Post a New Topic
Should we ban pit bulls in Palo Alto? Yes!
Original post made
by diana diamond, Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Sep 7, 2007
I read with horror the story this week of the Fremont mother who was repeatedly bitten by a pit bull while trying to protect her four-month old son.
The 32-year-old woman, Angela Silva, went into her own garage with her infant in her arms, and there was the neighbor's pit bull who suddenly sank his teeth into her arms, trying to get at her baby. The dog kept lunging at the infant. To protect her son the woman quickly placed her baby in a nearby empty garbage can, to hide it from the dog. The pit bull knocked over the can, trying to get at the child.
The mother stood between the can and the dog, and the pit bull bit her repeatedly on both arms. The women's screams brought two contractors from across the street, who, power tools buzzing, were able to scare the pit bull away. The woman was taken to the hospital where she was treated for bites down to the bone; she was stapled 50 times, stitched and bandaged.
The courage of the mother is amazing.
If this were an isolated case, I would not now suggest a ban on owning pit bulls in Palo Alto. But unprovoked pit bull attacks occur daily throughout the country.
About a year ago I requested Google to send me all news items about pit bulls, and my e-mail mailbox soon had attack reports three , four, sometimes five times a week. After a couple of weeks, I could read no more. Try Googling pit bull news and you will find the same.
Dogs can be dangerous; pit bulls can be extremely dangerous. They are known for unprovoked attacks. Pit bulls lead among the dog breeds that bite the most, the Center for Disease Control reports. A pit bull can be good for years, and then suddenly turn, as has happened time and time again.
Pit bull lovers will say it's not the dogs, it's the owners, who don't train pit bulls properly. At times it may be the owners. But it's the dogs, they are an unpredictable and untrustworthy breed.
A number of communities have imposed pit bull bans in town, to ensure safety of their residents. It is time Palo Alto do the same.
Posted by Amanda
a resident of another community
on Sep 8, 2007 at 4:17 am
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Pit Bulls are not "mean or vicioius" unless people make them that way....and yes, you can do it unknowingly.
Pit Bulls were bred for dog-fighting, yes. But dog-aggression is not the same as people aggression. In fact, Pit Bulls were one of the only breeds bred specifically not to bite people. When there would be a dog fight, the owner of the other dog that your dog would be fighting would wash down your dog...just to make sure that you didn't douse your dog in poisin or tranquelizer. In addition, the owners of the dogs stand in the pit with the dogs while they are fighting. This is to break up the fight quickly if the need should arise. Dogs that couldn't be separated, or would turn on their owners in the pit were a major liability to thier owners if they needed to scram out of there if cops showed up. Thus, ANY Pit Bull that showed aggression towards humans was killed. Then why do pit bulls kill people?
Any dog can kill someone. I've even heard about a Pomerianian that killed a baby. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Someone has to fire that gun. Likewise, Pit Bulls don't kill people, irresponsible owners kill people. The dog-fighting-bred Pit Bulls that are bred specifically not to bite are far different than the crack-dogs picked up by gangs and drug-dealers. These dogs are bred specificially to attack people. Pit Bulls may also be tought to attack unknowingly. By not correcting bad behavior when it starts, your rewarding it. Chaining your dog up is a leading cause that leads to aggression, as is not socailzing your pet. Let me ask you this...on 9/11 some people flew planes into our WTC and killed many people, but does that make all Middle Easterners terrorists? No. Some Middle Easterners are bad, some are good; just like in our socieity and just like with pit bulls. Why should the innocent suffer for the actions of a few? Because of the way they look? Since when did America's philosphy become "guilty until proven innocent"?
Also note, that many owners who have Pit Bulls that attack and then say "its the first time they've ever done anything like this"...are lying. Nine times out of ten there are warning signs in the dog that either went undiscovered or ignored by the owner. Think about the shooting at Virginia Tech, that was the first time that man had ever done anything like that....yet there were warning signs. The warnings went ignored. Yet his parents had much the same reaction as the Pit Bull owner..."we never thought he would do such a thing." That's what parents/dog owners do, they defend those they love. You think someone with a truly vicious dog is really going to admit it?
