shortstep

I would say almost impossible when breeders are severely limited in the number of dogs they can keep or run on. They really need to keep several lines going each with slightly (or more) different genetics. Then they are able to select away from any lines that are linked back to any problems that may develop. If you only have a couple of dogs, you have no where to turn when problems arise. Now spread this same severe limitation of dogs across all the breeders in a breed, yikes! Everyone will be stuck with very limited directions to turn. Talk about decreasing genetic diversity and promoting the breeding of sick dogs! It is a McGreevy nightmare on steroids!

Can't have your cake and eat it too, eh? If the goal is healthier dogs with more vigor and better suited to their role as companions, McGreevy says this can only be done by increasing genetic diversity. Then you can not throw out almost all of the gene pool where the selection process is mass removal based only on the Nanny State Principle (that people are never able to make good decisions so the government must make the decisions for them).

Excellent Sunday read. Here is just an exert. http://nymag.com/news/features/63232/ In the animal-rescue world, each individual animal is sacred, each dog deserves its sunny day, and euthanasia, while perhaps safe and legal, should be extremely rare. These people are believers in the Universal Rights of Dog, extrapolated from the near-human status of their own pets. In another way, the animal-rescue movement is an offshoot of the civil-rights struggles of the sixties, a final frontier for universalist ideals. Animal rescue is also one of the opportunities of ordinary Americans for real heroism—and more and more, they’ve taken it. The dog’s innocence amplifies empathy, because there’s no ethical static, no human otherness to contend with. It’s less complicated to love a pet than a person. The risk and conflict and cloak-and-dagger swagger that some of these missions entail can give lives a life-in-wartime meaning they otherwise wouldn’t have. There’s selflessness here, but just as in wartime, there’s also addiction, the oxytocin mixing with adrenaline. Some of the most vivid images in the aftermath of Katrina were of dogs—on roofs, in the water—awaiting rescue or struggling to survive. After the catastrophe, Barack Obama spoke of an “empathy deficit,” but there was no deficit when it came to the animals. An army of animal rescuers descended on the city, and their work is legend in the animal-rescue community. But among some locals, their intervention was further proof, if more was needed, that not enough value had been placed on human residents. The rescuers have done their work remarkably well. Twenty-five years ago, some 12 million dogs and cats were euthanized, according to the ASPCA. Now the figure is between 3 and 4 million, about half of them dogs. Partly thanks to public education about rescuing dogs, a much lower percentage of dogs taken into the shelter system are eventually euthanized. And both because of the effectiveness of spay-neuter programs and the fact that dogs seldom are permitted to run loose, there are many fewer adoptable dogs. In many places on the East Coast, the demand for rescue dogs exceeds the supply—which means that, one way or another, the red states are supplying more and more of our dogs. A flood of dog refugees like Stella are coming from points south and west and places like Puerto Rico, where there are more-traditional dog cultures. What the blue states are exporting to the red states is, often, ideology. It’s the same town-country conflict Seamus Heaney wrote about, on a gigantic scale. Newkirk, along with Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States, advocates strict, mandatory spay-neuter laws across the country, along with much stricter regulation of breeding. Pacelle is the silky pony of the animal-rights world, a