shortstep

Yep I am looking at some pups for sale in Finland and speaking with the breeders. For my breed they have this great database. Just put in the pedigree number and up comes everything! Pedigree with COI of all the dogs behind with photos. Every pup, every sibling, every aunt and uncle. The all the health testing for all the dogs in the pedigreee as well as all the relatives. Then you can plug in your bitch or dog (if you are in the system) as a mate and it will pull out all of the above for a pretend litter. BTW the cost of the pups is not cheap, but I am sold.

i could live with this as well So back to the questions We are looking at the front page of ANKC and we can see one of 2 sentences. 1. ANKC does not support, nor do we allow our members to participate in large scale breeding of puppies. or 2. ANKC encourages all types of breeders including the largest puppy farms in the country. Our puppy farm policy includes regulating number of litters a bitch can have, regulating how many times a dog can be used at stud, regulating the number of staff per dog per property on the large puppy farms. So you like option #2 for the ANKC position on puppy farming? I still pick option 1 hands down. But may be add a few more rules for the puppy farms and I might warm up to it.

Sorry miss understood your post. but will leave this part..LOL edited to add, Wouldn't it be nice if the government came to the ANKC to ask how to manage dog breeding problems i nthe rest of the community. I think that day could come, but only if ANKC pulls us up to the level of the best breeding programs in the world.

This is happening all over Europe, in what are held up as the best breeding programs in the world. Though we may escape this for a while, I think it will only make us look backward to not consider making some changes in this direction. BTW in many countries in Europe stud dogs are also being limited on how many litters they can sire to reduce popular sire syndrom effect. The number is adjusted for each breed after review of COI levels and other population considerations such as disease and total size of population. Personally I have never bred a bitch more than 4 times, so again this change would not affect me or change anything I do. So no drama for me.

True and I am sure people can mull over that problem till the cows come home. It still has nothing to do with the ANKC taking a stand against large scale puppy farmers. I think this is why nothing in ANKC every gets solved. We do not focus in on one problem and solve it. Instead we keep throwing in other problems, so of course the solution will not solve all the other problems. i think it does have a point because until we agree or know what the baseline is we don't know who's breaking the rules Ok lets turn it around and lets stick to one thing, does ANKC or does it not support large scale puppy breeding? So here we are looking at the front page of ANKC and we can see one of 2 sentences. 1. ANKC does not support, nor do we allow our members to participate in large scale breeding of puppies. or 2. ANKC encourages all types of breeders from small home breeders to the largest puppy farms in the country, we do not regulate or monitor the number of puppies any of our breeders produce. Which one?

True and I am sure people can mull over that problem till the cows come home. It still has nothing to do with the ANKC taking a stand against large scale puppy farmers. I think this is why nothing in ANKC every gets solved. We do not focus in on one problem and solve it. Instead we keep throwing in other problems, so of course the solution will not solve all the other problems. i think it does have a point because until we agree or know what the baseline is we don't know who's breaking the rules Ok lets turn it around and lets stick to one thing, does ANKC or does it not support large scale puppy breeding? So here we are looking at the front page of ANKC and we can see one of 2 sentences. 1. ANKC does not support, nor do we allow our members to participate in large scale breeding of puppies. or 2. ANKC encoupanse all types of breeder from small home breeders to the largest puppy farms in the country, we do not regulate or monitor the number of puppies any of our breeds produce. Which one?

True and I am sure people can mull over that problem till the cows come home. It still has nothing to do with the ANKC taking a stand against large scale puppy farmers. I think this is why nothing in ANKC every gets solved. We do not focus in on one problem and solve it. Instead we keep throwing in other problems, so of course the solution will not solve all the other problems.

Well we already have that in most states with the dog breeding welfare codes and it sounds like the RSPCA will soon be policing all breeders to make sure that happens. That has nothing to do with ANKC taking a stand against large scale commercial breeders with in it's own ranks. Just my personal opinion and it comes from 20 years of breeding and most of that time being home full time. I would never want a pup from somone breeding 3 litters a month and doing it year in and year out. I do not think they could or would give those pups the kind of care I would want my pups to have. And I also I do not want a pup raised by employees in breeding facilities no matter how well educated, monitored and regulated they are. But to each their own.

