shortstep

Interesting, thanks for those comments. Adding the bob tail gene is not removing a disease, it is adding the potential of a new disease (spinal deformaties). This risk would have to be weighted against the risk of injury in having a tail vs the concept of discomfort with docking. I am not sure I see this as the same as the dalmatian, unless there was a big risk of introducing another worse disease across the whole population that came from the breed used for the cross. I wonder if more people buy UKC disease free dalmatians than AKC diseased dalmatians in the US? I would never choose the puppy that has the disease when I know there are puppies that do not have the disease. Being in a different registry would not be an issue for me. Same would be if I was a breeder, I would not hesitate to leave the American kennel club if being a member prevented me from breeding healthy dogs. Has anyone imported a disease free dog to get these healthy lines of dals going in Australia or NZ? Any thoughts on this topic? I wonder what dal breeders will do if there comes a time when the Aus government steps in a says they have to introduce the disease free genetics into their puppies or they can not breed. Taking the stance that it is animal cruely to knowingly breed a pup with great risk of disease when they have the ability to not breed that risk? This would be just like what has already been done in Victoria with the state regulated DNA testing and breeding proticals to prevent disease.

http://www.thedogpress.com/ShowShots/LUA-D...22_Mitchell.asp Do all dalmatians (the dogs without the bennifit of the purpose bred 15 generations of disease free lines) carry this disease? Does ANKC allow these disease free dogs to be registered? Just interested in what others would say as to how many generation of back breeding before saying that a dog is now purebred again? These dogs ow have 15 generations of breeding back to purebreds.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I am not up on this breed so have no opinion, other than.... Yes! We do need to be very careful about which DNA tests we accept as valid. All research (which would include the work this lab is doing) needs to be published and peer reviewed. The lab, uni's or other research groups often have much to gain financially. The only method to protect the public is for publication and peer review to take place. Without that, we are all at risk of potential serious errors or even worse fraud. I agree with the science needed to match the real world. If a disease is not documented in a population of dogs, than it would not match if the test is showing a high carrier or affected rate. However it is possible for that to happen and this is where the science and peer review need to keep researching. One explanation is there is a another gene involved that is suppressing the disease gene, and yes it could be a gene that only turns on the disease gene in old age. For example they believe they have found a gene for adult onset deafens in some breeds, adult meaning around 4-6 years of age. However they are also looking at dogs that go deaf at older ages, could these dogs also have the same defective gene but have another mutation that delays the onset of deafness? There is much they do not know yet. I believe there is also a test for labs for exercise induced hyperthermia??? and this test though likely is finding a gene that is involved, it is not predicting the incidence of affected dogs very well?? Maybe other genes are at play which affects the actual outcome? Can Lab breeders say more about this? I have also heard of a DNA test being offered for a mutation in a general area, they have not found the actual gene. There is now a new DNA gene searching method and this method is not showing that general area mutation as an area of concern in affected dogs. There has also been more carriers identified than the real world number of affected dogs would predict. We need to be very careful that the research is actually finished, published, reviewed and found to be accurate. On the other hand, there is a DNA test for one disease in my breed and it was one of the best days in my life when I heard the news they had found the gene. This put a rapid end to dogs every having to suffer from this diseae again and gave the breeders wonderful control! We are making great strides in combating genetic disease and we are lucky to live in such a great time of discovery in this area.

http://www.offa.org/pdf/hdappbw.pdf OFA is 35.00 for hips only 35.00 elbows only 40.00 for both hips and elbows 3 dogs from same litter (hips and elbows) $90.00 for all 3. This is wonderful for breeders who are using lateral pedigrees on hips and elbows and great for owners at only $30.00 per dog for hip and elbow scoring. They will take digital (email) xrays. Dogs can be awake for xrays. Final results at 2 years of age, can get prelim results at earlier age. Been looking at Cornell, which seems to be growing in popularity. It is a consultation service for any orthopedic problems. Hips and elbows are given normal (= to OFA Excellent, Good or Fair) or abnormal status and a full detailed written report is included. $50.00, there is a form on line, they also take digital email xrays, dogs can be awake.

