Steve

Guaranteed ancestry. What a dog looks like may not be what a dog is. A pedigree is not just a piece of paper. Family trees matter. They don't matter just in pedigrees though. They matter in any dog. Steve, I believe this addresses your post also. The same things matter weather you are breeding to a pedigree or not. You may believe otherwise, but we are not talking about you the individual, who has a choice in your beliefs. We ARE talking about a culture, bound by that rule in its constitution and the cumulative effects of how that rule will be interpreted at any given point in time, and applied to any problem in any given point in time. By the culture. The same values, knowledge of ancestral history, apply to ANY deliberate breeding. Those values don't depend on a certificate of pedigree to validate them. Not in reality. The belief they DO require a certificate of validation is why pedigree breders don't teach those values outside of the K.C environment though, and why those values are being lost. WITHOUT that rule, a pedigree would represent the knowledge and ancestry behind a breed. With that rule, all it can be is a certificate of validation. It can NEVER guarantee those values are there or fully appreciated by the breeder. Putting forward arguments af natural law are not 'pointless' when any species depends on those same laws for survival and viability. Despite artificial selection. The sciences of Physics, psychology, language, Evolution and biology are not irrelevant because you select a dog rather than take it. All those subjects are relevant and seem to support this theory. The 'Its not us' and 'show us the proof' responses to the problems are BECAUSE of that rule. It doesn't allow members to see there is problem and respond to address it. To ask, 'How can we add and demonstrate better value so those traits are no longer seen as a problem?' The problem is seen in other terms. "How do we eliminate those problems and who/what dogs will be the target?' We sure as hell wont eliminate those problems by pushing for that rule to be removed because right up until there is no life left that rule will stay. If there is an acknowledgment of that and discussion can move on to finding REALISTIC solutions to help ensure we do what is best for the dogs we may make a small step forward. You have to know which battles you can win and right or wrong no drum banging is going to change that rule. But based on what I see here - there is a hell of long way before strategies are actually developed that will see the breeds still exist into the next century. Until its clear you speak for all K.C Orgs. then, I will trust the silence means they are waiting for the RIGHT answer, when and if that becomes clear. If its about the dogs. Maybe thinking of some of the enormous positive implications of this, if it turns out to be correct, as I have no doubts it will. Physics governs life. Human cultures mimic and repeat 'Laws' laid down at the cellular and genetic level. This ties together various science disciplines. We are talking cultural evolution. A cultural imperative, as much as any genetic imperative. I don't see you getting any where with out changing that. You do realize I am not promoting the opening of stud books, I hope? Because I believe this solution in most cases would mean an end to increasing 'red tape' and restrictions, as well as increasing genetic variability without that. It does not ask the K.cs to be any more than the registry they set out to be. It does not force them into a greater role. Or to 'police' anyone more than current rules allow. It doesn't COST them anything. It only brings value, unless they believe a pedigree has MORE value than the dog it represents and I prefer to hope thats not a reasoned position. You want realistic solutions based on faith? Right up until theres no life left? Be careful what you ask for. I don't believe you can health test, "experimental breed", blame or even out cross your way out of this. Not with out addressing the cause. Yeah, you have to know which battles you can win. And which will cost most. And what the prize is. Then take responsibility for your choices. So lets be clear I don't speak for any KC org. I speak for what I believe is best for the dogs and the long term viability of the various breeds. I dont believe they have been silent but I dont agree with how they have responded. If what turns out to be correct? No I don't realize you are not promoting opening stud books. Not that I would want to fight you too much if that's what you were advocating .I think there may be a viable reason in some breeds to do exactly that and as Ive explained before the KC have provision for that to happen if they deem that to be in the breeds best interest. Breeding dogs with longer noses ,less heavy chests, finer necks, less skin folds etc isnt really that hard to do and is easier than keeping to the current models. the breed standards allow for this as they are with a different interpretation on what is moderately short etc. I have no real idea of what you think the solution is. I also have No idea what you are getting at by saying I want real solutions based on faith because my opinion of what is required is based on science and Ive been in the dog world long enough to know how far faith alone would take us. I dont see us getting anywhere without changing the culture and clearly the welfare orgs think the same because they have a strategic plan to change the way the public view breeding practices which impact quality of life ,for that to put pressure on the culture until it changes to ensure its survival or until they can render them weak enough to go in for the kill. The cause and the base culture is much more complicated than you give credit for including the fact that National Kennel Clubs worldwide have cut deals internationally with the FCI to protect themselves financially under the guise of protecting the breeds that are now 100 plus years old.

