cenydd

We do find it hard. Luckily, Dagon is a complete cuddle-whore!

Apparently, I'm also INTJ: Introverted - 67 Intuitive - 75 Thinking - 1 Judging - 44 distinctively expressed introvert distinctively expressed intuitive personality slightly expressed thinking personality moderately expressed judging personality A 'rational mastermind', suitable to be involved with careers in Natural Science, Computer Programming/IT, Law (corporate) and being a Librarian! "Introverted iNtuition INTJs are idea people. Anything is possible; everything is negotiable. Whatever the outer circumstances, INTJs are ever perceiving inner pattern-forms and using real-world materials to operationalize them. Others may see what is and wonder why; INTJs see what might be and say "Why not?!" Paradoxes, antinomies, and other contradictory phenomena aptly express these intuitors' amusement at those whom they feel may be taking a particular view of reality too seriously. INTJs enjoy developing unique solutions to complex problems."

I thought I'd update this old thread, and introduce Dagon's new 'little sister', Wicket! Dagon is now nearly 2, and Wicket is about 1 year old, and came to us from a rescue a couple of months back. She's been a bit of hard work (not quite the laid back character that he is!), but has settled in well. Here they are together (Dagon standing up): Having a play: And here she is on her own:

...ignoring the 'Home Taping is Killing Music' warning off the back of the big card case for the big black vinyl thing! Remember them? We had 'album art' then, and beautiful covers that were real works of art, and works of art that you could actually see! And when they stuck you could give the needle a gentle tap and they would keep going, and if there was a scratch they just gave a little click every time they went round, unlike these horrid little laser things - one tiny scratch or smudge and you have to throw them away, cos they don't work at all any more!

Sorry - can't really help on that one. Personally, I'd go for something like Wilferd Owen, but I doubt that would have the desired effect in these circumstances!

As I said, I'm no expert, and don't work sled dogs (or have huskies) myself, but as I understand it, it's quite normal for working huskies to stay in those sort of circumstances for some time, while they are 'at rest'. They are being run in the morning (so will be doing some hard pulling sled work, which will tire them out), and are effectively being taken there to have their normal rest, as they would at home, but in a different location. They'll be spending time sleeping, having a stretch and a little wander (knowing they can't go far), jumping up on their kennels, having a 'chat' with each other, and generally watching the world go by (having expended a big burst of energy earlier in the day). The 'tethering' is only done to stop them getting into trouble, and is something they are used to, and don't concern themselves with like a pet dog would, and if they were out for days (as working huskies are) being worked, they would be running all day (apart from odd rest periods), and often tethered for the night (there being no other way to keep them safe) wherever their driver decided was best to stop - this is the sort of regime and routine they are trained for, and used to. I understand why it makes people uncomfortable, but it's because people tend to think in terms of what they are used to - this is why it should have all been explained to visitors. These are not average house dogs, that wander around, go for a little walk and run around, lie about, go for another little walk/run - they are running and pulling machines, with two basic 'modes' - 'run/pull/work' or 'relax/chill out'. They do one, then the other, and this will be them 'chilling out' for the day after having a good hard 'run/pull' in the morning, and I'm sure they are quite happy and relaxed doing that, especially if there are strange people to look at, 'talk' to and so on. They aren't territorial or guarding dogs at all, and are used to race meet situations, so having people wandering round like that isn't going to be stressful for them either.

Absolutely - these are not somebody's house pets, they are working dogs, selectively bred and highly trained to perform a specific task. They are perfectly used to being tethered, because that is part of the job - if you are out racing in the wilds, or travelling to the pole, or whatever, you can't carry a nice big house, or even a dozen large crates. These dogs have been bred for thousands of years for living outside in all weathers, and as part of their job, for just as long, they have been tethered while resting to stop them disappearing over the horizon, or deciding to sort out an issue of pack heirarchy for themselves (remember, a team of racing huskies is quite a large pack of various exceptionally fit and strong dogs - not something you want let loose to sort out their differences unmanaged)! Being tethered like that won't bother them one bit, as long as they are not left like that for too long a period - it's part and parcel of their 'job' and something they are trained for, because it has to be. Whether they 'look happy' is impossible to tell from a couple of small photos (and whether they sound happy to you depends to a very large extent on whether you are used to the sorts of noises they make). You can't really judge how 'happy' they are based on whether a different dog, unused to their working role and all that has to go with it, would be happy or not.