This is so sad, I hope Dr Wyburn is going to be Ok, he is such a nice man. As far as I know there is only AVA, and from what I hear you can get any one of a number of poeple reading them. There is OFA in the states. Also Cornell Uni in the US, which is a new program and I understand very reliable and not long waits to get results. I think I may give them a try. I will contact them and see if they will read email compatable xrays.

Was speaking with several friends over the past few days and heard about several area of research which appear to now be moving in a very positive direction. One is in the gene identification of Adult Onset Deafness in border collies, an area of likely cause has been found. More works needs to be done, but things are looking hopeful. Research working on locating a gene for noise phobia is also making headway, they now have a potential candidate gene. If I understand correctly this would be for all ( or many) breeds. Breed genetic stratification research had located possible genetic evidence of a breed split, work is now underway to refine and clarify this information and it's possible implications. This is important for future gene research, as breed split groups could be significantly different enough to each other that it could mislead research. This might assist in more accurate selection of which dogs to study and also possible differences with in a population such as a diseases in one population and not the other. Other areas that might be of interest could include breed identification confusion, health screening/testing on different groups with in groups in a breed and the uses of cross breedings between groups or even neighboring breeds. The 3 above are mentioned in this news letter, but this is several months old now, sorry could not find anything more current. (also a nice graphic of breed stratification). The ABCA (American Border Collie Association) news letter for January is where I read the most recent news but that is not available on line. http://www.piedmontbordercollie.com/ClubIn...ANewsletter.pdf More locally Sydney Uni is working on deafness in Dals and also believe they may now have an area of interest, but lots more work to do. Hopefully we will get more good news in the next few years as their work continues. Perhaps some Dal owners can add to this news? There is a new method of looking for mutations which is now available, so I think we will continue to hear about more break throughs in gene locations. On a sad note, there was some recent work done in epilepsy (using this new method) and nothing of significance was found. They did point out that this does not mean that Epilepsy may not be genetic, it does however further indicate that it is going to be a disease that has many contributing factors, some of which may be more along the lines of traits rather than mutated genes.

Thanks Troy!!!

Thanks for the sugestion and done.

Wondering if 'In The News' could be changed and divided up into two sections. One dealing with current events and happenings, science news, law changes, animal politics and so forth. The other dealing with dog/animal abuse and crimes. Thanks for thinking about it.

Hi, Have not heard of any changes, but I am speaking to my shipper in the UK tomorrow so will ask him. Doesn't NZ have quarrantine for arriving dogs?

Some DNA test rights are owned by a lab, for example Optigen owns the rights to do the CEA test. They do make agreements with other labs (I think it is GST in Australia). So you cannot shop around as no one else can offer the test. However you can deal direct with Optigen and bypass GTS I think. Uni of Syndey has at least one test they are refuseing to publish and they are the only place you can buy the test. If this becomes a trend world wide, and all Uni's refuse to publish for peer review and open their own DNA testing labs for the tests they develop, the effect of this will cause all sorts of problems for the dog breeders.

No question the Calgry model is by far the best thing going to solve all of the animal control issues. There are 2 videos around somewhere, which I will look for them, where they go over every part of the program and how to put it into practice. You should see how the numbers change after this program is put inot place!!! It is brilliant! Here are some comments and numbers about this program. Over the past 18 years, the city of Calgary has cut their number of dog bites and chases by more than 50% (all the while, the human and dog population of Calgary has doubled). Calgary’s dog licensing rate is over 90%, where 10-30% is the norm in California. Many stray pets that are picked up by Calgary Animal Services are returned straight home, they aren’t even taken to the shelter to be impounded. This saves money and it saves lives. The taxpayers of Calgary pay nothing for this excellent service. It’s all paid for by pet licensing fees. “Your pet’s license is his ticket home” is the motto. California’s taxpayers pay $249 million a year for animal control, but get inferior service compared to what Calgary delivers at no cost to their taxpayers. Key to Calgary’s success no – mandatory spay/neuter no – breed specific legislation no – pet limit laws no – anti-tethering laws yes – providing valued services rather than simply punishing citizens into compliance yes – buy in and cooperation among community stakeholders thanks to an animal control director who is a professional mediator yes – extensive education and PR campaign to emphasize responsible pet ownership yes – low license fees and modest fee differential for intact pets Some interesting reads http://www.vanmag.com/News_and_Features/Dog_Licensing http://ar-hr.com/2009/10/18/%E2%80%9Cit%E2...nimal-services/

Thanks for sharing this, really valuable to understand! I also really like that this came from the rescue community. I could not agree more with the ideas, more efforts spent on reuniting lost pets and preventing them from getting lost, improving community support and acceptance of pets and their owners (yes!!!) and stop waisting time on attempting to limit pet breeders and restricting pet ownership. Good on them! some very good ideas that would make real change in outcomes!