So for you its a numbers game? Will this number be determined by litters or pups? Who will determine this number ? How will you stop breders doing what they do now - have several different prefixes in family members names? How much hope do we really have - even if we could in stopping this when at least one board member of Dogs NSW exports stacks of pups a year and someone happens to be related to the guiy who owns Transpet and was instrumental in the whole export thing from the ACT even starting in the first place? Look anyone can pick hole in any idea. Anyone can and some will cheat. Nothing new there and you deal with it the best you can. It is time to take a stand and do something, the only thing that ANKC can do is make it's own rules and set limits on the behaviour of it's own members. We nned to just get on with it do what we can and stop making up reasons why we can not stop puppy farmers in are own ranks.

I can not see any reason why ANKC can not limit the number of litters a member breeds. For example in many countries in Europe, in the kennel clubs limit their members dogs to how many litters/pups they can have in their lifetime, to prevent popular sire syndrome. I believe there are cities in California that also limits the number of litters a dog that lives in the city can and this applies to both males and female. We have lots of rules that limit what we can do, even restrict what we can do. Rules that say you can only breed a dog with X health score (like say hips at better then half the breed average), when there is no law that says that and you could find a lot of science which would not even agree with that method. Rules you can not bred your ANKC dog to an unregistered dog, which is a rule they impose for ethical reasons. I know a breed club that does not allow the dogs to become show champions, if they do they pull their reg papers. There are more examples. It is your choice to belong to the club and obey the rules. So I would be very slow to say that a club can not limit their members to ethical goals they set. After all if you don't like it you can still breed your dog you just can't do it with their approval. This is already happening in several countries. I think that limiting the number of litters is not exactly an extreme restriction, provided it not too severe of a small number. Who breeds more than 12 litters a year, or over one a month? Are there lots of breeders having 2 litters per month or 24 litters a year? Surely breeding 3 litters a month 36 a year is....??? I think that we can draw a line and say that anything over that is clearly large scale commercial breeding. I think it is more than Ok, even being demanded, that we say we do not condone large scale puppy breeding. When we are being threatened with removing property rights and ownership rights of dogs, well I am ready to pull some people in on their breeding habits in an effort to show that we can be responsible 'owners' and we can 'control ' our own members, that we can be held to a high standard. We can then say that that the ANKC does not allow large scale commercial puppy farming by it's members. I also know it will not make all breeders with less litters all give the best care. We all know someone can breed one litter in their life and do a darn bad job of it. That is not what this is meant to stop anyway. It is meant to stop large scale commercial dog breeding with in the ANKC membership and I see no reason at all the ANKC should not do take this step. However if they would put it to a vote and most members want to have large scale commercial breeders producing X number of litters per year in the ANKC, then OK. As long as I have been in dogs these topics have gone round and round and have never been solved at least with in the kennel clubs I have been part of. It really is time to just get it done.

Did I say people should not be picking up their poo. It is however a total waist of money to be running DNA tests on every pile of poo they can find and require every owner in the town city or state or country to do a DNA test on their dog. All in hopes of prosocuting someone for dog poo. Cleanest dog places I have been to are made that way by peer pressure not by DNA testing poo. All I can say is what a load of sh*t LOL If they want to spend money on DNA tests why not donate that money to some DNA health testing.

They have been doing this in certain places in europe for some time. Nanny state taken to the extreme. When you think that many of these countries in Europe are about ready to go bankrupt over the costs of socialized everything, this shows just why that is happening!

