shortstep

Oh no you are being very clear. You also would never be taken for defending breedrs do don't worry about that. We need to all be very careful to never give the impression that we would defend ANKC breeders. Was that Sarcasm at it's best? My next dog will be a Pedigree so I fully support Pedigree dogs but also know that some Pedigree Breeders don't do the right thing - that's not great revalation. It's not even important what I personaly feel about Pedigree's, my whole comment was about how I was comcerned that the general public would mis-interpet the hosts comments on Inbreeding and Health problems. Reading your previous posts in other threads it seems you are quite disheartened at the drop off of Breeders and worry for the future of Breeders - and I understand that, however I do believe you mis-interpreted due to this. Sarcasm at it's worse. You should try getting a dog instead of a pedigree (that is humor at it's worse). It really has reached a time, where it would be best for people to breed their own dogs. Then you do not have to worry about what "breeders" may be getting up to. Nor do you need to worry about giving the impression you would defend dog breeders. There is nothing more effective to elicit change than to lead by example. For example; instead of using the tired old rhetoric of yesterday, warning people to look for a breeder that has done hips on the parents. Be truely modern, explain that this does not adequately address or prevent dogs with HD and would not guide some away from buying a puppy with HD. Instead, you can show how you are an expert on dog breeding, inherited disease, the effects of inbreeding and where 'dog breeders' have gone wrong. You can show how to breed correctly for good hips. Show how you have done lateral breeding/pedigrees for HD for X number of generations. Show the scores of AVA, PENN and Cornell on every pup you have bred, parents and all of their siblings for as many generations as possible, give the % of affected and normal pups, over each generation with an average of hip scores broken down by the 10 AVA scoreing areas, highlighting any movement in scores over the generations towards improved structure. Have EBV done for the parents, grand parents and the litter. COI for the parents and the litter, compared to the breed average world wide and in Australia. Follow this with a document that explains in detail that any dog you breed can still get HD due to what all the 'bad' breeders behind you have done wrong in the pedigree of your dogs. Be a truly cutting edge dog breeder, show everyone how it is to be done correctly. But most important, take full responsibility for your own next dog and breed it yourself. Not sarcasm. It's obviously a very passionate subject for you, but still, you have mis-interpreted what I said. I'll try and be a little clearer: I was worried that the general public would think that if a Breeder said they didn't inbred dogs that they would be safe from health problems - therefore thinking that x-breeding is ok or your average BYB is ok. Wasn't actually anything against Breeders, however I stated I wasn't defending Breeders not to bash but to try and give a clear understanding what I was saying was not being I was a breeder myself trying to defend my practices. There are some wonderful breeders doing awesome things for their choosen breeds - but even this has nothing to do with what my initial comment was. You said 'Say for example you take one dog and breed it to an unrelated dog then that isn't classed as inbreeding or even line breeding (that specific mating and on the inbreeding calculator wouldn't score very high at all).' I totally get that the problems breeds have is because of of early inbreeding. What I am saying, is that I worried people may have mis-interpeted what he said....for example you're Joe Blow and you just learned that Inbreeding creates problems so you go to your Breeder and you say ok, I'll have a pup from you because you don't inbreed and then think you're safe. 'Just to be clear, I'm not defending Breeders at all, I have a dog with a whole host of problems, some of which could have been avoided in the genetics side of things.' Ok we get it. All purebred dogs are inbred. Even if a breeder breeds towards reducing the COI to that of 0%, the dog will still have the negative (disease) effects of inbreeding done in the past. Your dog is sick due to a poor breeder that could have avoided the genetic problems. I say, take full responsibility and breed your own next dog.

Oh no you are being very clear. You also would never be taken for defending breedrs do don't worry about that. We need to all be very careful to never give the impression that we would defend ANKC breeders. Was that Sarcasm at it's best? My next dog will be a Pedigree so I fully support Pedigree dogs but also know that some Pedigree Breeders don't do the right thing - that's not great revalation. It's not even important what I personaly feel about Pedigree's, my whole comment was about how I was comcerned that the general public would mis-interpet the hosts comments on Inbreeding and Health problems. Reading your previous posts in other threads it seems you are quite disheartened at the drop off of Breeders and worry for the future of Breeders - and I understand that, however I do believe you mis-interpreted due to this. Sarcasm at it's worse. You should try getting a dog instead of a pedigree (that is humor at it's worse). It really has reached a time, where it would be best for people to breed their own dogs. Then you do not have to worry about what "breeders" may be getting up to. Nor do you need to worry about giving the impression you would defend dog breeders. There is nothing more effective to elicit change than to lead by example. For example; instead of using the tired old rhetoric of yesterday, warning people to look for a breeder that has done hips on the parents. Be truely modern, explain that this does not adequately address or prevent dogs with HD and would not guide some away from buying a puppy with HD. Instead, you can show how you are an expert on dog breeding, inherited disease, the effects of inbreeding and where 'dog breeders' have gone wrong. You can show how to breed correctly for good hips. Show how you have done lateral breeding/pedigrees for HD for X number of generations. Show the scores of AVA, PENN and Cornell on every pup you have bred, parents and all of their siblings for as many generations as possible, give the % of affected and normal pups, over each generation with an average of hip scores broken down by the 10 AVA scoreing areas, highlighting any movement in scores over the generations towards improved structure. Have EBV done for the parents, grand parents and the litter. COI for the parents and the litter, compared to the breed average world wide and in Australia. Follow this with a document that explains in detail that any dog you breed can still get HD due to what all the 'bad' breeders behind you have done wrong in the pedigree of your dogs. Be a truly cutting edge dog breeder, show everyone how it is to be done correctly. But most important, take full responsibility for your own next dog and breed it yourself. Not sarcasm.

Oh no you are being very clear. You also would never be taken for defending breedrs do don't worry about that. We need to all be very careful to never give the impression that we would defend ANKC breeders.