How can someone get licensed to breed with out owning any dogs? For example, I own no dogs but I want to buy a very nice pup from a breeder, but do not want the government mandated desexing nor the breeder supplied voucher. Instead I want the right to own an intact dog. Is there any way I can get a license as a breeder now prior to owning a dog? Or is this whole idea that owning intact dogs is just a no go zone for those not already involved. Only people already showing dogs, racing dogs or already breeding dogs can have a intact dog in ACT under this law? So is no new dog breeders coming along the desired and end result? If not then can you show me in this law how potential new 'good' breeders are being encouraged and assisted? Now I would guess if you are buying a puppy farm business that includes the purchase of all the puppy farm dogs for 1 million, that the government will not apply this rule to them? That the buyer can get a license to be a breeder with out showing dog, racing dogs or already being a dog breeder, and prior to buying the puppy farm business? That the seller of the puppy farm does not have to suppy vouchers for desexing on each dog in the sale of the farm to the new buyer?

Please folks, do not shut down public discussion of this bill. We certainly should talk about this topic here. Fine to write submissions, but the whole world needs to be reading and learning about this bill and it's implications. If people have concerns or questions or points of view, they should talk about them HERE so the whole world can read it. I already stated some comments about desexing vouchers and the rights of dog owners that are being strip away. But glad to discuss it again. Vouchers Why do breeders have to pay for pups to be potentially be desexed? Anyone who wants to breed the pup will not get it desexed, even if they have a voucher. However paying vets $300-500 for every pup sold in ACT is wonderful for them eh? Bet the AVA supports this bill. LOL Do the breeders get a statement from the vet that the dog never showed up with a thank you note for the money for nothing? Will the government pay back the breeder if the voucher is not used? Will the government chase around these owners with the vouchers to make sure they desex their dog? Who will be doing the monitoring of voucher compliance both by the breeders (unlicensed breeders too) and the owners who fail to use them? This will drive the cost of licensed ANKC pups up by about $400 per dog, this will make most people look to unlicensed BYB to buy a pup. Yet another reasons why this bill will drive off the good breeders and support the growth of BYB and puppy farms. Will something be done to stop puppy farms from getting bulk buy discounted voucher deals from vets? The vets will know that most people will not show up and use it so it is a win win, vet make money on unused vouchers, puppy farmers saves money on discounted vouchers...and the government pats themselves on the back for another job well done. I can see it now, Large commercial puppy farm breeders will get a discount on bulk purchase vouchers, 40% off on lots of 2000 vouchers, additional 20% off for oddles or small white fluffys (have very low rate of desexing and high chance of making more puppies for more voucher sales for the vet). More rights taken away? Someone wants to own a dog that is not desexed or even potentially breed their dog, this bill says they do not have that right. The government will however allow them that choice ONLY if they race dogs, show dogs or are already licensed as a breeder.??? So why are people who show dogs that are not licensed to breed more trustworthy with a dog that has not been surgically altered by removal of it's sex organs then say a person who does sled dog racing, or maybe a fireman or a taxi driver? Please show me the evidence that fireman can not be trusted with desexed dogs? There is no evidence that says that people who show dogs are more responsible with a desexed dogs than anyone else. Nor is there any evidence that they would make better breeders than anyone else and might even be a little suspect according to some (remember PDE). This is all just more rubbish, certainly discriminatory never mind just being a stupid idea. So when do we stop doing things that promote BYB and puppy farms? When do we stop doing things that don't work and there is no reason to believe they will work?