That's the heart of this matter. In any other field where human intervention determines quality or not (cars, electrical equipment, whatever), we don't ban all because some produce poor quality examples. In fact, emphasis goes on identifying who, where & how quality is produced & setting that as the only acceptable standard. For dogs, as you point out, it's likely to be registered breeders who abide by a breed standard that rejects variations which cause health & functioning problems. The Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE) used to have a subtle hint on their web page about buying a dog/puppy, which pointed in that direction. Maybe it's time to spell this issue out more strongly to the public. the major problem is that it seems that some have already determined that it is unlikely to be registered breeders because of the breed standard.- which is being perceived to not reject health and functioning problems. RSPCA "Breeders of brachycephalicdogs intended for the show ring are motivated to selectanimals to maintain breed standards; however, somestandards are inherently putting dogs at risk of BOAS" My link Well, citing the anti-pedigree dog RSPCA does nothing for your credibility. Play the ball Sheridan - when you keep picking on the man its called bullying.

That's the heart of this matter. In any other field where human intervention determines quality or not (cars, electrical equipment, whatever), we don't ban all because some produce poor quality examples. In fact, emphasis goes on identifying who, where & how quality is produced & setting that as the only acceptable standard. For dogs, as you point out, it's likely to be registered breeders who abide by a breed standard that rejects variations which cause health & functioning problems. The Australian Consumers' Association (CHOICE) used to have a subtle hint on their web page about buying a dog/puppy, which pointed in that direction. Maybe it's time to spell this issue out more strongly to the public. the major problem is that it seems that some have already determined that it is unlikely to be registered breeders because of the breed standard.- which is being perceived to not reject health and functioning problems. RSPCA "Breeders of brachycephalicdogs intended for the show ring are motivated to selectanimals to maintain breed standards; however, somestandards are inherently putting dogs at risk of BOAS" My link

Exactly but in this case the body of evidence available is weighted against us so if we are to get the desired outcome - healthier dogs which can be proven to be bred by pedigree breeders of these breeds its going to take more than "its not us " It would seem to make more sense to me to gather evidence to prove your point rather than simply demanding the other side shows theirs - which they are doing without being asked. No, the weight of cited evidence. There is a difference. And you know very well the difficulty of providing evidence from BYBs and puppyfarmers who do not health test and who breed possibly purebred but pedigree unregistered dogs. I recall some years ago you showing a photo of two very similar dogs and asking which was the purebred. Any number of people breed purebred but without pedigree dogs. Having a purebred dog doesn't equal a pedigree dog. The number of pedigree dogs bred in this country alone would suggest all these issues are not all from pedigree breeders. That alone should give you pause but it doesn't. And that concerns me. You seem to think Im on the other side - Thats crazy- why would you think I would say or think that all of these dogs are only from registered purebred breeders ? Reality is though that not all registered purebred breeders are innocent either. I want us to be able to come out at the end with exemptions and for our breeds and our dogs to live happily ever after and you are right I do know the difficulty of providing that type of evidence and my major issue is still that stats collected are based on all dogs with no distinction - between a mutt and a registered purebred. But surely if registered purebred breeders do begin to collect data which is representative of only their dogs via mandatory testing and reporting of health issues when they go home etc that would then demonstrate the difference and provide the evidence. Im interested in being honest about the situation and developing strategies to ensure we are able to unequivocally breed dogs which dont suffer due to our decisions in our breeding programs . I dont want to pretend that some of the dogs with issues are not bred by us in order to try to protect the establishment. What Im saying is that if all we intend to fight this on is "its not us" "prove that it is us" that isn't going to fly. My primary interest is in what is best for the dogs over and above everything else and it might be better to concentrate on the topic rather than trying to bully me.

wrt the negative side effects of annual heartworm injections here an older thread: http://www.dolforums...erse-reactions/ It is a mystery why annual shots are still available and allowed in areas where heartworm infections are seasonal!!!!!! ...and for areas where it would be really required all year around monthly administrations would keep the toxic levels at least on a much lower threshold. There is much which is mysterious. I live in an area where there are no mozzies - never. My property is miles from any other with dogs, and yet the vets still insist I need heartworm meds .In NSW you have to give heartworm meds unless the vet advises against it - same if it is a breeding dog. Vaccination every year unless the vet advises against it - no such thing as a vet that advises against it around here. So you can let your pet dog go without heartworm meds and yearly vaccinations without breaking the law but if its a breeding dog - who cares? Follow the money.

