Idea's What Could Be Done

[milly]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

And just my thoughts.................it seems sad to me when the question of 'contravening legislation' is mentioned people jump to sort things out, yet when the topic was initially started off by people it was by people who genuinely cared about their dogs and scratch racing because it mattered to them, and they had equally, if not more valid suggestions.

chris

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

There is no option but to comply with legislative issues as soon as possible.

You seem to imply to me that only those that share your views genuinely care about there dogs and scratch racing and by implication those that don't agree with those views don't care about their dogs or scratch racing. Any isuch mplication that those who have a different view point don't care about their dogs or scratch racing, while risible, is insulting. I'm sure you didn't mean to insult anyone but perhaps you might like to clarify.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

No intention to insult Tony, or in my eyes any need to to clarify,it was quite plainly said, and as I stated my opinion. Perhaps it was the way you read it? I clearly stated it where it was my own personal views. I think my points were valid otherwise i wouldnt have put them on. As I stated, there have been many thoughtful suggestions on this thread that dont appear in your template, I think it only fair to ask why they had not been included.

If legislation is so important then why, when previous posts have insinuated that there have been suspicions that there have been dogs running in the non-ped that may have been greyhounds, and members have known about it, has it not been dealt with sooner?

As for only thinking my opinion counts, i think you might be having slight transference issues there Tony :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

These have been rumors for a few month now chris... as i am aware the people responsible for these dogs have been asked or about to be ... what ever the owners have said or will say the dogs in question are out of i do not know at this time , and just because someone is a committee person doesn't give them the right to call anyone a lier , unless theres 100% proof

Theres 4 dogs been questioned at present that i am aware of ...out of the four ...one dog and its owner/owners have never attempted to register or run the dog in question with either the NNERF or the BWRA to date ...so theres no rules broken there ... the owner has quite openly admitted the dog is a greyhound so despite weather or not they were going to attempt registering it ...THERE NOT NOW ..none ped members can own what ever breed of dog they like remember

The other 3 dogs are under investigation at the nnwrf at present ...thats all i can say on here , without incriminating anyone or myself

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Have these owners been notified officially yet? If not, I don't think you should be making statements on here.

As an ex committee member, I would have thought that a meeting would have been callled, and the dogs in question discussed, before any statement was made on here.

Didn't you once say :unsure: , that you knew of greyhounds in the past, which were racing in the non-peds? Why were these not investigated?

o

A thought for today.......No question is so difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious.

 

[Paws123]

And just my thoughts.................it seems sad to me when the question of 'contravening legislation' is mentioned people jump to sort things out, yet when the topic was initially started off by people it was by people who genuinely cared about their dogs and scratch racing because it mattered to them, and they had equally, if not more valid suggestions.

chris

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

There is no option but to comply with legislative issues as soon as possible.

You seem to imply to me that only those that share your views genuinely care about there dogs and scratch racing and by implication those that don't agree with those views don't care about their dogs or scratch racing. Any isuch mplication that those who have a different view point don't care about their dogs or scratch racing, while risible, is insulting. I'm sure you didn't mean to insult anyone but perhaps you might like to clarify.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

No intention to insult Tony, or in my eyes any need to to clarify,it was quite plainly said, and as I stated my opinion. Perhaps it was the way you read it? I clearly stated it where it was my own personal views. I think my points were valid otherwise i wouldnt have put them on. As I stated, there have been many thoughtful suggestions on this thread that dont appear in your template, I think it only fair to ask why they had not been included.

If legislation is so important then why, when previous posts have insinuated that there have been suspicions that there have been dogs running in the non-ped that may have been greyhounds, and members have known about it, has it not been dealt with sooner?