Using your 5 max dog parameter and running it out over the life of the dogs lets say 16 years. 1. Most caring breeders will keep their old dogs till they die. So if you can only have 5 dogs and each one stays with you for 15 years, and lets say you keep only one female from each new generation. Ok you start with 2 dogs one male and one female. Opps the males does not have very good hips, so you desex him and get a another male. Now you have three dogs and no litter yet. So being very ethical you decide that the max number of litters from any bitch should be no more than 2 and you will keep one pup from the last litter. So now you are year 3 and the first litter is born, then year 5 and second litter is born and you keep a pup. You now have 1 male desexed, 1 male intact, one female desexed and one female pup to breed from in the future. Now you have to get another male, and you desex the older male, so you now have 5 dogs. You can breed 2 more litters over the next 5-6 years. Your oldest dogs are now about 12 years, however you could not keep a pup from the bitches second litter as you would go over the 5 dog limit. So you have no bitch to breed forward with. Ina few more years one of the older dogs dies, but you are too weary to start all over again, tired of trying to breed under dog limits and so pack it in. Another breeder gone. 5 dog limit will cause most people to have a very short time of breeding dogs, usually no more than 2 generations. This is sad as you always want to keep good breeders around for as many years as possible, so they can learn and pass on what they learn not only to other breeders but also for the benefit of their owners. With the 5 dog limit law, you will have a never ending group of beginner breeders. If they also sold all the pups desexed, this would also not allow for anyone to try to pick up when they left off with their dogs when they hit limit and were unwiling to rehome their older dogs, so had to stop breeding. There is lots more to worry about in this type of government controlled dog breeding. But we can let the Uni of Sydney sort out the distruction this would have on the population in the breeds in the future if anyone still wants a dog. Now BYB and smaller puppy farms have no problems with dog limits, once they get as many litters as possible out off the dogs in the shortest period of time allowed, they just have them put down or even shoot them. They move on to the next producing dogs with out a second thought about the ones that had reached their use by date and were then tossed aside. Dog limit laws do nothing to stop bad breeders from breeding lots of puppies, but they do severely limit and usually drive off all good breeders. They will not give up their old dogs, even if they have to stop breeding. Being good people they will obey the law.

Try to understand this. I have bred dogs for about 20 years or so, and in all the time only one dog against my will was bred, all the rest had no zero puppies. That was my choice and not for every breeder. If every one did what I did there would not be any dogs to breed, so I do not think it makes me better than anyone else, just more paranoid if the truth be known. Now you want me to be happy to have someone like you, who does not breed at all, tell me that I need to desex my pups before they leave, that what I do is not good enough. You want to tell me what is physically best for my babies, which I feel will affect the rest of their lives and when research tells us that early desexing is bad for the pups. Even if you do not believe it, all I can say to you is too bad. They are my pups and I will only do what I think is best for them. If you make a law to taek away my right to decide, that will make me do something I think will cause my pups to have a lower quality of life or even illness, then my only course of action left is, I will not do it. You can not make me. Rather than break the law I will just not breed. So there you go, one more good breeder, who always does the right thing for her pups and her owners is gone. Replace me along with the hundreds of other like me who have already left with yet another BYB. If the government wants to breed dogs, place them, do what health testing they think is needed (which BTW is less than I do), write the contract or desex their 8 week old pups, work with the owners for up to 15 years, study the lines in the breed, track down just the right dogs for the next generation even if that means spending thousands to import, face it all the good and bad, then let them do it. I'll sign up to buy a dog but it better be as good as mine are...eh. If not they should stay out of my affairs. As hard as it might be to believe, I really do not bred any pup for money. From a rescuers point a view, (of which I rehomed around 200 dogs) and in my rescuers opinion, this law will not do anything to stop uncaring breeders. Even more important and I say it again, even more important, nothing in this law will do anything about uncaring owners buying pups for the wrong reasons and dumping dogs when it suits them. Nothing has changed in the 30 years I have been active in or watching rescue. You can not legislate morals, caring or love, nor can you make people act in an intelligent way. For me it all comes down to the owners. They are the ones that buy the puppy farm or BYB pups. The information about puppy farms and BYB is all over the web if they wanted to spend the time to read it. The only thing that will stop BYB or puppy farmers is when no one buys their pups. It is the buyers that drive those breeders. These are also the same people who dump their dogs at the pound. The facts prove that all that has happened in the last 20 years is more and more good breeders have left breeding and have been replaced by more and more BYB and puppy farms. It is time to stop doing what is not working. Now before someone tells me again I have noting to add to this conversation again, I beg to disagree. I have plenty of history and background both as a breeder and in doing rescue to make my opinion as valid as anyone else's.

