Jaxx'sBuddy

Excellent Leelaa. We are all very passionate about dogs and want the best for them Some members have used trainers or behaviourists and they may be able to recommend a good one for you.

A pound doesn't vet the people buying the dogs and they should. A dog can be very dangerous and it's about time pounds were made responsible for what dogs the re-home.

I disagree. if a pound (or any other dog re-homing organisation) sells a dog they MUST know about it's temperament, otherwise it is irresponsible of them to place the public at risk.

Yet people adopt dogs from the pound, have no idea of their background, and don't have these sorts of issues. Sadly, not all are as lucky. yes I agree. I know of one dog adopted from the pound and euthanised by the new owners 2 days later because it attacked a child in the family. Before any dog of an unknown background is sold I think it critical that the seller knows about the dog either by holding it long enough for the temperament to be known or by temp testing it because otherwise IMO they could be selling a ticking bomb

What if.......the dog owner was not told that there was any issues with the dog? What if.......the people who sold them the dog did no temperament testing? What if.......the people who sold the dog only got it the day before it was on-sold? What if....... I really want to know what the full story is and where the family got the dog from...until then I am making no judgements except to say this is an awful situation for all and I am so sorry a child was injured.

Good grief. People have spent their time trying to help you. They needed to give you strong advice because the situation is serious. This is a serious matter and people are very concerned about your dog. I wonder why you posted if you didn't want advice. Maybe next time give us a heads up that you want all advice sugar coated.

I would totally like to know dogs are being bred for longevity. One of the issues though is that it can't just be breeding that affects longevity. Nutrition and health care plays a big part as well. There are many parts to this one part being the breeding however, IMO if the breeding isn't there then no amount of health care and nutrition will help.

And when some are judged by others failure to work on the problems, what then? Many professional associatons work on the principle of peer regulation - the reason is due to their desire to safeguard the reputation of the association generally. The article isn't arguing beyond urging breeders not to bash one another. Ask breeders to put aside differences and work together for the betterment of the breed and I'll agree whole heartedly. :happydance2: Me Too!!!!!

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups. Incorrect. It depends on the mode of inheritance and this is unknown in many diseases. Txs Sheridan. I will need to investigate this more I'll give you an example from my breed. My first wheaten died of an inheritable disease. His sire and dam tested clear all their lives. The sire, at least, was necropsied and there was no sign of the disease. Both or one of them must have carried it but even breeding to another breed doesn't prevent it. Thank you. I am finding this very interesting.

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups. Incorrect. It depends on the mode of inheritance and this is unknown in many diseases. Txs Sheridan. I will need to investigate this more ETA So for some genetic conditions because we do not know the mode of inheritance we should take the safest option and not breed with the carriers. Got it. Is there a list of genetic conditions where carriers should not be bred to clears? BTW thanks to all for helping me work this out

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups. yes that is what I meant ty

Sorry, but I'll take objective tests over lofty statements every time. Health testing, as you suggest, is not the be all and end all of optimal breeding. However its measureable and provable. That matters to me as an indicator that the breeder is attempting to breed healthy dogs. You know...I never said not to do health testing, please read it again. so are you saying that breeders should health test and also use their experience with the breed to determine whether the breeding plan they have will result in healthy dogs? In other words a carrier of a genetic disease could be bred to a non-carrier of that disease if this would contribute positively to the health of the offspring and not result in the genetic disease showing up in the offspring?

You can add the Scots to that list JB, you're right. My apologies to the Scots of gaelic background. No apologies needed

Sorry, but I'll take objective tests over lofty statements every time. Health testing, as you suggest, is not the be all and end all of optimal breeding. However its measureable and provable. That matters to me as an indicator that the breeder is attempting to breed healthy dogs. I agree with this as well. *off to ponder this as well * Gosh I will have a headache soon with all this thinking

Maybe so, many would have tackled the same topic differently, but one thing's for sure, if I have understood it correctly, the points made in this article/thread are well worth considering. When I started reading this thread, I dismissed it as extremist. The more I read & think about it, the more valid I see the warnings to be. I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not. I agree. Many of the best recipes call for the pot to be stirred, it prevents everything settling to the bottom of the pot and setting up like concrete. Never hurts to stretch your comfort zone, at least for most people. I agree and my comfort zone was stretched when I saw ANKC breeders having a public go at other ANKC breeders when the other breeders had done nothing wrong according to the kennel clubs and the law. So what I had to do was challenge my own assumptions and rethink what I believed was a good breeder. There are still some areas that I don't have a firm opinion on but I am working through those One unsolicted sugestion. Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests. Limting 'good breeding' to health testing is really sort of a cop out for the breeders. Most breeds only have a couple (if that) of tests that can be done. It is too easy for them to select dogs that are DNA clear for those few things and then present as if they are off the hook with health. When in fact it may have been far more advantages to the over all health of the pups to have used a carrier of one testable disease to capture other good genes (lets say a bullet proof immune system) in that dog which may be difficult to find in that that breed. There is just heaps that goes into it, so this is really very simplistic. but the point is 'health tested' does not mean anything more than those very few problems have been addressed (and only if there is DNA testing, other screening test do not indicate the pup wil not have the disease in most cases), nor does it indicate a breeder that is producing healthy dogs. Feel free to delete from brain..LOL I can see where you are coming from. I will have a think about this but instinctively I think you may be right. *off to ponder*

You can add the Scots to that list

Maybe so, many would have tackled the same topic differently, but one thing's for sure, if I have understood it correctly, the points made in this article/thread are well worth considering. When I started reading this thread, I dismissed it as extremist. The more I read & think about it, the more valid I see the warnings to be. I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not. I agree. Many of the best recipes call for the pot to be stirred, it prevents everything settling to the bottom of the pot and setting up like concrete. Never hurts to stretch your comfort zone, at least for most people. I agree and my comfort zone was stretched when I saw ANKC breeders having a public go at other ANKC breeders when the other breeders had done nothing wrong according to the kennel clubs and the law. So what I had to do was challenge my own assumptions and rethink what I believed was a good breeder. There are still some areas that I don't have a firm opinion on but I am working through those

Maybe so, many would have tackled the same topic differently, but one thing's for sure, if I have understood it correctly, the points made in this article/thread are well worth considering. When I started reading this thread, I dismissed it as extremist. The more I read & think about it, the more valid I see the warnings to be. I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not. I agree.

