Steve

me too - I think perhaps they should get a bit educated on development applications and such which have been in place since I can remember. Dogslife is of course correct they cant stop you owning as many dogs as you want unless they have complaints but under other laws they can within reason state under what conditions you can use your property. They can put restrictions on breeding just as you need council approval to run any business from home you also have always needed council approval to breed dogs, rescue dogs etc from your own home. owning dogs is just that but as soon as you start breeding or keeping rescue dogs - which is considered running a business or a hobby from your property its not covered under the companion animals act - never has been.

So if we have a study that takes 4 litters over 4 years of the same dam and sire mating .From every litter 2 pups from the litter are removed earlier and sent home, 2 are sent home at 8 weeks and 2 are kept to 10 weeks keeping all things re management the same from one litter to the next we could then be more sure about whether its making any difference even though there are still variables about what type of homes they live with - but if we are careful about what it is we are judging such as biting too much, barking too much, being dog aggressive etc then and only then could we say that we know whether it has any remarkable impact . Judging someone's puppies who breeds dogs without consideration in their breeding programs for such things against someone who does is stupid. Just randomly grabbing a whole heap of dogs regardless of their breeder to compare against each other is stupid and if it wasnt such a hard and fast regulation where breeders could test it - run their own experiments to know what is best for the puppies and the people who take them based on fact not assumption we may then have some answers that we can be sure makes life better for dogs. I can promise you this - it is heaps easier to house train and lead train and basic boundaries etc with a 6 week old pup than it is an 8 week old one especially one that is in its home on its own .Its why taking 2 puppies at once is so much harder.

I hear what you are saying but the fact that the RSPCA has used that to push for reasons as to why breeders should keep their puppies on their properties just demonstrates for me how we need to be taking more notice of breeders than we do of rescue. Those in the year 2015 who have left their litter earlier are from nuff nuff breeders who are not following regs or selecting for breed and temperament traits - so even though I think there is fair reason for re thinking stopping us from placing them earlier if we think its better for them none of us who do as we are told do let them go earlier because of laws, rules, and regs. I have never, not once, placed a pup under 8 weeks of age since it became a regulation but I have removed some from their litter earlier and have been able to tell if there is any differences with all things being equal . My point is that just waving a wand and saying "all puppies must stay with the breeder until they are 8 weeks old assumes that all puppies will be running around a breeder's home underfoot with their litter mates and their Mum .Drinking off their Mums with good wholesome bitch milk until they are 8 weeks old - That they will be socialised and kept in wonderfully comfortable and conditions which benefit them. This is not necessarily the case and its not something that it is even remotely possible to enforce. Most breeders have weaned their pups way before home time and I've known purebred breeders who remove the pups from Mum so she can recover quicker from the birth and rearing. When you see dogs running amok at off leash dog parks the variables on genetics, selection, training etc are huge and its just not possible to say that these dogs are like that because they are allowed to go to their new homes earlier than 8 weeks. There are just as many people who have wonderful dogs well bonded and well suited to them and their lifestyle who took the puppies form their litter earlier. As I said earlier this is a mute point - the chances that the regs that are in place will be reversed are minute so we are stuck with it - it just really bothers me that we are being educated and have some beliefs that are being fed to us by people who don't breed dogs and who have other agendas.

There was more than one study that claimed different and they were not all quoting the same source for that info. I would agree that a puppy taken at 6 weeks to a puppy broker and then a pet shop glass box - has the worst chance of being a well adjusted puppy. And it would do better if it went at 6 weeks to a home with people that are home most of the time. It's not going to do so well if everyone is out from 8am to 5pm. Those ones can get very fearful - or it makes the nervousness they were born with worse. But the puppies that do best are ones that live with their litter and their mum in the breeder's home (not out in the paddocks in sheds away from people), and go to their new home at 8 weeks or older. That is a point - if breeders knew they could not sell their puppies to pet shops or brokers - that might do a lot to cut the profit out of it too. But with the internet classifieds - breeders don't need brokers or pet shops as much as they used to. And puppy buyers do not have to learn anything about puppies before they get one. There is nothing new here people have always been able to find a puppy without having to learn anything about them. Puppies don't learn to be fearful from their Mum - Goddard proved that in his study - its about selection, genetics the heritability of temperament traits - whole new argument about breeding dogs. A pup that is well bred and gets a fair shot at it by 6 weeks will cope just as well as its litter mates will at 8 weeks if not better if all things are equal and it should be something judged by the breeder not by people who don't breed dogs . I dont believe that whether a pup goes to a new home at 6 or 8 weeks impacts much on whether its likely to be dumped at 1 year - certainly not enough to justify taking the decision off all breeders.