http://goldcoast.locanto.com.au/dogs/803/ Can someone who is promoting the licensing of all dog breeders, show me how this is working on the Gold Coast in the internet adds above, this is now under the law and the program is up and functioning. I see lots of puppies for sale but no license numbers? Is this the type of improvement in dog breeding you expect to see in ACT? How will violaters of the law be found out on line and at all other locations that less than wonderful breeders flogg off their pups? Edited to ad, just called one on the cell numbers on their ad, after chatting for a few moments, I asked if they had a Gold Coast breeder license with the council, they hung up on me. BTW is using cell phone numbers how they avoid exposing themselves, as the ones I looked at all at had cell phone numbers.

You are being rude to me. I do not know her and only asked what her personal at home rescue experience was. That is not rude. The posts in ittalics indicated they referred to her post above. As she had referred to several people in her post with otu indicating who they were, I only took out the what was realted to me. I am sorry you could not figure out what she said and what I said, except of course the parts where you thought I was being rude.

It is the PET puppies that are produced that need to be rehomed appropriately and should be desexed. I can't really understand why a breeder wouldn't want to make sure that their offspring didn't fall into the hands of the backyard breeders? It has happened over many, many years, the shepherds, rottis, staffords, etc. (I love the breeds, especially staffords but there are BUCKETLOADS of them in the pounds these days and if you look online at the breeder ads, way too many are being bred everywhere - with registered breeders, backyard breeders, etc. This is evidenced by the over-representation in the pounds with many being euthanased). I would like to say I think it is WONDERFUL that there is an effort (again) to introduce desexed showing classes. I do hope that they are well supported and take off this time. It may help with decisions by people to desex their puppies that go to pet homes but that they can still support the breeder's stock in showing the quality produced (as we all know that sometimes you can't be sure how they'll turn out). So how many puppies is too many for a breeder to have turned out? What exactly do you want done to the breeder where the microchips showed they have turned out too many pups? In my opinion, puppies should be bred for betterment of the breed, this should include temperament as well as quality rather than for just financial gain. I think that you believe I am talking about registered breeders only. I am not. I do think that a record that could show those that are turning out litter after litter would give authorities an ability to have a pointer to direct them to ensure that they are compliant with legislation etc, may indicate a puppy farm, but also that due to the larger number of puppies turned out, the facility would need to be appropriate for such. I personally believe that BYB are the most indiscriminate breeders who generally have little experience with breeding and do it for the wrong reasons - ie. financial gain from not necessarily "healthy" adults or for such reasons as the dog should have a litter before desexing or it would be good for the kids to see. A good proportion of these, often crossbreeds, end up in pound system. Well you talked a lot and never answered the question, how many 6 20 100 how many is too many? do you really believe that BYB will be applying for a license? We all know they will not. We also all know that your laws will only harass the small breeders who will try to follow the licensing laws. We all know that they will give up and just stop breeding. We also know that any breeder knocked out of breeding is a job well done eh. Have you ever met a breeder you respected? If so can you discribe them? Yes, several. I have dogs of my own from respected breeders and just lost my nearly 16yo girl who is also from a respected kennel (all desexed). The dogs that are bred are tested for known genetic issues, are bred in accordance with the code of ethics, are bred in healthy conditions, given plenty of appropriate enrichment and socialisation during their growth period, are sold to new homes with information on feeding, training etc and the new home is carefully chosen. Although I respect these breeders some do and some don't desex PET pups prior to sale, some have desexing contracts. I would prefer to see all PET puppies either desexed or under desexing contracts. Desexing a PET puppy is the only way you can ensure that your puppy isn't going to be contributing to the pet population in an inappropriate manner. A lot of what you wants going on. What lengths will you go to to make sure that everyone has to live by the rules you want? OK, I do every single thing you say and even more, so I hope you listen to me...if this law comes in where I live, I will stop breeding. Everyone I personally know know who does breed to the standards you have described and also have a long history in breeding will quite too. All that will be left in the wake of your push to make everyone live to your wants, will be puppy farms and BYB. You know that too and think that is just fine. I must point out that I have absolutely no beefs with registered breeders at all, nor responsible people and breeders having entire stock, though note that there is also still a lot of non-compliance from within. LOL Can't even finish a sentence that is ment to show how you do not hate breeders without qualifiying that idea...LOL You are too funny. BTW can you tell me how many rescue dogs you have personally brought into your home, rehabbed and rehomed? I have a long history in rescue, I can usually tell those who have taken in hundreds of dogs into the homes over many years.