Ok this is what I would like to see happen that I think might show some sincerity and be believable. I know it is not perfect and is not intended to be perfect. It is action, which can then be refind though experience ad needed. Only problem is the ANKC as it stands seems to be totally incapable of taking action in any sort of direct way. LOL This would not be meaningful if it is done by a group of breeders independent of ANKC, as it would not then control what happend within ANKC. Plan of action. ANKC actually takes a shit right now and then gets off the the pot and pulls up their pants and stands ready to act again as needed. Address major problems 1. Puppy farms. No puppy farms allowed in ANKC, end of story. Limit number of registration per year, lets say 30-40 pups or something, just pick a number and get on with it. That's it, nothing more and then enforce it. 2. Health testing. Each breed club has 6 months to also take a shit and get off the pot, by writing up what tests will be required to register a litter. If breed club can't do this or breed has no club then one of the Scandinavian clubs breed tests will be used. In fact, this is even better. To make it even simpler and quicker just copy the Scandinavian health testing requirements for all breeds. If a breed club does not like it then they can fight it out amongst themselves at their leisure and submit a new test list, until then they have to follow the ones mandated. Enforcement, Every parent dog has to get a * on their registration prior to litters being registered. * is earned by returning to ANKC prior to breeding, Heath Test form which will document the required tests. Breeder lies or fails to do required tests prior to breeding, litter is not registered and breeder is given to the RSPCA to be fed to shelter dogs. No excuses, get this done and do it now. 3. Extremes/Standards. Policy is to accept and impliment what ever the advisory panel decides in the UK. 4. Inbreeding, make a rule about it, now. Add COI to all rego papers, so people start to think about it. 5. And so forth for other divisive and emotional issue and take the high ground and the simple, direct and do it now plan with no business or legal speak. Act now, adjust and change as needed in leasurire. Now everyone in ANKC is in a much better place. Able to rebuild our reputation based on facts about out breeders and dogs. Also stop worry about what other dog breeders are doing and instead make sure ANKC breeders deliever the very best breeding programs and dogs that we can ( and in most cases already do). I know it is just a dream or nightmare depending on where you sit.

10 years ago, yes make your own advisory board, and make it really address the issues which I at least think are truely there (I being the expert on all things important LOL). But there is still no heart for this today. Today, I think it is way too little and way too late. If it were to happen then it really would have to be made up with no one from ANKC on the decision making group. It would have to show total submission to the will of the advisors. I can not see that happening unless the government takes over the problem and appoints the advisory panel, pretty much like what is happening in the UK. I was just reading that one of the expected problems they are facing is many breeders are threatening to either leave breeding totally or to break away from the Kennel Club and thereby escape the changes being demanded. This will be something to watch and will likely affect what happens here. The net might get a lot bigger, which I think I am already seeing down here. Just ask the rescuers in Vic eh? LOL

Someone had asked about controlling costs on the ever increasing number of tests that are being asked for, some breeds now, if every condition is tested for could have well over $3-4000.00 worth of testing costs. I just found this on an interview with the chairman of the UK Advisory Board on the Welfare issues of Dog breeding. Sheila Crispin I think you do and I think the other thing that I’m now increasingly aware of, of course, one of the things about the eye scheme is you tend to be really dealing with people who are pretty conscientious because they’re the ones who bring their dogs for tests and so on and so forth. They're not just getting eye tests. They're getting hips, elbows, other genetic tests possibly. And it’s actually extremely expensive for them. So the other thing I would like to see and its possibly a role for the Advisory Council is that we help in terms of saying that these are the tests that you should carry out and this is how often you should conduct them so that if you like you're coming up with things that are practical and proportionate and not hugely expensive for somebody whose trying to do all the right things. And this comment about needed caution on breeding controls on disease I think genetic aspects we have to be really careful because so many of them are complex. And in fact in your own breed you know the soft-tissue sarcoma in the Flat Coated Retriever at the moment we don’t know the exact mode of inheritance and it may well be that it’s a kind of multi factorial mode of inheritance. we’ve got to be really careful on the genetic aspects because what you don’t want is to damn a breed which may have a small gene pool on the basis of one condition where you think you know the genetics but it’s actually the genetics are more complicated than you thought. And this is where the geneticist and the epidemiologists on our Advisory Council will be absolutely crucial. I don’t pretend for a minute to be an expert.

