Steve

if you think working breeders are interested in being flexible about producing dogs that work, think again. If you think all dog breeds are "extreme" again, think again. There is a word in many breed standards that people need to find. It is "moderate". Ok so there's a start. Moderate. Help breeders to see it, understand it, grasp it, appreciate it, breed for it, and even allow them to win ribbons for it. By that I mean expect judges to award it rather than the other end of the lead or the current rampant rend of excess in whatever breed Its not "a start". Its been in those standards from the get go. Breed standards are not the demon in the piece. Breeding and rewarding exaggeration IS. For sighthounds, extremes of conformation are a departure from standards and a disaster for function. That is why so much effort went into bringing in lure coursing as a ANKC test of sighthound function. And now, of course, that is under threat in NSW with the Greyhound Racing report's complete over reach into the pet world. Yep.

Heres how I see it then. In laymans terms. You are staking every thing on a reality that exists only in the K.Cs. You won't recognize any other possible reality. Its got to be Pedgirees all the way. You will risk every thing, for every one on your belief the pedigree system alone has a future. Pedigree dogs, Or no dogs. If your faith is so great you better pray. I'll be looking for a more favorable response to DOGS else where. Theres no time for this. Looks like this is the best response I can hope for here ("Academic weasel words") I tried. Dog help you. Dont be ridiculous - how you got that from what I said is way beyond me and for the record I am working outside of the recognised KCs with other realities. My faith in what ? The current ANKC pedigree system? That's zero and why I am in a group that is moving independently. If you have tried then exactly what is it that you are telling us YOU think we should do? I see loads of comments you make about environment and science and the situation as you see it often with lack of informed facts into the base system but whether you like it or not I really honestly dont have a real clue about what you are saying I understand that this is something you have taken personally and I have had no desire to be offensive or rude but getting mad at us because we dont understand you takes us nowhere Im more than happy for you to be critical of the ANKC system but your criticisms must be factual and sometimes they dont read that way. Im not defending them Im explaining them. I think you are suggesting opening the stud books but then you say you are not other times I thinK I get it and then I dont and clearly you dont always get what Im saying either or these comments wouldnt have been made. So please if you have something that you want to say that you think will help us tell us what you think solutions are

Yes good thinking except that's not what they are on about that is specific to purebred dogs .How we keep them is already being dealt with and the CCs are working hard to be sure they have this bit covered the whole puppy farming thing is already in the mix for all breeders. Having a bit of paper to say your dog or its parents have been health tested and more education wont help in that area as with health testing you can still have dogs that get sick and suffer and they still make puppies that do too. It also depends what you are health testing for and guess what people who are breeding outside of the ANKC pedigree system are actually having their dogs health tested too and in many cases more than the registered breeders are.

Except breeders have been well trained to keep their campfires low and stay off the track - say too much get too obvious about who you are and what you do and you are likely to be wallopped. Those who have more than one or two dogs who have a genuine interest in seeing it stay as it is are the least likely to make waves and shout about it . We are divided -where are the dog related groups who have stood up for the greyhound people where are the dog related groups who join with us to fight crap legislation - where are we if they need us. How many dog related people and groups are going to go in and shout and donate money to help the people who compete in lure work?

Yes. Sheridan's is an accurate precis. FFS I'm trying to save your sorry 'victim' butts, poor you and poor my my breed. Guess you are on your own. Suggest you start by explaining how you are saving poor us in language we can comprehend. With you there. I find it incredibly difficult to read mm's posts. I can comprehend basically everyone else's posts, even the longer ones, but there is another language in mm's posts which just don't seem to sink in. I've even read a so-called explanation and it made no sense. I don't really have much to add to this conversation but I would suggest the reason the owners of Greyhounds are suggesting they'll have to put their dogs down is because the money they were getting in prize money etc. was going toward feeding their dogs. Maybe I'm just a farmer's daughter but if I don't have a use for an animal (including enjoying their company), it has to go. With the tide of Greyhounds being out of a job, there will most likely be many needing homes & not enough homes - would it be better if people end up on the street just so they can feed their dogs?? Or perhaps it's a sensible choice to put the dogs to sleep rather than risk it ending up in a bad position due to a rushed rehoming process. If it were me and they really do take it to a ban I would simply put them all to sleep if the only other option was the RSPCA. Think they have overlooked the fact that having a vet kill your dogs is still perfectly legal and just because the bleeding hearts will feel better if there are RSPCA "helping" doesn't mean the owners are going to let them take the bow for taking them on. Agreed. I saw somewhere that the RSPCA has put down the same number of dogs as the greyhound industry in NSW. It works out to about 5000 dogs per year. Yeah but they get money for doing it. Does anyone really believe they are in there with their hand up and collecting dogs which they have already said are so very hard to find homes for and they are doing it for free? If my dogs were going to go to God Im going to be the one holding their hand

Colour and the pedigree system in Australia is tied up in the limited register. In every other country but ours are able to be used for breeding but not showing As at Jan 2017 the ANKC is bringing in new amendments which will enable some colours not able to be used now used because up till then any non recognized or preferable colour is automatically placed on the limited register not able to be on the main register BUT this is only if the breed club agrees for that to happen in their breed.

