its wrong, perhaps you could educate us all on when it was enacted. In regards to doing homework there are quite a few on this forum that would know much more about BSL than you would ever dream possible. Personally your ignorance is only making yourself look foolish. But that is just my opinion.

Not just racing greyhounds are required to wear muzzles. Greys aren't required to wear muzzles at conformation shows. & Greys wearing muzzles is more a requirement under the "dangerous dog" legislation than BSL. You can still breed,sell, trade,swap & give greys away. Brush up on the laws before you start discussing them. Show greyhounds are required to wear muzzles when in public and not on private property or competing in an event. I.E. if they are walking down the street, they are required to be muzzled and on lead. BSL is breed specific legislation, I have no idea how you can argue that the laws pertaining to greyhounds being muzzled is not exactly that. Maybe you should read the breed specific laws & find out. Maybe you should brush up on all the greyhound stuff before mention BSL. It can't be "breed specific if the entire breed isn't affected. Boom boom. http://www.gapnsw.org.au/content/view/17/33/ Edit. Basic, but it says it as it is. http://bslaustralia.org/breed-specific-legislation/ Feenix the problem is you are looking at only one form of BSL. The concept of BSL is Breed Specific Legislation which is exactly where the ruling on Greyhounds and muzzles fit in. Breed specific legislation is any form of law directed at a particular breed (regardless of individual examples of the breed) as opposed to a particular action. For example a ban on a breed simply because of the breed is breed specific whereas a ban on any dog that attacks a person is not BSL as it does not determine particular breeds In fact your own link from GAP is in itself an example of BSL as again it is directed at one specific breed. After all does the page that you have linked to mention any breed other than greyhounds Also I would have thought if anyone on here knew anything about greyhounds and their legal requirements it would be Rebelsquest. Regardless this topic has nothing to do with BSL so perhaps we can get back to the issue in the original post.

It's only "silly" if you think a breed's country of origin should lose the ability to control what the breed standard is. No, it's silly because the KC made the amendments without consultation with the SBT clubs & despite their protests. Among others, they added "desirable" to the height & now dogs bloody near as big as AST's are being titled here. That's why it's silly. But of course it doesn't matter to anyone who has no affiliation or affection for the breed. And isn't affected by BSL. Silly to think you would give a damn anyhow, now that was really silly. Your breed is no more affected by BSL than mine are. What SBTs and BSL have to do with this thread sure beats me. How are whippets at risk from the BSL? I think you will find the point is ANY breed is at risk of BSL. However this is a bit of the topic and probably should be elsewhere. An example is the law requiring greyhounds to wear a muzzle in public. This is a breed specific legislation as it relates to a specific breed. Give me an honest opinion. What do you consider are the chances of the whippet ever being affected by a BSL anywhere in the Universe? Racing Greyhounds are required to wear muzzles because they are trained to chase & kill small furry animals. They were, & some probably still are, trained to do this by using live small furry animals. It's called "blooding" Yes but the law doesn't say racing greyhounds. It says all greyhounds. Either way it is a law that is specific to the breed. Hence BSL.

It's only "silly" if you think a breed's country of origin should lose the ability to control what the breed standard is. No, it's silly because the KC made the amendments without consultation with the SBT clubs & despite their protests. Among others, they added "desirable" to the height & now dogs bloody near as big as AST's are being titled here. That's why it's silly. But of course it doesn't matter to anyone who has no affiliation or affection for the breed. And isn't affected by BSL. Silly to think you would give a damn anyhow, now that was really silly. Your breed is no more affected by BSL than mine are. What SBTs and BSL have to do with this thread sure beats me. How are whippets at risk from the BSL? I think you will find the point is ANY breed is at risk of BSL. However this is a bit of the topic and probably should be elsewhere. An example is the law requiring greyhounds to wear a muzzle in public. This is a breed specific legislation as it relates to a specific breed.

