shortstep

He gets my vote over left wing extremist any time! BTW the first place I heard this story was months ago on the Sydney Morning Herald, can't be more left that that...LOL

From the dogs NSW web site. Compulsory Microchip Prior to Registration - 1st January 2012 DOGS NSW wish to advise their members that as from 1st January 2012, to assist with positive identification, it will be mandatory to include individual microchip numbers for each puppy included on the application to register a litter. Please note that this notice is being published in the January 2011 Gazette and the ANKC will be issuing a full Press Release in a later issue of the Gazette.

We all need to have a good understanding of the core belief system of PETA and the Animal Liberations groups. They want no human interaction with animals, they do not want any domestic animals, they do not approve of any dog breeding no matter how well done, they do not approve of the concept of pets and think the world will be a better place if humans can not have pets. The only way you will please PETA and the like, is to ban dog ownership, and we are even hearing these words about removing property rights over dogs thrown around now. There are many concerned pet owners who are being mislead and ready to push this idea through. I do not think for one moment they realize what they are setting up to happen. It is a very slippery slope with these animal rights groups and in my opinion nothing should be done to please them. However, there are animal welfare groups (note I did not say animal rights groups) that do have valid concerns, society in general have some valid concerns, and science has some valid concerns, all of which should be addressed willingly by the ANKC and their member breeders.

It has to be registered in the KC of the county it lives in and is on the team representing. So If I send a limited to the US, it can not be registered there on limited because there is no system between OZ and the US to do that. So that dog could never be treated as a purebred dog, which would include being refused the right to represent the US on their world team as a purebred dog. Yet there will lots of limited registred dogs on the US team, just not OZ limited. See how it works? Well thats interesting and if true then that opens a can of worms which I may just need to tickle a bit. I think the missing part is there has not been any agreement between ANKC and other Kennel clubs about this issue. Again it is view coming from a showing and breeding perspective. But folks the world is changing, Kennel club has to be for everybody, things like doing dog sports or being a member of the local breed club are just as important now. An imported limited dog is a purebred and deserves that recognition with in the limits of the limited program. If you think about it, why shouldn't a limited registered dog not be able to get a certified pedigree and registration. All that is doing is certifying it is correct and true to the new registry. Not all countries will have Limited programs, but these days I think most do. Hawaii was mentioned, I get a number of enquiries for dogs to do activities with from there, these are very nice homes not pet shops. Even though they have no intention to breed, they always think twice when they realize with limited they will not be able to register their dog at all in the AKC. This would mean that the best they could hope for is called an associate type program. That means they cannot go to breed club trials, they would never be able to try out for any international compitition (that all the other AKC limited dogs could do), and the breeder here in Australia will never get any credit for the dog, as there will be no allowed use of the prefix. BTW the owners also have great pride in their dogs real full KC name and want to use it. Now if people get up to some sort of bad behaviour with limited pedigrees I am unaware of that. I only see it from the point of view by the buyers of these dogs, who should not be casted off as second class dogs just because they are on limited and were exported.

It has to be registered in the KC of the county it lives in and is on the team representing. So If I send a limited to the US, it can not be registered there on limited because there is no system between OZ and the US to do that. So that dog could never be treated as a purebred dog, which would include being refused the right to represent the US on their world team as a purebred dog. Yet there will lots of limited registred dogs on the US team, just not OZ limited. See how it works?

I am not blaming the ANKC, but I do think it is time to look at what has been done and results it has gotten. Then make new and differnet plans to get the results that we want. Being taken down bit by bit day after day is a heck of way to go eh? and all the time refusing to address the issues we need address. MDBA is great, but will not save ANKC. The changes have to come at that level and apply to all members. Least that is how I see it. And in reality, I do not think for a min that any of this will be done. It would take a total change of position and a lot of people determined to push it through, even then it would be like pushing ... up hill. LOL But it does beg the question, are some KC's in the world reaching the end of their use by dates? Clearly some are adjusting and doing very well, but also just as clear some others are not making an adjustments and the future is very uncertain. So on that cheery thought, I am off to buy food! So no more ramblings by me for a while...LOL