Further to the last post - this is the list of current restrictions on registrations. My link Sections 6 and 8

Sorry Ruralpug I didn't even notice your post my response was to the one above it . We have considered breed wardens but that brings us to various issues that we felt were too difficult to manage. We looked at various tests and studies of the results of these tests and eliminated those that did not show improvement. This is why we require the fitness tests to be supervised and signed off by a vet. It's something that is always objective and non corruptible or biased. the vets have no vested interest in the "betterment of the breed " etc. The breed wardens are supposed to be the breed clubs and the power to introduce mandatory requirements before registration is and always has been in their hands. The health scoring that is in place comes from the breed clubs - Labs and GSD have to be hip and elbow scored etc before a litter can be registered. Any breeding protocols recommended are just that recommended. Last time I looked only one or two tests were mandatory via DNA for one or two breeds. These still don't go anywhere near addressing how conformation may impact on health and welfare. I know that not all purebred breeders are like that have a good look at some of the comments and I wear the bruises from being belted often enough to know its pretty much the majority view in the purebred dog world. I get the fit for purpose push but I breed beagles I dont want them fit for hunting because it makes them horrible pets and in 40 years Ive never sold one or used one for hunting. If you are going to test beagles for how well they hunt these days most would do nowhere near as well as their ancestors did l but they can take a walk without ill effects, they can play and cope with warm and cold weather without needing special care etc. Pugs,pekes, cavs etc are supposed to be lounge lizards .So regardless of the purpose what ever it is determined to be first and foremost it HAS to be about quality of life. I have no desire to run a marathon or even run at all for that matter but if I want to walk down to the roadway on my property I dont want to have to be carried home. these breeds can have the temperament and the qualities which make them docile and less energetic without needing to have their health compromised. A show ribbon has never been about health or purpose its been about judging the dog against the breed standard or at least the current interpretation of the breed standard. AR will blame the show ring just as they blamed the race track but at the end of the day its the breeders who could help change it but first they have to see it. Ive no desire to see dogs tested for these things to gain a championship. I would like to see breeders breeding less extreme dogs which could be awarded over those which are extreme and see it swing the other way. But we have to be offering the judges the alternatives before we see less extreme dogs awarded or blame the judges for awarding the only thing they are offered. The system that encompasses agreements with other FCI registries, the limited register, the "betterment of the breed" and breeding to the standard. Breed clubs not being able to be over ridden even if they should be and the complete desensitisation to the potential lower quality of life a dog will have as conformation becomes more extreme is entrenched - not by all but enough to allow the AR to feel the wind in their nostrils as they race toward legislation to stop us.

It all depends on where the breeder sees their target market Breeders who place high priority on champions and want to attract people who want dogs with champion parents are going to present a different face than a breeder who doesn't show and sells puppies to people who don't care about if there are champions Depending on who is looking some will like it other wont Either way its up to the breeders to promote and showcase their dogs and their breeds - what you think is a good thing other could care less about . Coefficients of breeding would be the absolute last thing on my list of what I would be looking for or that I feel I need to show to my potential puppy buyers.

Precisely the sort of post I was referring to above. What do you mean?

Because you get what you select for and if you don't work them you select for things differently. Breeds that are known to do specific work have fared better in the conformation department than those which are bred to sit on laps - different selection criteria.

Of course recessives are important but they are easy to identify and we can easily show how our testing is ensuring that the incidence of such things is reducing - we are not going to be pinged on these as we keep saying over and over what we are doing. Yes we do need to mainstream them but this is a huge ask because most are still saying its not us or the breed wasn't meant to be doing blah blah blah, We have people running breed clubs who are breeding dogs which may not be champions if things change and it is the breed club which call the shots re testing and registration requirements. Until we acknowledge where the attack is coming form and develop strategies to demonstrate we get it and we are making a difference - that we don't need welfare entities to step in because too many dogs are suffering nothing is going to be mainstreamed. Right now people are saying that Im out of line for saying what the rest of the world can see because for one reason or another purebred dogs breeders cant see its about the conformation that will be used to demonstrate that we are in an industry which has dogs which suffer due to the way they look ,that live less years than they should and have less quality of life than they could if we see what we are being told is the case and be seen to accept it and DO something about fixing it.