As for only thinking my opinion counts, i think you might be having slight transference issues there Tony :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

These have been rumors for a few month now chris... as i am aware the people responsible for these dogs have been asked or about to be ... what ever the owners have said or will say the dogs in question are out of i do not know at this time , and just because someone is a committee person doesn't give them the right to call anyone a lier , unless theres 100% proof

Theres 4 dogs been questioned at present that i am aware of ...out of the four ...one dog and its owner/owners have never attempted to register or run the dog in question with either the NNERF or the BWRA to date ...so theres no rules broken there ... the owner has quite openly admitted the dog is a greyhound so despite weather or not they were going to attempt registering it ...THERE NOT NOW ..none ped members can own what ever breed of dog they like remember

The other 3 dogs are under investigation at the nnwrf at present ...thats all i can say on here , without incriminating anyone or myself

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Have these owners been notified officially yet? If not, I don't think you should be making statements on here.

As an ex committee member, I would have thought that a meeting would have been callled, and the dogs in question discussed, before any statement was made on here.

Didn't you once say :unsure: , that you knew of greyhounds in the past, which were racing in the non-peds? Why were these not investigated?

o

A thought for today.......No question is so difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you read my post again i did say

as i am aware the people responsible for these dogs have been asked or about to be

.. as for this been a statement as you put it ...where in my post did i say it was a statement ...if it was an official NNWRF statement it would have read NNWRF STATEMENT PROBABLY POSTED BY THE NNWRF SECRETARY OR CHAIRPERSON

However the above is my honest opinion of a recent posts on k9 i made to another k9 member ... not a statement from me via the NNWRF

PS : After reading my post above i wish i had added and will add now

one dog and its owner/owners have never attempted to register or run  the dog in question with either the NNERF or the BWRA to date ...so theres no rules broken there ... the owner has quite openly admitted the dog is a greyhound , THIS IS THE DOG I TRANSPORTED FROM DEVON so despite weather or not they were going to attempt registering it ...THERE NOT NOW .

"It's impossible to reach good conclusions with bad information. . . . We're all entitled to our own opinions. But none of us can afford to be wrong in our facts." Mort Crim

 

[rob67]

And just my thoughts.................it seems sad to me when the question of 'contravening legislation' is mentioned people jump to sort things out, yet when the topic was initially started off by people it was by people who genuinely cared about their dogs and scratch racing because it mattered to them, and they had equally, if not more valid suggestions.

chris

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

There is no option but to comply with legislative issues as soon as possible.

You seem to imply to me that only those that share your views genuinely care about there dogs and scratch racing and by implication those that don't agree with those views don't care about their dogs or scratch racing. Any isuch mplication that those who have a different view point don't care about their dogs or scratch racing, while risible, is insulting. I'm sure you didn't mean to insult anyone but perhaps you might like to clarify.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

No intention to insult Tony, or in my eyes any need to to clarify,it was quite plainly said, and as I stated my opinion. Perhaps it was the way you read it? I clearly stated it where it was my own personal views. I think my points were valid otherwise i wouldnt have put them on. As I stated, there have been many thoughtful suggestions on this thread that dont appear in your template, I think it only fair to ask why they had not been included.

If legislation is so important then why, when previous posts have insinuated that there have been suspicions that there have been dogs running in the non-ped that may have been greyhounds, and members have known about it, has it not been dealt with sooner?

As for only thinking my opinion counts, i think you might be having slight transference issues there Tony :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

These have been rumors for a few month now chris... as i am aware the people responsible for these dogs have been asked or about to be ... what ever the owners have said or will say the dogs in question are out of i do not know at this time , and just because someone is a committee person doesn't give them the right to call anyone a lier , unless theres 100% proof

Theres 4 dogs been questioned at present that i am aware of ...out of the four ...one dog and its owner/owners have never attempted to register or run the dog in question with either the NNERF or the BWRA to date ...so theres no rules broken there ... the owner has quite openly admitted the dog is a greyhound so despite weather or not they were going to attempt registering it ...THERE NOT NOW ..none ped members can own what ever breed of dog they like remember

The other 3 dogs are under investigation at the nnwrf at present ...thats all i can say on here , without incriminating anyone or myself

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Have these owners been notified officially yet? If not, I don't think you should be making statements on here.

As an ex committee member, I would have thought that a meeting would have been callled, and the dogs in question discussed, before any statement was made on here.

