Breeders / Community
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About asal

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/03/48

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    To produce better with each generation
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Cavies, Chihuahua's, Cattle dogs, horses.

    I learned the art of improving with every generation with show Cavies. Created the first true breeding pure black Cavies (guinea pigs) in Australia. The same with my Long coat Cavies.
    The first time Cavies were exhibited at Sydney Royal. ..
    They won both Supreme Champion sashes on offer the supreme smooth coat was a black all ASAL blood, Exhibited by Percy Short. Defeating even the English imports.
    The yound lady whose name i have unfortunately forgotten, exhibited her long coat and much to her delight, defeated the English imports as well.. The day I began to understand (imp) does not automatically imply “best”.

    My dogs I hope will continue to give as much pleasure and joy as mine have me.

    My horses have won both in Australia and overseas.

Extra Info

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,769 profile views

Display Name History

  1. I don't think that is what maddy wants to hear, the sports people who cheat actually are bludgening themselves when you learn how badly what they have done does to their health and lifespan, as for the players who were given the stuff by their trainer who didn't care a jot about the effects it would have on their lives and health, same cruelty but hey people are dreadful so what happens bad to them doesn't count, is that the message?
  2. you really need to add unscrupulous people are involved in all sports, look at the AFL supplements scandal, Cadel Evans cycling scandal, multiple Olympic drugs scandal's do I need to list more? the problems are not isolated to sports involving animals that are not of the homo sapien variety, I am not trying cloud the issue, but a bit of reality might not go astray
  3. I agreed completely to her. my comment was in answer to her last sentence "why should the people in this industry be treated differently?"
  4. The reason is because the peta types think where animals are concerned anyone with animals have no rights, those of us who have pets do not understand to a peta person your pet has been enslaved by you, and that includes guilty until PROVEN innocent. They have been working to create this mindset since the 80's, I saw the beginnings of it and questioned then, I still question now but people want to be seen to be politically correct so tend to think only bad things happen to bad people. bit like the zebra all watching the lion instead of running for their lives until its too late. suspect when one is caught the others figure, well they must have deserved it or it wouldn't have happened. That is how people tend to see it. when the same scenario happens to people who know they have not done anything wrong their trust in their previous belief is shattered. they don't tend to cope too well .
  5. completely agree with you on that. they have a job and should be doing it. many comments seem to expect ALL greyhound owners and trainers to know who is breaking the law and do something. hence my comment.
  6. do you realise that could be applied to all illegal activities? if only those involved were expected to police their fellows there would be no need for the police force either, there are bad people in every single walk of life why expect only those involved with animals to be held accountable for the actions of others and punished by association? do you really think those who are honest have a clue what the guy two doors down is doing? Even next door for that matter, regardless of where they live or who they are how many murders have occurred only this month and the neighbours didnt have a clue the horror the murdered was trying to survive? So feel for that poor woman who ran with her children to a neighbour seeking refuge and her bastard of a husband came after her and shot her in front of everyone and then himself. at least that bastard wont be out on bail in a few years like the rest do. should everyone in that street be tried for being complicit in the murder that took place? I am not drawing a long bow, this is what you are expecting of those in the greyhound or any other animal related industry.
  7. the easy solution to having a non shedding breed, eg lowchen, poodle, bichon frise, just buy a clipper and a thick blade that doesnt clip to the skin and shear it every 6 to 8 weeks. They don't call the lamb clip that name for nothing, although I'm recomending the shorn sheep clip instead, so you just hve a short coated breed with a little help. think this a more like I was thinking, owner is pretty nice too. e.g. . Plenty of opportunity for creative fun too or even a mohawk? some pretty serious imagination at play on this page!
  8. interesting story re a Peta demonstrator?
  9. Yes, many people think their dog is a "registered purebred" when they show you their council microchip lifetime registration papers. Lots of confused people out there
  10. This one is so right, but don't think many are listening or even care unfortunately ANIMAL RIGHTS CHARITIES HAVE ACHIEVED NOTHING! Animal rights charities such as animals Australia, Animal Liberation, voiceless etc, DO NOT provide any animal care what-so-ever! they're effectively wasting donations on an idealistic crusade to force others onto vegan diet, and to end all human- animal interactions/activities including pet ownership, and especially animal sports,consumption and products. If all of that money went towards groups that provide actual animal welfare, including rehabilitation, shelter, food, and rehoming, just as the law states that they must do to hold charity status... then all animals would be better off, and if these animal rights lobbyists stopped clogging up our politicians emails, and wasting MP's time with their propaganda, then, perhaps we would have less human problems in society. Animals don't belong in human politics. Animals don't need rights, they need great animal husbandry, and well-balanced regulative bodies if they are within an industry. They need well managed conservation programs if they are in the wild, and with proper protection if required. They need laws enforced if cruelty occurs, not calls for a ban of anything of that nature! We have laws in place, police at the ready, USE THEM, not your damn keyboards!" the only thing lacking is advice how to get to "USE THEM" to get the police to act? UNREAL, wonder if the Victorian Inquiry know this little gem? This says it all!! Saving Pets 17 February · If you ever comment on RSPCA shelters and charity pounds having high kill rates, the first response you'll likely get back is; "... yeah, but they don't ONLY do animal impoundment - they ALSO do animal cruelty legislation..." So let's look at that, shall we? Australia has a human population of more than 23 million. Despite our pretty small population, we gift the national RSPCA more than $141 million dollars a year. We have also gifted them nearly $240m in cash and assets. For our generous investment we get... drumroll... 