Exactly but in this case the body of evidence available is weighted against us so if we are to get the desired outcome - healthier dogs which can be proven to be bred by pedigree breeders of these breeds its going to take more than "its not us " It would seem to make more sense to me to gather evidence to prove your point rather than simply demanding the other side shows theirs - which they are doing without being asked.

Yet another argument that wont make a scrap of difference to the outcome. I meant the discussion paper put out by the Victorian government but the science to back that up is overwhelming.

Guaranteed ancestry. What a dog looks like may not be what a dog is. A pedigree is not just a piece of paper. Family trees matter. They don't matter just in pedigrees though. They matter in any dog. Steve, I believe this addresses your post also. The same things matter weather you are breeding to a pedigree or not. You may believe otherwise, but we are not talking about you the individual, who has a choice in your beliefs. We ARE talking about a culture, bound by that rule in its constitution and the cumulative effects of how that rule will be interpreted at any given point in time, and applied to any problem in any given point in time. By the culture. The same values, knowledge of ancestral history, apply to ANY deliberate breeding. Those values don't depend on a certificate of pedigree to validate them. Not in reality. The belief they DO require a certificate of validation is why pedigree breders don't teach those values outside of the K.C environment though, and why those values are being lost. WITHOUT that rule, a pedigree would represent the knowledge and ancestry behind a breed. With that rule, all it can be is a certificate of validation. It can NEVER guarantee those values are there or fully appreciated by the breeder. Putting forward arguments af natural law are not 'pointless' when any species depends on those same laws for survival and viability. Despite artificial selection. The sciences of Physics, psychology, language, Evolution and biology are not irrelevant because you select a dog rather than take it. All those subjects are relevant and seem to support this theory. The 'Its not us' and 'show us the proof' responses to the problems are BECAUSE of that rule. It doesn't allow members to see there is problem and respond to address it. To ask, 'How can we add and demonstrate better value so those traits are no longer seen as a problem?' The problem is seen in other terms. "How do we eliminate those problems and who/what dogs will be the target?' We sure as hell wont eliminate those problems by pushing for that rule to be removed because right up until there is no life left that rule will stay. If there is an acknowledgment of that and discussion can move on to finding REALISTIC solutions to help ensure we do what is best for the dogs we may make a small step forward. You have to know which battles you can win and right or wrong no drum banging is going to change that rule. But based on what I see here - there is a hell of long way before strategies are actually developed that will see the breeds still exist into the next century.

My base comment is not about whether someone or some group is all at fault Sheridan. My point is that there is no point in trying to deal with it and fend off the potential conclusion by denying that it is not us when the whole wide world can clearly see that some of us are as guilty if not more guilty of breeding dogs which suffer due to their conformation. No one is saying every single dog with these features is completely unhealthy but the information and science tells us that every single dog with these features is less healthy than it could be due to the way they look. Thats not me saying this its straight out of the discussion paper . Shutting me up and taking swipes because you want push that I may have a vested interest isn't going to change the information that the public is going to be getting day after day. My vested interest is in the desire to focus on what is best for dogs and finding realistic solutions not just going along in the belief that pedigree breeders will be exempt because "its not us" . I am a pedigree dog breeder and every single one of our members is a pedigree dog breeder, many breed brachy head breeds, I bred boxers for 20 years our board members own pedigreed brachy head breeds - to suggest that I have a stake against pedigree dog breeders is ridiculous.

Its about the risk factors for your puppies. They are rescue pups, vaccination status of mother unknown, nutritional status of the mother and earlier for the litter unknown Recently been under stress Worming history and parasite control unknown. Obviously they need a shot for Parvo and because a live vaccine in this day and age comes with min 3 different diseases if you want a live vaccine given by a vet you get no choice but to take the C3 If the vet thought that your puppies should be vaccinated for these extra things - fine discuss it but don't jab them with the lot all at once when they are at high risk for an already lowered immune system. A whole other discussion can be had for the ability for a person to be able to have a live vaccine for only parvo or any other under current options from a vet. Given that a C7 is way outside what is normally recommended and the potential risk versus potential benefits I think the vet was wrong. What if anything that will mean later on wont tie that vet's decision in with the outcome.