Didn't you once say :unsure: , that you knew of greyhounds in the past, which were racing in the non-peds? Why were these not investigated?

o

A thought for today.......No question is so difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you read my post again i did say

as i am aware the people responsible for these dogs have been asked or about to be

.. as for this been a statement as you put it ...where in my post did i say it was a statement ...if it was an official NNWRF statement it would have read NNWRF STATEMENT PROBABLY POSTED BY THE NNWRF SECRETARY OR CHAIRPERSON

However the above is my honest opinion of a recent posts on k9 i made to another k9 member ... not a statement from me via the NNWRF

PS : After reading my post above i wish i had added and will add now

one dog and its owner/owners have never attempted to register or run  the dog in question with either the NNERF or the BWRA to date ...so theres no rules broken there ... the owner has quite openly admitted the dog is a greyhound , THIS IS THE DOG I TRANSPORTED FROM DEVON so despite weather or not they were going to attempt registering it ...THERE NOT NOW .

"It's impossible to reach good conclusions with bad information. . . . We're all entitled to our own opinions. But none of us can afford to be wrong in our facts." Mort Crim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I wasnt referring to any one person in particular Dee, thats why I said 'member' not 'committee member'. I'm quite sure the concerns about grews running etc has been discussed by a fair few people, therefore anyone person could have taken it onboard to do something. My concern was that the need to comply with legislation seemed more important than getting it right for our dogs to run safely and fairly.

chris

 

[Paws123]

There are lots of reasons for not allowing ghds to run in the No Limit most of which don't hold water. However denise has pointed out a very good reason not to allow ghds to run, that is the racing of ghd comes under DEFRA and government legislation whereas whippet racing doesn't seem to at present.
Excluding ghds for this reason is sensible to protect the organisations from the legal and finacial implications of government legislation.

This unfortunatley means that No Limit racing also comes under scrutiny because I don't see how racing 60lb dogs, especially on ghd tracks ccould be defended as whippet racing if legal action was to be brought by DEFRA against any of the racing bodies. Only a small minority of whippet racers would consider some of the larger dogs in the No Limit as whippets I feel expert opinion would also rule these dogs as being ghds.

I have to agree this is one reason maybe we could start to look at breeding and size

In view of the above then perhaps action does need to be taken to prevent what would reasonably be considered as ghd types running at whippet race meetings and as such new rules need to be drafted. However I feel it's important that racers already running are allowed to continue to race currently registed dogs.

As a template for debate I would suggest;

1) current registrants be allowed to run as before

2) Any dog over 56lb registered after 1st Jan 2009 will not be allowed to race.

3) Any dog over 40lb registered after 1st January 2009 with the ghd appearing more than once in a three generation pedigree not be allowed to race. Proof of pedigree to be provided via DNA testing at the owners expense if required

4) No ghds of any weight. Proof of parentage to be provided at the owners expense if required.

5) No parent unknown dogs allowed to run over 40lb

6) Dogs over 56lb to be excluded from the supreme scratch

7) From 2013 reduce the weight limits in points (2) and (6) to 48lb

The above rules would offer a reasonable amount of defence for whippet racing organisations against a charge of ghd racing contravening government legislation

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I would like to see a template been drawn up too ..maybe more members can comment on the above

 

[JOHNG]

1) current registrants be allowed to run as before

2) Any dog over 56lb registered after 1st Jan 2009 will not be allowed to race.

3) Any dog over 40lb registered after 1st January 2009 with the ghd appearing more than once in a three generation pedigree not be allowed to race. Proof of pedigree to be provided via DNA testing at the owners expense if required

4) No ghds of any weight. Proof of parentage to be provided at the owners expense if required.

5) No parent unknown dogs allowed to run over 40lb

6) Dogs over 56lb to be excluded from the supreme scratch

7) From 2013 reduce the weight limits in points (2) and (6) to 48lb

good idea :thumbsup:

this my opinion in 10 year or so if the breeding keeps going the way it is you will be lucky to get a dog under 20lb :- "

 

[Tony Taylor]

And just my thoughts.................it seems sad to me when the question of 'contravening legislation' is mentioned people jump to sort things out, yet when the topic was initially started off by people it was by people who genuinely cared about their dogs and scratch racing because it mattered to them, and they had equally, if not more valid suggestions.

chris

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

There is no option but to comply with legislative issues as soon as possible.