But you are still not hearing it .The types of health screening you are talking about reduce recessives and ensure that a dog used for breeding is in good condition for her breed etc All dogs can get these types of issues no matter what they look like and no one is disputing that these things will help in reducing these types of things. The things that are being targeted or at least targeted first are things that are unique to specific breeds that cant be fixed unless they LOOK less extreme. One Example British Bulldog - Country of Origin has changed its breed standard - Australia wont accept the amendments because of ANKC policy . Specific example of one of the differences is British has been changed to "Skull relatively large in circumference" Source The Australian one says "The skull should be very large - the larger the better - and in circumference should measure (round in front of the ears) at least the height of the dog at the shoulders. Source The ANKC is not demonstrating that it is doing anything to lower the incidence of dogs suffering due to their conformation. The stuff they say they are doing doesn't count because they cant see what it is that people other than them are seeing as cruelty. Most other countries have adopted the amended breed standard and some have introduced mandatory testing such as the one the MDBA has for brachy head dogs to test their fitness level before during and after exercise so we can gauge where they are and demonstrate how we are getting improvement even if it means they dont quite fit the Australian breed standard Have a look at these breeds 100 years ago and accept we are looking pretty bad - stop defending the indefensible and REALLY become proactive put in place action plans,mandatory breeding protocols to enable us to demonstrate that WE GET IT and what we are doing and what progress we can demonstrate we are getting as we proceed There are currently half a dozen breeds which have to have mandatory testing to register a litter with the ANKC - mickey mouse tests which do not have anything to do with how the dog's welfare is compromised by its looks or its selection. Even if a breed club recommends them a recommendation means nothing. Purebred breeders will spew forth "why would you breed a dog that isn't a good example of the breed standard" and no dog that is out side of the current standard is going to get a shot at a championship. These dogs were never intended for racing etc The MDBA has health results on every pedigree and it records health issues such as allergies etc. Data is collected from several sources especially puppy buyers. We have introduced fitness tests for brachy head dogs pre,during and post exercise we are in the process right now of introducing breeding protocols across the board which are about health and welfare. We intend to show that we get it and what we are doing about it, be seen to be doing something about it. Show that it can be done before its at a point where some things we take for granted are banned.

I've been saying this for years and it's only in the last year that a few people have started to agree with me. Quite a lot of prominent DOLers lambasted me for saying so because I'd never bred a litter and didn't show dogs. I didn't know what I was talking about. Because doing something and being proactive needs more than trying to defend why we breed them or how registered breeders are beyond being accused of cruelty. Its going to take identifying the selection errors and being seen to be doing something and demonstrating how what they are doing is making progress. The greyhound people cannot see how what they do is seen by others as being so cruel they are being shut down and ANKC breeders are no different and will still be saying we dont get it when it comes.

How about the problrms get fixed instead of people having a victim mentality?

OT, but I hardly think watching a 16 week old Peke pup run a little in Winter is proof it has no problems. The sheep, for instance, isn't puffing at all from that little run. The Peke is running by bunny hopping from hind legs to front, signs that it's back is too long for its leg length. Stenotic nares and, in particular, elongated soft palate, are definitely progressive and likely to be worse in older dogs than in pups. Show me an adult Peke working in hot weather without curling its tongue out to clear its airway, and I'll be more convinced. The Crufts winner needed ice bricks after its little step out. I'll point out (again) that the 'job' of the peke was sitting in someone's lap. It doesn't run around hills and herd sheep or catch vermin for a living. That is not its job. I have read its movement may have been deliberately bred in to stop it running off. If I was wearing a cost like that - a breed trait - and going around under those lights if probably need an ice pack, too, and so would you. I wish people would stop assuming every dog is supposed to be whizzing around a ring like a hyper springer spaniel because they're not. well sadly I doubt that will be enough to give a tick to those who breed them. Im pretty sure that what they were intended for and how that impacts on their health might be part of the case they try to make against them - but apart from that when you look at a champ back when showing dogs began and you could argue the type was designed to sit on a lap etc one now Im not sure thats a good defence. Feb 2016 vets in sweden have called for them to be banned as well. source

