Erny

KK - in this instance, Fishpond are $71.97 (AUS) If I purchase through DogWise direct, it would work out to be $57.95 total (including shipping). So to purchase local (ie through Fishpond) is going to cost an additional $14.00. Shipping is between 8-15 days and I think (from memory) DogWise is within that perimeter as well (approximately speaking) I'm ordering through MDBA, as it turns out. Need to wait up a bit for the next order to go through, but I can do that . Thanks everyone. Appreciate the comments. I will check out Fishpond as a possible alternative for next time - would prefer to purchase intra-Australia where I can, but their prices need to be a bit more competitive than what the price on this individual book has indicated.

That'd be great Steve. Thank you. I was sort of in a hurry. As in, I would like it "soonish". Any guesstimate of time frame if I do wait until you order next?

Thanks PF. I saw the Fishpond one but I think it is too expensive. DogWise and Amazon have the book at $29.95 USA (equivalent to $32.25 AUS). Shipping to Australia is about $25.00.

Thanks Steve and Stick .

Problem is tha once its defined they will make laws associated with it. Yeah. And hey!! You never know. I might not pass the test. Wonder if that would entail a jail sentence and fine. Or just seize my dog.

Living with a Blind Dog Author : Caroline D. Levin Do you have that one?

It will be. Maybe they will be able to define "stupid" as well.

As per title. I can get the book I want from either - same price. Has anyone found a difference in the turn around time for delivery, or do you think it is much of a muchness? I deal with both but it has been a while since I've needed to, and never really took much notice of the turn around time by comparison.

I agree Steve - there is no blanket statement that I could possibly think of that would encompass in totality a definition for "responsible". You mentioned about the legislation rendering it mandatory to walk dogs daily. Don't want to change this thread to the topic of "RSPCA and stupid laws" but what the authorities are losing a grip of is the fact that you cannot legislate against stupid people. And the fact that IMO most people are not stupid (in the sense of REALLY totally stupid - LOL ..... subject of another thread - "Define 'Stupid' ) and for this some credit needs to be extended. Dog-owners need to be allowed the freedom to make judgement calls on behalf of their dogs. After all, they know them and their immediate environment the best, more than any law could adjudicate for.

Hhhhhmmm .... "Responsible" - it is so very subjective and has different relevances depending on the dog in question, so it is difficult to actually define what it should mean. I agree with SBT's summation of it. To that, I'd like to add that I view a responsible dog owner as one who respects and observes in advance the rights of others to enjoy outdoor activities (whether those people have or don't have another dog with them at the time) without their dog breaching other people's rights to peaceable enjoyment. If people have effective control of their dogs (on lead or off) then, even though I'm a professional trainer and training and behaviour of dogs is my passion (and job), I am not concerned about whether their dog will sit or drop on the first command, or recall to a finish in front, or heel. I don't even care, provided the dog is not being harmed and the owners are not finding it difficult, if their dog pulls on the lead a bit (although for both party's sakes, it is nicer when it doesn't). Of course, this "respect in advance" goes to other things such as their dog barking (excessively, or late at night) and disturbing the surrounding neighbours. To take steps to ask and invite neighbours to let them know if they experience any problems associated with the dog's behaviour whilst at home, and to basically encourage amenable communication in preference to building resentment and fear of approach, for fear of being reproached. I guess, in summation, it is about respect and consideration to others before assumption. Which, I think, is a part of what we used to see more of in my younger days : common sense and courtesy.

Hi PetBehaviourist. I won't repeat my stance and reasons for it, in opposition to the research that is being done - or more particularly, what the outcome could be used for. If you have read the thread, you will know that already. However, referencing what you said (quoted above), my concerns lay with the potential for it being more accurately written as : "As their caregivers is it not up to us to do best by best friend's man?" ............. as I don't see that what is being done will necessarily be used for anything other than genetically engineering dogs to be declared as "the ideal dog for Australians" (which is the essence of the reason for the research, is it not?), the scariest part being that if that comes to fruition, someone other than myself will declare what sort of dog is "ideal" for me.

I've only watched Part 1. Interesting stuff and I enjoyed it. Will watch the other parts when there is more time. One thing in Part 1 - the segment about dogs having learnt to read human faces and the recognition that they read the left side of the human face as we humans do. I noticed that the door way to that room in which they showed the experiment was to the dogs' left. It is more than possible and perhaps even likely that the documentary has not shown every step of the way in the experiment - I know that TV documentaries have big time restraints. But it did make me wonder if they didn't change the room around and show the human faces from other sides of the room, whether the fact that the doorway was to the left that could have lent itself to an influence of the dog's eye movement direction. ??? Maybe not. I suppose if they conducted the same experiment but with dog face pictures, the anomaly would have shown itself up there too. I know that dogs read our faces. Big time. But it is very interesting that they've learnt to do so in a different way for humans. Just goes to show how very sensitive they are to picking up facial expressions they really are. Gotta luv dogs .

AWA = Animal Welfare Authority. But my apologies - In my passion I have inadvertently referred to AWA on occasions when I meant "AWSC" (Animal Welfare Science Centre) who are the people who sent out the notification of the seminar.