There are a number of registered breeders I know who do this and I'm not the only person who knows them who thinks they ought to be locked in a room together to have it out. Thing is, you can't stop people from bad mouthing each other but not criticising those who are puppyfarmers who keep dogs in bad conditions or BYB who don't health test isn't going to stop people from bad mouthing each other and it actually validates puppyfarmers and BYBs. Yes I agree. The thing is, what I don't understand is why people say these things but do nothing. The other thing is breeders and others complain about circumstances and situations that are allowable by the kennel club's CoE and legally so really they shouldn't be complaining publicly about the breeders but should be complaining to the powers to be that set the rules. I think pedigree dog breeding is under the pump and if we don't watch out the situation will be irredeemable.

So you are saying that as long as the parents are health tested and all the boxes are ticked re conditions both physical and emotional for all concerned it doesn't matter if the dogs are unregistered or even crossbred? Or have I misunderstood? No you haven't misunderstood I wasn't clear because I am thinking things through . I have heard so many stories from ANKC registered breeders saying other ANKC registered breeders are bad or are doing bad things to the dogs. This has surprised me. The one thing I used to count on to sort out the wheat from the chaff has been taken away from me, ie I only ever bought pedigree puppies from ANKC registered breeders. So now I have to think in a different way and say that the ANKC registration and an ANKC registered breeder are no longer a part of my criteria and I need to really think what would be my criteria. What I know is I want to know the lineage of my dog so they would have to be registered and I want to be sure of the temperament. So I want a dog to be registered and but not necessarily with ANKC papers and I now do not have as my criteria that the breeder is ANKC registered.

I think a large part of the problem is the lack of definition for the groups of breeders. For me I want the dogs and their offspring kept in good conditions, their lives enriched, their medical needs attended to, health tests done and dogs and bitches who fail those tests are not bred from, healthy sound puppies going to good homes. Some breeders don't do the above so I would not buy a puppy from them. I am not sure that I want to put anything else into the criteria except the welfare of the dogs so I really don;t care if the breeder doesn't show the dogs and I am conflicted about whether I require the breeder to belong to the ANKC.....I am still thinking this criteria through. What I really am sure of is I want healthy puppies with great temperaments coming from happy healthy parents with great temperaments who have all been enriched during their lives.

I don't think its because of show ring competition, more like the battle of the earnest. It's got to the point where to say you barely breed is a good thing ie I'm a breeder but I breed only once every decade. I mean come on. Yep I agree lilli, the world has gone mad

I am not a fan of a two tiered system and I think it is a mistake for CCCQ to implement one. The message this gives the public is that accredited breeders are more special than regular breeders. Additionally, if there are problems with any system, my preference is always to fix it properly not to put another flawed system on top of it. However, this system was put in place seemingly without too much kicking and screaming from CCCQ breeders. The issue with the CCCQ thread is that if a member of the public views it they will read that that there are dodgy breeders in the accredited scheme and dodgy breeders in the regular scheme...so who does that leave for them to buy from if they are looking for a reputable breeder? I am sure not all accredited breeders are dodgy but given that there were no names given in that thread it will be assumed that the non-dodgy breeders could be dodgy. So I wonder, why are the breeders who are so vehement that they won't join the scheme not doing something about what has happened, apart from castigating dispersions against all Queensland breeders? ETA I wonder also whether because the show ring is so competitive whether there will ever be a time when all reputable dog breeders stand together against what is happening.

Jaxx'sBuddy that is not correct what you have written ...no where did any person oppose an accredited breeder scheme in Queensland. We opposed the form it was in. We all wanted one better to keep out puppy farmers. i was going to post from that thread but i have decided not to as i do not want to derail this thread. if you believe that all posters in that thread want an accredited scheme then we will agree to differ in our assessment of what was written. not withstanding this disagreement, in that thread there was unbelievable statements made about breeders in that accredited scheme and i believe those statements have brought into disrepute all registered breeders in queensland.

a classic example was the dol CCCQ thread where non-accredited CCCQ breeders were saying they wouldn't join the accredited scheme because there were dodgy breeders registered in that scheme. i could not believe that breeders did not understand the implications of what they were saying. they were really saying to the public, that the governing body cannot be trusted to get it right and the new accredited breeder scheme was just a money making venture. this is all animal rights people need to hear to keep up the "breeders are bad" mantra. i was also told that because i wasn't a breeder, did nothing for breeders and did not live in queensland, that i should not have commented in the thread. with comments like that (and how do they know what i do btw) is it any wonder we have a problem? if we do not start to look at this issue strategically and politically then we will be picked off one by one and i have no idea why breeders cannot see this. we all need each other....breeders need puppy buyers and puppy buyers need breeders. and when i talk about breeders i am talking about people who look after each and every dog they have, who health test and who enrich their dogs regardless of how many they own who take care in placing their puppies and who will take their puppies back at any time if they find themselves homeless. eta when i say health test i also mean test for health and do not breed from dogs who have any health issues that could be passed on...health testing on its own is not enough