THE KENNEL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3196, 16 June 1915, Page 63

THE KENNEL.

Ev Tup.s.on.

Fanciers and breeders of dogs are cordially invited to contribute to this column. “Terror” will endeavour to make this department as interesting and up-to-date as possible, but in order to do this he must have the co-operation of his readers, hence he trusts this invitation will be cheerluliy responded to.

' —lt is advisable to treat a dog on-its return from the show as though you were certain it has contracted a skin disease there, or that it has gathered vermin of some sort. It is foolish to wait for developments, for “sooner ended soonest mended.” A good wash with a strong soap and Jeyes’ fluid, or other disinfectant, may prevent a pernicious skin trouble from getting a strong hold, and save a lot of future trouble; or it may destroy the one or two visitors of the vermin species, which, if left alone, may soon breed into millions. The following letter from Mr Glover I forwarded to the judge, Mr Kyle, so that his reply might appear alongside the complaint, but Mr Kyle simply says:_ “Never take any notice of after-show criticisms. My time is too much taken up. Many thanks for your consideration.” Dear “Terror,” —1 desire to draw attention to two matters that occurred in the judging at the recent show of tiie Dunedin Fanciers’ Club. In the Field Spaniels—Pups, Dogs or Bitches —there were three entries Irish Guard, Erin’s Pride, and Royal Dinnie. They were placed by the judge in this order—Erin’s Pride 1, Irish Guard 2, Royal Dinnie 3. In the Open Class the same dogs competed without leaving the ring, with the addition of Home Rule, Nancy May, and Trilby. These were placed by the judge—Trilby 1, Home Rule 2, and Irish Guard (second in the Puppy Class) 5, Royal Dinnie (third in the Puppy Class) 4, Erin’s Pride (first in the Puppy Class) unplaced. Truly the judgment of a Solomon! It may be argued that this was an oversight on the part of the judge; but such oversights merely point the incompetent judge and create the dissatisfied exhibitor. As a prominent fancier remarked to the writer when commenting on the judging of these spaniels: “That’s not judging; it’s guessing.” Unfortunately, Mr Kyle could not even “guess” twice alike, though a reference to his notes might have assisted him. Then in the Cocker Spaniels, black, Open Class, Musselburgh Dandy and Toss were the additions to the previous class—Dogs New Zealand-bred. The judge did not cast a glance at Musselburgh Dandy. The poorest specimen of a dog that enters the ring is at least entitled to a glance from the judge, if only to be “culled” ! But that Musselburgh Dandy is not altogether without merit is evidenced by_ the fact that he had on a previous occasion been placed ahead of two of the three dogs obtaining the positions on this oocasiop, when the third dog was not a competitor. Had Mr Kyle looked at the dog and then given his decision I should have been prepared to abide by Irs decision, though I might have questioned his judgment. Mr Kyle may be a good judge of some breeds, hut as a judge of spaniels he is certainly no marvel. Whilst on the subject of judging cockers, I should like to ask what standard (if any) is followed in judging these merry little dogs, as it appears to mo that there is a sort of free and easy stylo amongst judges, and breeders are at a loss to know what to try for. The English Cocker Spaniel Club has set a standard, and if this were adopted in New Zealand it would simplify matters considerably, though I realise that there are difficulties in the way of judging to hard and fast rules. It is little use breeders going to the expense of importing good dogs only to find that they arc subject to the vagaries of judges. Tf mv letter is the means of bringing judges to a truer sense of their duties and responsibilities, I shall feel that it ban not been written in vain.—l am, etc.. J. R. Glover. The three following paragranhs relative to “Fleas.” “Lice.” and “Ticks” resneetivelv are by Mr F. T. Barton. M.R.0.V.5., and are for the information of any who maw find that the nests referred to have already got a footing ia their kennels:—

Lice. —The dog lotise (Trichodeots latus) is a terribly annoying pest, especially to puppies. Really it is the outcome of neglect.

Once it makes its appearance in a kennel the most rigid measures ought to be adopted in order to exterminate these pests. Burn the bedding, etc., and was the fittings with a strong solution (decoction) of tobacco. For the destruction of lice upon puppies and adult dogs a harmless but effectual application is an infusion of quassia chips. Add gib of the ciiips to every two quarts of boiling water, and allow the same to stand for 12 hours. Ihe lime and sulphur lotion —slaked lime Boz, flower of sulphur Boz, water two quarts—is another remedy. A drachm of oil of stavesaorc to a pint of linseed oil can be tided if other remedies have failed.

Ticks.—These are true blood-sucking parasites, and when numerous rapidly cause the loss of flesh. When the parasites are distended they have the shape and likeness of an oval pearl. The best means of getting rid of them is by taking them off with the fingers, searching carefully amongst the hairs. A creolin bath _ (loz to the gallon of water) will be of service as a preventive. Fleas.—Amongst house pets these are specially annoying, knowing that both children and adults arc often seriously annoyed with the irritation they produce, upon the skin. An occasional creolin bath (loz to one gallon of tepid water) docs good. Sprinkling the bedding with a little oil of eucalyptus is advantageous. Turpentine or terebene can be substituted. Sprayiuw the coat with the following will be found effectual in both destroying and keeping those tormentors in abeyance Oil of eucalyptus 2 drachms, terebene 2 drachms, carbolic acid g drachm, liquor ammonia 2 drachms, rose water lOoz Mix, and spray into the hair with an odorateur. A fancier in the. Old Country/writing of the tendency to large size in TVish terriers, sums up his remarks with;—‘‘But, alas ! how it ends—big men, big dogs, big prices, big profits, big fools.” /Big fools,” apparently, are the fanciers who* give fabulous sum for dogs which have won because owned by big men, and have managed to get to the front under a certain class of judge. Our Dogs reports a case of “finding a dog as follow'sAn impression seems to prevail largely in the punlic mind that a person who ‘ finds ’ a dog, takes it in, feeds it, and advertises it in the papers has done all that can be reasonably expected of him in an endeavour to ascertain its rightful owner. Some, ’ leco, go farther and are under the mistaken belief that if no owner turns up for the dog after it has been so advertised, wit/ the additional announcement, ‘if not claimed within so many days,’ the dog is then legally theirs. All this is a fallacy. There is not, and never was, any such thing as the legal ‘ finding ’ of a dog. The rightful owner of a dog that has been ‘ found ’ can legally claim his property at any time, and the person who may have ‘ found ’ it, as he thought, has no legal claim whtaever upon the owner for the dog’s keep, nor for advertising it, simply because he never authorised the finder to make that expenditure on his behalf. Most owners will, in such cases, readily compensate persons who may have ‘ found ’ his dog and treated it well, as a matter of common fairness, especially if he or she has put forth reasonable endeavours to ascertain the dog’s owner; but this is entirely optional. On the other hand, an owner or the police may prosecute the ‘finder’ for wrongful detention, and therefore, when persons ‘find’ dogs, they will bo well advised not to detain them at all, but to at once take them to their owners (if they know them), or, if they do not, to the nearest police station, if they wish to avoid the pains and penalties in which Mr Arthur Varley has just been mulcted.”