Why do Pit Bulls bite people then. Irresponsible bacyard breeding, little to no training, purposeful training for the dog to attack, little to no socialization, poor dog maintance, and/or unknowling rewarding bad behaviors. Good owners equal good dogs, bad owners equal bad ones. Any dog can bite, any dog can kill, not just Pit Bulls.
Breed Banning? That's the stupidest thing ever. Think again. We ban Pit Bulls and they go extinct eventually. Dog-fighters and gangs and other unsavory characters now don't have "big tough mean dogs" anymore, so they start buying Rottweiler's instead. We ban Rottwilers and the same thing happens. Pretty soon were're banning Dobermans, then German Shepherds...then Huskies, Labradors....dogs most people view as "innocent". Any dog can be trained to attack, any dog can be trianed to fight, and any dog can be trained to kill. Furthermore, if a breed ban was put into place, do you think it would really work. All of the responsible Pit Bull owners and breeders, being the law-abiding citizens that they are, would obey the law and get rid of thier dogs. But what about the drug-dealers, gangs, and dog-fighters that own Pit Bulls. What they're doing is hardly legal in the first place, do you really think that they're going to obey the law and get rid of or stop breeding Pit Bulls?
Breed Specific Legislation only harms two parties....the dog, and the responsible dog owner. Irresponsible dog-owners could care less.
And before you say that only bad, selfish, and aggressive people own Pit Bulls, open your eyes. President Theodore Roosevelt owned a Pit Bull, as did Micheal J. Fox. TV chef Rachel Ray also has a Pit Bull, as did the famous Helen Keller.
BSL (aka breed bans) may be instated, but remember what I said above. Its the Pit Bull today, but tomorrow it may be your dog. If the Pit Bull disapears, society will just look for another breed to vilianize. Your breed may be next.
My suggestions instead of instating breed bans? Inforce leash-laws, crack down on dog-fighting, euthanize dogs truely deemed as dangerous according to the personality of the dog not its breed, fine owners (which is where the problem really lies)for having a dog that bites (again, related to personality, not breed), and if need be ban OWNERS with a record of having "vicious" dogs from owning certain breeds. DON'T ban the dog.
FYI, I volunteer in a vets office and I have been bitten by many dogs....none of them has ever been a Pit Bull.
Posted by Cherie Graves
a resident of another community
on Sep 8, 2007 at 11:51 am
RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES
P.O. Box 1406 Newport, WA 99156
Web Site Web Link E-mail US email@example.com
Blog Web Link E-mail List Web Link
Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821
Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, firstname.lastname@example.org
Hermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, email@example.com
Arkansas Director, Roger Schnyer firstname.lastname@example.org
California Director, Jan Dykema email@example.com
Illinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard firstname.lastname@example.org
Indiana Director, Charles Coffman email@example.com
Iowa Director, Leisa Boysen firstname.lastname@example.org
Mississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield email@example.com
Nevada Director, Ken Sondej firstname.lastname@example.org
Ohio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky email@example.com
Oklahoma Director, Jade Harris firstname.lastname@example.org
Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton email@example.com
Texas Director, Alvin Crow firstname.lastname@example.org
RDOWS UPDATED COMPILATION OF BANNED/RESTRICTED DOG BREEDS ã
The following list contains dog breeds, in alphabetical order, that are either banned from ownership, or restricted so as to make ownership more difficult than owning other breeds, in legislation either passed, proposed, or tabled in venues throughout the United States of America. The breeds are listed by name exactly as they appear in legislation. Redundancy, or misnaming is due to the wording of codes, and/or ordinances. Some breeds are named specifically, some breeds are included by physical description. All dogs are subject to being named. Ohio was the only state to enact breed specific legislation at the state level. Ohio's breed specific dog law was found to be unconstitutional, and was overturned in the Ohio Courts. Case law follows the list of breeds.
Dog ownership is under a barrage of legislation that threatens its very existence. The chilling fact is that our dog laws in the United States of America are riddled with misinformation, urban myth, and blatant lies. Based upon the egregious falacies of breed specific legislation, it does not give us much hope for the rest of American juris prudence beyond of the realm of dog legislation. We must ask ourselves, and our legislators if the rest of our laws are so horrifically flawed.