ANKC breeders are dropping like flies already. There are 30,000 a year fewer ANKC pups born today than 30 years ago! Yet the number of dogs being born is escalating every year. Estimated at over 1 million dogs born a year, of which only 60,000 are ANKC dogs. ANKC breeders are already a tiny minority in the world of dog breeding. I think you are right, the only people who will breed dogs if things keep going the way they are now will be businesses. They will be highly regulated puppy mills that can afford to breed dogs under systems that make it difficult for those not cashed and lawyered up. If they would put up a bill that just banned pet shop sales (yes include internet and other forms of advertizing if that seem right) and do not add on anything else to the bill. It would pass. This would wipe out most puppy farms or at least take away much of their sales. At any rate, I remain optimistic. I am envisioning a future about 20 years from now. A secret underground network of (old fashion) dog breeders. They never sell their dogs. They breed very rarely, keeping the pup they want and place the others with trusted friends and other breed fanciers. Keeping a small gene pool going of selected lines of their breed going forward. When this happens, will you few remaining purebred dog owners let me know, I want in! LOL

where is the problem making it to size? I still dont see links to these laws. If they're going to impact on the breeders so badly why isnt the ANKC doing something about them? There is no problem as long as you find the law, understand the law and then get a box (or what have you) made just the way they want it. Frankly they can shove it, my box (or what have you) has worked just fine for 20 years, I really do not care to meet every law so that I can have the honor of loosing money breeding a litter of puppies and maybe end up makeing the evening news as a criminal dog breeder. Thanks but no thanks!. Look you should be happy, you have driven off another small breeder. Now you can get your puppies from commercial breeders who meet the laws to the letter. I bet they will be great pups too! Read the NSW dog and cat breeding act. However ff I can point out, this is not the law you are wanting in QLD, so it is a non issue. Dogs are living in misery and we want laws to stop this from happening, but you expect us to not fight for change and are upset because someone might tell you what size whelping box you are supposed to use........ please...... No I am fine with it, leave the breeding to people that the RSPCA and the government monitor and inspect and proscute to the full extent of the law. I am good with it.

LOL No, dialogue can not be demanded from me. Now read this again... I really don't care any more, I am tired of trying to make people understand. BTW read the act again, I had to go through the 40 pages of laws several times, take it to my vet and discuss it with several experts before I was sure I understood it all. Right now I am in compliance, so will wait to see what else happens. The day they make it a law to come into my home (read my home not a kennel and not a buisness) and inspect me for no other reason other than I bred an occasional litter to see if I am breaking some law, that is the day I quit. Further, I do not care if you like the way I feel about it or not.

where is the problem making it to size? I still dont see links to these laws. If they're going to impact on the breeders so badly why isnt the ANKC doing something about them? There is no problem as long as you find the law, understand the law and then get a box (or what have you) made just the way they want it. Frankly they can shove it, my box (or what have you) has worked just fine for 20 years, I really do not care to meet every law so that I can have the honor of loosing money breeding a litter of puppies and maybe end up makeing the evening news as a criminal dog breeder. Thanks but no thanks!. Look you should be happy, you have driven off another small breeder. Now you can get your puppies from commercial breeders who meet the laws to the letter. I bet they will be great pups too! Read the NSW dog and cat breeding act. However ff I can point out, this is not the law you are wanting in QLD, so it is a non issue.

Read it again, I said If I whelp a litter in my bedroom and the whelping box is not the size they say it has to be then I am breaking the law. Anyway it does not matter, leave the dog breeding to people who can afford lawyers to see them through the process.

I for one and most of the breeders I know are people, just like you who love dogs. We are not in business. We have a home and family and live just like you do. We also happen to have spent many years learning about our breeds. We do other things with our dogs and that is what got us interested in the breed. We breed because we want to try to breed a better dog, and most of the time it is to breed a better dog for ourselves. Now I ask you, to ask yourself, would you like to have the RSPCA doing inspections of your home? Would like your family to go through this? Looking in your back yard or at your bedroom where your dog sleeps? Inspecting your kitchen for hygine as this is where you dish up the dogs dinners? The neighbors are looking out the windows wondering what is going on. Maybe they bring the TV guys to see if they can get some prime time footage of a 'bad' breeder? Would you like to have to produce on demand worming records for 3 years, the days you bred a bitch 2 years ago, complete records on weight of every pup in a litter 3 years ago? Would you like to have to prove everything you have done with your dogs to promote their health and safety? Would you like to be liable for criminal prosecution, jail and or fines if they find something they do not like? In NSW if you do not have a bowl marked for each 3 week old pup you have broken the law. If you have your pups in your bedroom for the first 2 weeks and the whelping box is 1" too small, your guilty of breaking the state breeding act. And then you go though all this and take such a big legal risk, knowing you will end up loosing money (because you always loose money breeding a litter). Does this sound like something you would want to do? If they bring in a law like this, then I will stop breeding. I can store some semen and maybe send a dog to NZ. Have it bred over there and get my pup from my own bloodlines from the litter. Why put myself through it, when all I really want is my next dog..eh? BTW I have around a 2 year waiting list for my pups, they are very well thought of and all go to the very best of homes. These are the folks who will be really hurt by this, if all the small breeders like me just stop breeding. But you will have what you want, you can all go get your pups from one of the big breeding establishment that is monitored closely by the RSPCA and government. My bedroom whelped litters will be a thing of the past. Just a memory of the good old days when people not businesses bred dogs. I really don't care any more, I am tired of trying to make people understand. To those who say if you are ethical then what do you have to worry about? The answer is nothing, as I would not put myself through it. Leave dog breeding to the big companies that are experts at passing inspections and meeting state laws and have lawyers and big bank accounts to deal with it. Wonder how much these professional puppy farm bred puppies will cost then? BTW I had a look at someone's (a breeder) web site who is promoting this. They have puppies for sale on their web site, pictures and all. Which is one of things that 'ethical' breeders should not do and they need to make a law in Vic to stop it from happening. Where is their waiting list? Go figure.