double post

Well - here is how I see it. Right now there are a whole heap of people who are breeding dogs which have conformational features that give them a lesser quality of life - that's a fact. Whilst some people who breed such dogs do so within the pedigree system far, far more of them do so outside of the pedigree system where they have a choice without third party accountability to chuck in a different breed here or there or to use papered or non papered dogs. If the breeding of some dogs with particular conformational features are banned then it will be EVERYONE not just the pedigree breeders who will be stopped from breeding them. If the reason for producing dogs with conformational issues is blamed on the show ring then its no longer a far stretch to see it may be possible to do to dog showing what has been done to greyhound racing.If showing dogs as well as or separate to banning some physical features is banned then obviously the pedigree breeders who show their dogs who have such features would be thrown to the wolves. Then the ratbags can say - well they have had years to do something about it - this has been on the table at least since pedigreed dogs exposed.Their dogs still have exaggerated features and some health issues they still suffer due to the way they are selected . Blame the fact that a handful show them so they are selected for the showring and completely over look the fact that there are a bigger bunch of registered breeders who breed them and dont show and there is a massive bunch who breed them ,have greater choices and still select them with the same features. If there cannot be shown what is being done and how it is making a difference which will clearly demonstrate that it will take us through to dogs not being born with such health problems then its a case of I told you so Take a good look at the response last time to critics of brachy head dogs put out by the Ccs and search through their mandatory protocols for registration for such breeds and tell me you are confident that if the time comes that there is an ANKC defence because Im not liking the odds. Within the pedigree system there is the ability to use dogs which are not pedigreed or of a different breed. There are new breeds being developed all the time .The pedigree system does not dictate community standards and a clear demonstration of that is the fact that the CCs have taken on things pushed on them by animal rights and the loud radicals who have never bred a dog which bear no resemblance to what is best for the dogs or the science of the species . Everything they do is to placate the nutters including all of the crazy new regs and policies and they still cant see that if it comes it wont be about numbers or poo on the ground it will be about how the whole industry selects dogs for breeding which produce dogs which will need special care etc their whole lives. because they just dont get that the whole rest of the world sees cruelty when they see a champion!

Yes. Sheridan's is an accurate precis. FFS I'm trying to save your sorry 'victim' butts, poor you and poor my my breed. Guess you are on your own. Suggest you start by explaining how you are saving poor us in language we can comprehend. With you there. I find it incredibly difficult to read mm's posts. I can comprehend basically everyone else's posts, even the longer ones, but there is another language in mm's posts which just don't seem to sink in. I've even read a so-called explanation and it made no sense. I don't really have much to add to this conversation but I would suggest the reason the owners of Greyhounds are suggesting they'll have to put their dogs down is because the money they were getting in prize money etc. was going toward feeding their dogs. Maybe I'm just a farmer's daughter but if I don't have a use for an animal (including enjoying their company), it has to go. With the tide of Greyhounds being out of a job, there will most likely be many needing homes & not enough homes - would it be better if people end up on the street just so they can feed their dogs?? Or perhaps it's a sensible choice to put the dogs to sleep rather than risk it ending up in a bad position due to a rushed rehoming process. If it were me and they really do take it to a ban I would simply put them all to sleep if the only other option was the RSPCA. Think they have overlooked the fact that having a vet kill your dogs is still perfectly legal and just because the bleeding hearts will feel better if there are RSPCA "helping" doesn't mean the owners are going to let them take the bow for taking them on.

Stuff like this from the Animals Australia facebook page, The last quote says it all really. "Now Mr Baird has no option than to Ban Pet Ownership as well. With Puppy Farms and the fact that 250000 unwanted pets are put down each year. Pretty much the same reason for banning Greyhounds, just on a far bigger scale." "Great work - now we just need Mike Baird to continue to adopt Animal Justice Party policies, reverse the Ag Gag laws, stop the brumby culls and place a ban on all domestic dog and cat breeding until no shelter animals need to be destroyed." "stop the over breeding of all animals from back street breeders.." "The thing is how many dogs and cats are put down in the pounds each year,nobody cares" "Dogs and cats are bred for the pet industry. When they get too big or dig up the yard or the child grows tied of them they are abandoned, and unless rehoused are put down. I just would like too know how the pet industry stacks up to the greyhound industry." "its exactly the same issue just a different industry." (Had to take the names out for privacy) "yep. So go tackle the shelters. These guys are working on the greyhound industry for now. They cant do everything! Just be happy there is progress in this field. But yes please go do something for the shelters. Pitch in. Good on you. Thanks" "I'm not saying two wrongs make a right at all. If you ban the greyhound industry on the grounds of cruelty that has been highlighted then you must also ban the pet industry." "It's people doing the wrong thing that is the problem, both with greyhounds and pets. So you must ban both to solve the issues. Otherwise it's just plain Hypocrisy." "There are a lot of organisations campaigning to stop puppy farms because they are doing some awful things also. I personally think it should be illegal to own and breed an undesexed dog and only registered breeders with strict limits and welfare rules should be allowed to breed.Fingers crossed that is the next step governments will take." "it's good to see so many in support of Banning Pet ownership. It's the only way to stop the cruelty." --Lhok Nihilists. Dog extinction proponents. And they're saying to Baird, 'Come in, spinner.' Yep and when I watched his interview today with RSPCA offended because they have been accused of high kill rates and lamenting how hard this breed is to rehome blah blah blah it left no doubt in my mind that's exactly what they have done.