Breed specific legislation (BSL) sets a legal precedent that empowers the enacting body to add any or all other breeds of dogs, or domestic species, with no further public notice. Some breeds are included in so-called "pit bull" bans or restrictions. There is no breed of dog that is recognized by any registry as "pit bull" It is an umbrella term that covers twenty-five to thirty actual breeds. The term originated as a means to describe any dog whose owner fought it in the pit. It has expanded into a very broad, and erroneous usage.
Some breeds are named under "wolf-hybrid" bans or restrictions. Common theory was that all domestic dog breeds were developed from a proto-wolf ancestor. Now with the advent of the Canine Genome Project it is a fact proven by DNA that all domestic dog breeds were developed from canis familaris lupis, a sub-species of the gray wolf. Wolf-hybrid bans do, in fact, encompass all domestic breeds of dogs based upon DNA evidence.
Not one of these bans, or restrictions has made our cities, counties or municipalities safer. All dog owners should be treated equally under the law, and the public should be protected equally under the law. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States opposes breed specific legislation. RDOWS encourages the passage of Responsible Dog Owner Legislation that addresses the real problems. For a copy of RDOWS Model Dog Owner Regulations please contact any RDOWS state Director, or RDOWS.
NOTE: This list, and the accompanying PDF file are not current. It is impossible to keep current with all of the legislation. Always check with the cities/counties on your route before traveling. You may be subject to having your dog(s) confiscated, and killed, and you may be fined, and/or incarcerated. Before moving research all dog laws in the city/county and surrounding areas.
1. AIREDALE TERRIER
4. ALAPAHA BLUE BLOOD BULLDOG
5. ALASKAN MALAMUTE
6. ALSATIAN SHEPHERD
7. AMERICAN BULLDOG
8. AMERICAN HUSKY
9. AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER
10. AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER
11. AMERICAN WOLFDOG
12. ANATOLIAN SHEPHERD
13. ARIKARA DOG
14. AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG
15. AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD
16. BELGIAN MALINOIS
17. BELGIAN SHEEPDOG
18. BELGIAN TURVUREN
19. BLUE HEELER
22. BOSTON TERRIER
23. BOUVIER DES FLANDRES
26. BULL TERRIER
27. BULL MASTIFF
28. CANE CORSO
29. CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG
30. CAUCASIAN SHEPHERD
31. CHINESE SHAR PEI
33. COLORADO DOG
34. DOBERMAN PINSCHER
35. DOGO DE ARGENTINO
36. DOGUE DE BORDEAUX
37. ENGLISH MASTIFFS
38. ENGLISH SPRINGER SPANIEL
39. ESKIMO DOG
40. ESTRELA MOUNTAIN DOG
41. FILA BRASILIERO
42. FOX TERRIER
43. FRENCH BULLDOG
44. GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG
45. GOLDEN RETRIEVER
46. GREENLAND HUSKY
47. GREAT DANE
48. GREAT PYRENEES
49. ITALIAN MASTIFF
50. KANGAL DOG
53. KOTEZEBUE HUSKY
55. LABRADOR RETRIEVER
58. NEOPOLITAN MASTIFF
61. PRESA DE CANARIO
62. PRESA DE MALLORQUIN
65. SAARLOOS WOLFHOND
66. SAINT BERNARD
68. SCOTTISH DEERHOUND
69. SIBERIAN HUSKY
70. SPANISH MASTIFF
71. STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER
72. TIMBER SHEPHERD
73. TOSA INU
74. TUNDRA SHEPHERD
In August 2004 a case American Canine Foundation assisted in was heard by the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. Cowan 103 Ohio St. 3d 144 , 2004 - Ohio - 4777 The court found ORC955:22 violative of the right to be heard as applied to ORC955:11 which declared a specific breed of dog vicious in Ohio. The decision struck down Ohio's breed specific legislation at the state level. Ohio was the onlystate to have this type of legislation at the state level.
Zuniga v. San Mateo Dept. of Health Services (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1521, 267 Cal. Rptr. 2d 755. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to prove "Pit Bulls" have an inherent nature of being dangerous.