Read the whole interview of Dr. Crispin done by Jemime. I am still working through it right now. http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com/2010/08/je...-with-prof.html I can see more trouble brewing. Jemime (I think I spell her name differently every time I type it, I really do need to learn how to spell it) seems to widening her attack to include working breeders now. If this happens she might just loose most of her support other than the far left animal libbers. I know she has already lost several prominate working people support, but there are many more that still support her. (some if not a fair amount of the research is comeing from those with a working dog history who are also very highly involved in the Uni systems. We might even include McGreevy in that group...Ok that is a strech to far...LOL But you get the idea).

and this The selection of the founding chairman was made through an open competition conducted in accordance with the Nolan principles on standards in public life. The selection panel was chaired by Prof Sir Patrick Bateson FRS, and the other members were Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior and Mrs Caroline Wood (previously Director of English Nature responsible for Human Resources). The panel secretary was Mrs Heather Peck FCIPD. The post was advertised and the selection of Prof Crispin was made from a strong field of eminent applicants. The organisations forming the Review Board on the welfare aspects of dog breeding are: Blue Cross BSAVA (British Small Animal Veterinary Association) BVA (British Veterinary Association) CAWC (Companion Animal Welfare Council) Defra Dogs Trust Kennel Club PDSA (People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals) RCVS (Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Scottish Government Welsh Assembly So it looks like this was a group decision of the above and not lead by the kennel club. Abnd I can now see why Jamime would not like who is heading up the Advisory Board as she appears to be a moderate in her approch and opinions.

Not a clue, as I said I did not know about this till I read your post. Still trying to wrap my head around who they 'Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding' are. Welcome Welcome to the website of the Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding Within the last 18 months three separate reports have been published recommending the creation of an independent Advisory Council to provide advice regarding the welfare issues of dog breeding. The first two reports were released in 2009 and the third in January 2010 (‘Pedigree dog breeding in the UK: a major welfare concern?’ commissioned by the RSPCA, a report from the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare entitled ‘A healthier future for pedigree dogs’ and the ‘Independent inquiry into dog breeding’ by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson). In February 2010 a consortium of organisations* concerned with the welfare of dogs formed an interim ‘Review Board’ to take forward the key recommendations of the three reports. Their unanimous view was that the most important first step was the formation of the independent Advisory Council. Following an open competition, Professor Sheila Crispin was appointed as the founding Chairman. The press release and further details about Professor Crispin can be found here. A further open competition has now been completed for the Members of the Council. A press release detailing the new Members will be available from Thursday 18 November. The first meeting of the Council will be held on 8 December 2010. Further details of the agenda will be available on this website nearer the date of the meeting. The Advisory Council has been established as a company limited by guarantee. As a non-statutory body it depends entirely on grants and donations to progress its work. It does not benefit from any financial support from government. Progress so far has been made possible by generous donations from a number of animal welfare charities. In order to place the Advisory Council on a sustainable footing for the future we aim to establish a structure of patrons or sponsors willing to support the work of the Council. We are approaching a number of organisations with a strong interest in the welfare of dogs. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a patron or sponsor, please contact Heather Peck on [email protected]. If you would like to contribute to the work of the Council, please send your donation to John Hird (The Welfare Fund for Companion Animals), c/o Mrs Heather Peck, Cherry Tree Cottage, Scotland Farm, Dry Drayton, Cambridge CB23 8AX. All cheques should be made out to “The Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding If you have views or evidence you wish to offer the Council, please contact the Acting Secretary, Mrs Heather Peck.

Did not see this till now. I see Jemima attacked the one person who is representing the kennel club, who the photo shows sitting a rock with to typical working bred border collies (nothing show bred about these dogs and would be as any working sheepdog you would find across the UK. There wil be no pleasing. Launch of new Dog Advisory Council Sheila Crispin, with her two collies in Cumbria Today marks the official launch of the new Dog Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues in Dog Breeding. The launch of the Council follows Pedigree Dogs Exposed two years ago and the three major reports that followed it (RSPCA, APGAW and the Bateson Report) - all of which stressed the need for an independent body. I've been anxious about the make-up of the Council, not least because its Chair, Professor Sheila Crispin, is an honorary member of the Kennel Club and did not feel it necessary to resign her membership of the KC's own Dog Health Group following her appointment. I also felt when I interviewed Sheila for Dogs Today recently (entire interview online here) that she cut the KC too much slack and was far too focused on puppy farms - an important issue, of course, but not if it's going to let mainstream pedigree dog-breeding off the hook. But there are some very good names here, including:

Have any people who rescue in Vic (here on DOL) had any comment on this topic? Maybe they support it and wanted it to happen?