Yes..it is time for dog breeders to stand up and be counted! We need to get vocal and we need to educate the public about dog breeders! Dog breeders need to call it when we see it! Dog breeders are not the bad guys! 1. Dog breeders are not criminals. 2. Dog breeders are not puppy mills. 3. Dog breeder's dogs are not ending up in the pound. 4. Dog breeders are not pumping out sick animals will nilly. 5. Dog breeders are not responsible for any of the people creating these above problems. 6. I do not know of any dog breeders that does not support animal welfare. 7. We love our dogs! But dog breeder confusion abounds everywhere, even amongst dog breeders! How can dog breeders have been so indoctrinated that they now think that they themselves (as dog breeders) are the bad guys? For example, the above poster Christina says, 'You make many good points (about dog breeders) however there has to be some kind of organization for the welfare of animals.' But what does that have to do with dog breeders? Unless she really is saying the dogs need to be protected by welfare organizations from dog breeders like she herself? She goes on to say, "It does depend on which organization it is, many are very extreme. The lunatic ones are a problem & somehow do gain support for some weird reason." Then says she supports Animal Liberation. Which is not an animal welfare group, it is an animal rights group and is viewed as extreme by many. Their goal as they state it, is to stop "human intervention' of dogs by humans. This is not extreme? Does she really believe that as a dog breeder, she needs to support an activist group that wants to stop her (as a dog breeder) from breeding dogs? How does this happen, how does this get so twisted around? First off, can we look at the difference between animal welfare and animal rights? Here is something off the web that is pretty simple to understand and can be used to quickly (like a check list) to see where a group belongs. ANIMAL WELFARE Animal Welfare, as defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association, is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia. Animal welfare proponents seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals. Animal welfare proponents believe that humans can interact with animals in entertainment, industry, sport and recreation, and industry, but that the interaction should include provisions for the proper care and management for all animals involved. Animal welfare proponents support self-regulation of animal sports, including rodeo, polo, three-day eventing, FFA competitions, horse racing, field trials and endurance riding. Animal welfare groups utilize scientific evidence to base animal care and handling guidelines. ANIMAL RIGHTS Animal Rights is a philosophical view that animals have rights similar or the same as humans. True animal rights proponents believe that humans do not have the right to use animals at all. Animal rights proponents wish to ban all use of animals by humans. Animal rights proponents support laws and regulations that would prohibit rodeos, horse racing, circuses, hunting, life-saving medical research using animals, raising of livestock for food, petting zoos, marine parks , breeding of purebred pets and any use of animals for industry, entertainment, sport or recreation. Animal rights proponents believe that violence, misinformation and publicity stunts are valid uses of funding donated to their tax-exempt organizations for the purpose of helping animals. Arson, vandalism and assault are common tactics used by underground animal rights groups to further the animal rights cause. Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front, which have been classified as terrorist by the FBI, routinely use criminal activities to further their cause. It is pretty easy to see that a dog breeder, or any person who wants to go to dog shows and groom poodles to perfection, not to mention play ball or snuggle up on a cold night with their beloved dog, and must include every person who believes that humans should be able to own dogs, CAN NOT be an animal rights activist and CAN NOT believe in animal liberation. Can dog breeders support Animal Welfare? YES Dog breeders despise and would never condone puppy mills, breeding carelessly, not using needed health screening, and those who carelessly place their pups in inappropriate homes. Dog breeders only support the best practice, art and science of breeding happy and healthy dogs, and support the best practice, art and science of rearing happy and healthy puppies. We have to go back and start at the beginning. Dog breeders are not the bad guys!

I did not write the above, see authors name at top. Animal liberation, just the name sends chills up my spine. Lets see what they say 'Animal Liberation believes all animals have a right to live how they would normally choose without other species intervention.' Sounds like an offshoot of PETA, maybe PETA was not aggressive enough for them? Oh look they have a PETA person speaking at one of their meetings. Date: Tuesday 11th May We've got a special guest this month, Clare Knight, who will be speaking about her experience completing an internship at both PETA US and PETA Asia Pacific. PETA have fantastic facilities for budding and experienced animal rights activists, so if you have thought about applying to become an intern, or maybe you are about to head over to start the program, Clare will be here to answer all your questions and tell us of her experiences and knowledge gained from completing the program. Now there is some of that good work that you mentioned! We need all the animal rights activiest we can get educated by PETA. Oh look, bet this was good, did you go? Pedigree Dogs Update - Associate Professor Paul McGreevy Monday the 24th of May, The documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed was released in 2009 and caused a big stir in both the UK and Australia. It exposed the breed standards set by the UK Kennel Club (which directly influences the Australian National Kennel Club), demanding that show dog breeders create animals with impractical and often inhumane physical characteristics. Since the documentary's release A. Prof. McGreevy has been continuing his research into the consequences of breeding pedigree dogs, with the ultimate aim of changing breed standards and improving the lives of innumerable animals. Editied to add, Here is what they say about where to get a dog. By selecting from a shelter you will be saving a life and not contributing further to overpopulation by breeders and pet shops. Remember that some breeders keep animals in poor conditions, for example, so-called Puppy Mills. Yep need to stay away from those bad DOG BREEDERS and not support them if you care about animal rights. Anyway back on topic, 'Animal Liberation believes all animals have a right to live how they would normally choose without other species intervention.' So just how would dogs live without other species intervention? In the wild, like how poodles used to live before you came along and made them indentured slaves, producing puppies for mans amusement? Dogs are man made, poodles only have a normal life with man and that is total intervention of another species. No thanks. Certainly an organization that wants to see the end of human interaction with animals. You can kiss your poodles good by if these guys get there way!