Yale graduate who looks tremendous in a suit. The Humane Society of the United States is blessed with a great name, and partly because of its well-publicized raids on puppy mills, it has a massive fund-raising footprint and $125 million to spend, which can buy a good number of small-state lobbyists (the HSUS too has been trying to get its share of the Helmsley fortune). But Pacelle drives many dog people nuts because they see him as an enemy of traditional dog cultures, possibly an animal-rights ally of PETA masquerading as a friend of the dog: a wolf in sheep’s clothing. “The biggest problem with HSUS,” says Janeen McMurtrie, a Minnesota dog trainer who has a widely read blog called Smartdog’s Weblog, “is that they hide their goals so well. I have clients who are avid dove hunters and they’ve given them money.” Here, too, there is a sense that the ground is shifting, that the World of Dog may be on the verge of irrevocable change. The spay-neuter laws that Pacelle and Newkirk advocate, while no doubt reducing the numbers of dogs that have to be put down every year, have the potential to change the dog itself. “The thing about mandatory spay-neuter,” says James Serpell****, “is that those who are most willing to have their dogs spayed or neutered tend to be responsible people. And often, their dogs also happen to be nice animals in temperament. So what you’re doing essentially is taking those dogs out of the breeding population.” McMurtrie echoes Serpell’s concern. “It’s hasnt gotten widespread enough yet,” she says. “But if it did, it could be catastrophic.” who is... ****James A Serpell http://www.vet.upenn.edu/FacultyandDepartm...ulty_id=6361798 Director, Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society. Uni of Penn Marie A. Moore Professor of Humane Ethics & Animal Welfare Chief, Section of Behavior and Human-Animal Interactions, Ryan Veterinary Hospital Description of Research Expertise Behavior and welfare of companion animals; development of human attitudes to animals; history of human-animal interactions; measurement of behavioral phenotypes in dogs and cats; ontogenesis of behavioral problems in companion and working dogs; animal-assisted therapeutic interventions. Description of Other Expertise Veterinary ethics Selected Publications Duffy, D.L., Hsu, Y. and Serpell, J.A.: Breed differences in canine aggression Applied Animal Behavior Science 114: 441-460, 2008. Serpell, J.A. : Factors influencing veterinary students’ career choices, and attitudes to animals Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 32(4): 491-496, , 2005. Serpell, J.A. : Effects of breed, sex, and neuter status on trainability in dogs Anthrozoös 18(3): 196-207, 2005. Serpell, J.A. : Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare Animal Welfare 13: S145-S151, 2004. Hsu, Y., Liu-Severinghaus, L. & Serpell, J.A. : Dog-keeping in Taiwan: Its contribution to the problem of free-roaming dogs Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6: 1-23, 2003. Serpell, J.A. : Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection – beyond the “cute response” Society & Animals 11: 83-100, 2003. Hsu, Y. & Serpell, J.A. : Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring behavior and temperament traits in pet dogs Journal of the AmericanVeterinary Medical Association 223(9): 1293-1300, 2003. Serpell, J.A. : Guardian spirits or demonic pets: the concept of the witch’s familiar in early modern England, 1530-1712 The Animal/Human Boundary Page: 157-190, Creager, A.N.H. & Jordan, W.C. (eds.). Rochester, NY: Rochester University Press, 2002. Podberscek, A.L., Hsu, Y. & Serpell, J.A. : Evaluation of clomipramine as an adjunct to behavioural therapy in the treatment of separation-related problems in dogs Veterinary Record 145: 365-369, 1999. Serpell, J.A. : In the Company of Animals, 2nd (Revised) Edition Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (Canto), 1996.