Here we go again. This is Rubbish when we are talking about purebred dogs .There is no insinuation that there is some danger in dogs without a pedigree. I do not work with that assumption and not once in 40 years have I considered that any other dog without a pedigree is a danger. It simply doesn't help my goal. And even. If I was breeding dogs without a pedigree which most people do in this country you still get tens of thousands of dogs with poor quality of life due to conformation, health and temperament. What separates a dog with a pedigree and one without one? Knowledge of its ancestral history to enable a breeder to know its type and health and temperament in order to try to breed a healthier predictable dog generation after generation. Yes that can work against us and selection for nothing more than what is popular via conformation that takes it to extremes is the danger and needs to be addressed. In 2016 everything regarding breeding domestic dogs is artificially selected in some way - pedigreed or not. Putting arguments forward regarding natural law is pointless. If the purpose of a discussion is to identify a problem and discuss possible solutions and your solution to anything that ails the dog world [health or political] is always change that rule you have as much chance of getting anyone to take notice of that as a viable potential solution as those who are saying "its not us. or where is the proof" Unless its an outcrossing program is used by infusing another breed [ unlikely] then selecting for dogs which show in the pedigree to have the desired characteristics or at least moving toward the desired characteristics is part of the answer - whether the pedigree is a registered pedigree within the ANKC system or not. The pedigree isn't the problem - its the way it is used [ to produce champions] and the culture bullies those who want to select for what they believe is best for the breed by selecting animals which will have greater quality of life, that is different to what is currently being awarded. If we can find some pedigree purebred breeders who are brave enough to strive for better conformation within the system then later on it would give those who dont want to budge somewhere to go for breeding dogs when the healthier ones begin to get awarded over the current models. If we can show in say 5 generations how this has radically improved then we may have a chance of saving the breeds but either way the constant hit by media will lessen the demand and make those breeding them the bad guys.

So far they were lucky - the studies show that multi vaccines give a much higher risk of disease development later on . The breaking out in hives and getting obviously ill after a vaccine is pretty rare but there is ample documentation to show that if a puppy's immune system is already depleted due to stress or worms etc that multi vaccines can actually give the pup the disease its being vaccinated against - and long term side effects wont be known for a longer time. See references following. Look everyone should vaccinate their dogs - its ridiculous to consider not doing so but its not a case of just jabbing them with everything available - its about risk assessment .Whether the potential problems are greater than the potential benefits. Parvo is horrible it kills dogs dead and in puppies its heartbreaking to watch a baby suffer with it .In my opinion the vet who gave your puppies a C7 was an idiot. Quote. On a related note, polyvalent vaccines (containing more than one disease component) also increase the risk of vaccine failure. The more antigens contained in a vaccine, the more viral replication the puppy will experience at once, meaning his immune system might be stretched to the limit, allowing one of the antigens to develop into full blown disease – and the risk is even greater in small dogs. The immune system is a finite resource and can only be stretch so far so it is safest to avoid giving multiple antigens on one vaccine (Moore et al, JAVMA, 2005] And The Purdue studies, although labelled as inconclusive at the time, reveal some unique insights into how vaccination can manifest as chronic disease. In this study, the vaccinated but not the unvaccinated dogs developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals including: Fibronection (Involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs), Laminin (Involved in many cellular activities including the intelligence, proliferation and movement of cells), Cardiolipin (Frequently found in patients with Lupus Erythematosus and other autoimmune diseases. Cardiolipin is also significantly associated with fetal loss and neurological conditions), Collagen (Provides structure to bones and soft tissue and likely the reason why a high number of dogs developed mobility problems shortly after vaccination in the Canine Health Concern 1997 study), DNA (Yes, the vaccinated dogs developed autoantibodies to their own DNA).

Ive learned that asking a vet doesn't always get you the correct answer .Given the choice of saying it's probably because the dog got the shots when it was young and it is now still immune its better to give another answer that doesn't impact on their income.In fact that answer is pretty dumb in my opinion. I had measles when I was a child about 60 years ago and I don't feel the need to run off and get a jab every year. My 40 year old daughter recently had to have anti body tests to ensure her immunity was O.K. to a variety of diseases to enable her to start work at a health related job and she is still immune to all of that stuff that she was vaccinated for or had in her few early years of life. Schultz's study took into account all of the variables using data from dogs from all different environments over decades. He started his study in the mid 70's and 100% were still immune 7 to 10 years after vaccination. About 28 % of puppies which get parvo have been vaccinated due to the presence of maternal anti bodies. The maternal antibodies for Parvo are unpredictable and studies show they can last for up to 26 weeks. You only need one vaccination for your dog to be immune for life but the trick is to ensure the needle goes in when the maternal antibodies are low enough for it to produce the desired response. Studies show that when puppies are vaccinated at 6 weeks, 9 weeks and 12 weeks of age their response to the vaccine by their titers to Parvovirus were At 6 weeks, only 52% of the puppies had developed an immune response,at nine weeks 88% and at 12 weeks 100% Obviously there is a whole lot more to say but in the main Im with Willem. Get a titer test at 26 weeks and if it shows antibodies you don't need any more vaccinations.If it doesn't get a vaccination and to be sure another titer test after at least 3 weeks.