Carter v. Metro North Assocs. (1998) 255 A.D. 2d 251; 680 N.Y.S.2d 299 A New York appellate court determined that the alleged propensities of "Pit Bull Terriers" to behave more viciously than other breeds had not been authoritatively established.
American Canine Foundation litigated the city of Huntsville Alabama in 2002 in a case that was heard by the Alabama Supreme Court. Huntsville v. Four Pit Bull Puppies
(Ala. 08-30-02), No.1010459, unreported. The court affirmed a trial court decision that American Pit Bull Terriers were not dangerous.
On July 16th 2003 ACF brought forth a constitutional challenge against Ohio's state law O.R.C. 955:11 that declares the Pit Bull vicious. The case was heard in the Toledo Municipal Court and the court found the American Pit Bull Terrier was not dangerous and granted Pit Bull owners due process. Tellings v State of Ohio CRB02-15267
Posted by Cherie Graves
a resident of another community
on Sep 8, 2007 at 12:49 pm
POSITION STATEMENT ON BREED SPECIFIC TARGETING IN THE MEDIA ã
Responsible Dog Owners of the western States has noticed that with increasing regularity there is a titillating headline in print media, or a sound bite on radio, or television, or a reality Court show that portrays certain breeds of dogs in a manner that bears little or no resemblance to reality. A common, catch-all term "pit bull" may be written in several different forms such as "pittbull", "pit bulldog" none of these terms are specific to any breed, but may apply to upward of twenty-five actual breeds is used to incite fear in their audience. Fear sells. This is bigotry. Not bigotry aimed at the animals, but it is bigotry focused through these dogs, and directed at their owners.
Media targeting of dogs has a prismatic affect, its reflection reflects badly upon all owners of these targeted dog breeds. Strictly as an allegory, interchange the term "pit bull" for "people of color". This is not to in any way anthropomorphize animals, but to bring to light that neither term is specific to breed, or to race, but is an all encompassing in application that has far reaching implications. The usage of the term "pit bull" sells newspapers, and airtime. It is convenient to attract the immediate attention, and to titillate, and evoke fear in the intended audience. One could reasonably state that the "pit bull" is a monster created, and promulgated by the media.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has stopped using breed profiling in its bite statistics. The CDC formerly used media reports to compile their data. When the CDC was subpoenaed into Court to give testimony as to the accuracy of their bite statistic reports it came to light that the CDC could not offer tangible proof of the accuracy of their bite statistics as compiled from media reports. The CDC did not alter the bite statistics when there were corrections made in the media reports. Any bite statistic data that relies solely upon media reports is grossly inaccurate. Would any newspaper, radio, or television station go into Court and swear that their reports on any given dog bite incident portrayed the dog's breed with 100% accuracy? Of course not. Yet this very same media uses tainted statistics to evoke fear in their readers, listeners, and viewers.
Dogs are as individual within their respective breed, as we human beings are within our ethnicity. It is journalistic irresponsibility to portray an entire breed of dog, or dogs of a similar physical appearance as being of the exact same temperament, and of exactly the same behavioral psychology. Not only is it irresponsible, it is erroneous. No media outlet would apply this same treatment directly to an ethnicity of human beings, yet this is exactly what the media is doing through dogs to their owners. The media long ago stopped profiling people by ethnicity, yet it is blatantly profiling dogs, which reflects badly, and undeservedly upon all of the owners of all of the breeds and mixed breeds that are lumped together as "pit bull".
Behind every dog is its owner. No dog has the capacity to function outside the parameters of its owner's own exercise of responsibility. Yet the media would tar all owners of these breeds with the unearned onus of being not quite trustworthy. On the one hand these media reports would make dogs of the targeted breeds out to be so cunning, so blood-thirsty, so unstoppable, so relentless that they are cut from supernatural cloth of a type that no mere mortal could possibly train, control, or have a normal pet relationship with. On the other hand the media would have breeders so versed in genetics that they are capable of creating a perfect monster of mythical proportions each, and every time. Quite the dichotomy. Like all myths each of these scenarios is fable.
Human error, carelessness, or negligence is the underlying factor behind every dog attack, followed closely by the failure of animal control to respond to repeated calls. In more than 80% of severe injuries/fatalities there were records of numerous reports from neighbors to animal control that went unheeded. Given the actual figures of severe dog attacks, or fatalities related to dog attacks per capita in the United States of America, dogs are not the threat to human life that the sensationalistic media, and urban myth would portray.