That was not what I heard. This was only about Tassie and only talked about stronger laws on dog breeders and RSPCA increased power. Was a short report, maybe 1-2 min. I went to look at the station and it was ABC News Radio about 8 am, maybe 830 am.

Nothing was mentioned about the companion animal act, microchipping or local shires meeting to discuss anything. All I heard was, stronger laws will be brouight into place across Tassie concerning companion dog breeders, RSPCA will be given more power to take action against companion dog breeders. However as so many others have said, I would guess that dog breeders in Tassie will be in just fine (as long as they do not breed). I think Tassie will be the first state to be a dog/cat free state. edited to add, Though I am sure the animal rights activists in Victoria will give them a good run for that distinction. Nothing like a little rivalry among comrades to move things along!

Oh look, all the mixed bred designer dogs are the most freindly dogs, all the breeders use to make the mongrels he promotes 1. Cavalier King Charles Spaniel 2. Golden Retriever 3. Cocker Spaniel 4. Pug 5. Toy Poodle 6. Miniature Schnauzer Why does anybody give this self severing creep the time of day.

I would think long and hard before I invested a lot of money or time into a dog related profession dealing with dog training, care or the like. Dog ownership is declining and will rapidly decline over the next 10 years. There is tremendous effort being placed on ending dog ownership across Australia right now. Pet dogs are going to become more and more scarce as fewer and fewer people can access them. However you might want to look at getting involved in one of the many areas surrounding Animal (dog) rights activism in Australia. Over the next 10-20 years there will lots of activity in that area. Example of jobs would be: Shire or RSPCA companion dog breeder inspectors, these will be in great demand. Litigators for matters dealing with actions taken against dog owners and breeders by shires and the RSPCA. Expert witness in abuse cases, either for or against the dog owners. Ethics counselors working with those who are euthanizing all the pet dogs seized. There are lots of people here on DOL who are animal rights activist and can lead you to these sorts of exciting and meaningful jobs in the field of animal rights activism. Best of luck.

Sorry was day dreaming and did not catch who was speaking. On ABC radio "someone" announced that in Tassie, there would be much stronger dog breeder laws brought in over the next 12 months. That companion dog breeders across the state needed much more oversignt to prevent abuse. Also it was mentioned that the RSPCA would be given more powner needed to stop this abuse. There was one comment using the word 'large' scale breeders, but I did not get the impression they were singling them out for attack, they said 'companion dog breeders' over and over again.

As I read it you can have 1 dog on up to 599M2 lot, over 1 dog and you need a permit. Up to 2 dogs on 600m2 - 10,000M2, over 2 and you have to get a permit. What 10,000M2 100 m x 100 m? Is that about an acre? 10,001m2 and larger, you can have up to 4 dogs and then you need a permit. But the good news is you can have up to 4 sheep on 3001M2. Or 2 bee hives on only 801M2, bet the kids next door will love that! Edited to add, I can't find anything aobut dog breeders, intact dogs or related topics, can someone point me to the dog breeders regulations?

I often wonder is it all about more jobs,seen to keeping people employed,more paper work imagine it,policing it all.This is what it seems today it is unbelievable,it is imo out of hand.Huh if it catches on the alternative Gov. would get on the band waggon........all about money."We" vote for who-ever & once in they do as they damn well like.Don't get me started Sorry but no it is not about jobs. Read it, listen to what they say and believe them. They want to go after all dog breeders and they will and they will drive off all but the big lawyered up commercail breeders. They will eventaully go after all dog owners too, next step is regulating who can own a dog. It is that simple, I wish people would stop trying to make it something that it is not. We need to call if for what it is. Anyway I feel very sorry for all dog breeders and all pet owners in Victoria.

What is, and what should be the role of government (and the RSPCA) in peoples lives? Do you feel that you have lost your voice? Do you feel that members of these elites (far left animal rights groups) have too much control in both major political parties? Do you think that real choices that would actually work —making life (and dogs lives) better— are never presented? There is group of people in Australia that have already stood up to fight for their rights of animal ownership, reduced governemet interference and stop reveune expolitation. All it takes for a few wackos to wreck your life is for all the good people to do nothing about it. (someone else said that I have not quoted correctly nor can I remember who it was, but you get the point)

I really think the game is over. Dog breeders have lost. But it will take 10 years for ANKC to have it's last gasp (might even hang on a bit longer as sort of a rare breed group or something long those lines) and for it to really become apparent that there is just no where to buy a dog. They won't stop with the purebred breeders, but as predicted we are the easiest to go after first. They will also shut down back yard breeders as people get more scared of heavy fines or even jail time. Last to go will be the big commercial breeders. I give them another 5-10 years after the small breeders are gone. Steve can you put up a survey (I have tried and can not figure out how to do it) in the breeders section. See how many people say they are going to stop breeding as these new laws, restriction, shire abnd planning department requirments and threats of fines and jail time come into effect? Maybe also ask if they would be willing to stand up and be counted, attend protest or?? in public view to try to stop these laws and how they affect ANKC breeders.