I agree that something else needs to be done via cats .The town I live in has a huge population of stray [wild] cats that are not owned by anyone and if they were ever owned it would be at least 20 generations ago. Driving through the town after dark will see them everywhere and some of the local businesses feed them. A little further out around where I am they are as big a problem as the foxes. By the way Im only 50 ks from Wagga.

Brown and Gregory (2005) - most brachycephalic dogsare affected by upper airway obstruction to some degree. The severity of theproblem depends on the number and severity of the anatomical abnormalities. Stenotic nares - occur in 46 to 77% of dogs with BAOS(Lorinson et al 1997, Harvey 1982a, Fasanlla et al 2010). Disproportionately large soft palate - 96 to 100% ofbrachycephalic dogs have an overlong soft palate (Harvey 1982b, Dupre 2008,Fasanella et al 2010). Everted tonsils - were seen in 56% of dogs with BAOS(Fasanella et al 2010). Nasopharyngeal turbinates - are found in somebrachycephalics, most commonly pugs (Ginn et al 2008). Laryngeal collapse is common in pugs with BAOS. Surgicaltreatment is more challenging than in larger dogs (Harvey 1982d). Fasanella etal (2010) reported that 66% of dogs with BAOS syndrome had everted laryngealsaccules. Trachea hypoplasia is seen in some pugs in conjunction withBAOS (Eom et al 2008), but is generally believed to be rare in pugs. Theoccurrence of laryngeal problems apparently varies from 30% to 64% (Harvey 1982c, Harvey 1982 d, Dupre 2008). In one study of 73 cases of BAOS, 97% were foundto have oesophageal, gastric or duodenal anomalies and 74% had gastrointestinalproblems classed as moderate or severe (Poncet et al 2005). Harvey (1989) states “It seems likely that all pugs haveBAOS to some extent, although some people may consider them “normal” and “The breathing problems caused by theseabnormalities [bAOS] are so commonly recognised by breeders of bulldogs andother short-faced breeds that some carry oxygen cylinders with them to shows,and routinely arrange for caesarean section birth of puppies so as not to causeasphyxiation of the whelping bitch“.Meola, S.D. (2013). Brachycephalic airwaysyndrome, Topics in Companion Animal Medicine, 28, 91-96 Dupre G (2008) Brachycephalic Syndrome: New Knowledge, NewTreatments. Presentation at WSAVA Congress, Dublin, Ireland, 20-24th August2008 (On-line). Available athttp://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2010&Category=&PID=56236&O=Generic.Accessed 20.7.10. Dupre G and Freiche V (2002) Ronflements et vomissements chezles bouledogues: traitement médical ou chirurgical? Proceedings of the AFVACAnnual Congress. Paris, France, November 10, 2002. pp 235-236 Eom K., Moon K., Seong Y, Oh T, Yi S, Lee K and Jang K(2008) Ultrasonographic evaluation of tracheal collapse in dogs Journal ofVeterinary Science. 9 401–405. Fasanella FJ, Shivley JM, Wardlaw JL and GivaruangsawatS(2010) Brachycephalic airway obstructive syndrome in dogs: 90 cases(1991–2008). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2371048-1051 Njikam, D.V.M., Huault, M., Pirson, V. and Detilleux, D.V.M.(2009). The influence of phylogenic origin on the occurrence of brachycephalicairway syndrome in a large retrospective study, International Journal ofApplied Research in Veterinary Medicine, 7(3), 138-143. Wolfgang, K., Sabine, B., and Marion, O. (2002).Morphological and functional implications of the selection on brachycephalicfeatures in feline skulls, Proceedings of the WSAVA Congress, Spain.