You seem to imply to me that only those that share your views genuinely care about there dogs and scratch racing and by implication those that don't agree with those views don't care about their dogs or scratch racing. Any isuch mplication that those who have a different view point don't care about their dogs or scratch racing, while risible, is insulting. I'm sure you didn't mean to insult anyone but perhaps you might like to clarify.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

No intention to insult Tony, or in my eyes any need to to clarify,it was quite plainly said, and as I stated my opinion. Perhaps it was the way you read it? I clearly stated it where it was my own personal views. I think my points were valid otherwise i wouldnt have put them on. As I stated, there have been many thoughtful suggestions on this thread that dont appear in your template, I think it only fair to ask why they had not been included.

If legislation is so important then why, when previous posts have insinuated that there have been suspicions that there have been dogs running in the non-ped that may have been greyhounds, and members have known about it, has it not been dealt with sooner?

As for only thinking my opinion counts, i think you might be having slight transference issues there Tony :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I'm releived that it wasn't your intention to suggest those that disagreed with the POV you appear to support are any less caring about their dogs or scratch racing than those that agreed that POV. I'm still not clear, and I'm not alone in this I'm sure, as to why you felt the empathic nature of the individuals needed advertising but that's of no great significance really.

I don't recall suggesting your opinions aren't as valid as the next persons.

As I have stated it's a template for discusion not a diktat so obviously won't contain everyones ideas, thoughtful or not, especially as some of the aformentioned ideas are contradictory. The whole point of the template was for others to argue for,against or add additional material and everyone sghould feel free to do so.

I believe the issue of ghds is being dealt with. I hadn't previously considered the legislative problem. Otherwise I'm still in favour of any size any breeding dog in the No Limit.

I don't recall suggesting you're under the impression only your own opinion counts. Perhaps it's the way you read it.

 

[gary farmer]

1) current registrants be allowed to run as before2) Any dog over 56lb registered after 1st Jan 2009 will not be allowed to race.

3) Any dog over 40lb registered after 1st January 2009 with the ghd appearing more than once in a three generation pedigree not be allowed to race. Proof of pedigree to be provided via DNA testing at the owners expense if required

4) No ghds of any weight. Proof of parentage to be provided at the owners expense if required.

5) No parent unknown dogs allowed to run over 40lb

6) Dogs over 56lb to be excluded from the supreme scratch

7) From 2013 reduce the weight limits in points (2) and (6) to 48lb

good idea :thumbsup:

this my opinion in 10 year or so if the breeding keeps going the way it is you will be lucky to get a dog under 20lb :- "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

HI JOHN WITH THOUGHS RULES THERE WOULD ONLY YOU BE RACING IN 10 YEARS TIME

OH SORRY I FORGOT YOU HAVE PACKED IT IN LOL :wacko:

I THINK YOU SHOULD GET A PED LOL

GOOD LUCK

 

[Paws123]

Sorry Chris i am having a blond moment ...but by what means do you mean the legislation of what ?

 

[rob67]

Sorry Chris i am having a blond moment ...but by what means do you mean the legislation   of what ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Dunno Dee, Tony brought it up, think it's the DEFRA legislation, but as he's so much cleverer than wot I am, maybe he needs to clarify it..................I just followed like a lemming

P.S. I have no blonde bits so can't blame that!!

chris

 

[Paws123]

Thanks think it was me who brought it up (defra)

Will post about what i think defra might take some writing so bear with me

 

[JOHNG]

gary i have finished racing and from what as been said here i have made the right choice but that does'nt say i don't have a right to view my opinion. i have been involved in WHIPPET racing a lot longer than some on here who think they are improving the sport , i care a great deal about it's future, and the way i see it at the moment the amount of greyhound being introduced is like i said in 10year or sooner just see how many dogs are racing under 20lb

p.s. i know we have introduce greyhound into the breeding but not at the rate it's going. just my opinion

 

[gary farmer]

JOHN I AGREE YOUR OPINION IS AS VALID AS ANY ONE ELSES

MY REPLY WAS TOUNGE IN CHEEK

JUST DONT AGREE BUT THATS FINE

GARY

 

[RealMadYid]

Sometimes it's better to talk face to face...that's why I rarely visit K9, talk to each other at the track, in the bar, whatever, wherever...In my experience this site is terrible for personal abuse if you opinion is rubbished, but if you meet that person at the track, they rarely speak...