You need to look outside Group 2 a bit more often Dougie. It's called Field Trialling and quail are central to the sport. :) And just how many of the previously docked breeds are from group 3 And since field work is restricted to group 3 dogs I don't see how they would affected. But just out of curiousity, what percentage of the dogs that compete in ANKC trials suffer tail damage that requires amputation? Rather a lot of terriers are workers and were traditionally docked. I've never owned a dog with a full tail. Unless there is news that this motion was passed by a majority, by 'will' I think you mean 'may'. No I mean exactly what I typed. At this point in time its all theory BUT if the motion is successful then it will be "Will". There will be no May in it. Under the motion the dog WILL NOT be able to compete.

You need to look outside Group 2 a bit more often Dougie. It's called Field Trialling and quail are central to the sport. :) And just how many of the previously docked breeds are from group 3 And since field work is restricted to group 3 dogs I don't see how they would affected. But just out of curiousity, what percentage of the dogs that compete in ANKC trials suffer tail damage that requires amputation? It wouldn't matter if it were a previously docked breed. If any dog of any breed had to have tis tail shortened due to damage etc it will not be able to compete. So a labrador could get its tail damaged and have it surgically shortened, but then it will not be able to compete. End of story. This isn't about docking of breeds that used to be docked its about any and all breeds and any and all competitive disciplines.

When I bred Dairy goats and had Arabian horses, both having appendix or partbred registries - it was a minimum of seven generations. So "every rule" of animal husbandry seems to be different there? Or has it been reduced to four? Sorry - OT! It would technically be allowed. But the dog wouldn't fit the standard so would be unlikely to be awarded. I had a damaged tail in my last Borzoi litter. They normally have a long fringed tail (similar to a goldie), and the standard describes how it should look and be carried etc. So my beautiful pup was never going to be awarded. He could have been a breeding dog yes - but is in a glorious pet home. It is heartbreaking to lose a quality animal that could otherwise do so much in the showring - but thems the breaks. No different to a dog that loses a leg. They are still a great dog - just not a great show dog. However if this motion were to be successful that same dog, if whelped after july 1 2014, although docked within the laws of its state and with all required paperwork from vets etc, would not be allowed to compete in any ANKC events or, one would assume, train with any ANKC affiliate. So you would not be able to use it for obedience, tracking, agility herding etc.

I will be putting in my two cents on this issue, there have been some very well thought logical points in this thread up that I will be stealing. I do believe that this could be damaging to breeds when we already have quite a geographical disadvantage when it comes to genetics. Its interesting though you thinking that they would get too much feedback when I have been working in a National organisation who choses to sort through the feedback and do it because they have found it to be very valuable so worth the bother. It should certainly be possible to gather this feedback at a state level but from what people are saying they haven't been given a fair chance to even voice their opinion at that level either- particularly I assume those that are not on DOL, Ozshow etc. And that is I guess that may be where I have the problem- that quite often even after reading my gazette I find myself out of the loop and behind the times and once a decision has been made it is so much harder to reverse it. A few pages ago I posted that the dogsNSW vote is Wednesday and contact info for directors. Certainly it didn't take more than 10 minutes for me to write a message stating my views AND get a reply. My suggestion is people actually DO start being proactive and speak to the board members if they want their view heard. People DO have the chance to be heard. But to do it they need to talk to the people they want to listen! True it does not take long to provide your view. However what needs to be remembered is that the only reason we have this chance is because of this motion being made public. It seems to me that this was not the intention and this matter could have been voted on etc. without any of us knowing anything about it. Personally I feel this is a very low act. Creating rules to impose on members without members knowing anything about it until afterwards. Its no wonder many have a distrust in the governing bodies. You cannot have genuine accountability in an organisation if you also have secrecy within.