Is the scheme going to have different rules and standards in each state? Read the QLD scheme and the NSW scheme (not operating yet) and they seem to have different requirements?? I saw nothing that would prevent a puppy farm/ Very large commercial breeding facility from becoming accredited. Provided they agree to the rules. In QLD they have to join their breed club $$, they have to advertize in the Journal $$, pass an open book prefix test $$ (I guess even if you already have your prefix prior to testing), pay for the accreditation $$. Do required health testing or recommended health testing, but then it is very vague what is really recommended, so seems some could fudge there way around some if not most tests. NSW said reasonable cost health testing, so what is a reasonable amount to pay? So yes I would say the ANKC Accredited Breed Program is designed to help and will be very attractive to big scale commercial breeders and puppy farms. They will have much to gain as far as making a good impression, legitimizing their facility, getting the ANKC special stamp of approval as great breeders, all of which would be well worth the extra money and effort. (Then just add the RSPCA 'approved' inspection and they they have the best place in town to buy a pup!!) For small home breeders, not sure?? As small home breeder I would not do it. Don't want to join clubs $$ and really do not want journal adds $$ running all the time ( I have a long waiting list and do not want more phone calls). Would not want to spend the time or effort getting all the bits of papers and forms together. I feel there is nothing I need or want offered by the program.

Each Xrays will be different, even if properly positioned. 1mm is a tiny difference when talking about placing a dog for any xray. the measurements will then vary due to very slight differences in the xrays. To drop across the board equally by 1mm, does not seem strange to me and actually confirms the condition of both the hips and elbows in this dog. I think people take scores as absolutes, they are not. Give the same xray to 3 different scorers and you will get 3 slightly different scores. Take 3 xrays by 3 different vets and give them to the same scorer and chances are you will get slightly different scores on each xray. They should however be in the same range and you need to think in ranges or generalization, rather then absolute numbers. Think of it using the OFA ranges, Excellent, Good, Fair and so on. For example, this dog rated Excellent on hips both times. Hope that makes sense. To me the dog has very good hips and the elbows are not good.

Here is it, I knew I had heard about this in effect in the UK. I assume in the UK and in Australia, it will still be legal for an under 18 year old to catch a fish in a lake river or ocean (provided he has a license), and it will still be legal for him to eat fish (at least on Fridays if he is Catholic), it will just be illegal for him to buy a pet fish that he wants to take home as a pet. British granny fined for selling goldfishAAP A British grandmother was heavily fined and electronically tagged for selling a goldfish to a child, triggering criticism on Wednesday of over-zealous use of animal protection laws. Pet shop owner Joan Higgins, 66, was fined Stg1,000 ($A1,640) also given a dusk-to-dawn curfew for selling an animal to a person under the age of 16, but her 47-year-old son Mark - also ordered to do community service - slammed the ruling as a farce. The pair were prosecuted after the local council sent a 14-year-old boy to buy a goldfish in a "sting" operation following reports that their shop, Majors Pets, had sold a gerbil to a teenager with learning difficulties. The shopkeepers sold the fish without asking his age or how the fish would be cared for, prosecutors said. "I think it's a farce and legal lunacy and I told the council that," said Mark Higgins, cited by the Daily Telegraph, noting that his mother was also given an electronic tag. "What gets me so cross is that they put my Mum on a tag - she's nearly 70, for goodness sake... You would think they have better things to do with their time and money," he said. But Trafford Council in northern England defended the decision to prosecute, noting that the gerbil sold to the teenager with learning difficulties - who was also 14 - was put in a cup of coffee. "The evidence presented for this conviction clearly demonstrates that it is irresponsible to sell animals to those who are not old enough to look after them," said Iain Veitch, the council's head of public protection. Higgins and her son pleaded guilty at Trafford Magistrates' Court to selling an animal to a person aged under 16. She was ordered to obey a curfew from 6pm to 7am for seven weeks because she is unfit for community service. Her son, who manages the shop, was fined STG750 ($A1,230) and ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid community work at the end of eight months of legal action on Tuesday. The story was highlighted by a number of British newspapers on Wednesday. The Daily Express said it made a "farce" of Britain's legal system, adding in a front-page headline: "Proof Britain really has gone mad."