In Defense Of Dog Breeders - How Animal Rights Has Twisted Our Language By John Yates American Sporting Dog Alliance You're a dog breeder!!!!! In today's world, that is a very loaded statement. It's more like an accusation. "I told the television news reporter that I breed dogs," a friend from Dallas told me recently. "He looked at me like he thought I was a harlot." Dog owners have allowed the animal rights movement to redefine our language in order to paint everything we do in the worst possible light. If we say that we breed dogs, the looks we get ask us if we own a "puppy mill" or if we are a "backyard breeder." If we reply that we are a "hobby breeder," someone immediately asks how we can consider living creatures a hobby. Some of us try the word "fancier." We fool no one. The most pathetic response to the question is when we call ourselves "responsible breeders." Responsible to whom? Who defines "responsible" and "irresponsible?" Some bureaucrat? A politician? Animal rights cretins who say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder? Animal rights fanatics would rather kill all animals than see someone love them. In fact, that's their plan. If we say we are not breeders, it makes us "pet hoarders." We are tarred as mentally ill people in need of psychotherapy. The entire language about dog ownership has been hijacked by the rhetoric of the animal rights movement. The worst part is that we have allowed it to happen. We are too fearful and wimpy to stand up for ourselves. We keep searching for inoffensive euphemisms to describe what we do, so that we don't open ourselves up to attack. By doing that, however, we have engineered our own demise. The animal rights movement will not go away. Its agenda is to destroy our right to own or raise animals. Animal rights groups have declared war on all animal ownership, and they won't stop until they either win or we finally have the courage to stand up and defeat them. They have not taken that kind of power over us. We have given it away. We have surrendered our beliefs to the enemy. We apologize for what we do. We make weak excuses for things like animal shelter euthanasia, accidental matings, dog fighting and dangerous dogs. We take at least part of the responsibility for these problems onto our own shoulders, when in truth we have no responsibility at all for creating them. None whatsoever! I am sick and tired of watching dog owners constantly apologize and grovel, and allowing themselves to be put on the defensive. Enough! It's time to stop sniveling about who we are and what we do. Let me state clearly and for the record: I am a dog breeder. I breed dogs. I raise puppies. I like it. I'm very proud of it. If you don't like it, you are free to take a flying leap. I don't care what you think of me or what I do. I raise two or three litters of English setter puppies a year. I wish I could raise more puppies, but can't figure out how to do it without driving myself into bankruptcy. My dogs work for a living, just like I do. They have to be good at their jobs, just like I do. If they aren't good at their jobs, I don't keep them and I certainly don't breed them. They are hunting dogs, and they have to be able to perform to a very demanding standard of excellence to be worthy of breeding. They have to meet the exacting standard of championship-quality performance in the toughest competition. They are professional athletes. Most of them don't make the cut. Those dogs make wonderful hunting companions or family members. I have never had a dog spayed or neutered, except for medical reasons, and I don't intend to start now. If a dog is good enough for me to keep, it is good enough to breed. Nor have I ever sold a puppy on a spay/neuter contract. With performance dogs, it takes two or three years to know what you have. There is no way that anyone can know the full potential or worthiness of a young puppy. I hope every puppy that I sell will become a great one that is worthy of being bred. I do not feel bad (and certainly do not feel guilty) if someone decides to breed a dog from my kennel that I did not choose to keep for myself when it was a puppy. It still will be a very nice dog, and I have worked very hard on my breeding program for 35 years to assure that very high quality genetics will be passed along and concentrated in any dog that I sell. On occasion, I have a puppy that has a serious flaw. I don't sell those puppies, even though they would make many people very happy. I give them away free to good homes, and the definition of a good home is mine because it's my puppy. I own it. You don't. My responsibility is to the puppy. It is not to you, and it's not to some gelatinous glob called "society." I consider myself to be personally responsible for every puppy I raise, from birth until the day it dies. It always has a home in my kennel, if its new owner can't keep it or no longer wants it. That's a contract written in blood between the puppy and me. It's a contract written with a handshake with the puppy's new owner. I laugh cynically when someone from the Humane Society of the United States or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ask if I am a responsible breeder. HSUS and PETA are two of the most vicious, bloodthirsty and dishonest snake pits on Earth. Their moral credibility is a negative number. PETA butchers more than 90-percent of the animals it "rescues" every year, and HSUS supports programs and policies that result in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of animals every year. By now, I assume that I have pushed all of the buttons of the animal rights crazies. I can hear them snort and see their pincurls flapping in indignation. It makes my day. Can't you hear them, too? They are calling me an exploiter of animals. They are saying that I ruthlessly cull and manipulate the genetics of my dogs. They saying that I make the exploited poor beasts work for a living and live up to impossible standards. They will say that I do this to feed and gratify my own fat ego. They will say that I sell them for money and exploit them for personal gain. Then, of course, they will say that I use them to viciously hunt innocent wild animals. Terrible, terrible me! My mother should have a son like this! She was such a nice woman. Well, I plead guilty to all of the charges. Know what else? I don't feel guilty, not even a little bit. I do it. I like it. I feel good about it. Now I will speak in my own defense - as a dog breeder. I happen to love dogs. I love being around them. I love working with them. I love watching a puppy grow up and discover its potential. I love having the privilege of experiencing a truly great dog in its prime. I love sharing supper with my dogs, wrestling with puppies, and sacking out with them on the couch. I lose sleep when they get sick, and work myself unmercifully to care for them. I spend almost all of the money I have on them, and some money that I don't have. My heart breaks when they grow old and die. I have a dozen lifetimes worth of beautiful memories. What do the animal rights freaks have? They have their ideology. They look in the mirror and feel smug and self-righteous, as if God has personally anointed them to protect animals from the likes of me. What they have is nothing at all. Utter sterility. A world devoid of life and love. They can keep it. My life is filled with love and joy and beauty, and I owe most of it to my dogs. They have helped to keep me sane when sanity was not a given. They have given me courage on the days when all I wanted to do was lie down and quit. They have given me strength to endure on the days when all I wanted to do is run away and hide. I owe them my life. The animal rights folks are right. I ruthlessly cull and manipulate genetics. To make the cut, my breeding dogs have had to live up to the most exacting possible standards and pass the most strenuous tests. I am very proud of doing that. The result is that the vast majority of people who buy a puppy from me love it. When I sell a puppy, chances are that it has found a home for the rest of its life. The puppy will have a great chance of leading a wonderful life. I produce puppies that make people happy to own them and want to keep them. That's my job as a breeder. I have done this through rigorous selection. My puppies today are the result of 35 