So how, in the absence of a specific prohibition on the exhibition of unlawfully docked dogs, does the ANKC ensure that it's not encouraging its members to flout the legislation? Surely since the tail docking ban is a government law its not ANKC's responsibility to enforce this law. Its up to the various state governments. So if an ANKC member has flouted the law then they deserve to be punished according to the state laws. The ban on docking of tails has nothing to do with the ANKC.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was. Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections. Fair enough. On that point was anyone from Victoria consulted before one of their delegates put the motion to ANKC on the official DogsVIC letterhead. I stand to be corrected but I'm pretty sure you will find no-one from Victoria will reply they were consulted. This motion should have been decided by the state members before being put forward on DogsVic letterhead and making it an official order of business put forward by the entire DOGSVIC which it seems it is not. Seeing as there are only 8 delegates on ANKC with a few states with two votes and a few with only one vote it needs only two states out of seven to cause a tie in an election on this matter. Reality is three states could vote yes and five states could vote no and the yes could still win. There is no requirement for an ANKC delegate to vote as instructed by their relevant state controlling body. It's possible for a delegate to ignore instructions from their Council and to vote as THEY personally wish. I wonder what will happen if the Vic Council instructs their delegate to vote against the very motion that he has put ???? Exactly and they do not have to reveal how they voted. So this may or maynot go through and we won't know who to vote in or out next election. Good process with accountability-not. Although the Vic Delegate happens to be the signature on the proposal so I doubt if instructed by Victoria to reject it that they actually will vote that way. Why would you put a motion up in this way and then vote it down.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was. Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections. Fair enough. On that point was anyone from Victoria consulted before one of their delegates put the motion to ANKC on the official DogsVIC letterhead. I stand to be corrected but I'm pretty sure you will find no-one from Victoria will reply they were consulted. This motion should have been decided by the state members before being put forward on DogsVic letterhead and making it an official order of business put forward by the entire DOGSVIC which it seems it is not. Seeing as there are only 8 delegates on ANKC with a few states with two votes and a few with only one vote it needs only two states out of seven to cause a tie in an election on this matter. Reality is three states could vote yes and five states could vote no and the yes could still win.

