*Bones*

I have spoken to someone from the ANKC. They raise no objections. The vet fees would need to be factored into the entries, it would only apply to big or important shows, and would only include group winners. I would llike to see it implemented.

Check the Notices on the Dogs ACT website. The proposed animal welfare legislation is there. Please submit comments to Dogs ACT so they are able to take the comments into the submission they prepare and submit to government. The more support they have, the better.

The citizens were asked if local government should have power at the 1988 referendum. They said "NO", so local government has had no power since then. Which is why the Engel v Esk outcome was as it was. Searches don't reveal any other court action. When citizens seriously question the councils' Heads of Power, the councils seem to be very concerned and no further activity on behalf of the council takes place.

The Law Society in whichever state should know of some. Probably some in Canberra? A good firm could give an opinion on this - by research of Land Court and Planning & Environment Court decisions - and the legal use of RESIDENTIAL land.

The Land Court consistently upholds the decision made in Marshall v Graham (1907), a King's Bench decision, that land used exclusively for the purpose of a dwelling may be used for other purposes, and has ruled on a number of occasions tht the keeping of pets is lawful use of the land, and as such, no council approval is required, nor is approval required for a hobby (ie, keeping and breeding dogs). The Land Court has consistently upheld this opinion iin various cases. “A Planning and Environment Court decision in Brisbane July 2001 reaffirmed this precedent burt this is not on the internet. That ruling is that domestic activities, including the keeping and breeding or domestic pets or companion animals, conducted by the residents of a dwelling house for their enjoyment or interest, are included in any purpose for which a dwelling house may lawfully be used. Unless such use is specifically excluded bvy the local authority at the time consent is given for the erection of a dwelling. Perhaps instead of addressing this bill, breeders/fanciers/ owners of dogs should combine and ask a constitutional lawyer for an opinion. And that opinion should be broadcast publically. Governments and local authorities know this now.

Going by advice, ALL puppys.

Quite sad that she commenced study, only for it to be unsuitable. I suppose she loves animals, and had high school leaving scores, so she decided to be a vet. Rather more than that is necessary to be a good one. A difficult profession, requiring intelligence, desire to continue to learn, manual dexterity, love of animals, compassion, and some people skills - for a beginning.

Better to be honest than to find them homes with people who don't realise the reality of Huskys. At least they may have the next home longer than 8 weeks

Doggy porn!! Customs would never allow it into the country. What a hoot.

From the Courier Mail Obviously unsuited for the profession.

As above, plus puppy shampoo pin brush or slicker for Spitz hair Comb Soft toy. Take it to collect the pup, rub it on the mother and others in the litter. Take it home, it will give your pup some familiar smells Lovely breed, hope all goes well.

pe withers It might be time to stop for a while, and think about this poor judge who probably was just doing what everybody else was doing, and now will be pilloried "universally' for simply conforming to expectations. If you have shown your dogs, you will know that this is not normal behaviour from a judge. Apologies, you do not have a table breed. This is NOT normal. I have never seen a judge do this, the exhibitor has complained about it. She should have. The whole thing is a scandal. No one condones this, although apparently the judge thinks it is fine. Hurting a dog and frightening it is not the way to win. And those of you who do this to toy breeds, consider whether the dogs show to their best, or if you have spoiled them with your "training"

"baker", is there a point to your post? You have the same name as the people who have the website, but appear to live in another state. Is that significant? And this is your first post.

Training? I have never seen training like that. Have you? Whatever she was attempting to do, what she was doing was abuse - she pulled the dog off the table times, she had it by the neck shaking its liver loose -the pup was very upset. I thought it ran out very well, considering. Strange that it wouldn't gait back to the judge Poor competitor had no idea what to do ... should have poked the judges eye out. Wonder what the penalty for that is? More experienced competitors would have, this one was not so experienced. There is visual proof. The complaint has been lodged. The licence will be revoked. The video was taken because visual proof was necessary to have the licence revoked. There is no proof otherwise. However that was one crap judge amongst good ones. Why should anyone give up with a promising judge because they found a crap judge. Show dog world - is horrified. The video was sent around overseas, and now in Australia. No, I have not seen training done like this before, but then I do not show Toy Breeds. Please note, when I used the term "training" I did so on reflection of someone elses comment that went something along the lines of ..... that the handler was receiving free and excellent training from this judge. I use the term "training" very loosely in my previous post and was in no way condoning the judges actions, as you would see by my post. Hi Dyzney - I know what you were saying. That was NOT training, which we both pointed out. I may not have been clear in my first post, sorry. Pulling table dogs off the table is a very bad idea, although many do it because their peers do it.