Because the ANKC says so. Yes it restricts an ANKC breeder for selling a dog they want to place on limited to an overseas home if they want to provide transferable limited papers. But the law will not see it as restraint of trade, you can still sell your puppy, you just won't do it with ANKC limited transferable papers. Your choice is yours to belong to the club and follow their rules or not. BTW almost all countires now have limited rego, so this could be done if the clubs wanted to do it. I think dogs back and forth from AKC to CKC on limited. Not sure about the UK. And there are several other registeres outside kennel club that have international recognition of other clubs limited rego for transfers. Why not, let people join the club and do activies, the dog is purebred, it is just not for breeding or show ring. No you can still export limited register puppies and dogs but the limited register is for pets so there isnt ny reason for a person to want to have an export certificate. The fact that the export certifiate is only issued to main register is because that iTs supposed to be used for people to be able to tranfer the dog from the aussie registry to the overseas one to be able to breed registered puppies and show the dog in that country. Yes and when I export a limited registered dog to the US or Canada, both of which have m limited register programs, these people can not particpate in the Kennel club activites that allow limited registered dogs like agility ( remember not all countires allow associate dogs and even other rules can apply, for example a dog cannot go on the world agility team if it is not on main or limited register of it's home country register. So why can't an Oz export get the same opertunity and if you will bennfits that all limited KC registered dogs have, just becaseu they move to another country. They should have all their rights and priviliages transferable to any KC within the limited program. So lots more going on then just dog shows or breeding.

Might be the rule has changed since I looked at it. I heard recently that 6 months of age was under consideration. That would shut down the export of puppies as pet shops don't want 6 month old dogs. I would also hate to see ANKC registered breeders that were by club rules not placing with pet shops or retailers to be under that rule. This topic would take some cooperation and planning with the governement to solve. Which I am sure the animal rights folks are already doing. We (ANKC) of course would need to have our rules in place that none of our breeders were allowed to sell to put shops or retail, before we could enter into to any discussion and be taken as crediable on our sincerty to not participate in this unethcial practice.

Look I was staying out of this as it appears there is some sort of racket going on with puppies and everyone knows about it but me. But I still say you can not avoid making a stand on ethcial social issues just because some people will not play by the rules. Today, we need to make a stand on puppy farming, sales to pet shops and a few other ethical issues that society is damanding we address. It is simple enough to make the rules and it should be done. Those who do not play by the rules should be delt with and this can be somthing we then explore. But first you must set the standards for ANKC, that must come first. We either support puppy farms or we do not, we either think it is ok to sell ANKC puppies to pet shops or we do not.

I would guess it is a left over from a time when most KC did not have limited programs and there is no method already set up for transfering them. It is something that could be looked at and redone if there was the desire.

Because the ANKC says so. Yes it restricts an ANKC breeder for selling a dog they want to place on limited to an overseas home if they want to provide transferable limited papers. But the law will not see it as restraint of trade, you can still sell your puppy, you just won't do it with ANKC limited transferable papers. Your choice is yours to belong to the club and follow their rules or not. BTW almost all countires now have limited rego, so this could be done if the clubs wanted to do it. I think dogs back and forth from AKC to CKC on limited. Not sure about the UK. And there are several other registeres outside kennel club that have international recognition of other clubs limited rego for transfers. Why not, let people join the club and do activies, the dog is purebred, it is just not for breeding or show ring.

I just wanted to add there is a difference between what the government can do and what a club can do as far as restratint of trade. For example It is possible that the government (as things stand now) can not punish breeders for selling to pet shops. It is not agasint the law. But a club can say, 'not in our club!'. Now the government can and often do make laws that restrict behaviour, and they can make a law that selling puppies in pet shops is not allowed. Yes it will restrain both the opet shop and the pet breeder, but if that felt to be in the best interst of society then it can be done. And this is happening all over the world right now, so it certainaly can and does happen. So far Asutralian has not done this, but they will it is only a matter of time.

Does Canada have the restriction of trade thing hanging over their heads? Look Steve and I disagree, but having gone through this type of issue in other countries ona several topics, I think I have a pretty good grasp of it. Clubs can not discriminate, they can not mandate illegal activies, things like that. Otherwise it is up to the club what their rules are, and it is up to the members to obey or not obey the rules. For example I know of a dog club that made a rule if you dual registered and got a show championship in naother venue, they would pull the dogs reigstriaton papers. It was challenged and the club won, the owner tried to prove restraint of trade. The court said the breeders was free to bred his dog, so there was no restraint of trade. They said the court cannot make a club register dogs that do not qualify under the rules of the club for registration (rule is no show champions can hold registration nor will their offspring be registered). So either dog qualified for registration or it did not. The rule was clear as well as the reason for the rule, when you join the club you agree to uphold the rules. Another words nobody is stoping him from doing his trade of dog breeding, but the court can not force a club to register his dogs if it does not meet their rules. Does that make sence?

Canada CKC breeder members are not allowed to sell pups to pet shops. No quaifications, no lip service, just one clear sentence. No breeder shall sell or donate dogs for the purpose of their being auctioned, raffled, or to pet stores.