Thanks for the learned advice Christina. Is that a serious reply or sarcasm? Overseas breeders dock a few days after birth. When did you last select your show dog at less than 1 week of age? Those that import make application for a puppy from their selected breeder before the litter is even conceived. Any wonder topics wander from the topic. Yes application may be made but final decision on which particular pup is made well after whelping. And not many breeders would put off docking a litter of pups to allow you to choose one then run the risk of having to get rid of the rest of the litter with tails when other breeders in that country can provide docked. As an example we had a litter of pups here shortly after the docking laws came in. You would be amazed at the number of people that asked "oh they're not docked?" "No we are not allowed to dock them anymore." "Oh but I wanted one that was docked." Breeders don't import purely for show, neither do many actually travel to personally choose their puppy. They import primarily for breeding purposes & rely on the honesty & integrity of the breeders. If showing is a requisite they need only to request an undocked puppy & keep their fingers crossed the same as they do for a docked puppy. IMO your argument is very weak & lacks credibility as a valid argument to overturn the tail docking laws, as does the dog will hurt it's tail claim. I am more concerned about the loss of popularity of some of the previously docked breeds & fear they face virtual extinction because a the ridiculous law foisted upon us by people who don't even like dogs. True breeders don't import for show only but you would find very few dogs imported that are not used in some form of competition to prove thier value. Why would you spend thousands of dollars to bring a dog in and then not use them in competition to assess their value and to allow others to see the potential the new bloodlines could add to the dog. Who said anything about a valid argument for overturning docking laws. You can forget that ever happening. My point is as follows: If I were a breeder in the US or Canada or Asia and I had a litter of ten pups born today with the possibility of one of those ten going to Australia. Now at two or three days of age it would be impossible to determine which pup is a likely prospect to send. So I have a dilemma. 1. Do I not dock the entire litter and therefore run the risk of being stuck with nine pups that have full tails yet demand in my country is for docked dogs. I may not find homes for them for this reason. Remembering that some states in USA and Canada do have limits on number of dogs to be kept.(have had experience in this from when NSW bought in Docking laws but other states had not) 2. Do I dock the entire litter and say to the potential Australian buyer "Bad luck you can still get the dog but you won't be able to show it to prove its value and thus by not being in the ring other breeders will not see the benefit of this new bloodline". 3. Do I leave one pup undocked and hope it turns out worthy of the buyers money they are putting in to importing it. Bearing in mind if they get the dog and it is not a good example for whatever reason my reputation as a breeder is at risk. 4. Choose a pup too leave undocked and then later have the intended purchaser pull out of the deal and I am then left with a dog that may be difficult to find a home for as all other breeders in my country are offering docked dogs which Joe Public thinks is right for the breed. In this situation as a breeder in a country that allowed docking I would probably go down the path of option 2. This as the breeder would be the safest and less stressful way. However that is not the answer the people wanting to imort would want to hear. I too am concerned about the future of previously docked breeds as I happen to breed/train and exhibit such a breed. However I am also in the process of importing another breed to add to our pack and after a few emails with potential breeders in certain countries that we have been in discussion with for over three years, the above are some of the concerns these breeders are having should this ruling come into being. Also it needs to be considered how would the ANKC prevent a dog from being exhibited. If the rules developed out of this motion require all dogs banned by this motion put on a limited register then there goes the possibility of even using the dog to breed with. So again a good opportunity to expand the gene pool is lost. Knowledgable breeders are more interested in what is behind the puppy than the actual puppy per se. You don't pay for the puppy you pay for it's breeding. It is the proven lines behind the breeding that would attract the interest of other breeders if all you are importing for is make a buck. If a dog is imported from a "main" register overseas why would it have to be limited registered here?Cropped dogs aren't. They can't be exhibited at sanctioned shows is all. But their uncropped progeny can. I have you have been negotiating for 3 years surely you would know by now if you want the breeding or not. If you are genuine, pay the bucks, stipulate not to be docked & get on with it instead of making mountains out of molehills. A dog may be main registered overseas but if this motion goes through it still cant be used here for competition. One way of doing that is for the ANKC to make any dogs banned by this motion to be automatically transferred to limited register. There would need to be some mechanism put in place to enforce this ban if it becomes accepted. Not saying this is how it would be done but it is one method. If this gets accepted and then the method of enforcement is revealed its too late to say "we don't want it". There are quite a few breeds that have to have testing before being allowed to be registered on main register. It is possible for the progeny of two main registered dogs to be registered on limited register due to genetic diseases. Just because a dog or dogs are main registered in one country does not automatically mean they or their progeny will be mains registered in Australia. The very statement of "Procedures in place to prevent the registration and/or exhibition" causes me concern however i am not prepared to accept this proposal and then hope the detail is favourable. As for the time I take to choose a breeder and dog that really isn't any of your business. I have a few breeds that I am considering and as such a few different overseas breeders to liase with. Seeing as the dog I choose will be with me for quite a while I fully intend to take my time and choose the right breed and breeder that suits me. However I like to establish a good knowledge of the breeder and breed before I commit to one dog. I have that right.It is me thats paying for it. Further the points I raised in my previous post are all scenarios relayed to me over the past few days during discussions with overseas breeders on this matter. Have you actually read the motion proposed. You will find it has been proposed by a delegate from DogsVic. A person who is supposed to support and promote dogs not destroy the whole dog fraternity. This not a government regulation but a rule being devised and introduced by an elected member of the Victorian Canine council and attempted to be pushed through without the members of that state or any other state being aware or consulted. Furthermore I am not making mountains out of molehills. You need to realise that once this goes through then there will be another move to chip away at the dog world. Or are you happy to let this happan "because it wont affect me". Perhaps you might want to look at some of the methods used to eliminate dogs from urban areas in large cities in other countries. Things such as height restrictions, restricting numbers of dogs owned, madatory desexing of all dogs thus almost wiping out dog breeders etc. It was stated before by others that the docking laws were just the start to wipe out companion animals. Don't think for a minute it will stop here. I am also concerned about many breeds but equally I am concerned about being able to choose where I get my lines from and not being restricted by some rule brought in by the very body I expect to support and promote my chosen hobby.