years of my stubborn insistence about never breeding a dog that does not have a wonderful disposition, perfect conformation, great intelligence, exceptional natural ability, breathtaking style and that mysterious ingredient called genius. Every puppy born in my kennel has six or eight or 10 generations of my own dogs in its pedigree. All of those ancestors possess a high level of each of those desirable traits. I have raised, trained, and grown old with every dog listed in several generations of each puppy's pedigree. Simply put, my puppies today are a lot nicer than my puppies of 35 years ago. Today, there is a much higher percentage of good ones, a much lower percentage of deficient ones, a much higher average of good qualities, and a much higher percentage of true greatness emerging from my kennel today. That's what it means to be a breeder. Does that feed my ego? Yep. I like having my ego stroked. Don't you? If you don't, you are in very deep trouble as a human being. But I'll tell you what else it does. It makes for happier dogs. It makes for dogs that lead better lives, find permanent families and homes, and get to experience love in many forms. It also makes for healthier dogs. Generation after generation of perfect functional conformation means that the dogs are less likely to get injured, wear out or develop arthritis. Many generations of selection for vigor, toughness and good health means that they are able to laugh at the extremes of climate, weather and terrain. I also have virtually eliminated genetic health problems from my strain of dogs. For example, hip dysplasia is the most common genetic problem in English setters, afflicting a reported four-percent of the breed. In the past 20 years, I have had only two questionable hip x-rays, which both would be rated "fair" by the Orthopedic Foundation of America (OFA). The last one was 10 years ago. Yes, I am very proud of being a breeder. I did that. I am proud, too, that I am producing dogs that are so intelligent that it's scary, so loyal that they can be your complete partner in the field while also possessing the extreme independence needed to do their job well, so loving that you want them with you every second of the day, so bold and brazen that nothing bothers them, and just plain drop-dead gorgeous to boot. They make me smile a lot. I think I make them smile, too. But, the animal rights whackos say I am doing it for the money. They accuse me of exploiting animals for profit. Yep. Every chance I get. I am very happy when I am able to sell a puppy for cold, hard cash. It makes me feel good. It makes me feel good ecause it shows me that someone appreciates the work I am doing. It makes me feel good because I have earned it, and earned it honestly. My only regret is that I have not made more money as a breeder. With all of the sacrifices I have made and the hard work I have done, I should be rolling in money. Alas, I am not. It has been years since I actually have made money on a litter of puppies. Usually, I lose my shirt. For every puppy I sell, there is another one that I keep to evaluate, and a couple of other ones that I am keeping for two or three years to evaluate for their worthiness to breed. Then there are dogs that are in competition, and that costs bushels of money, not to mention old dogs that are retired and have a home here until they die of old age. Almost a third of the dogs in my kennel are elderly and retired, and it takes a lot of money to care for them. It takes money for dog food, supplies, veterinary bills, kennel licenses, repairs, vehicle use for training and field trials, advertising, internet, phone bills, and four pairs of good boots a year. It takes money. Lots of money. Bundles of money. Oh, Lord, please help me to sell some more puppies! Besides, what's wrong with making money? It is a rather fundamental American value. Making money is something to be proud of, as long as it's done honestly. Even animal rights bozos have to eat. Someone has to make money to stuff veggies down their gullets, and organic veggies are rather pricey. Most working folks can't afford them. I also can't help but notice that most animal rights activists over the age of 30 drive pretty fancy cars (we are talking about the Beamer set, folks), live in rather fancy houses and dress very well indeed. I can't help but notice that many of the leaders of animal rights groups have pretty cushy gigs, with high-end six-digit salaries, fancy offices, and all the perks. I guess they are saying that it's ok for them to make money by the truckload, even if making money turns dog breeders into immoral greed bags. There is no one in America who exploits dogs for as much money as the paid leaders of animal rights groups. Their fat salaries depend on having animal issues to exploit. If there were no animals for them to exploit, they would have to get a real job. It's a rather perplexing dual standard, don't you think? Well, maybe it's not perplexing after all. The only thing perplexing about hypocrisy is that so many people can't see through it. My next sin is making my dogs work for a living. The animal rights people try to paint a picture of whipping dogs beyond endurance, exploiting them, creating misery and causing unhappiness. The poor, downtrodden, huddled masses. You know the tune. Only problem is, my dogs don't agree. They love to work. They love their jobs. The only time they are sad is when it is not their turn to work. For my dogs, working is sheer joy and passion! They love every second of it. What animal rights groups live for is creating imaginary victims. Helping victims makes some people feel better about themselves and, of course, it helps them to part with their money so that animal rights leaders can live high on the hog. Oops. I mean high on the carrot. How callous of me. I guess I'm just not a sensitive kind of guy. Back to the exploited masses of bird dogs. Try an experiment sometime. Read an animal rights essay, and substitute the word "proletariat" for the word "animal." You will find that animal rights philosophy actually is pure and straightforward Marxian doctrine. I guess my dogs are not natural Marxists. They love their jobs. They are excited about their jobs. Their jobs make them very happy. Animal rights people can't seem to grasp that people can feel that way about their work, too. It's how I feel about the very hard work of being a dog breeder. It makes me happy. Another way of putting it is that both my dogs and my own example provide proof that life is not pointless drudgery and exploitation. We provide living proof that joy, beauty and personal fulfillment are possible in life. I just don't think of those qualities when I think of the animal rights fanatics I have known. They seem a rather sad and sorry lot to me. I'll take my dogs' company any day. Oh, but the icing on the cake is that I use these poor exploited creatures to hunt innocent birds. How terrible! Hunting, of course, is a subject of its own, and I won't attempt to cover it here. Suffice it to say that opposition to hunting flies in the face of a few million years of human evolution, the entire balance of nature everywhere on Earth, and common sense. I know one thing for certain. The fact that we have healthy populations of most species of wild birds and animals today is only because hunters have cared enough to support strong conservation measures. We have preserved millions of acres of habitat that is vital to the survival of many species, saved more millions of acres of wilderness from development, supported the protection of endangered species everywhere, and put our money where are mouths are. Animal rights groupies do nothing but blow hot air, when they aren't too busy destroying the land and the animals that live on it to create vast wastelands of industrialized monoculture. I am proud to be a hunter, too. It's time for every dog owner and breeder to stand up proudly and be counted. Each one of you has done far more to enhance the quality of life of both people and dogs than all of the animal rights activists put together. So stand up and shout it to the rooftops! Stop crawling around on your bellies and apologizing. Your dogs deserve better from you. You will just have to get a little tougher if you want to live up to your dogs. What you are doing is right. It's just that simple.