Mrs Rusty bucket over the last 40 plus years I have whelped and raised over 400 litters, 7 different breeds and every single day of my life I speak with other breeders. To make statements that a bitches milk up until after 8 weeks of age is important for the pups immunity is crap and doesn't take into account how the bitch has made it through the whelping and rearing and about a hundred other variables which will impact on how or if mothers milk up to 8 weeks helps or hinders the immunity of the pup. You can feed em mums milk up to 8 weeks all you like but if she hasnt been wormed, if the pups havent been wormed , if the environment sucks, if the other nutrition sucks , if the bitch is in poor condition you dont have to think too hard to see that could be worse for the immunity rather than better. keeping puppies on the property in cold concrete kennels in a breeders property without handling or much else isnt as good for them as going home sooner either. Anti bodies in the bitches milk run out within 48 hours after birth. Some puppies will benefit from going home after 8 weeks others wont and its not going to convince me that there is enough to justify giving breeders the inability of making the choice depending on what they are dealing with. Maremmas are bred to bond with the species they are to guard but they are also expected to be non aggressive and live with people too. In Italy they worked with shepherds and also came down from the hills with them and lived within the human family .How they cope with such things is genetic and even if my beagle puppies never met another dog they still would never be aggressive to people or other dogs . Im simply saying that there are many variables and what it should be about is doing what we can to have more people bonding with their puppy so we shouldnt place regs on which dont allow the breeder to make informed decisions.

Yep I reckon it would be a good business proposition to go in and offer to their job as a subcontractor .Walk down one street here and you would earn enough money to pay your wages with fines for non registration, and non microchipping if you got to keep the fines. At the end of the day the radicals have been shouting and stirring up the voters so even though they know its not going to do anything to lift welfare etc they make new regs, new laws and be seen to be doing something and everybody shuts up until next time . If they start picking on ordinary dog owners who break the law they might loose votes - but none of this is about the dogs. Breeders have become a soft target.

We need council rangers who are in positions which are only dedicated to dog and cat laws. Not where they also do rubbish dumping and parking tickets where they check that people have their dogs registered,microchipped where they check that fencing is adequate for the breed,or type of dog, where they fine people for breaches of off leash laws and every other dog or cat law. They need to be educated and encouraged to be proactive and advise dog owners on preventative methods, recommend acceptable solutions. We need the media and society to focus on the spectacularly great stuff dog owners do for their own dogs, other people's dogs and the dog owning community to encourage others to see the difference and the rewards they can get if they approach it as they would a family member . This start with and ends with dog owners regardless of whether they breed them, work them, do competitive things with them or just have them hanging around for company .All dogs should be well looked after and their welfare considered important regardless of whether they have a litter or not.

Correct except that regs and by laws push breeders to keep them in such conditions. Give breeders the choice and there isn't anyone who I know that would choose to have kennels more suited to pound dogs in their back yard. We have had members who own half a dozen small breed dogs which have always lived inside with puppies whelped in the spare bedroom who have been forced to build kennels and go into debt in order to breed dogs from their properties to comply with codes. Spend more on infrastructure to comply and you need to breed more puppies to get back your money. make small breeders have to be inspected and licenced so they cant breed their dogs in their home without all the crap more suited to a massive commercial breeder and all we will do is run out those who we want to encourage.

You also cant have it both ways - we no longer consider people who buy dogs pet owners - they are consumers. They are encouraged to blame everyone else for their hard luck rather than being educated that what they are taking on is a living being that may get sick, that will need to be trained, contained, fed, exercised and loved. That there are consequences for not choosing a pup that will fit your lifestyle and that throwing it out of home is the absolute last resort if life makes it impossible for you to keep it. If you make the pet owner understand that they are responsible for the ills that befall their animals then those who breed their animals have to do more to get it right because the buyer becomes more choosy about the source or they cant compete with those who do. Nothing a breeder does can absolutely positively guarantee that any pup that goes to a new home will be the perfect fit , will not get sick etc. The expectations on a breeder to be able to be accountable after the dog goes home is unrealistic , the expectation that they can get their money back, get compensated for issues, dump them etc just perpetuates the view that someone buying a dog is a consumer and not a puppy buyer. So if they are a consumer and its broken or there's a newer model, if its breaking down too often, escaping, barking, jumping, doesnt match the new furniture just get rid of it and try again. then they can blame breeders for being responsible for unwanted dogs and too many dogs being PTS. If someone buys a puppy from a market full of fleas and worms rather than dobbing them in for doing it then its not just the breeder you have to blame and its time we looked at the big picture rather than float along with what is fashionable and targeted by animal rights and zealots