104 inspectors. You read that right. 104 physical inspectors nationally. Servicing 23 million people. The average inspector's wage is $55k for a operational inspector, up to $85k for a senior inspector. Making the annual cost to hire inspectors nationally, between $5.2m and $8.8m. Or between 3% and 7% of the national RSPCA revenue. There is only two explanations for the discrepancy between the outgoing spend on inspectors vs revenue; - Either Australian's are actually pretty gosh-darn compassionate with very low rates of animal welfare transgressions; at which point the RSPCA needs much, much less money than we're giving them, OR - The RSPCA is desperately underfunding its inspectorate, meaning they're not doing the job we're paying them to do. But whatever the reason, we need to be asking, where is the rest of the money we're gifting them going, if not into safe shelters or well-resourced inspectorates? Watch it, their idea of a well resourced inspectorate is inspectors running around with guns, not even the police carry guns. Only 11 inspectors in w.a four more have quit, obviously saw the writing on the wall.
  11. I think what the author wrote is particularly special because we all know it but so beautifully explained, so hard to console those who wonder why they buy a puppy knowing the heartbreak that will come because their lives are just too short.
  12. so many truths to this story. and why those who have their pets taken are so traumatised too. quad-triple the distress when there was nothing wrong yet it was still taken. no sense in putting a new post, no one is listening anyway. although the day its there turn they will be far from happy to discover you dont have to be guilty to be rolled by this lot. so just posting this link for my own information so can find it again if I want too. And the lady who lost her old girl because she had long toenails.
  13. Interesting link I was just sent. re AR who now run the RSPCA
  14. How many know this? I didnt. 23 March at 11:27 · RSPCA RAIDS, Know your rights. I will use a recent example and attach a video of the raid, and let you all know what should have happened, what did happen, and all the breaches of the law by the RSPCA. 1. Firstly and most importantly, the owner filmed and asked questions. Please make sure all of you do the same. 2. The RSPCA broke and entered through a back fence, to seize the dogs in the hope the owner would not know. 3. To brake and enter, the RSPCA “must” believe the animals are in urgent need, in this case as you can see that was not the case, so they had no right to break in, they needed to serve a warrant. 4. The inspector was asked his name, before that the owner asked who they were, the inspector “Must” show his ID (not all inspectors have the same powers, some have reduced powers) this will be on the ID, same applies to anyone with them, they must identify themselves when asked. 5. The inspectors says he is seizing the animals, well if that is the case, he must issue a seizure notice before he does and specify why the animals are being taken. 6. The inspector was not happy with the conditions of the area the animals were kept, yet they had feed, shelter and water on site, this is not an offence. 7. The inspector ought to have issued a warning or an animal welfare notice, say a notice demanding he gets vet checks or cleans up. 8. After seizure the inspector emailed the owner saying he will not be getting his dogs back, not this is not true, that is a decision for the courts. 9. When an animal is seized, at law it is held by the RSPCA on behalf of the minister, so any cost issues are between the minister and the RSPCA. 10. The inspector in that same email, said after 10 days they will be claiming costs for keeping the animals, in this case $20 boarding per day for the 5 dogs, plus vet bills and added costs, which is $700 per week. 11. Interesting the dogs were seized on the 10th of march, so the inspector in his email said they were seized on the 1st of march, so he could start asking for costs from day one, not legal. 12. The same email states “If the owner signs the animals over to the RSPCA, they will not order costs for keeping the animals” this is extortion from my point of view, and I doubt the power exists to use this action. 13. The owner at this stage has not admitted guilty of any kind and has not been charged, and a court has definitely not adjudicated. 14. My advice to the owner (not legal advice) was to write to the RSPCA and demand the weights of the animals and organise an independent vet check. To demand the return of his animals and to seek legal advice. 15. The best lesson here is that the owner asked questions and recorded what happened. What I thought should have happened, or what I would have done if I had the same powers as the inspector; I would attend the property, take photo evidence, knock on the door and introduce myself. I would ask to see the animals, offer advice and judge the reaction, if I was not happy, I would have issued an animal welfare notice to clean up the area, maybe an order to get the animals vet checked, but the dogs did appear to be in good condition. I would have returned and checked if the orders were complied with in 5 to 7 days, and in this case I know the area was cleaned up. The man had a good reason, not that the RSPCA asked him any questions, as he had been unwell, and had a friend feed his animals, hence the mess. I will pop back here and update you on where this case goes. The Animal welfare act is not a huge document to study and sections 28 through to around 35 from memory is easy reading and covers these issues.
  15. even more interesting re the 86 who bred more than ten litters, they and the 539 who had from 5 to 10 are the ones who tend to be targeted for shutdown as puppy farmers.