Erny

More insults. How sad. It would be nice if this thread could stay on track to being the 'nice' thread it began as. Even with the "cautions" (and not just about the dog treats either), it has been acknowledged that this person (we don't know if male or female yet) may well be just a wonderful nice person - perhaps too shy to come out face to face and say what he or she has written in the letter, at the time the OP has been with her dog. I'm sorry Heavy Paws. It is a wonderful thought to think that there may be a person out there who would go to the lengths to share with you the tale of the pleasure you give him or her, when s/he sees you with your dog and it certainly was not my intention to turn this thread to something sour, which I see is the way it is now beginning to go. You've acknowledged the caution and the spirit with which it was made and I appreciate that, and feel better for it. I'll not venture back here, even if what I regard as insults continue to be made, for the sake of this thread remaining on the sun-shiney track it was intended for.

I'm not an expert on what the "standards" say - the history nor the current. I just know what I like and I do believe that "what I like", whilst perhaps not being perfect, lends itself to a good conformation balance. That's the way I've always bought my horses and I haven't gone far wrong there, so my 'eye' can't be too far from the left of right. Anyway, here's a picture of German Shepherds that "I like". These are what I seem to recall GSD's being more like when I was a child, although perhaps not quite as broad as those pictured, but not far off. Don't know much about the Olderhill German Shepherds but from what I can tell from the photos on their site, I do like their dogs, asthetically speaking - a couple of them show the dog's hocks a bit too much underneath them, but that could either be the dog or not such a great photo. Maybe I wouldn't win any "conformation judge" awards, but I know that what I see in these photo's are dogs with more strength and of more solid and I'd expect, supple, shock-absorbing structure.

I hope you're not talking about the people on the thread who urged caution? Who else could she be talking about?

I've not seen any "judgement" and the suspicion has been more a note of caution. How sad that some people are so insulting.

Oh dear . Poor li'l Hugo. That's a lot of bee sting for a wee body. He needs strength to pull him through this one and I'm sending it in my thoughts in the bucket loads to him tonight. I hope your sister is ok too, and that she didn't get stung up. Good thing that she was there.

Thank you. Much. Both yourself and Rotts4ever and Fifi. I felt miserable at posting what I did - what a real misery I must sound like. Honestly - I don't go around thinking the world will end tomorrow, gloom, doom. So thank you for taking it as it was meant to be - just a 'motherly' precaution, I guess. Cheers - I feel better knowing that you're aware and not likely to go in completely gullible . And to Rotts4ver and Fifi for letting me know I'm not the only one who has these fleeting albeit worrisome thoughts. And Rotts - I thought the same thing regards the dog treats.

Here's another link, should you wish to view it. It supports the same thing as all the others do (and includes the Choice report - not sure if it is the same one as I haven't taken the time to check it yet). APVMA Position Statement - Vaccinations Seems to me that the ONLY people who are not openly advocating the vaccination no more (oops!) less than every 3 years (and I'm NOT talking about the "registered 3-yearly" vaccination, which with what I've read I don't agree with either) instead of annually are the manufacturers of the drugs and many (but not all of ) the vets who administer them. I don't vaccinate my boy (since puppy vaccination - which I strongly believe are necessary) and have become quite comfortable with that idea. I had him titred 12 months after his last puppy vaccination and this proved sero-conversion.

I'm really really sorry to bring a shadow into this wonderful thread. My initial response was the same as everyone else's also ..... ie How lovely. BUT .... please be careful. This world is full of cookes and you should be vigilant until you know who this person is and whether this person is honest and genuine in his/her intentions. Again - I feel dreadful for being so *dark* on something that is so otherwise lovely and potentially beautiful as far as gestures go. But I'd equally hate myself if I didn't utter this note of caution and something happened as a result. It is horrible that the world has become such that we end up suspicious of even the most loveliest of gestures. That I can see something *sinister* is only a small blip on my radar - I really do think there is every chance that someone out there is being honest and appreciative at the smile you bring to his/her face with the memories you and your dog spark when you 'visit'. I hope it is the real deal and that you get to meet this person and that a genuine friendship might even spark up as a result .

Staffyluv has had plenty of experience in this and I'm certain she, amongst others, will prove to be a wealth of information and encouragement for you.

can you post a link? or tell me what i should search for? I am also interested to know. Enjoy http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...p;hl=modern+GSD Don't take my word for it as being gospel, as this is ONLY what I was told in the "other" thread when this came up. But I was informed that the reason for the slope (which also seems to affect the hock angle) was to give the dog a floating 'look' to its appearance when it gaited. This is not my opinion and by repeating it here it should not be suggested nor inferred that I agree with it, as I don't. If what I was informed is not correct, I too would like to know the real reason for creating the downward slope in the backs of GSD's and how the dog itself benefits from it.

