Terrier

There's a full range of them here: http://www.talktofrank.com/basement.aspx#/Pablo No complaints from me. I think the ads are brilliant. (I might send a note congratulating them though). It's absolutely necessary! It's necessary because it shows one of many reasons WHY drug use is unacceptable.

This link might be useful: http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/howtohelp/corp...elcomeholidays/

Some shooters? I've seen how some urban pet owners treat their dogs but that doesn't mean we should all be judged by the standards of the some I see daily. As for the young lad carrying a crook - surely that depends on the situation. Carrying it around an inner city area, nope, he probably wouldn't be so easily excused - but carrying a crook whilst out in the countryside? Why would they bother? Whatever the Royal Family say, I'd be more inclined to believe that the press are more likely to twist it to their own editorial line and use it as (if you'll forgive the appalling metaphor) another stick to beat them with, than to admit they made it all up. Journalistic integrity and all that. Stories have been made up in the press about the royals so many times. If they retaliated to them all they wouldn't have time to do anything else. Having been in that situation - I can honestly say that if I had a stick to hand, I would have used it to defend my dog against the two that attacked him.

Do you mean this one? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MoHqFuDh-So

Completely ethical? I doubt whether there is such a thing. The nature of ethics is such that there is very little that any of us can do that doesn't have SOME positive and SOME negative impacts SOMEWHERE. (BTW - This book - http://www.roughguides.com/website/shop/products/Ethical-Living.aspx - is ***brilliant***. You can buy online - or it's often available in Oxfam if you'd prefer to buy it the old fashioned way) You make some really good points, particularly with the various items that may well have been created in a sweatshop etc etc. However, if you (or I) had thought about better options when purchasing those items (and had they been available), would you (or I) have made the same choices? If we were to think more about our own impacts, where our everyday actions cause suffering, I'm sure we could all do better. If we are to be generous, perhaps we could look at what the author is trying to do. It seems to me that they are trying to appeal to the average Joe, that condemns Michael Vick but then buys an intensively farmed chicken. The author is trying to make people think about their own actions, their own impact. We rightly condemn Michael Vick, but where we have the most control is over our own actions.

Ah, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express. Bastions of journalistic integrity. What would you prefer? That he had allowed the dogs to continue fighting? So the big story is: - a member of the royal family out in the countryside may or may not have used a stick to break up a fight between two of his dogs. Good grief.

Mainly staffies & staffy crosses. Quite a few greyhounds, lurchers, rottweilers, WHWT, border collies, JRTs. Plus a good few mongrels. Rarer, there's an extraordinarily fat spaniel (wider than it is tall ) and an absolutely stunning GWP that I quite often see.

http://www.shwauk.org.uk/giving_up_your_siberian.htm Contact details: http://www.shwauk.org.uk/contact_us.htm Never met any of them personally, but "spoken" to one member on a couple of other forums who seemed to know what s/he was talking about.

I think the author has a point. Not necessarily very well made, but a point nonetheless. What did the author hope to achieve? I think he hoped to provoke discussion and thought about much of the cruelty that goes on in the world. Will he win many converts? Who knows, but at least he might make *some* people think about their own actions. People react in different ways to different things. Whilst some people might dismiss his article, it may strike a chord with others who may reconsider their own impact. Not all animal products are made with cruelty, but many are. If he can make a dent into that "many" I'll not knock him for it.

I (vaguely) remember that, although I'm very sketchy on the details. I was thinking more of those who outcross for a non kc purpose - whether they'd start covering working lurchers, "sprockers", et al. It also raises questions about the future of those breeds not recognised by the KC (JRT, patterdale etc). I'll write to the KC.

Only £650? I'm not surprised he's happy.

The re-writing of breed standards is definitely a welcome move. Fairly mixed views wrt the KC wanting statutory powers. Whilst I don't think they've done nearly enough to deserve them, I'd consider them a step up from the statutory powers being in the hands of non-dog people as we have at the moment. I doubt they'll get that anyway though. My biggest concern is the compulsory KCAB registration. Specifically: "Accredited Breeders must: Ensure that all breeding stock is Kennel Club registered. " http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/474 Unless I have misunderstood something, that rules out all those breeders that outcross as part of their breeding programme. The KCAB is flawed, it should not be compulsory.

I can feel a letter coming on. Although I don't live in Rugby, I'm concerned at the impact of these orders for the welfare of dogs. Not just in Rugby - as more councils bring these orders into force, the more "normal" it will be and the more difficult to oppose if it were to be suggested by MY council (Although, thankfully, our council do seem at the moment to be pretty good in that regard). There's an address on this link: http://www.rugby.gov.uk/site/scripts/docum...documentID=1329 And a letter outlining my concerns to my own MP. Anybody interested in doing the same can find theirs through this link: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

http://www.mercia.co.uk/article.asp?id=912328

Something strange here... http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/index/about...g_statement.htm If that's the case, I wonder what NFDOG are campaigning against.

http://www.naturescene.co.uk/nfdog/index.htm If there is anybody that lives locally to the New Forest, there's a meeting on 12th October at Brockenhurst Village Hall. For those that don't live locally (and I'm included in that), your voice still counts.

Couldn't agree more.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2008-06-12a.496.0 Better link than the one I posted earlier.

http://www.rykat.org/forums/index.php?show...mp;#entry720450 Read Jonathan Shaw's points.

Does anybody have any information about similar schemes in other countries (Germany or otherwise)? What did their schemes propose? Did they get off the ground? Why? If yes, what was the effect? Why? If there is information about a precedent for the DOT, that would be very useful.

Citizens' Advice Bureau might also be worth a try.

Well, I keep hold of it, knowing full well that I'll pile on the pounds again later. I have no clothes that are too big for me, but plenty that are too small. Time to lose weight...

Racing has made a breed of dog that is very good at that one thing (ie running after a mechanical hare), but I dispute that it's ONLY good at that. Greyhounds make superb pets as well as racers. What more do you want them to do? You say that "dogs should be bred to be able to live comfortably within human society and perform a range of roles, not to do one thing only, and nothing else". Greyhounds live very comfortably within human society. I know of few dogs (of any breed) that can't, but even if that's the case, that probably has more to do with a lack of socialisation and training, than bad breeding doesn't it? You make a point about an inappropriate narrowing of focus. I see your point, but I believe that even a narrow focus is better than none at all. If I couldn't stand being cursed, I wouldn't have got married.

I'm male. Currently own 1 male dog. Previous dogs include another male and 2 females. It makes no difference to me whatsoever what gender my pets are. I currently have a male greyhound, he was "chosen" because he was the only dog in the rescue whose needs I could meet when I went looking. If I were to get a second dog, I'd look again at what sort of home I could offer and narrow my choice down that way again. If by some chance there was a male and a female, and all else was equal, I'd probably get a female, but only because I already have a male in my home. Kind of a "balance" thing. It's way down the list wrt importance though. It really isn't that important to me though. Whether the dog is male or female, they're equally deserving of a good home.

I'm very much in favour of the type of breeder you describe. Those who compete in and out of the ring with their dogs are exactly the ones who I would place the MOST hope with regards the future of our dogs. In-breeding / line breeding: I know so little about genetics that I cannot comment (believe me - I've tried! ). My main concern was that those "other ways" would be banned along with racing. That may or may not be the case now - I await greyhound pal's document. You mention that racing has weakened them for the job they were meant to do, but the job they were originally bred to do is now illegal. I still have a few concerns (although I have a few less since the start of this debate!) about the situation south of the border, but it's possible that the document might send me on an new train of thought...