Oh Ok now I get it. You are helpless to stop anything and the only thing you can do is to agree with taking away the breeders right to make decsions about their pups. Me however, in opposition to that idea, I have a bad attitude and it is all my fault they are succeeding in their mission. Ok I see your point. How's this... Yes! A good foundation, a baby step and a healthy start! Dog breeders should never have the power or right to make a decision on placing a pup intact, only the government should make that decsion! Now I have the right approach, thanks for the tip.

Don't need a PM. You or anyone who wants to give the government control over dog breeding, such as making a law that all dog breeders must sell their pups desexed unless sold to someone the government decides can have an intact dog is pissing in every dog breeders and dog owners cereal. Wake up and think about what you are doing. Be clear they are going after your purebred dogs first and you are helping them do it. PETA counts on people who behave like you.

Maybe you're looking the wrong places then? Seems to me that people don't have problems buying a purebred dog from a nice breeder any given day of the week. As for enforcing beliefs on others. My puppies and I'll enforce whatever I have to...or want to come to that. And if that means that I have to sell them desexed to stay within the law, then if I want to continue breeding dogs, I'll do it. As I said, I sell on a desex agreement anyway so a step further is nothing more than a little bit of added expense. Many other breeders ALREADY sell all companion puppies desexed and none of them seem to have any dramas. Yes I understand that you want to tell everyone else how to breed dogs and that your ideals are the ones we should all follow. Only thing is, I do not think you understand. Your ideals and your purebred dogs are not going to gain favor. But go ahead, put your breeds neck in the noose. I think I am going to lean to the left too. I am going to support the most modern thinking on ethical dog breeding. Spay neuter ethics are from the 90's and is old news now. I am going with McGreevy instead and push for the attack on purebred dog breeders. How about a 'baby step' by banning inbreeding. New inbreeding laws that will make it illegal to produce a pup with a COI of more than 1% in 10 generations. Off course if your dogs/breed does make make it, too bad. No dramas to the progressive dog breeders. A 'healthy start' by calling for severe government oversight of all ANKC breedings/litters. EBV by the Uni for all litters with adjusted insurance coverage on each pup to cover risk of all inherited disease for the life of the pup. Insurance to be paid prior to breeding the litter and EBV costs will be set by the Uni. All your dogs microchip so all health records from vets around the country poor into the Uni databank with your name on them. Should not be a drama to the most modern of dog breeders. A 'good foundation', that producing a pup with structural extremes be made illegal. You know the list, no dangling ears, no droopy eyes, no long backs, no pug faces, no dwarf dogs, no round protruding eyes, no big heads, no white or mostly white dogs, no merle dogs, no dilutes, no giant dogs, no hairless, no toy dogs, no curly tails, no bob tails, the list goes on and on. Not a drama for dog breeders who can let go of the outdated Victorian idea of "breed" and greet the new world of dog breeding with an open mind. So yes, go ahead put your breeds neck in the noose. While standing there waiting for the floor to drop away, don't forget to tell them you support desexing all dogs sold to Joe public, support no sales of dogs in pet shops and have never supported puppy mills. BTW how do you feel about cross breeds and their cross breeders?...LOL.

To be honest, aside from my reservations about juvenile desexing and wondering if Joe Q will be happy to pay more for a puppy because prices will surely increase to include the desexing costs (which is really only fair anyway - why should the breeder wear everything?), I don't see compulsory desexing as such a bad thing. I sell my puppies with a desexing agreement anyway, it just takes that step further. I sell (and have done so for 20 years) all my pups on desex contract too, so what. I have no desire to impose my beliefs on everyone else who breeds and places pups or on all people who buy a pup. But I am not a watermellon, too far to the right as I am almost touching center. Just longing for the good old days when you could buy a nice pup from a purebred dog breeder.