What bill? The OP-quoted article refers to a petition.. A petition can set out what the petitioners would like a bill to say, but it's their creative writing. It'd become a proposed bill only if a draft is prepared under the direction of the relevant Minister. And Qld , in recent times, has set up a representative working party to do that. It's included Dogs Qld. Yep, just like the Clover bill. I believe Dogs NSW approved of the Clover bill at first too, only later reading the fine print. So this is part of what I have been told is going to be part of the QLD legislation (this has been in the works for at least 3 years, so the petition is likely just a publicity stunt to get the public primed to help pass the bill). This is Qld, not Clover 's NSW. There's clear evidence, and examples, of different attitudes by people in various organisations here. And there's scientific evidence that what the good registered Qld breeders already do, is fine in preventing dog dumping & in producing true companion pets. PETA, if you believe it's an influence, has NO scientific evidence to the contrary. We actually have an RSPCA which advises the public to go directly to the good breeders (as well as to the good rescues). They've got better things to do than raid good registered breeders. An infamous raid on one in a southern state, would never have happened here. Also RSPCA will be sharing a campus with the university of qld vet school & they'll be working in together. Where there'll be no room for ratbag extremism. Any proposed legislation would be drafted under the direction of the Minister, with no representative from any extreme group. And their drafting work would be done in a transparent, open way. As it's already been done, with the new laws about keeping domestic dogs. I don't mean to be rude to you, because I understand fully your concerns & your call for vigilance, but there are proactive moves in this state. There's already been a Pilot Project (funded by the Qld government) in the Gold Coast region, where all groups (including Dogs Qld) were represented & a licensing system established. The sky hasn't fallen in on top of registered breeders there, nor prevented them from doing their jobs. Since you are so sure this is the way to go for all breeders in QLD, than you must be a breeder and are now licensed and breeding under this new method in QLD? Can you tell us about the process, how much did it cost, what limits are on you, how often will you be inspected, can you show us the rules you have to work under, how much is the fine if you fail to meet these new laws, jail time mentioned, how many pups have bred so far, howe about non ANKC prefix holders, can they have a desexed dogs, can anyone keep an intact dog? Can you also tell me how the farmer with his working sheepdogs will be treated under this grand plan? His dogs will not be registered in the ANKC. What input did the farmers have in building this big legal system to breed dogs? Was the WKC involved? Was AWBCR invovled? Will ANKC be sharing this office with the RSPCA and the UNI in QLD, as there is already joint RSPCA Uni Vets, working together in Sydney and it is not there to help ANKC breeders, in fact the work is to show #s of inherited diseases in ANKC dogs I believe. So you are saying that QLD Uni system is directly opposed to the Sydney Uni system which is attacking purebred dog breeders? Can you show me any of their resaerch that defends ANKC breeders, anything that shows opposition to the Sydney research? Did they or the RSPCA actually say to buy ANKC dogs or just words like a reputable/good breeder (which could mean anything, like going to a pound Kollie crossed to a kelpie breeder or an oddle breeder). First, back up. You sound emotional & are running things together. What 'grand plan' are you talking about? There's been no bill drafted...only a petition, which is someone's creative writing, signed by a couple of thousand people & brought to the attention of Parliament (as is done with petitions, via a Member). There's no direct connection to any representative working party set by the Minister to draft any new legislation. IF this should be done, it would be worked on by representatives of various organisations, including Dogs Qld . Usually submissions from interested parties are also called for. You also say I'm 'so sure this is the way to for all breeders'. What way are you talking about? I've pointed out that a petition is not a draft bill and that there are processes which go into the preparation of any bill. I didn't even say the petition would necessarily lead to a bill... You're a literate adult, you can go find full answers to your own questions. Yes, there is U of Q research findings that support what registered breeders are doing re socialising puppies & keeping track of litters produced, in Qld. I've posted the reference to it on a number of occasions. Go look. The U of Q is independent of the U of Sydney. Has totally different research pograms & interests. You project a great deal from NSW on to Q'ld. Why would the ANKC be sharing an 'office' with the RSPCA & U of Q? A section of UQ vet school is co-locating with the RSPCA on their Wacol campus. By the way, the Cattle Dog Club & Kelpie Club of Qld presented a UQ team with a plaque of appreciation for 'commitment, patience & dedication to their breeds'. The pilot project for licensing is on the Gold Coast (& is confined only to that council area). Go look for the details on the AWL Qld website. They chaired the working party. Phone them if you want any extra details. The RSPCA has told people, if they want a pure-bred animal, to 'visit a Canine Control Council'-registered breeder only...) From their Imprint article 'How much is that dog in the window?' which I give to people to let them know what can lie behind shop windows. No this came up before, a few years ago, and it was shelved at that time. So are you going to show some Uni research that defends purebred dogs? No I am not talking about the small population of show kelpies in ANKC, I am talking about the huge population of working keplies that work on every station in QLD that are in the WKC registry. How does the Goldcoast law affect their breeders? BTW you have a short nosed breed, did you see the latest welfare issue reserch o that topic? Of course we knew they would take direct aim at short nosed breeders. Now they are looking for how the shifted parts of the brain could be/is causing distress to the dogs. I sure hope the next step is not banning the breeding of all short nosed breeds. Good thing with QLD if this law gets put in place for the welfare of short nosed distressed dogs however. All the short nosed breeders will be registered with the governement so they will know exatly who you are and where you live and can come inspect the lenght of your puppies noses eh? Good luck!