Its much easier for those who are saying there is a problem and that some purebred breeders are at least as much if not more responsible than the BYB etc than it is for the registered breeders to offer proof. its not them. Be careful what you ask for. Sadly purebred breeders cant prove how much healthier their dogs are than unpapered ones because there are no mandatory tests for registration with the ANKC for most of these breeds, information is not shared and often actively concealed so asking for proof works both ways. If thats they way this is going to be fought better start gathering some proof of our own. From day one I have complained that the stats they are collecting don't determine which dogs are bred by registered breeders and which are not. So far thats not been corrected and unlikely that it will be. I wrote an open letter to the ANKC asking that they with hold funding to the LIDA program until such time as this was able to be a part of the data collection. Many registered show breeders websites showcase dogs which clearly have problems, there are hundreds of studies and people can see for themselves that at the very least it IS happening within the registered breeder group.Hell people that attend shows can see it . Sure we breed smaller numbers but that makes it even a worse look when numbers of those suffering turn up at the vet which are bred by us. The other aspect of this is that breeders have become so desensitised they don't recognise it when they see it anyway. My link

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice. Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are likely pretty ignorant as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again. Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another. The people doing these kind of crosses are not generally "pedigree breeders". I've seen quite a few claims of "improving breeds" made for new "breeds". From what i've heard the much hyped Australian Bulldog has succeeded in raising levels of dog aggression above what you'd find in BBs. Is that an improvement? You don't just get the 'good' genes from the breeds you use. You get the lot. There have certainly been authorised outcrosses over the years. Use of Golden Retrievers to solve the problem of a minute gene pool in Flatcoats is one example. English and Gordon Setter crosses were authorised in Scandanavia some years back again due to lack of numbers. In sighthounds, the only "new" breed in recent years has health issues completely unknown in other sighthound breeds. Reason? The use of Shetland Sheepdogs to put coat on the Silken Windhound. If you can't test for conditions (as you couldn't for MDR1 at the time) outcrossing doesn't always improve anything. I agree. I think its often a better option to allow availability of demonstration examples for some time before inclusion into a pedigree. This would allow for observation and testing before selection of individuals who bring best value to the mix. When you are artificially selecting animals you get what you select for - you lose things you don't select for .Its virtually impossible to be able to work on more than one thing at a time and get the desired results. Asking a breeder or a group of breeders to eliminate dogs which have extreme health issues due to the way the head is shaped AND also focus on hips, elbows, colour, temperament recessive polygenic and reproductive issues all at once is really a bit of a joke. it wont work effectively if there isn't an understanding of the possible risks and patience to see it through, Any purebred breeding program requires a breeder to identify the goals for each litter ,fix what they are after and then go back and fix up what they may have lost while they took their eye off it. If in fact the temperament or anything else has slipped while they are working on what they have considered the major goal then once they have achieved the goal they can begin to keep what they now have and fix anything they have to in order to finish the project. So at the end they have the good bits and not the bad bits.But it takes time and knowledge. It certainly takes a pedigree breeder who gets it and sadly there are few who really get it but to suggest that dogs being used in such a project should not be included in a pedigree before the availability of demonstration examples completely ignores why a pedigree system is used in the first place. Without a pedigree record with every dog that is used for breeding identified via a pedigree , the person or people working on anything can't determine where it went right or where it went wrong to use the info to move them forward in ther goals Edited to add there are issues relating to the system that will prevent much progress. For example in order to protect the breed the system doesn't enable a handful of breeders who don't agree with the breed club to get approval for an experimental breeding program. Good reason for this but it also very much restricts anything being done to one philosophy and anyone seen to be aiming at one goal which doesn't fit with the mob mentality with focus producing a champion is bullied and ostracized It is difficult to believe that this subject can be truly examined on this forum. Man has been selecting dogs for centuries with out a pedigree system and it worked well enough to bring us distinct types and unofficial 'breeds'. Much more slowly, yes. But steady improvement and reliability was achieved because the dogs allowed to thrive were those selected by the environment that supported them- Based on Values demonstrated. Those dogs who brought best value were most sought for breeding. Those with less value were not.It was a value adding system. It allowed for INDIVIDUALS to focus on their own priorities and add value to the whole as it applied to their own situation and specific purpose/environment. Domestic Dogs only environment is humanities communities and society. Thats what governed the selection process to give rise to the species. There was nothing artificial about that selection process. Its wasn't perfect, 'Mistakes' occurred. But because of the broader selection allowed, and the value seeking nature of environment, those mistakes were 'mostly' short lived. Thats where a pedigree realy shows its benefits and value.In tracing both negative and positive values to speed up and make more efficient that NATURAL selection process. Great value to be had from a pedigree, no doubt about that. When applied to specific groups of dogs classed now as pure breeds, a pedigree has incredible potential to add to the values for purpose of that pure breed. Those values for purpose are ALWAYS decided by environment, and will depend on what values the ENVIRONMENT can recognize as worthy of support. The only successful response of a species is to make sure it adds value to its environment to earn that support and favor that will allow it to thrive. Value adding. It becomes UN-NATURAL only when environment is excluded from that process. As happened when K.Cs ruled members must not breed a dog ineligible for registration. That took pedigree dogs OUT of their natural environment and placed them into an un-natural environment we call the K.Cs. The K.Cs become a distinct environment of their own with that rule in play. Purpose of the breeds is no longer to serve the environment that grew them, and MUST support them for viability, but to serve the K.C 'Owning' that pedigree. Independent of the environment that supports the species as a whole. Where ever the current K.C cultural priorities lie is where the focus will take the breed in any given time period. Disregarding environmental priorities which are always individualy specific to allow for the whole range of environmental values. The species purpose to mankind, his environment, will always be secondary to those priorities. So yes. It is a joke to expect Pedigrees breeders under the current rules to be able to work on more than one thing at a time, when current trends in the show ring replace environmental values for purpose. Yes it has worked well enough to bring us distinct types and official and unofficial breeds but this is 2016 and we are talking purebred dogs and what is required to improve their health and welfare .No breeder then or now could ever work on more than one thing at a time and get as good a result as timely toward their goal.