Nothing is as it seems and there are always other issues to consider and potential unintended consequences. Breeding dogs in Australia is not illegal - therefore making money from breeding dogs is not illegal. I agree that when someone breeds with only making a profit as their goal the risks are increased but its unrealistic to consider stopping legitimate businesses - recognised by the ATO from being able to produce and sell their products as long as they comply with regs and laws - and there is a fair argument that some professional breeders are getting it right more than an occasional breeder. If a person has invested time, energy money into breeding dogs and is getting it right its going to be pretty difficult to make a case that they shouldnt be allowed to do it. Dog breeding would be the only activity that I know of where those who do it more often and for longer are not seen to be experts but rather assumed to e potential criminals and animal abusers. Until you address the demand and the attitude of disposability if it doesnt work out its all going no where Responsible dog ownership starts before someone starts looking for a dog. Its currently politically correct to blame the breeder and there is no doubt that sometimes we should but focusing only on assumed remedies following on behind those who have already had a go at it and not solved the problem doesn't stop any dog from suffering - as long as we continue to keep looking in the same places led by zealots we will always get the same results and its time we looked at the problem and start to try to prove or disprove assumptions.

There are many problems associated with welfare of dogs and specifically breeding dogs but one underlying fault is that we have been shouted down by zealots and do gooders who have no experience with owning or breeding dogs which a used for breeding. No person who loves dogs and who wants what is best for them wants to put their dogs in concrete cells and keep them as dogs which are kept short term in boarding kennels and pounds /shelters .Reputable breeder's dogs dont have the same risk factors or requirements that other dogs have and the more regulation and crap that is put on the more the welfare of the dogs is lessened. The reason someone can sneak into a commercial kennel in the middle of the night in Victoria and take photos and complain about dogs kept in factory type situations is because of the over regulation and the desire to manage breeders and their dogs based on the opinion of people who shouldn't have a say. Every year in this country there are approx 20,000 people who breed a litter of puppies - a handful of them are mentally ill, hoarders and criminals - just as there are in any pastime or industry - so just in case all breeders are uneducated nutters we have to be pushed around by activists and zealots , and those who assume they know all the answers. And the answers dont stop dogs from suffering and if anything make it worse not better for dogs in general. These things have little hope of being enforced and simply become scoff laws as those likely to be doing the wrong thing are not known to overnight step in line. Breaches of regulations are simply fines unless its a criminal case of cruelty and someone who is found guilty of breaching mandatory codes gets a smack - time to fix it and continue on until they are caught next time - but those yelling seem to think they can loose their dogs and be prevented from being able to continue on. Other businesses get fines and warnings every day of the week fix the problem , pay the fine and continue on as long as they havent committed a criminal offence but there is an expectation that breeders are different. Spend the money and resources on ensuring pet owners register their dogs, keep them responsibly and promote the positive behaviours that go on in the community. Bloody hell councils cant even get people to register their dogs and microchipping in NSW has been mandatory in NSW since the early 90's and still dogs come into pounds with no chips.