I agree - I personally would not consider it safe to leave a dog unattended with a muzzle on at any time or for any reason, and certainly not to protect my worldly goods. Training, additional excercise, removal of furniture/dog from relevant area, addition of chew toys, crating, and an outdoor insulated/heated kennel and run are all things I would consider (and are all things I use or have used myself) long before a muzzle (which I have also used to deal with other problems), and, in fact, if it came to a point where I was unable to find/offer a solution to the problem myself, I would consider rehoming before muzzling, because I would not consider myself capable of giving that dog the home environment and life that it needs.

I should also add (having re-read some of the information I have seen on a sled dog forum) that the dogs were apparently being run every morning before being put 'on display', were getting plenty of rest from it, were thoroughly enjoying themselves and the attention they were getting, and the kennel area was apperently built to exheed the normally accepted sled sog welfare standards. Apparently the dogs' owner asked the RSPCA to report on conditions, and the comments from the vet and RSPCA will be published on the web when available. As I said, I don't know the dog owners personally, have not visited the site, and am no expert on sled dog working and so on (I have visited events, but don't run dogs myself), so I'm just passing on what I have heard on the subject elsewhere, for your information. I absolutely agree! I suspect the owner has been foolish in going about things in the way that they have on this event, and that there wasn't actually much to worry about, but I'd rather here about the RSPCA being called in where they are not needed than not being called in where they are!

I don't know who owns the dogs, nor have I been to the 'attraction' but I have heard a few second-hand bits of information about them (and I'm also no expert on working sled dogs). As I understand it they are working sibes, and perfectly healthy and well looked after - apparently there was a permanent vet on site, and the RSPCA have also inspected them and confirmed that they are fine. In the pic they are 'staked out', which is perfectly normal for racing sled dogs between runs and so on (to keep them safe from running away, getting involved in major pack scraps with each other, and so on), and have access to individual kennels (and their roofs) for shelter, and to get out of any mud. They were apparently only on site during opening times, and were being taken home at night. Sibes do tend to yap and howl and make a bit of noise, but this isn't 'unhappiness' or 'distress' as some people there seemed to think (quite understandably, if they aren't told any different!) - if you visit a racing rally you'd know what I mean - the noise from numbers of sibes, staked out, excited, surrounded by other dogs and raring to go running is incredible! There is no 'evidence' in the scene in the photos themselves that I would find particularly disturbing in itself, unless there was a lack of general care of the dogs alongside it. Obviously, I would be concerned if they were just left chained up all day without being properly looked after, exercised, fed, etc., but as I understand it this was not at all what was going on. I suspect the biggest issue with these dogs in this event is probably one of lack of information rather than welfare. The general public shouldn't be expected to be used to seeing dogs staked out, or understanding the intricate details of sibe language (which is generally non-barking, howly-yowly stuff, and significantly different sounding than most dogs). Many people are also surprised at how sleek working sibes are - when you see them close up, they don't look much like the full-coated, snow-covered arctic dogs in the films! It is easy to see that the impression that people could be left with is one of 'thin', 'chained-up' dogs being 'neglected' (particularly in view of the fact that people are so conditioned to be aware of animal welfare, and automatically see 'chain' as 'cruelty', and so on), but I strongly suspect that is a long, long way from the reality. Personally I think the owners were unwise in opening themselves up to this sort of criticism and publicity, by putting staked out dogs on display in a kids attraction, by not informing the public about what they were doing and why, and by getting involved with the pretty shabby overall event in the first place. I can quite understand how people left with the impression that these dogs were not being well looked after, but from what I have heard this was not at all an accurate impression.