Sell them and or breed with them. This has been going on for years. Several litters of beagles and their Mums were stolen from the Albury area about ten years ago and I had a litter stolen at 5 weeks of age. Three beagle puppies were stolen after they went home in the Deniliquin area too prior to the days where microchipping was mandatory before they left the breeder. So its not new. In my case Father and Son turned up at my property unannounced one Sunday evening and requested to see my puppies.I told them I didnt have any but [stupid] told them I had a litter due and when - showed them Mum and Dad etc. I had nothing to hide - was proud of my dogs and my dog areas Told them what we do and the time frame for vaccination and microchipping. I asked them where they got my address from. First answer from Dad was the internet and when I challenged that the Son told me that they had gone to the pizza hut and given the people there my phone number and they had given out my address from where we had pizza deliveries !!!!!!!!! They both left, I chucked a whammy with the manager of the pizza hut and Ive never ordered a takeaway for delivery since and I cooled down and forgot about it but my puppies were stolen at 5 weeks before they were microchipped. Over the past 40 years Ive had hundreds of people visit my property to check me and my dogs out and you really have no idea of who they are what their motives are .They can tell you anything including they are from the RSPCA or council or case the place and wait their chance. Either way its a vulnerable situation for many breeders and I get why many don't want people coming to their properties. I get about 3 to 6 enquiries per day for beagles via email and phone. Its usually "do you have any puppies if not are you expecting a litter, can we come to see the parents." Advertising them tells someone you have them for when they want to come calling. Couple that with an inexperienced breeder or one that doesn't know their rights and someone just made an easy 25 grand. It may also be some do gooders who heard there were dead puppies so they came and saved them - wouldn't be the first time. But instead of terrifying breeders with what can happen to them and how the RSPCA has police powers and can seize dogs etc part of it all should be to tell breeders what they can't do.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice. Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are likely pretty ignorant as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again. Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another. The people doing these kind of crosses are not generally "pedigree breeders". I've seen quite a few claims of "improving breeds" made for new "breeds". From what i've heard the much hyped Australian Bulldog has succeeded in raising levels of dog aggression above what you'd find in BBs. Is that an improvement? You don't just get the 'good' genes from the breeds you use. You get the lot. There have certainly been authorised outcrosses over the years. Use of Golden Retrievers to solve the problem of a minute gene pool in Flatcoats is one example. English and Gordon Setter crosses were authorised in Scandanavia some years back again due to lack of numbers. In sighthounds, the only "new" breed in recent years has health issues completely unknown in other sighthound breeds. Reason? The use of Shetland Sheepdogs to put coat on the Silken Windhound. If you can't test for conditions (as you couldn't for MDR1 at the time) outcrossing doesn't always improve anything. I agree. I think its often a better option to allow availability of demonstration examples for some time before inclusion into a pedigree. This would allow for observation and testing before selection of individuals who bring best value to the mix. The reason given for the Aussie BD breeding program was to enable less conformation issues and less whelping problems. It depends on which group of breeders you are looking at as there are 3 distinct groups at least one has been able to bring down the conformation issues which negatively impact quality of life, and lessened but not eliminated whelping issues. When you are artificially selecting animals you get what you select for - you lose things you don't select for .Its virtually impossible to be able to work on more than one thing at a time and get the desired results. Asking a breeder or a group of breeders to eliminate dogs which have extreme health issues due to the way the head is shaped AND also focus on hips, elbows, colour, temperament recessive polygenic and reproductive issues all at once is really a bit of a joke. it wont work effectively if there isn't an understanding of the possible risks and patience to see it through, Any purebred breeding program requires a breeder to identify the goals for each litter ,fix what they are after and then go back and fix up what they may have lost while they took their eye off it. If in fact the temperament or anything else has slipped while they are working on what they have considered the major goal then once they have achieved the goal they can begin to keep what they now have and fix anything they have to in order to finish the project. So at the end they have the good bits and not the bad bits.But it takes time and knowledge. It certainly takes a pedigree breeder who gets it and sadly there are few who really get it but to suggest that dogs being used in such a project should not be included in a pedigree before the availability of demonstration examples completely ignores why a pedigree system is used in the first place. Without a pedigree record with every dog that is used for breeding identified via a pedigree , the person or people working on anything can't determine where it went right or where it went wrong to use the info to move them forward in ther goals - assuming of course that the pedigree doesn't just record the name and whether the dog is a champion and it also keeps detailed record of the important things required to breed healthy well temperamented animals that represent good examples of the breed. Edited to add there are issues relating to the system that will prevent much progress. For example in order to protect the breed the system doesn't enable a handful of breeders who don't agree with the breed club to get approval for an experimental breeding program. Good reason for this but it also very much restricts anything being done to one philosophy and anyone seen to be aiming at one goal which doesn't fit with the mob mentality with focus producing a champion is bullied and ostracized It is difficult to believe that this subject can be truly examined on this forum.