As long as they are PIAA accredited, breeders can sell to pet shops and wholesalers. Code of Ethics for dogsnsw A Member shall not: (a) sell any dog to commercial dog wholesalers or retail pet dealers, who are not accredited by the Pet Industry Association of Australia Limited (PIAA). I dont know what their process is if a breeder is caught selling to non PIAA members Well that very rule blows the restraint of trade idea right out the window. Why can they restrain them to only selling PIAA shops, it still is restraining. This rule is here because they think it sounds more ethical then saying yes our breeder supply the pet shops, so have made a rule about it to soften the sound of it. No one is fooled. And if they want to take a real stand on this issue not just give it lip service, they could also make a rule that said ANKC members can not sell any dog to any commercial dog wholesaler or retail pet dealers. End of blaming ANKC breeders for this welfare issue and we can proudly make a clear statement that we do not particiapte in that industry. Shortstep. This has all already been tested in court and legal advice has told them it cant be done . Allowing them to restrict to a PIAA members is supposed to limit the ability to do that - back when it first came in in NSW there were only 2 in the state.Since then Transpet has become a PIAA member and numbers of PIAA pet shops has obviously risen. It was the best compromise they had because they couldnt stop them selling to a pet shop or an agent across the board. What is the point in continuing to call to stop things which they cant stop. They cant stop an owner exporting their puppies and by the time the pup is exported the breeder is no longer the owner. When they start looking at stopping selling to someone like transpet its not just the members they have to answer to - its the agents and pet shops because they are restricting their trade too. Its cant be done under current federal law - they know this because its been tested . BTW I did not sugest the ANKC limit their breeders on exporting, however I think we are very close to haveing the govenment ban all live exports and maybe all live imports. Different subject. Back on topic I disagree, I think clubs can and do set limits on their members all the time. It is already happening in other countires, they do not have that different of a legal system. Restraining our breeders from being puppy farms is perfectly acceptable to do and is in fact being called for by all parts of society. Maybe it is time for ANKC to take a stand and clarify for their members exactly what they will accpet and not accept as far as the behaviour of their members on these social issues. Then all members and the public can decide if being an ANKC member and breeder best represents their beliefs, ethics and their breeding programs. We need to rise up to the highest standards, or someone else will make us using their rules.

I agree that rules need to be enforced. However I feel we need clear rules about puppy farming, pet shop pet trade sales, and several other social ethical welfare issues with dogs. Thinking that a few members wil not obey the rules is not a reason to fail to make the rules ANKC also has to learn how to enforce them. We can no longer ignor or give lip service to the major ethical social issues surronding dogs. We have been doing that and it is clearly not working. We need to change if we want to survive. We need to take clear and real action, that gives only one message, we do not support nor allow partication in these activities by our members.

As long as they are PIAA accredited, breeders can sell to pet shops and wholesalers. Code of Ethics for dogsnsw A Member shall not: (a) sell any dog to commercial dog wholesalers or retail pet dealers, who are not accredited by the Pet Industry Association of Australia Limited (PIAA). I dont know what their process is if a breeder is caught selling to non PIAA members Well that very rule blows the restraint of trade idea right out the window. Why can they restrain them to only selling PIAA shops, it still is restraining. This rule is here because they think it sounds more ethical then saying yes our breeder supply the pet shops, so have made a rule about it to soften the sound of it. No one is fooled. And if they want to take a real stand on this issue not just give it lip service, they could also make a rule that said ANKC members can not sell any dog to any commercial dog wholesaler or retail pet dealers. End of blaming ANKC breeders for this welfare issue and we can proudly make a clear statement that we do not particiapte in that industry.

Just wanted to clarify that ANKC breeders by our rules cannot export until the pup is 11 weeks old. The government rule is 8 weeks of age. So if an ANKC breeders sends a pup overseas at 8 weeks they are breaking the code of conduct and should be dealt with.

If you go into these more advanced breeding plans, each breed has their own plan developed by the breeders with assitence of experts in genetics and popuation and so forth. There is room for endless flexability, the breeders drive the plan addressing the problems in their breed weith solutions which are ceated just for their breed, but they do get expert help which would be needed to develope these plans. This is in contrast to governement laws which do not allow choice and are not designed by the breeders.

I'm not quite sure WHY the ANKC cannot place restrictions on things like exporting entire litters - it is a voluntary organisation, people are not forced to join. If they don't want to abide by the rules and regulations, they have no place being part of the membership. Because its the Federal law - restriction of trade. Can the ANKC refuse to sign off on the exportation application so they cannot be sent overseas with their papers? The breeder marks the box not for excport, then no pedigre will be given for export. This will not stop the dog from being exported but it will not have any registration from ANKC going with it for a transfer.