Some of you may have seen this already. I have the feeling that the originator of this is on this forum, but she doesn't seem to have posted this here, so I will (permission has been given by her to cross post with relevant link and author credit). I think it's quite a good illustration, and worth a read. Twas the night before christmas An adaptation by Alison Green. Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house, Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse The stockings where hung by the chimney with care In the hopes that St Nicholas soon would be there But at the North Pole sudden changes arose All down to Rudolph and his ruby red nose Clipboard in hand, a breed expert arrived He motioned to Santa saying," please step aside". A smooth haired coat and a muscular build A broad deep chest our Rudolph did yield The breed expert's pen, created pages of ticks Then he suddenly called out "good lord, we've been tricked!" "This creatures no donkey and clearly no horse! I know these things! I've attended the course!" Look at my clipboard the boxes are full! It's very obvious to me: Rudolph is a pit bull! Out with the measuring sticks, he explained to Santa the law And he measured poor Rudolph from shoulder to floor. As the spectacle continued Santa said with a sigh He's a reindeer you fool! Why must he die? "The law is the law" the expert said standing tall, Then picked up his mobile and made a quick call The sound of sirens filled the peaceful night air and Rudolph removed …to who knew where? Days turned too weeks and confused and alone Rudolph pined, for the place he called home As the first snow started falling Rudolph gave up the fight And he took his last breath on a cold winters night You may think this is funny, if a little untrue. But how would you like it, if it happened to you? If your dog was taken because of its look? Because it ticked enough boxes in some silly book? Regardless of parentage it doesn't matter what breed If it ticks enough boxes then it's a done deed So humour me here and pretend this is true Think how you would feel if it happened to you. Cuddle your hounds while you have them close by For some spend this Christmas, waiting to die. Now back to the story, it doesn't end there One more short verse I need to share Santa fetched Rudolph's body and cried for his friend And swore to himself, this would not be the end And I heard him exclaim as he drove out of sight "The law is wrong, please help us to fight!" DDA watch. Please help. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=27193457689 Non facebook info: http://www.petparliament.com/viewart...sid=145&aid=88

Seems a bit petty!

Some of you will, I'm sure, be aware of this, but since I've not seen a link on here for it (apologies if I'm just being dull and missing it!): From the Pet Owners Parliament: http://www.petparliament.com/viewarticle.p...=145&aid=88 "DDAWatch is a new initiative from the Pet Owners Parliament set up to help monitor "dangerous dog" legislation, to educate and assist those affected by it, while campaigning to find fair, workable solutions that can better protect the public without compromising the lives and welfare of countless dogs who have never acted dangerously. " There has also been an associated Facebook group started, for anyone who is on there: http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=27193457689 Just thought I'd mention it!

Mine is simple - its me and my dog, so that everyone can see who me and my dog are. Just in case I get accused of being somebody else!

I'm sure he's been called much worse, possibly by certain Kennel Club officers!

Funnily enough, I sent them the following question: "Why are Pedigree not following the example set by the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Dog Wardens Association in pulling out of Crufts? Surely the phrase "Keeping our focus firmly on what's best for dogs" from your own Manifesto is now shown to be incompatable with support of Crufts in view of the Kennel Club's refusal to seriously acknowledge or address the issues of hereditory health problems in pedigree dogs? Surely if the welfare organisations cannot support Crufts on animal welfare grounds because of this, neither can you!" and got this answer: "Dear Cenydd, Thank you for contacting Pedigree. At PEDIGREE everything we do is for the love of dogs. We constantly work with breeders, owners and industry bodies to continually promote responsible dog ownership and breeding. As a company dedicated to dogs, we would like to see all dogs in good health and enjoying life to the full. We currently have no plans to withdraw our sponsorship of Crufts. We will support all parties to ensure that breeders and show organisers maintain pet health and welfare as their primary concern. If you need any further information or advice please contact our Consumer Careline on the telephone number below and one of our Consumer Care Advisors will be more than happy to help you. Kind regards. Gail Jones Consumer Care Team " Look familiar?! Completely ignored the question, too!

They have a bit of history, by the way, having recently appeared on a radio program together, during which a 'technical fault' meant that the line to Ms Cisko was lost for a while, so she was unable to anwser some of his points directly. He didn't give her a very easy time of it, and I don't think she really came across very well at all: http://www.k9magazine.com/audiofile/Ryan-K...tm-Aug29-08.mp3

I haven't seen it yet, but have it taped, and I'm looking forward to watching it later! It doesn't sound like she had a particularly easy time of it, even if Ryan was quite restrained.

I agree that temperament is also an important issue, but objective testing for it is obviously much more difficult than it is for identifiable medical conditions. It's certainly something which ought to be explored and discussed more as a possibility though. If the breed standards were adjusted to take more account of temperament that would be something.