I would expect that kids buying a goldfish, but how many kids buy a $1500.00 Labraoddles from a pet shops? Kids must have a lot more money they days. Anyway I am all for kids not being allowed to buy animals. A far as pet shops only being allowed to sell desexed dogs, I expect the part they left out is that all dogs being sold, by anyone will have to be desexed. Unless they are being sold to a registered breeder or a RSPCA inspected and approved puppy farm.

Yes I think they can see, and it all looks very good to them. Think McGreevy will do a study on the ANKC population inbreeding effects brought on by the new laws to severely restrict the number of ANKC dogs that could be bred and the sudden drop in the number of breeders? I can see that coming. I suppose the politically far enough to the left to be the only right answer said in public would be; That due to the inborn criminal nature of ANKC dog breeders, that severe restraints are needed to protect dogs and society from said dog breeders. This will by its very nature reduce the number of dogs available to breed and will increase the COI of the ANKC future dogs. McGreevy has already decided that ANKC dogs are too inbred so this would make them even more inbred and more unsuitable to be bred by criminally inclined dog breeders. Only solution is stop having purebreds and their criminally inclined breeders.

These new laws being applied to pet breeders who don’t intend to make money from their operation so all pet breeders are covered Well that says it all. Even if you are devoted to your breed and decide to try to keep it going (even under all this pressure for dogs to be removed from society) and decide to only bred a litter once every 4 years. Keep one and give the rest of the pups to trusted breed enthusiast or friends. You still will be treated like a criminally inclined blight on society at extreme risk of being an unethical animal abusing dog breeder. Nice. What a disgrace this country has become, the silent paralyzed majority retreats and stands by to let a small number of far left radicals run their lives. Are all persons who do any sort of dog rescue mandated under law in Victoria to desex all dogs placed? Can some one show me where I can read this law? If pet shops can not sell (they are not rescuers) intact dogs, then they will also have to mandate all dogs sold by breeders will have to be desexed too, unless sold to another criminally inclined blight on society at extreme risk of being an unethical animal abusing dog breeder. Bet you will need to file a special form with the shire and the RSPCA for the placement/transfer of pup or dog that is not desexed. Wonder how much a puppy farm pup will cost after most of the ANKC breeders have stopped breeding? For the Greater Good! Watermelons for a new improved Australia!

Ok you tell me exatly what you think will change in your cost of living when labor and greens bring in the new climate change carbon taxes? Real life numbers.... i have no intention on wasting my time, do your own research. i work with those costs all the time and big businesses are not screaming that it is too expensive LOL so you don't have a clue or you do know )maybe have a vested finacial interest) and do not want to say how bad it will be. Well it is up to the blievers to prove thier point when billions of tax dollars and decreasing the standard of living for every person in the country is at stake. Yes big Business will just pass on the costs eh? Only a problem for the people who have to buy or use their products to survive. yes the sky is falling in, make sure nothing drops on your head It really is not funny. But is a typical tactic of those who do not believe others have a right to disagree, yet can not even state the arguments of their point of view (or perhaps in your case admit their finacial interests in promoting a new tax on every thing we use and need).

Ok you tell me exatly what you think will change in your cost of living when labor and greens bring in the new climate change carbon taxes? Real life numbers.... i have no intention on wasting my time, do your own research. i work with those costs all the time and big businesses are not screaming that it is too expensive LOL so you don't have a clue or you do know )maybe have a vested finacial interest) and do not want to say how bad it will be. Well it is up to the blievers to prove thier point when billions of tax dollars and decreasing the standard of living for every person in the country is at stake. Yes big Business will just pass on the costs eh? Only a problem for the people who have to buy or use their products to survive.

Ok you tell me exatly what you think will change in your cost of living when labor and greens bring in the new climate change carbon taxes? Real life numbers....