This was just sent to me. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...vets-inbreeding Health checks for Crufts entrants are too little too late Vets appointed by the Kennel Club cannot make up for more than a century of inbreeding and selection for form over function * o Jemima Harrison o guardian.co.uk, Friday 7 January 2011 18.30 GMT Vets appointed by the Kennel Club cannot make up for more than a century of inbreeding and selection for form over function This week the Kennel Club announced that from Crufts 2012, it will no longer be enough for show dogs to look the part. In order to earn the top prizes, 15 of the most "troublesome" breeds will have to pass a vet check too. It must be astonishing to anyone outside the weird world of dog shows that animals with obvious health problems could ever win. But it's a depressing fact that dogs that are lame, have sore eyes, skin problems and even breathing issues can be rewarded by judges. This is sometimes because the health issue is so ubiquitous in the breed that judges no longer see it as abnormal – red and baggy eyes in bassets and bloodhounds, for instance – or because the judge believes that "type" (the essential "essence" of a breed as defined in the breed standard) in some way overrides a corneal ulcer or obvious respiratory distress...... NAIA News National Animal Interest Alliance So I guess this confirms what the above posts in this thread have been saying, that dogs are being put up tio win that are visably sick dogs. Very sad.

So how many puppies is too many for a breeder to have turned out? What exactly do you want done to the breeder where the micropchips showed they have turned out too many pups? Have you ever met a breeder you respected? If so can you discribe them?

I think this bill will wipe out 'good' dog breeders in ACT. I asked recently how many breeders had got a license on the Gold Coast? So many people are promoting this as the way to go, yet no one answered the question. Is this because even though they are promoting this, they have no idea or because the number is very low and they did not want to say that? I would like to see some of these new (localized) breeder license laws play out for a few years before even thinking of putting them in place state wide or across the country. The damage this will do to 'good ' breeders would be unfixable if too many are driven off. If part of the goal is having enough caring breeders who have the dogs needed to breed physically and mentally healthy pets, then this bill will not make that happen. In fact I see this bill as promoting puppy farms as they are the only ones that will want to breed under this sorts of government interference. However if the real goal is to end dog private home breeding programs in ACT then I think the Greens have found a way to do that without coming right out and saying that to the public. I also do not think this will have any impact on BYBs who never pay attention to the laws anyway. The large puppy farms will already be complying to all licensing laws and will have no problem adjusting to this law. On another topic, am I reading this correctly, that for evey pup placed the breeder has to pay a vet for a voucher for desexing? We are talking in the thousands maybe several thousand paid out per litter to a vet for doing desexing on dogs they may never even see. Do the vets get to keep the money paid for the desexing vouchers when the new owners never show up to use it? Why should the vets in ACT make $300-500 on every pup sold in ACT even if they do not do the surgery? Or does the breeder get a refund if after 1 year it is not used buy the new owner? Will the breeder get a signed document from the vet stating the Dog X Microchip number XXX was desexed? Can the breeders get vouchers for vets outside of ACT to do the desex?

Oh sorry did not know that. I was under the impression Mita was an ANKC breeder and was speaking as an ANKC breeder about these new laws she is promoting.

I think that is the whole idea, and the more duress the better. Who?? (tongue in cheek) Was just talking to someone I know who breeds dogs for cattle work, his dogs are well known all over the top end as some of the best you can get for the work and the environment. He had no idea about this and did not think he would put him self through the process. So it is not just ANKC breeders who will stop breeding.