The US is not having vets report illness by breed by microchip to the folks who are doing this research. That started here in Australia and in the UK. So they are not going to look at breed club information from the US (at least not for their data bank of EBV), they are going to to look at the data they collect. As I said in the beginning I have been won over to the regulation of breeding side of the argument. I can not see how I can promote all the dogs until I can show they have meet the public's expectations on health and health testing. Just like what you wanted for all cav breeders in OZ. I give up on the fight, we will take the power away from the Cav breeders and let the 'experts' decide what they can do and not do. Normally I prefer, in fact had demanded, that breeders to police themselves and make their own decsions, to keep government out of dog breeding. But it is clear that is only prolonging this issue. We need to get this over with. What ever the results are and what ever breeds we loose. At least there would then be some hope for the breeds that fair well to come out on the other side with the seal of approval. We can then start over with a good reputation, backed up by the most progressive Uni health breeding plans in the world. why, ho why, are you assuming governement can do a better job? they couldnt run telstra, they sold it. they couldnt run the commonwealth bank, they sold it. hullo, they have sold more irrigation rights to more water than is even flowing down the murray? they dont even want to build roads? they let companies build them and put toll ways. every single instance being sold to companies to run and you want them to take over dog breeding??????????????????????????? are you really truely serious? it is government that drafted the law that saw Judy Guard videoed, dogs seized, facing 84 years in jail if the letter of the law they wrote was followed and you have trust and faith in the ;) 's that put the chain of events into gear? remember the rspca's defence is judy broke the law, they had no alternative but to follow the letter of the law, only the fact that a magistrate decided to NOT follow the letter of the same law that she is not jailed for life. do you really think she wouldnt be if the rspca had been able to hand down the sentance? take a look at the letters after the elected politicions, over 3/4 of them have law degree's, yet this dogs breakfast was drafted and passed. remember the old joke that the camel was the result of a committee? and you want the very people who cant even draft and understand the rammifications of what they do? do we want camel's playing in our yards? Yes I am serious and no I do not think the government can do a better job. However I do not see any other option at this point.

The greens and part of labor have been calling for the banning of all live exports for along time. There have been a number of people here on DOL calling for the banning of export dogs. It would only make sense if it is unethical to export it will also be unethicial to import. No imports or exports of animals then you do not need stations. I sure hope I am wrong and my mind is just running away with me. But surely in Vic if they knew they were not renewing the lease they would have been getting the next facility ready to move into?

So the vic station is closing now in Nov and there are no plans to secure or open a new station. The same is pending for the other stations. And there has not been any action by ANKC or other animal groups asking about this? This does not look good at all.

I really have no idea and have only just heard about this, so hoping someone knows what is going on. My first though was that the decsions has been made to stop all imports and exprots of live animals. I hope I am just over reacting...???.

Anyone know what this is all about? From Dog News on the front page if DOL. MAJOR QUARANTINE CHANGES Leases on all Stations to expire With all 3 of the AQIS operated Quarantine Stations facing closure, Australian dog breeders and animal transport agents are becoming increasingly concerned at Government delays in implementing the major and inevitable changes required to Australia's quarantine system. Expiry dates on leases for the 3 sites - Eastern Creek (Sydney), Spotswood (Melbourne) and Byford (Perth) - range from Nov. 2010 until 2015. According to Government sources all options for renewal have already been exhausted. Change is imminent in Victoria with Spotswood Quarantine Station's lease ending this month. The Spotswood facility lease originally expired in 2007, was renewed until 2008 after a court case, and then again until Nov. 2010. There has been no further extension. According to Dogs WA, Western Australia's Byford facility, which regularly operates at 100% capacity, is expected to close by 2013.