Thanks for the reality check! Lets not forget it was the Unis of Australia that worked with the RSPCA in the UK that started the attack on purebred dogs.

What bill? The OP-quoted article refers to a petition.. A petition can set out what the petitioners would like a bill to say, but it's their creative writing. It'd become a proposed bill only if a draft is prepared under the direction of the relevant Minister. And Qld , in recent times, has set up a representative working party to do that. It's included Dogs Qld. Yep, just like the Clover bill. I believe Dogs NSW approved of the Clover bill at first too, only later reading the fine print. So this is part of what I have been told is going to be part of the QLD legislation (this has been in the works for at least 3 years, so the petition is likely just a publicity stunt to get the public primed to help pass the bill). This is Qld, not Clover 's NSW. There's clear evidence, and examples, of different attitudes by people in various organisations here. And there's scientific evidence that what the good registered Qld breeders already do, is fine in preventing dog dumping & in producing true companion pets. PETA, if you believe it's an influence, has NO scientific evidence to the contrary. We actually have an RSPCA which advises the public to go directly to the good breeders (as well as to the good rescues). They've got better things to do than raid good registered breeders. An infamous raid on one in a southern state, would never have happened here. Also RSPCA will be sharing a campus with the university of qld vet school & they'll be working in together. Where there'll be no room for ratbag extremism. Any proposed legislation would be drafted under the direction of the Minister, with no representative from any extreme group. And their drafting work would be done in a transparent, open way. As it's already been done, with the new laws about keeping domestic dogs. I don't mean to be rude to you, because I understand fully your concerns & your call for vigilance, but there are proactive moves in this state. There's already been a Pilot Project (funded by the Qld government) in the Gold Coast region, where all groups (including Dogs Qld) were represented & a licensing system established. The sky hasn't fallen in on top of registered breeders there, nor prevented them from doing their jobs. Since you are so sure this is the way to go for all breeders in QLD, than you must be a breeder and are now licensed and breeding under this new method in QLD? Can you tell us about the process, how much did it cost, what limits are on you, how often will you be inspected, can you show us the rules you have to work under, how much is the fine if you fail to meet these new laws, jail time mentioned, how many pups have bred so far, howe about non ANKC prefix holders, can they have a desexed dogs, can anyone keep an intact dog? Can you also tell me how the farmer with his working sheepdogs will be treated under this grand plan? His dogs will not be registered in the ANKC. What input did the farmers have in building this big legal system to breed dogs? Was the WKC involved? Was AWBCR invovled? Will ANKC be sharing this office with the RSPCA and the UNI in QLD, as there is already joint RSPCA Uni Vets, working together in Sydney and it is not there to help ANKC breeders, in fact the work is to show #s of inherited diseases in ANKC dogs I believe. So you are saying that QLD Uni system is directly opposed to the Sydney Uni system which is attacking purebred dog breeders? Can you show me any of their resaerch that defends ANKC breeders, anything that shows opposition to the Sydney research? Did they or the RSPCA actually say to buy ANKC dogs or just words like a reputable/good breeder (which could mean anything, like going to a pound Kollie crossed to a kelpie breeder or an oddle breeder).

What bill? The OP-quoted article refers to a petition.. A petition can set out what the petitioners would like a bill to say, but it's their creative writing. It'd become a proposed bill only if a draft is prepared under the direction of the relevant Minister. And Qld , in recent times, has set up a representative working party to do that. It's included Dogs Qld. Yep, just like the Clover bill. I believe Dogs NSW approved of the Clover bill at first too, only later reading the fine print. So this is part of what I have been told is going to be part of the QLD legislation (this has been in the works for at least 3 years, so the petition is likely just a publicity stunt to get the public primed to help pass the bill). Only ANKC registered breeders will be allowed to own intact dogs and breed dogs. Meaning that only ANKC breeders can breed ANKC dogs in the state. It also mandates all pups must be desexed (yes the ANKC pups too) unless they are owned by a licensed kennel operation (translation ANKC registered breeder with the permit to breed in QLD), they are looking at the best time for the desexing now, most feel it will say 6 months. All breeders will have to be licensed in their shire, meet the state regulations, be permitted as an approved breeding operation kennel and have regular and surprise inspections of their home, which will be considered the 'breeding operation kennel', even if you only want to breed one litter. Something like the 40 page breeders act in NSW, which will be used when ANKC homes, I mean licensed breeding operations are raided by the RSPCA with the TV crew. On and on it goes. If you want to run dog breeders out of dog breeding in QLD this is the way to do it. Part 3 of PETA's grand plan if you ask me. BTW when are they opening their office in Australia? The Australian membership must be so happy to have a local branch.

The petition states (edited to state petition removed bill) 2. Encourage responsible and reputable breeding and supply of companion animals by: (a) developing a Breeders Code of Practice, and enact as mandatory legislation; (b) introducing a compulsory licensing and regular monitoring of all companion animal breeding operations. Yes this is the bill. I believe there is also a rather extensive list of demands that describe what laws need to be written on the regulation of all breeders in the state and who can breed. I oppose this legislation. It is the NSW Clover Moore Bill all over again. FUNNY HOW THE PET SHOP BANS NEVER MENTION WHAT THE REST OF THE BILL WILL DO! Same old same old. Come on, just cut to the chase Neurotic and just ask to ban the owning of dogs and be done with it eh? Why do you mess around trying to fool people. Slipping in massive legislation to regulate all dog breeding. Limiting who can can breed and even what kind of dogs can be bred. Generally making it look like anyone breeding a litter has a high potential to be a criminal that needs intense supervision and inspection. Always tacked on to bills said to be about some other more heart felt issues such as pet shop puppies in hope of slipping it by without notice. A nasty piece of work if you ask me. Makes me very sad that you use pet shop puppies this way. So can we change the heading to say what this really is. Massive legistation of dog breeders pending in QLD, promoted as only effecting puppy sales in pet shops.

Neurotic, Can you post the bill as it is written, or give a link to the Bill, so we can read the fine print. Last time I heard about this bill (if it is the same QLD bill) it also banned the selling of all non ANKC registered dogs, and if it is that same bill it also called for desexing of all dogs not owned by a registered breeder. Perhaps these parts were dropped off, or pehapns this a different bill all together? But I would sure like to read the bill before I came to any conculsions.