Of course, we all have opinions, and rightly so, but talk face to face, you may actually find you agree on most things...

Paul

 

[Paws123]

Of course, we all have opinions, and rightly so, but talk face to face, you may actually find you agree on most things...
Paul

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

All but football (w00t)

 

[rob67]

And just my thoughts.................it seems sad to me when the question of 'contravening legislation' is mentioned people jump to sort things out, yet when the topic was initially started off by people it was by people who genuinely cared about their dogs and scratch racing because it mattered to them, and they had equally, if not more valid suggestions.

chris

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

There is no option but to comply with legislative issues as soon as possible.

You seem to imply to me that only those that share your views genuinely care about there dogs and scratch racing and by implication those that don't agree with those views don't care about their dogs or scratch racing. Any isuch mplication that those who have a different view point don't care about their dogs or scratch racing, while risible, is insulting. I'm sure you didn't mean to insult anyone but perhaps you might like to clarify.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

No intention to insult Tony, or in my eyes any need to to clarify,it was quite plainly said, and as I stated my opinion. Perhaps it was the way you read it? I clearly stated it where it was my own personal views. I think my points were valid otherwise i wouldnt have put them on. As I stated, there have been many thoughtful suggestions on this thread that dont appear in your template, I think it only fair to ask why they had not been included.

If legislation is so important then why, when previous posts have insinuated that there have been suspicions that there have been dogs running in the non-ped that may have been greyhounds, and members have known about it, has it not been dealt with sooner?

As for only thinking my opinion counts, i think you might be having slight transference issues there Tony :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I'm releived that it wasn't your intention to suggest those that disagreed with the POV you appear to support are any less caring about their dogs or scratch racing than those that agreed that POV. I'm still not clear, and I'm not alone in this I'm sure, as to why you felt the empathic nature of the individuals needed advertising but that's of no great significance really.

I'm not sure how your'e sure that you are not alone in this Tony, perhaps you might like to clarify

I am sure however that if you read a post a certain way it in no way can implicate my intentions, merely your interpretation, and as I'm sure your'e aware, with all languages there is a danger that multiple meanings can be derived from one simple comment.

I don't recall suggesting your opinions aren't as valid as the next persons.

I too dont recall stating that anyone who didnt agree with my POO sorry POV ( I presume that means point of view, I'm not too familiar with the acronyms used in whippet racing) was less caring than those who initiated the topic ( not me by the way so i cant see how it could be my point of view)

As I have stated it's a template for discusion not a diktat so obviously won't contain everyones ideas, thoughtful or not, especially as some of the aformentioned ideas are contradictory. The whole point of the template was for others to argue for,against or add additional material and everyone sghould feel free to do so.

Your'e right Tony, you did mention somewhere along the line that it was a template for discussion, unfortunately this was interspersed with a whole gammut of intellectual language that appeared to elevate your 'discussion' to indeed the diktat that you describe.

I believe the issue of ghds is being dealt with. I hadn't previously considered the legislative problem. Otherwise I'm still in favour of any size any breeding dog in the No Limit.

I don't recall suggesting you're under the impression only your own opinion counts. Perhaps it's the way you read it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Perhaps it's the way you write it Tony, as I said bad case of transference :thumbsup:

chris

 

[RealMadYid]

Of course, we all have opinions, and rightly so, but talk face to face, you may actually find you agree on most things...

Paul

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

All but football (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Yeah!

 

[Paws123]

Thanks think it was me who brought it up (defra)Will post about what i think defra  might take some writing so bear with me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Going to do this as Short as possible or else i could go into for weeks and its a little mind blowing unless its studied

To allow ghd to race in our sport , may mean derfa could step in as certain rules and regulations in the racing of ghd's ...ghd's fall under two sectors licensed and regulated ( known as 'flapping' or 'independent racing) All the regulated sector are subject to the NGRC Rules of Racing ...which set standards for greyhound welfare and racing integrity, ranging from racecourse facilities and trainers' kennels to retirement of greyhounds. Disciplinary action is taken against anyone found failing to comply.