It is unreasonable for the media to assume, and portray that every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance will behave in exactly the same manner. It is unreasonable for the media to assume, or portray that every owner of every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance is irresponsible, negligent, or careless with their animal(s). Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States calls for truth in the media to include the truth about dogs, to portray each incident as an individual situation, and to stop the blatant fear mongering that sells air time, and print space, and that lumps all dogs of a given breed, or physical appearance into the story. It is past time for all dog owners to call for accountability, and accuracy in the media.
Posted by Diane
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 8, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I heard that the wolverine is the only animal kown to man to not be tameable. It is truly a wild animal. As for wolves, I actually did have one! Well, we baby-sat it. He was full grown intact male wolf. Not a hybrid I assure you. We ad a farm at the time and a gentleman moved in our rental unit and he bought this wolf and I assure you when he brought it I was aprehensive! I had two very small children at the time, really just toddlers. The wolf kept getting in when I would open the door and he seemed to love to have my toddlers crawling all over him and hugging him and after a while, he won us over completely that wolves maybe really DID rear those infants of Greek lore, Romulus and Remus! We even tried to buy him from the renter but he wanted such a high amount for him it was not possible.
I think from your response that you hve a fear of dogs (and wolves and wolverines which are not dogs but part of the weasel family if I recall). The Canine Good Citizen award is not given by a trainer, it is earned in a test at a dog show event. Te traner helps you prepare for the exam. The judge does not know the dog at all and the test is a good one. Here is what it entails: Before taking the Canine Good Citizen test, owners will sign the Responsible Dog Owners Pledge. We believe that responsible dog ownership is a key part of the CGC concept and by signing the pledge, owners agree to take care of their dog's health needs, safety, exercise, training and quality of life. Owners also agree to show responsibility by doing things such as cleaning up after their dogs in public places and never letting dogs infringe on the rights of others.
After signing the Responsible Dog Owners Pledge, owners and their dogs are ready to take the CGC Test. Items on the Canine Good Citizen Test include:
Test 1: Accepting a friendly stranger
This test demonstrates that the dog will allow a friendly stranger to approach it and speak to the handler in a natural, everyday situation. The evaluator walks up to the dog and handler and greets the handler in a friendly manner, ignoring the dog. The evaluator and handler shake hands and exchange pleasantries. The dog must show no sign of resentment or shyness, and must not break position or try to go to the evaluator.
Test 2: Sitting politely for petting
This test demonstrates that the dog will allow a friendly stranger to touch it while it is out with its handler. With the dog sitting at the handler's side, to begin the exercise, the evaluator pets the dog on the head and body. The handler may talk to his or her dog throughout the exercise. The dog may stand in place as it is petted. The dog must not show shyness or resentment.
Test 3: Appearance and grooming
This practical test demonstrates that the dog will welcome being groomed and examined and will permit someone, such as a veterinarian, groomer or friend of the owner, to do so. It also demonstrates the owner's care, concern and sense of responsibility. The evaluator inspects the dog to determine if it is clean and groomed. The dog must appear to be in healthy condition (i.e., proper weight, clean, healthy and alert). The handler should supply the comb or brush commonly used on the dog. The evaluator then softly combs or brushes the dog, and in a natural manner, lightly examines the ears and gently picks up each front foot. It is not necessary for the dog to hold a specific position during the examination, and the handler may talk to the dog, praise it and give encouragement throughout.
Test 4: Out for a walk (walking on a loose lead)
This test demonstrates that the handler is in control of the dog. The dog may be on either side of the handler. The dog's position should leave no doubt that the dog is attentive to the handler and is responding to the handler's movements and changes of direction. The dog need not be perfectly aligned with the handler and need not sit when the handler stops. The evaluator may use a pre-plotted course or may direct the handler/dog team by issuing instructions or commands. In either case, there should be a right turn, left turn, and an about turn with at least one stop in between and another at the end. The handler may talk to the dog along the way, praise the dog, or give commands in a normal tone of voice. The handler may sit the dog at the halts if desired.