I see the sense in this. However, just to be (as usual) the fly in the ointment. Consider A breed. 2 fatal diseases. DNA tests recently developed. Many of the better dogs are found to be carriers for one disease or another. The choices in stud dogs are limited - if they aren't carriers for one disease, the bitch is. Some dogs are carriers for both. Remember there was no way to identify the problem until the dog developed symptoms. A new dog is imported. He is clear of everything, so all the carriers can safely be mated to him. He does not have many genes in common with any of the bitches, so he is an outcross which gives breeders and opportunity to breed clear or carrier pups from their lovely, but carrier status bitches. So he is used very extensively at stud. However, the pups by him can now go on and breed without the risks involved in these diseases. Now the breeders have clear or carrier dogs they can go back to whatever lines they like. Limiting the number of services he was allowed would have seen the 2 problems continue in this country, for many many bitches, without any way forward. I would disagree with limited services - always. With Cavs and SM and MVD, if the genes involved are ever discovered (and I don' t think they will be), one or some dogs will need to be used quite a lot at stud to work the way around these problems, I think. Limiting the number of times a dog can be used at stud will retard breeding away from the problems. You are very correct Jed. The missing bit is each breed has it's own breeding rules. All of what you have said is taken in and is part of the decisions. So for example the plan might be to import some known clear dogs and these dogs would be used more, how much more for how long I have no idea, but the group decides how to best care for their breed. Genetics' and populations experts can be very helpful in building these types of breeding plans when breeds are in real trouble, not all of them want to wipe out purebred dogs. In Northern Europe that is not part of what is going on. Ask me the breeders have been so progressive in their planning, that animal rights radicals don't get the time of day as the breeders have already address all the issues. \ BTW from what I could gather on the cavs in Sweden, you test at least one parent to be A, the other parent had to be free of symptoms. So that was not very restrictive and sure not the same as saying A to A only. There was a lots of eveidnce they were trying to keep as many dogs as possible in the population. I think we would find most of these breeding plans not really different to what we already do.

Just wanted to add about COI. From what I have seen they are not limiting upper limits. What they do is look at the breed over all COI. Then decide how high that is and how fast things should change. Then a number is put on it, it might be that each next generation needs to be 0.5% lower than their lowest parent. What I do not like about McGreevy is saying, is that you never stop reducing the COI until you reach 0%. I think that is too far. I would add, that in the plans I have read in places like Norway, it has more a feel of temporay or always under review, as if right now this is where they are aiming and they will decide later what to do next. Also remember that the breeders there are very much a part of these plans as they are driving it to happen. However if we do not drive these changes for ourselves, then others will be only too glad to make us do it and they will write the rules, and we may end up with something far less to our likeing,

We either find our own way to make it palatable or we get it shoved down our throats. It is going to be part of breeding programs in the near future, like it or not. Besides, I am sure that if the Fins, Swedes and Norwegians can figure this out and still be breeding nice dogs, surely we can do it too.

If we do not want the government to regulate us, then we better start ( and not a second to waist) doing it ourselves. Really, why is it that so very few breeds have any mandatory health tests. I have been doing hips for 20 years, eye exams for 20 years, then it changed to DNA tests, then add 2 more DNA test and a couple of other minor tests I do randomly just to keep an eye out. Would it kill us to make a few rules about this stuff and then enforce it. I am not super breeder, all the breeders I know do the same and if others out there are not they should be. So lets just get it done. Why don't we have a policy about puppy farming. Why haven't we at least looked at the benefits of opening some stud books to outside purebred dogs, Kelpies being a perfect example. Can't we address any of the issues that have been raised against us? I am done trying to defend what is no longer defendable. We need to get our sh*t together and we need to do it now and stop making excuses. We should look to northern Europe and get to work. Their programs are good, they are not restrictive (at least they would not change anything I am doing). Just wanted to add, we need to stop worrying about what other dog breeders are doing. We have no control over them. What we need to be worried about is what our breeders do, and we need to hold ourselves to the highest standards in the world. Only then can we stare them down and win this.

It is a very sad state of affairs. And it just keeps looking worse each year over what? the past 15 years? To me it proves that you can not keep doing the same old thing and expect new or different outcomes. It is time to bring the ANKC up so it can join the best kennel clubs in the world. Outstanding breeding programs and a respected well earned leadership position in all purebred dog welfare issues.