Its an offence to impersonate an RSPCA officer but what about the offence of stealing 25000 dollars worth of puppies? Push push the breeders to tell the world where we live and have a never ending stream of people who want to check we aren't puppy farming and the risk increases.

Well if they didnt have brachy head syndrome they wouldn't have brachy heads. Sure the impact on quality of life is variable but a brachy head is a brachy head and to some degree it does affect quality of life.

I cant work out how to attach a PDF but if anyone is interested I can email the discussion paper notes from the Vic state government which discusses the problem and possible strategies.

Yep my feelings on it have nothing to do with feeling or wanting to be seen to be superior either . Its about nothing else but what is best for dogs and if someone can show me how what has occurred to date is what is best for dogs or that they actually have a plan to fix it and pretty quickly Im all ears. But that is just it! The breeders of these breeds have sat back and covered their ears and cried that their dogs are healthy for years. These issues have been festering for a long time and now that the public is starting to realise the truth, the breeders want to start blaming animal rights nuts. They have had time to address these issues before the shit hits the fan, but they chose not to. It's now or never. Soon enough the issue will be taken out of their hands. Well sort of except they have acknowledged there is a problem and say they have addressed it. Breed standards have been tweaked and their rules and regs have been altered to include requirements for consideration of health issues. Judges have been briefed on not judging dogs with extremes to be winners etc. But its really about the culture and you see it here all the time. If someone decided to try to breed dogs with a slightly longer snout you would get a whole bunch beating them up because they are breeding sub quality dogs and because of that must only be breeding for money etc. There are several strategies which could be used to reasonably, quickly ease the suffering and not see entire breeds become extinct but the chances of that happening are about when pigs will fly because of the pile of things and the breed politics needed to make it happen.

Yep my feelings on it have nothing to do with feeling or wanting to be seen to be superior either . Its about nothing else but what is best for dogs and if someone can show me how what has occurred to date is what is best for dogs or that they actually have a plan to fix it and pretty quickly Im all ears.

I think you will find it didnt stop them - right now there are scottish fold kittens advertised for sale from Braybrook Victoria on gumtree. This is the only state where they should be getting 20,000 dollar fines for doing so and that hasn't stopped them even enough to hide the sale of them.Out in the open on gumtree -how many years after it was outlawed???? Everywhere else in the world Scottish Fold cats are all systems a go. They wont fix it they will ask for exemptions and talk up what they have done to date to try to fix it - because you silly thing its not them that are doing it - its only BYB and puppy farmers.