AVA on new Dog Laws I would like to know which "many parts" of the legislation the AVA supports. IMO there certainly aren't many parts that will not prove problematic to innocent people and innocent dogs in the future, now that the legislation is in force. I'd be interested to see a copy of that. I'm glad the AVA acknowledge the unfairness of BSL (not to mention its futility in reducing bite stats). But doesn't one of the laws that have been passed with the Bill (I need a refresher) allow a dog whose description might match the standards of a Restricted Breed dog to be called a Restricted Breed Dog, even though that dog is not a Restricted Breed Dog and has papers/documents to prove it? Doesn't that make DNA testing for some/many dogs somewhat moot? Agree with them there - what a disappointment THAT was. Liberals were heard saying (in the Parliamentary debate) .... "the laws are flawed, but we are not going to oppose them". When asked the reason? "It was a compromise." So in essence, us and our dogs have been sold out for some other Bill (not dog related) that they (the parliamentarians) have more interest in. Anyway, I digress, although I remain completely disillusioned by all members of Parliament. Lower House. Upper House. Labor. Liberal. Nationals. Sue Pennicuik of the Greens was the only one who spoke up, out and against the laws with any degree of evidence of understanding of them.

Thanks Sumosmum, for putting this up. There's something I find wrong or disturbing with a few things in that report/media release though. But I need to bring my stirred thoughts together .......... and don my glasses so I can read it better, LOL. I'll be back .

Good luck to you and your dog, CareyJ. I hear that dogs cope rather well with chemo by comparison to us. All the best. Erny

No - I mean it was a good post.

Crap, Souff. What a great post (above)! Cheers Erny

I sent some up to Risyntira (DOL Member) to trial for free, on the basis that she reports to let me know how they went. But haven't heard from her since 14th August. Risyntira ;) .

LOL ..... That is fantastic. There's three things I wish from that : That shelters had such lovely facilities for the dog's to reside in until they found their forever homes; That people would look on at the shelter dogs as animals whom, whilst not necessarily being able to do all those chores, do fill an intangible role within the home family that is otherwise just not filled or missing without one; and That my dog could do what Harvey can do. THAT would be bliss. LOL

What makes her think this? (see highlighted words) I'd love you to get a shelter dog in need of a home - whether that be a purebreed or a cross breed. But her description of this pup bothers me. Is she trying to dumb the dog down? And how can she tell at 8 or 9wo that the pup is not highly intelligent? Potentially it just hasn't learnt to learn what us humans want it to know yet :rolleyes:.

This puts an extra spin on things, but I think our dogs are 'safer' on many different levels by not having "rights" and instead being legally owned as "property". When the law assigns our animals with "rights" they will begin to put voices to them and it won't be our voices they'll be imposing, it will be the voices of the "authorities". I would re-word the above by saying that "every dog-owner has an obligation to provide their dog with the mental and physical care a dog needs". It might seem as though I am splitting hairs, but I think it makes a huge difference. As for rotten puppy farms - I think pushing "public awareness" is the way to go and from that aspect, the recent rally was a good start. The story of Leo would be a good one of many to put out there.

Was that all it was for, though? No it was to push for new laws for breeding establishments and stopping the sales of dogs in pet shops. Yes - that was my point behind my question. And if it is a push for laws, then some organisation is going to have be granted licence to enforce/police those laws. And who do we think that might be?

Was that all it was for, though?

This needs to be bolded, put in red and VERY large letters That's scarey . I wonder how the recent Victorian laws will also impact on this? I mean ..... is it possible the RSPCA can seize your dogs and then because some of the seized youngsters haven't been microchipped yet, can end up destroying them inside 48 hours? I haven't thought that one through yet but I think it is something to think about and determine the possibilities. ETA: No .......... surely not. This would have to ONLY be in cases where the dogs aren't ID'd, wouldn't it? But that wouldn't be the case where animals are seized - because that alone means the RSPCA knows who the owner is. ??? Hhhmm. I need to go back to those other recently introduced laws and refresh my memory on them.

Ok. Looks like I stand. "Erny's Law". Three in one. Puppy farms; PPCollars; BSL. . Sorry for the OT. Just dreamin'.

Hhhmph. OT ..... But the same Joe Helper who reinstated the PPCollar ban? And the same Joe Helper who proposed and bull-dozed through the latest Bill comprising of laws that give Councils power to kill our dogs on the spot; to kill our dogs after holding for only 48 hours; to fine us just for not having a Council tag on our dogs' collars (unless we've trotted them around the show ring within the preceding 12 months, of course ); that extend the BSL? I'd like to see what a Liberal candidate would be willing to do not only in relation to a tidy up of indiscriminate and poor breeding practices but of all the other laws that affect our dogs and see if we can't score something better.

..... He would have had relaxed feet, at least. LOL. That's funny.