Test 5: Walking through a crowd
This test demonstrates that the dog can move about politely in pedestrian traffic and is under control in public places. The dog and handler walk around and pass close to several people (at least three). The dog may show some interest in the strangers but should continue to walk with the handler, without evidence of over-exuberance, shyness or resentment. The handler may talk to the dog and encourage or praise the dog throughout the test. The dog should not jump on people in the crowd or strain on the leash.
Test 6: Sit and down on command and Staying in place
This test demonstrates that the dog has training, will respond to the handler's commands to sit and down and will remain in the place commanded by the handler (sit or down position, whichever the handler prefers). The dog must do sit AND down on command, then the owner chooses the position for leaving the dog in the stay. Prior to this test, the dog's leash is replaced with a line 20 feet long. The handler may take a reasonable amount of time and use more than one command to get the dog to sit and then down. The evaluator must determine if the dog has responded to the handler's commands. The handler may not force the dog into position but may touch the dog to offer gentle guidance. When instructed by the evaluator, the handler tells the dog to stay and walks forward the length of the line, turns and returns to the dog at a natural pace. The dog must remain in the place in which it was left (it may change position) until the evaluator instructs the handler to release the dog. The dog may be released from the front or the side.
Test 7: Coming when called
This test demonstrates that the dog will come when called by the handler. The handler will walk 10 feet from the dog, turn to face the dog, and call the dog. The handler may use encouragement to get the dog to come. Handlers may choose to tell dogs to "stay" or "wait" or they may simply walk away, giving no instructions to the dog.
Test 8: Reaction to another dog
This test demonstrates that the dog can behave politely around other dogs. Two handlers and their dogs approach each other from a distance of about 20 feet, stop, shake hands and exchange pleasantries, and continue on for about 10 feet. The dogs should show no more than casual interest in each other. Neither dog should go to the other dog or its handler.
Test 9: Reaction to distraction
This test demonstrates that the dog is confident at all times when faced with common distracting situations. The evaluator will select and present two distractions. Examples of distractions include dropping a chair, rolling a crate dolly past the dog, having a jogger run in front of the dog, or dropping a crutch or cane. The dog may express natural interest and curiosity and/or may appear slightly startled but should not panic, try to run away, show aggressiveness, or bark. The handler may talk to the dog and encourage or praise it throughout the exercise.
Test 10: Supervised separation
This test demonstrates that a dog can be left with a trusted person, if necessary, and will maintain training and good manners. Evaluators are encouraged to say something like, "Would you like me to watch your dog?" and then take hold of the dog's leash. The owner will go out of sight for three minutes. The dog does not have to stay in position but should not continually bark, whine, or pace unnecessarily, or show anything stronger than mild agitation or nervousness. Evaluators may talk to the dog but should not engage in excessive talking, petting, or management attempts (e.g, "there, there, it's alright").
All tests must be performed on leash. Dogs should wear well-fitting buckle or slip collars made of leather, fabric, or chain. Special training collars such as pinch collars, head halters, etc. are not permitted in the CGC test. We recognize that special training collars may be very useful tools for beginning dog trainers, however, we feel that dogs are ready to take the CGC test at the point at which they are transitioned to regular collars.
The evaluator supplies a 20-foot lead for the test. The owner/handler should bring the dog's brush or comb to the test.
Owners/handlers may use praise and encouragement throughout the test. The owner may pet the dog between exercises. Food and treats are not permitted during testing, nor is the use of toys, squeaky toys, etc. to get the dog to do something. We recognize that food and toys may provide valuable reinforcement or encouragement during the training process but these items should not be used during the test.
Failures - Dismissals
Any dog that eliminates during testing must be marked failed. The only exception to this rule is that elimination is allowable in test Item 10, but only when test Item 10 is held outdoors.
Any dog that growls, snaps, bites, attacks, or attempts to attack a person or another dog is not a good citizen and must be dismissed from the test.
What do you think of the stringency of this exam? Could I invite you and anyone else interested to the next dog show as my guest to see this test in action? I can find out when the next one will be in our area. We can have a picnic/lunch and watch the dogs go by! It's alot of fun to take your camera too! A great family outing!
Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.