Why - because if the dog is rehomed or separated from its litter at 6 weeks it never learns good dog to dog manners. They're the ones that barge up to unknown dogs at off lead parks and jump on them. http://thedogsnobs.c...and-so-are-you/ Not in SA there aren't. Or the ones they have are unenforceable - too vague. There are definitely some genetic problems that can be prevented with current tech eg PRA - if the breeders are not testing for those - in my opinion - they should not be breeding. It's true there is some grey in how far you go with putting the onus for healthy puppy on the breeder but some breeders are outrageous. Yeah but if it costs them more than they get back by doing it - there is no incentive. It's like if you had to pay to go to work somewhere instead of company paying you to work. And usually the first two weeks - you don't get paid - so you do spend some money up front but you get it back at the end of your pay period. But if the cost of going to work exceeded what you could make - you'd either be a "volunteer" or you would not work there. The current pattern with "selling puppies" here is if the breeder hasn't sold them by the time they're 14 weeks old - they give them to a pet shop, if the pet shop doesn't sell them - they dump them with rescue like AWL or RSPCA - at 5 months old roughly. And then they're really hard to home. If it was true that all puppies got sold to responsible owners... there'd be no puppies or dogs 6 to 12 months old at Rescues and Shelters. "Registered" under this proposed legislation means with Government or local council. Not ANKC or MDBA or PIA Nup Im not buying that if you take a pup from its litter at 6 weeks that it automatically becomes a dog that doesn't know how to have good manners around other dogs and just because a breeder cant place a puppy in a new home until its 8 weeks old doesn't mean it will get to be with its litter mates and its Mum for that long anyway. Its the period between 7 and 8 weeks where the pup needs to be exposed to humans and there is a fair argument for them being advantaged by being easier to train and fit into the routine of a new home and for the bonding with and by their humans to be easier. Puppies were placed in their new homes once when I first started breeding at 6 weeks, then the old vaccines came in and they took ten to 14 days to be activated so CC rules were introduced to keep them until the vaccine had time to cut in at 8 weeks. New vaccines only need 3 to 5 days. My Maremma pups are kept on my property until they are 8 weeks because of regs but by 6 weeks they are not with their Mum or litter mates - they are with chickens or sheep. If I could I would place them in new homes for them to start bonding with the new family and the species they are working with at 6 weeks .Placing a blanket reg on everyone who breeds a puppy to keep it for at least 8 weeks doesn't take into account the variables of the breed and the home it will go into and there isn't enough science to back up that dogs who dont stay with their breeder until they are 8 weeks old are the ones most likely to do what your article discusses. Most breeders want to do what is best for the puppies and the new families based on the variables of the breed and other things at the time .its stupid arguing about it anyway as it wont ever be re considered and whether it is better for the pups and the new family or not none of us get a choice - I would prefer breeders be left to make the decision. When you talk about breeders being responsible for years into the future for genetic disorders that cant be a blanket decision either .Its reliant on what diseases are known to be in the breed or the ancestry . If its a known genetic disorder in the dogs heritage that has a DNA test for it then of course it should be tested for but there are hundreds of tests available now and a breeder cant test for every test .Not all genetic diseases are able to be tested for and the hardest ones are polygenic not recessive. Example - right now based on our research and recent health surveys we have done one breed has a pretty high incidence of carrier and affected degenerative Myelopathy which is a horrible disease - causes lots of suffering as it gets hold - recessive that doesn't show up until the dog is around 8 years old .Based on what we see in the results of the dogs that are being tested its hard to believe that as time goes on that many many dogs of this breed already born wont begin to show symptoms and every day there must be some which are being born which are affected because few are being tested for it and the breed club wants to do other research before they believe it and DNA testing isn't mandatory - then there is another one which we see a bit in another breed where one gene test lab actually states that they believe that it doesnt occur in this breed enough to warrant screening. So if I bred a dog of the first breed tomorrow without testing knowing what I know and they turned out to be affected because both parents were carriers then in my opinion I should have the book thrown at me even though its going to take 6 to 8 years for me to be caught out but how do you hold the breeders responsible when they are being told its no big deal and they dont need to test for it? How do you hold the breeders responsible who have bred puppies which will develop this problem who had no clue it existed and when there was no test for it when they bred the dogs. I agree that some are shockers but again its about a blanket rule which isn't as easy as it sounds. When such laws were put in via Victoria where it became against the law to breed carriers there was no way to introduce mandatory testing - how many breeders have been prosecuted for it? Some who were testing stopped testing SA has the same federal consumer laws as every state in Australia and prevention of cruelty to animals Laws are in place in SA to cover the rest. The data and stats dont exist to back up what you say is the state of affairs re selling puppies. Right now no one can say whether dogs which are 6 months old are not represented more because it's around about when the new families work out that they dont want it anymore. Its not in a pet shop's best interest to do routinely do what you say enough to be a huge reason for numbers in pounds and regulations for pet shops could address that better than going at the breeders. We need more research so we know what we are making decisions on is the real state of affairs and justifies taking away dog owners rights. At the end of the day its about the person who is responsible for the dog being responsible whether that be a pet shop or owner. Im not saying that some puppies are not bred which cant find homes but there is a high demand for puppies and while ever we don't look at that then the supply will be filled. Lower the demand - you lower the supply.

Define registered breeder?