Yes. Sheridan's is an accurate precis. FFS I'm trying to save your sorry 'victim' butts, poor you and poor my my breed. Guess you are on your own. No one is questioning your motivation MM but I cant help the fact that I cant follow what you are talking about much of the time. I acknowledge this is my problem but your lectures simply go way over my head. I'm simply not smart enough to get what you mean. just when I think I get some of it you tell me you never said that - its easier to turn off.

Ive got Maremma. I have two boundary fences - one has just ordinary farm clip lock fencing in good repair and the more interior fence has clip lock with bird wire over it .There is 15 metres between the two boundary fences - which cost me a packet by the way. Anyway Some idiot walks their dog on the showground behind my property. Their dog gets through the first fence so the Maremma start yelling at it to bugger off - instead the dog gets a bit of its head inside the second fence at the corner where the tie wire is easier to break which attaches the bird wire to the clip lock. So the owner turns up to my house with a vet bill of $300 which he tells me I have to pay because my dog bit his and he wants it declared a dangerous dog. One thing led to another and I told him he was lucky thats all the dog did and if it had come any further it would be dead .Thats why I have my own dogs to defend me and my property I threatened to let the dogs out on him if he didn't bugger off and wake up to himself. Of course I wasn't paying his vet bill and that's just how I think about your wombat neighbour .No one in their right mind would expect you to pay for something that you did everything to prevent when its on your property. Even if there is a gap its not your dog getting out and its his dog getting on your side! Tell him to suck a budgie.

If there is ever a ban placed on the breeding of dogs with specific conformation it wont be only placed on those who are only breeding dogs with traceable pedigrees or those who only place importance on them. There are many many more people who are breeding dogs with brachy heads than those who use a pedigree system who will be affected .The banning of Scottish fold cats doesnt mention a pedigree or whether someone even has a pedigree for the cat or if they are wiythin the cat pedigree system - its about how the cat looks. The pedigree system has already done what they wanted and made it against their codes to breed close relatives because some u beaut professor decided that it was all about in breeding rather than selection. The Pedigree system, like the Grey hound industry, is not an inclusive cultural identity. Its an exclusive one. No. Banns won't only affect pedigrees. They will affect cultural standards and values. Because they won't be shared. Again, Its a single species and can't be divided along lines of value. What reduces one section of the environment reduces all in one way or another. Less resources available for purpose. We lose purpose. Sharing values through inclusive cultures allows for the best of all demonstrated values to be chosen in support of any specific purpose, adding to it. Exclusive cultures do the opposite. Reducing the 'standards' (or values) we accept reduces the species. Its all those standards and values together that allow the community to choose from those that ADD to their purpose. It's divided along lines of known ancestry and predictability of characteristics and traits vs random breeding. You seem to be attributing attributes to the idea of a pedigree in and of itself having value. It doesn't. A pedigree is simply a record of ancestry and proves that the animal has the ancestry listed. Some people value certain attributes and characateristics in a dog and selectively breed for them. That facilitates choice. What the hell any of this has to do with the ban on greyhound racing is utterly beyond me. The sport is not being banned because the dogs have pedigrees. They don't have ANKC pedigrees anyway. Cynical use of this decision to promote an anti-pedigree dog agenda? Hardly in the spirit of this forum. Is that whats being said - buggered if I understand most of what is said or meant once this stuff starts up.

Not sure that helps because around here vets dont belong to the AVA Sorry, I meant VPB. I would say it increases at a reasonably significant rate. 2010 vets registered in NSW was 2447 2014 was 2834 2015 was 2998 That's around 100 plus a year increase. Cant really see that this is proof of pet population falling.

If there is ever a ban placed on the breeding of dogs with specific conformation it wont be only placed on those who are only breeding dogs with traceable pedigrees or those who only place importance on them. There are many many more people who are breeding dogs with brachy heads than those who use a pedigree system who will be affected .The banning of Scottish fold cats doesnt mention a pedigree or whether someone even has a pedigree for the cat or if they are wiythin the cat pedigree system - its about how the cat looks. The pedigree system has already done what they wanted and made it against their codes to breed close relatives because some u beaut professor decided that it was all about in breeding rather than selection.