This thread is about a specific seminar at Monash University. Any outside speakers are invited to a seminar, to support the in-house staff position being presented. Dr Peter Higgins, in his capacity as PR vet for a Kennel Club, was obviously not invited. A whole list of other people who'd have an academic or stakeholder interest in the issues, were also not invited. As is the wont with seminars....which are much, much narrower than conferences. Have they asked to go on the "seminar invite/notification" list though? Would they not be like me, who did this? Should they wait for a special invitation? Of course, it would be nice (and I would have thought, sensible, for AWA to have specifically contacted these sorts of people - especially if they are after good and balanced input and not potentially just an audience that will be easily persuaded to what they are doing), but that doesn't mean that the people of the ANKC/VicDogs and any other in relevance to their own States shouldn't have known to have made the move to ensure their participation was on the invite list. And besides - would they (DogsVic) not know about it now? Should I forward the email I received notifying me of this seminar, to DogsVic? The email invites me to send on the notification to others. Would VicDogs act on it and go in formal representation? Should I do this (ie send it on to them) or is there someone here in the 'know' who has already done that?

I agree that I have been and am disappointed in the lack of strong activity and conviction coming from that region. The recent Judy Garde issue is one example. And the law that was allowed to slip by unnoticed, which 'got' her in the first place. And to my knowledge, the lack of 'noise' from DogsVic to right that law. Having said that, I haven't had time to read my latest VicDogs mag - so perhaps there are some announcements of revelation in there that would have me eating my words here.

Yeah - but how so far less impressive than being able to sprout about genetic isolations and the thousands of dollars spent on that. How very boring just to say "feed your dog less; exercise your dog more".

WoofnHoof - I agree with you in principal. We do need to make our voices heard. And certainly, it's not easy if you are a lone voice. BUT, remember that the 'folks' in orgs such as the RSPCA (executive committee/decision makers), the AWA and other related Govt departments are PAID for their time. Whilst they work on bringing in laws; deciding who to fund for research; etc., they are being paid. It is not as though the rest of us 'lowlies' (I know you didn't call us that, but that's how I feel we are regarded by the "powers that be") are "sitting around on our backsides". Somewhere in amongst the idiocy of things, we have to work in our various vocations, to earn money, to pay the bills; families to look after. Oh - and gee!! Dogs to look after and train . I agree - the effort of joining wherever and whenever possible IS what is required, but on behalf of myself (who is already caught up with a couple of different aspects of dog-related laws and will be attending the AWA Seminar in February) and others, I think it is resentful to suggest that just because people aren't on or seeking to join committees, they are sitting around on their butts doing nothing. Apart from which - the Government is supposed to be there to serve the people, not to rule them; to be leaders, but not dictators. We do voice, in many different ways. They should be hearing us already. NOT making us work our butts off to the detriment of our own finances before they will lend us a sensible and listening ear.

All this aside (not to suggest no or low irrelevance to breeders' views), the notion of what might be done with the results of the studies and the control that may feasibly be imposed on all dog breeders and those who purchase, is the part that to me, is a major (read : VERY major) concern. No-one seems to be belying that concern. I keep thinking that notion keeps getting (and will keep getting) swept under the rug. As though it might be a forgotten thought. Until 'they' CAN. Until 'they' DO. I mean .... what about the suggestion of breeding a Beagle without the 'sniff' genetic? Makes me think of genetically modified vegetables. We want our dogs. We want them for all the variation in genetic attributes they provide. We don't want the proto-type toy dogs symbolised on the flier to this seminar. And I'm not seeing any assurances and/or guarantees that this is not where these studies will ultimately lead.

Agree. Christina

And yet another good shot! That's not Gabe underneath, is it? Doesn't look like Gabe. ??? Looks like he's saying "oh crap .... here comes the flying 'thinks he's a hero' kelpie again " LOL

Well, public admission is a big step forward, Centitout . I can appreciate your sentiment though. Perhaps someone else who is flying down might meet up with you at the airport and provide you with the moral support you need? If you can't face it though, I would understand. 'tis ok. Although would be good to see you down here.

That's a bit unnecessary isn't it? Why not come along on the day and listen to what they have to say and ask questions or get involved in a discussion rather than just be rude? Hope to see you there! Perhaps unnecessary and rude, MLC. But I think borne of fear and scorn for what has occurred over the past years. I harp, I know. But I think the AWA and other 'powers' (and the 'powers' that transfer those 'powers' to other orgs who have since overtly wielded those 'powers' granted them to the detriment of people and not necessarily to the benefit of animals) have a bit of responsibility to bear for that. So I think an expression that belies some anger/upset needs to be understood. We're cynical. The AWA and its peoples are I think the ones who need to do some trust building.

Centitout - I have room here for you too, if you can get down.

Sorry that I can not share your relaxed optimism, mlc. I very much hope the outcome and subsequent future use of the research proves my concerns displaced. Given those concerns, and the reality they could become, I still think the use of those pictures is ironic. Thanks for putting up the real picture. I was unable to do so from this end ,. I will look forward to meeting you too, MLC. I agree that at least this is an opportunity to talk and share ideas. I cannot help my cynicism to what good or use it would do for the long term outcome of research use though. I need to ask you to forgive me for that - it is a frame of mind that has learnt by experience. As I said, forgive, but don't forget.

Wow! To have landed back on his feet, you'd wonder if there wasn't cat in him. That's a great camera shot K-i. I never seem to have my camera at the ready (either just about to grab it or just putting it back in my pouch) when things like that happen.