But you see what is the aim of this? Lets talk dogs only because that's what I know more about - If the aim is to cut down on unwanted litters - How many dog owners don't desex their pets and allow them to have litters which they don't take responsibility for ? Is this really such a big part of the perceived problem that would see every dog owner's right to make decisions on the care of their pets removed? In places where mandatory desexing has been introduced there is no evidence that this has made even a slight difference - see the ACT for example. Owning an entire dog doesn't equal the action of being irresponsible with it . How many puppies form these unwanted litters dont find homes? Rescue groups fight over pregnant dogs and they know puppies find home easier than adult dogs. So in order to try to stop someone else from being irresponsible then those who would prefer to make their own choices for their own animals must have the right removed to make their own decisions in conjunction with their vets as to what is best for their animals? This isn't what is best for the dogs - there are loads of reported potential health risks for a dog - its what is perceived to be best for the community and before we do that we had better be sure we really do know the size of the problem and whether we can really expect that it will make a difference. desex all dogs in case someone else is an idiot doesn't sit well at all.

So - Firstly I would like to see the real issues addressed based on facts - not assumptions and not on sensationalism. Dogs and Cats have to be separated within reason because there are different issues surrounding which ones come into shelters and which are unwanted. There are more kittens born from stray cats than there are puppies born from stray dogs, the demand for cross bred puppies which people will pay for is higher than the demand for moggies which dont bring 1000 plus [as puppies do ] for those who breed them. We need to be sure any perceived need for new regs which will impact on those who are doing it all right now is proportionate to the real problem .Treating dog and cat breeders as if they are potential animal abusers and restricting them in ways that can never be regulated or enforced in case someone somewhere is doing the wrong thing needs to be re thought out . With dogs if you can lessen the demand then less will be bred , with kittens its highly unlikely that a lessening of the demand would reduce those being born. When people buy a puppy or a kitten they need to be seen as puppy and kitten buyers not consumers and they need to know that they are taking a living thing into their homes which they need to be responsible for until it reaches old age and dies. This takes putting a focus on who wants these baby animals, who takes them and who will live with them. Put money and resources into educating pet owners, public campaigns making them re consider what it means to take on a pet and make it socially unacceptable for them to choose animals they then dont look after or dump. Until you do that the rest is a waste of time and money and only the good guys will follow the rules. The other major deal for me is that regs need to be fitting with the science of the species and not on assumptions and mythology on what is best for the puppies and kittens and the families who will take them.

And if they allow selling at 7 weeks (which is highly undesirable IMHO), it is highly unlikely that the kitten will be desexed before going to its new home. Vets down here don't like to do them too young .. the one who did mine likes them to be at least 12 weeks but prefers 14. So I don't see how that would help the unwanted kittens/feral cat problem in the least. (Rules for registered cat breeders are the same here ... minimum 12 weeks, microchipped, and must be desexed if not being sold to another registered breeder. Vets here will desex kittens at 6 weeks.

Sounds good if its being approached from an unbiased prospective - the fact that you say unwanted litters is a concern because form where I sit there is no difficulty in people finding homes for puppies .You may get a few now and then but the cure needs to be proportionate to the real problem not the perceived one.

Im not trying to be smart either but Ive house trained a hell of a lot of puppies and never used crates. It's not something I want to do to my dogs and personally think the whole toilet training a puppy with crate training makes it harder not easier. Its just a different method of choosing to do things which suits me and my dogs.

Yep I agree.

Its not a problem - its what suits you and you will find some people who will feel that it is what suits them. If you are looking at making this something that will pay your wages and develop into a viable business its a matter of before you do anything else taking the time to approach it in a business like fashion and sort through exactly what will suit you and work up a business plan. Walking or Petsitting works best when you can be specific about what services you will provide and what your criteria will be as you select the people and pets you prefer to service. You can then do what is required to make your business attractive to your target market and design your marketing to attract them to wanting to use your services. Sort through in your own mind whether you will be most comfortable with some breeds over others, sizes, level of training ,whether you will medicate, groom train etc Go slow work through it one step at a time and as you do the answers will fall into place. Before you take on one single job you need an ABN [free] and public liability insurance - not very expensive and you can pay by the month and you can apply to have a police check report done and gather personal references.This covers the big two so if you are walking a dog and it slips its lead and gets hit by a car causing an accident etc you are covered.If you go to someone's home and inadvertently break something or do something that creates damage you are covered. People want to know you are reliable and trustworthy - that you are going to respect their property and their privacy so personal references are as important as professional ones. Personally I think this is the biggest potential growth area in the dog world but unless you really approach it as a business you will knock yourself out and be lucky to have much but grey hairs to show for it . Petsitting Course - this has a component of Dog Walking as an elective too

Not a chance I would keep that dog - send it back .