I don't think there is any suggestion that either of them are 'walking away' as such, merely making a public statement that things aren't as they should be to bring the KC to the table. Having heard things indirectly from the DT (via another forum), their position seems to be that they have been trying to talk to KC about this issue, but the KC have simply been fairly resistant to doing anything significant about it. In other words, DT have always been, and still are, at the negotiating table - what they want is for KC to be there too, with serious intent of talking about the issue and taking action to solve it. I suspect the RSPCA feel very much the same way. There is only so much talking you can do to someone who refuses to listen, and in those circumstances diplomacy eventually has to be backed up by sanctions. That's what this is, as I see it - sanctions (and publicity) to try and force the KC into proper negotiations, rather than a break off of diplomatic relations and a declaration of open war to seriously damage or destroy the KC as an entity.

Absolutely 100% agree. The whole KC registration and show judging system is seriously flawed, because it effectively takes no account whatsoever of health or genetic issues. The KC keep repearting this nonsense that the breed standard is a 'blueprint for health', when it clearly isn't - it is an aesthetic standard with very little regard for health. Judging at dog shows takes very little account of health accordingly. The registration system means absolutley nothing, since there is no requirement for any testing, and no checking of accuracy. At the moment the total 'buyer beware' attitude to dog breeding (together with the general ignorance of dog buyers caused by the lack of education requirement for new dog owners, but that's a different discussion!) just isn't a good enough system. The KC have been told this for years, but so far have got away with ignoring it. This can't continue, and thankfully people like the RSPCA and DT have now reached the point where they feel a public stand is needed to get the KC to sit up and take notice.

For info, the second draft of the DOT proposal also includes compulsory 3rd party liability insurance for dogs as part of the proposal (along with owner education, supplier licensing, etc.): "6) All dogs to be covered by compulsory 3rd party insurance." The scheme's aims and objectives are as follows (my underlining for emphasis re insurance): "The Dog Owner Suitability Test, hereto referred to as D.O.T is a proposal designed to achieve the following objectives: To place a far greater emphasis on the prevention of dog attacks, dog neglect and environmental nuisance To improve the general level of canine awareness amongst all UK dog owners To bring about radical change in the standards of those involved in the supply of dogs to the public To ensure greater comprehension amongst all UK dog owners of the various laws affecting domestic dogs To provide a workable alternative to the failed aspects of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act To place full legal accountability upon dog owners for the actions and welfare of their dogs To repeal breed specific legislation which has failed to save human lives and is practically impossible to implement fairly" (Quoted from Ryan's DOT proposals, 2nd draft: http://www.dogownershiptest.co.uk/the-proposal/ )

Although this is a different discussion to an extent, to clarify my previous comment about having a special section of the police to deal with animal issues, I would see this as based partially on dog wardens themselves - in other words, the dog wardens and other agencies which currently look after animal issues would be amalgamated to form one overall operation, properly centrally funded and controlled (i.e. not run and funded by councils or 'charities' and controlled according to their individual political and financial agendas), and working within the police force structure to give them both statutary powers and potential back up if required. Obviously within that there should be specialists in dealing with certain issues, as there are within the police, and I would see dog wardens forming the bulk of the 'dog issues' expertise. Of course, such a set up would still be subject to political and financial agendas, as the police are now, but at least it would be a unified and uniform (and uniformed!) sevice. That seems to me the logical approach to dealing with animal issues, it being quite a large area that needs to be policed using a certain amount of expertise. It would, of course, require funding, which is a big issue to be resolved!

It may be the thread I started about my (now ended) petition you are thinking of: http://www.rykat.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22783 Dave the Dog certainly makes some very important and valid points. There is certainly a need to ensure that any law does not become so watered down or ammended that it becomes useless, and there is certainly a need to address the issue of enforcement. I agree that under the current circumstances there is no way that any dog laws can be enforced - relying on 'charity' welfare organisations, police with no interest or expertise and a very limited number of locally funded wardens just isn't good enough, either to enforce new legislation or to deal effectively with the current problems. This is another issue that badly needs to be addressed in this country. Exactly what the figures would be in terms of income and expenditure on a licensing system (and whether there would be any surplus to help with enforcement) would depend on the details of the system, but funding needs to be secured to improve both law enforcement and welfare law enforcement. I would personally be in favour of a section of the police specifically trained and funded to deal with animal issues to replace the current warden/RSPCA (others' opinions may differ, of course), but that would cost money. The current situation (without wishing to express any disrespect towards the individuals involved or the excellent work they do in difficult circumstances) is woefully inadequate.

But wouldn't it be so much worse if no drivers were licensed, trained or educated? Just because a small minority ignore the law, and are prepared to run the risk of getting caught, doesn't mean that the law shouldn't be there, does it?