The ghd bodies has worked closely with DEFRA through the Greyhound Welfare Working Group on the regulation of greyhound welfare in England. (DEFRA could access the none ped whippet racing and claim we have to become a registered working group at any time )

If this was to happen it could be the end of our bend racing season , and maybe the straight to why , i will explain

1 st off we would have to have a veterinary Sergent present at all bend meetings , possible straights ...the cost it way over our limits

Other regulation and standards are as follows... Animal Welfare Bill (which all can search and read), Transportation and housing while traveling , also for us while camping , Feeding of certain knacker meats , Re-homing of greyhounds (which i believe would need someone to take on as a job to regulate the greyhound owners that are re-homing dogs

Sorry added : If someone from defra was to come to a none ped whippet event..i think it would be hard for us the committee to argue the point that some of our no limit dogs are none ped whippet and not greyhounds

Hope Ive made that short enough , but anyone wanting to find out more about it can go to the defra web site and read up ... Ive also got news sheets and emails i can let you read that i get from defra on a regular basis ..

Can i just add this is another issue that committee's have to follow the -welfare of our sport and its dogs and owners (the work that has to go into been on a committee that people don't think about)

While i am on this subject i would like to say A BIG THANK YOU TO JAC'S (wild whippets )..for all the work you put in at the end of 07 and the beginning of 08 for the NNWRF in providing all the relevant information regarding the out break of Canine Respiratory Disease Synopsis and also running about to pick up matting and the right disinfectant which was used at all our bend meetings ..in hope that none of our members dogs were affected ...Thanks again

 

[milly]

Thanks think it was me who brought it up (defra)Will post about what i think defra  might take some writing so bear with me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Going to do this as Short as possible or else i could go into for weeks and its a little mind blowing unless its studied

To allow ghd to race in our sport , may mean derfa could step in as certain rules and regulations in the racing of ghd's ...ghd's fall under two sectors licensed and regulated ( known as 'flapping' or 'independent racing) All the regulated sector are subject to the NGRC Rules of Racing ...which set standards for greyhound welfare and racing integrity, ranging from racecourse facilities and trainers' kennels to retirement of greyhounds. Disciplinary action is taken against anyone found failing to comply.

The ghd bodies has worked closely with DEFRA through the Greyhound Welfare Working Group on the regulation of greyhound welfare in England. (DEFRA could access the none ped whippet racing and claim we have to become a registered working group at any time )

If this was to happen it could be the end of our bend racing season , and maybe the straight to why , i will explain

1 st off we would have to have a veterinary Sergent present at all bend meetings , possible straights ...the cost it way over our limits

Other regulation and standards are as follows... Animal Welfare Bill (which all can search and read), Transportation and housing while traveling , also for us while camping , Feeding of certain knacker meats , Re-homing of greyhounds (which i believe would need someone to take on as a job to regulate the greyhound owners that are re-homing dogs

Sorry added : If someone from defra was to come to a none ped whippet event..i think it would be hard for us the committee to argue the point that some of our no limit dogs are none ped whippet and not greyhounds

Hope Ive made that short enough , but anyone wanting to find out more about it can go to the defra web site and read up ... Ive also got news sheets and emails i can let you read that i get from defra on a regular basis ..

Can i just add this is another issue that committee's have to follow the -welfare of our sport and its dogs and owners (the work that has to go into been on a committee that people don't think about)

While i am on this subject i would like to say A BIG THANK YOU TO JAC'S (wild whippets )..for all the work you put in at the end of 07 and the beginning of 08 for the NNWRF in providing all the relevant information regarding the out break of Canine Respiratory Disease Synopsis and also running about to pick up matting and the right disinfectant which was used at all our bend meetings ..in hope that none of our members dogs were affected ...Thanks again

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

She's a goodun is our Jac's :thumbsup:

o