Purebred dogs have been selectively bred by humans and if, by out crossing, you mean to another breed rather than to an unrelated line then it might be a good idea to reconsider a wider view of population genetics and genetic diversity and how they differ with artificial rather than natural selection. We are not talking about cheetahs or animals which have been isolated to a small geopgraphical area where they are reliant on the variables in their environment and havent had the benefit of artificial selection though there are thousands of examples of animals which have developed and evolved without human interference and without fresh blood which thrive and the off spring are more fertile and more healthy than their ancestors. I breed purebred dogs, purebred dogs which have been bred to a standard which makes them predictable. It means I can produce puppies generation after generation knowing that I can place them with people who understand the breed and which suits their lifestyle. When the dog and the humans are compatible and their lifestyle fits there is less risk the dog or the humans will be unhappy and wont live happily ever after. I have developed my own lines and in my dogs in some cases you would be hard pressed to find a dog in the last 30 generations which had a shared ancestor with any other registered dog of their breed.If and when I outcross its to another registered dog of their breed which isn't related to my lines. When I do this I have to be worried about what may turn up that Ive never seen before in my dogs. My tightly in bred girls which are not related to my tightly in bred boys which dont share a common ancestor in 10 generations with my girls still produce 10 to 14 puppies per litter and I don't remember the last time that I mated a dog which didn't fall pregnant, didn't have beautiful healthy puppies with large litters and couldn't do the work they are bred to do. Some even become champions - it makes my heart sing when one of my dogs is a great worker and can work all week and come out into the show ring and take that off too. None of that is about competition - its about what I believe is best for the breed and the difference between someone who breeds dogs and who is a breeder is that they have an absolute desire to do what is right for the dogs and the breed into the future. Its also not about competition as most champions of anything - conformation, agility , work, obedience etc used to be produced by in breeding and then out crossing to lines which were unrelated which were also in bred .Now we talk about COI and have been educated by people who have never bred a dog ,CC regs have been changed to placate animal rights and the limited register has had unintended consequences. Purebred breeders now have to make choices based on how closely related dogs are and what colour they are regardless of what is available and what each dog would bring to the table rather than what they believe is the best choice.If anyone wants to argue that this is what the founders intended I dont believe any one developing a breed could have anticipated that when they said a colour was disqualified that that meant it couldnt be used for breeding or that they would be restricted in choices based on how closely related dogs were. If allowing colours which are not recognised does not,long term, adversely affect the best for the breed if it is used for breeding then it makes no sense to limit that - but again I say it is the ANKC which has limited that via the restrictions on the limited register not the founders or the parent clubs - all they limit is the dog with an un recognised colour being shown in a conformation ring . Colour disqualifications were intended to be disqualification for the show ring and the dog's ability to become a champ, not disqualification for breeding - this is something which is unique to the ANKC and is not the same in other countries.

Nope, never said that. l said that they should be adhered to unless the "why" of a change can be answered. I said you didn't get to pick and choose what parts of the standard mattered. I also said that standards could be changed. But with a process, not on the gut instinct of people who have a view that pedigree dogs are somehow flawed and that breed standards are the cause of it. the why has been stated, that it could improve the genetic diversity/health of a breed. The why the colour is not there, may never be answered in some instances, but in each case it is only being proposed if it is believed not to be detrimental to health. You get to question the logic in any part of the standard. If we did not question, we would still think the world was flat. Who was suggesting that due process would not be followed in order to effect said changes? I hope the other people who felt reason to question the sense of excluding colours which dont make genetic sense in a breed are not offended by being tarred with the brush of 'people who have a view that pedigree dogs are somehow flawed and that breed standards are the cause of it' I don't think that at all. You don't have to change the standard - simply allow colours which are not desirable or allowed in the show ring to be able to be used for breeding - just as we did prior to the limited register. In fact a breeder could still put a dog of a disqualifying colour on main register and use it to breed with they just couldnt show it until relatively recently. If there wasn't a hell of a process in place prior to any changes in a standard the whole entire show would come undone - its why there are parent clubs to protect the breeds so people with their own ideas and agendas and politics cant just change this bit or that.