Thanks for the learned advice Christina. Is that a serious reply or sarcasm? Overseas breeders dock a few days after birth. When did you last select your show dog at less than 1 week of age? Those that import make application for a puppy from their selected breeder before the litter is even conceived. Any wonder topics wander from the topic. Yes application may be made but final decision on which particular pup is made well after whelping. And not many breeders would put off docking a litter of pups to allow you to choose one then run the risk of having to get rid of the rest of the litter with tails when other breeders in that country can provide docked. As an example we had a litter of pups here shortly after the docking laws came in. You would be amazed at the number of people that asked "oh they're not docked?" "No we are not allowed to dock them anymore." "Oh but I wanted one that was docked." Breeders don't import purely for show, neither do many actually travel to personally choose their puppy. They import primarily for breeding purposes & rely on the honesty & integrity of the breeders. If showing is a requisite they need only to request an undocked puppy & keep their fingers crossed the same as they do for a docked puppy. IMO your argument is very weak & lacks credibility as a valid argument to overturn the tail docking laws, as does the dog will hurt it's tail claim. I am more concerned about the loss of popularity of some of the previously docked breeds & fear they face virtual extinction because a the ridiculous law foisted upon us by people who don't even like dogs. True breeders don't import for show only but you would find very few dogs imported that are not used in some form of competition to prove thier value. Why would you spend thousands of dollars to bring a dog in and then not use them in competition to assess their value and to allow others to see the potential the new bloodlines could add to the dog. Who said anything about a valid argument for overturning docking laws. You can forget that ever happening. My point is as follows: If I were a breeder in the US or Canada or Asia and I had a litter of ten pups born today with the possibility of one of those ten going to Australia. Now at two or three days of age it would be impossible to determine which pup is a likely prospect to send. So I have a dilemma. 1. Do I not dock the entire litter and therefore run the risk of being stuck with nine pups that have full tails yet demand in my country is for docked dogs. I may not find homes for them for this reason. Remembering that some states in USA and Canada do have limits on number of dogs to be kept.(have had experience in this from when NSW bought in Docking laws but other states had not) 2. Do I dock the entire litter and say to the potential Australian buyer "Bad luck you can still get the dog but you won't be able to show it to prove its value and thus by not being in the ring other breeders will not see the benefit of this new bloodline". 3. Do I leave one pup undocked and hope it turns out worthy of the buyers money they are putting in to importing it. Bearing in mind if they get the dog and it is not a good example for whatever reason my reputation as a breeder is at risk. 4. Choose a pup too leave undocked and then later have the intended purchaser pull out of the deal and I am then left with a dog that may be difficult to find a home for as all other breeders in my country are offering docked dogs which Joe Public thinks is right for the breed. In this situation as a breeder in a country that allowed docking I would probably go down the path of option 2. This as the breeder would be the safest and less stressful way. However that is not the answer the people wanting to imort would want to hear. I too am concerned about the future of previously docked breeds as I happen to breed/train and exhibit such a breed. However I am also in the process of importing another breed to add to our pack and after a few emails with potential breeders in certain countries that we have been in discussion with for over three years, the above are some of the concerns these breeders are having should this ruling come into being. Also it needs to be considered how would the ANKC prevent a dog from being exhibited. If the rules developed out of this motion require all dogs banned by this motion put on a limited register then there goes the possibility of even using the dog to breed with. So again a good opportunity to expand the gene pool is lost.

In regard to everyone going on about spelling etc. The document I have seen does not have all the speliing errors that the first post on this topic has. I suspect when whoever scanned it and included it in their post their computer did not perform its OCR correctly. The one I have seen is on the DogsVIC letterhead and stamped as recieved by the ANKC.

Thanks for the learned advice Christina. Is that a serious reply or sarcasm? Overseas breeders dock a few days after birth. When did you last select your show dog at less than 1 week of age? Those that import make application for a puppy from their selected breeder before the litter is even conceived. Any wonder topics wander from the topic. Yes application may be made but final decision on which particular pup is made well after whelping. And not many breeders would put off docking a litter of pups to allow you to choose one then run the risk of having to get rid of the rest of the litter with tails when other breeders in that country can provide docked. As an example we had a litter of pups here shortly after the docking laws came in. You would be amazed at the number of people that asked "oh they're not docked?" "No we are not allowed to dock them anymore." "Oh but I wanted one that was docked."

Yes Klink under Australia law it is legal to import a dog that has been legally docked in its country of birth, but this proposal will mean that this same dog will NOT be able to compete in any ANKC events. This motion is an attempt to stop people importing said legally docked dog and therefore limit the potential of expanding the breeds gene pool.

The motion doesn't say "Any locally bred dog" it says "Any dog" which means even a legally docked imported dog is banned