I think this must be what they are using http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...=clnk&gl=au Also has some good stats in inheritence seen in breedings

Could this be part of it? This was sited in http://cardiovascres.oxfordjournals.org/co...l#xref-ref-37-1 In some dog breeds, practically all dogs are affected. For instance, 50% of Cavalier King Charles (CKC) spaniels have a murmur due to MR by the age of 5–6 years and at 10 years of age, the prevalence of murmurs approaches 100% [38–40]. Echocardiographically, the majority of CKC spaniels have MVP [40,41]. This is sited study #38 http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.co...pe2=tf_ipsecsha This study investigated the epidemiology and prognostic significance of mitral valve prolapse, detected by ultrasonography, in 153 cavalier King Charles spaniels which were screened consecutively during a period of one year. Seventy-five of the dogs, which had either no murmur or a grade I murmur on screening, were re-examined three years later. The screening revealed that 82 per cent of the dogs aged one to three years and 97 per cent of the dogs over three years had various degrees of mitral valve prolapse. The presence and severity of the condition were independent of gender but correlated positively with age and negatively with bodyweight. The degree of mitral valve prolapse at screening correlated with the regurgitation status (murmur intensity and size of the regurgitant jets) at re-examination and with the percentage increase in the left ventricular end diastolic diameter over the three-year period. The presence of a grade I murmur was not useful prognostic indicator. This is #41 Mitral valve prolapse in 3-year-old healthy Cavalier King Charles Spaniels Clinical studies have shown that Cavalier King Charles Spaniels (CKCS) have a high prevalence of mitral valvular insufficiency (MVI). Echocardiography has the potential to disclose early valvular changes, and the present prospective study was designed to investigate the occurrence of mitral valve prolapse (MVP) in young CKCS without heart murmurs, and to correlate the degree of MVP with the clinical status of the dogs by including CKCS with MVI as well. The study was based on blinded evaluations of echocardiographic recordings of mitral valves from 34 CKCS and 30 control dogs. Thirteen (87%) of 15 three-year-old CKCS without heart murmurs had MVP (2 total and 11 partial), as compared with 1 (7%) of 15 three-year-old normal Beagle dogs (P < 0.0001), and none of 15 three-year-old normal Medium Size Poodles (P < 0.0001). Of 19 CKCS with MVI, MVP was found in 84% of the entire group and in 100% of dogs with pulmonary congestion or edema. The occurrence of total MVP tended to be higher in the group with MVI (47%, 9/19), when compared with the younger CKCS without heart murmurs (13%, 2/15, P = 0.06). MVP was positively associated with excessive heart rate variability (P = 0.003). The radius of curvature of the anterior mitral valve leaflet in systole was significantly reduced in dogs with MVP when compared with those without (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, this study shows that CKCS at an early age have a high occurrence of MVP. This suggests: 1) A genetic predisposition of CKCS to MVP; and 2) That MVP is a pathogenetic factor in the development of mitral valvular insufficiency. Follow up studies may add further support to these proposals, and clarify whether echocardiography may be an aid in selecting CKCS for future breeding. I do not have time to look at #39 #40 but if interested you can link to them from the top link. O also noted that the KC seems to be doing screening at dog shows, they have the results of several screening on their site A total of 40 dogs were examined by the cardiologist, Mr Simon Swift MA, VetMB, CertSAC, MRCVS and 32 were graded clear. Here is one http://www.thecavalierclub.co.uk/start.html As you can see in this one, no dogs over age 7 were found to be normal. But this is a very small sample at these dogs shows. Age - No Murmur - Murmur Grade 0 - 1 7 1 1 - 2 11 0 2 - 3 6 0 3 - 4 4 2 4 - 5 1 0 5 - 6 2 0 6 - 7 1 2 7 - 8 0 1, 2, 6 8 - 9 0 0 9 - 10 0 0 10 - 11 0 0 11 - 12 0 1 12 - 13 0 3 Total 32 8

I am going to repeat this, as it does explain why there are 2 different prices and may explain why 90% of the breeders you contacted say they no longer breed. Berners in OFA (orthopedic foundation for animals) Reported 16 out of 100 scored have Hip dysplaisa (2 out of 10) a crippling disease of the hip joints. Reported 30 out of 100 scored have Elbow dysplasia (3 out of 10) a crippling disease of the elbow joint. Meaning that appx 50 dogs out of 100 dogs do not pass health testing and have a crippling disease of the joints ( some dog will have both ED and HD). So when you pick up a pup and take it home, you will have around a 50% chance it will be affected by either HD or ED. That is why any dogs that passes health testing is then suddenly breeding quality, because there are only going to be around 50% of the dogs that will pass health testing. (Edited to add, OFA is voluntary reporting, they state that as many as 50% of the people with affected dogs do not report. They state it is safe to almost double the reported affected rates for any breed. So this means that the affected rate in Berners could be almost twice as bad as the above rates) I will repeat this again too, What does the contract say she is going to do if your dog has HD or ED since it has a 50% chance of being afffected? Will she then pay for the testing? Will she then refund your purchase price? Are you prepared to own and care for a dog with at least a 50% chance of having hip dysplasia or elbow dysplasia? I couldn't tell you for sure what other Australian breeders of Bernese are finding with their HD & ED testing but I wouldn't agree that the above statistics would be true of Bernese in Australia. I wonder if OFA considers anything beyond 0.0. hips "affected" - which technically they are as they are not perfect - yet they are not going to be a crippled dog either! I'd agree with considering anything above a 0.0. for ED affected - but there are only four scales for measuring ED as opposed to 53 each side for HD. A big difference! The breed average score for HD for Bernese in Australia was around 12 the last update I got from the AVA - which is well below the average for Golden Retrievers and Labradors. I certainly don't expect 50% of my puppies to be crippled! If they were - I'd be seriously re evaluating my breeding program Looking at Australian average score does not tell you the rate of affected dogs. Just as important, without mandatory reporting (sending all xrays taken to AVA) then the average score is only reflecting the average score of xrays people felt were good enough to send in. Why pay $90 to score an xrays when all can see the dogs will fail eh? All hip and elbow score averages in Australia (and in any voluntary reporting system) reflect this flaw in the stats which gives a false favorable impression. In OFA the total score for the beginning of affected for HD is equal to an AVA total 29 and gets higher from there. Reporting is also voluntary, so the numbers are lower (look better) then then would really be. However, I believe it is Elbow Dysplasia where berners have a very high rate of affected dogs. In OFA they are ranked the 4th worse breed for ED with 30% affected (grades 1-2-3) of those reported. In Europe the number affected is often much higher due to mandatory reporting in several countries. I have a very good friend (not in Australia) who will remain nameless. I met her over 30 years ago when looking to get a berner for my daughter. She was a well known breeder, having bred many of the top Berners in the world. She would not recommend a pup to me for my daughter because of the high rate of bone disease. About 10 years ago she left the breed as she felt unable to improve the situation under the current systems. She told me that on average more than half of every litter she bred was affected with either HD or ED. She scored every pup she produced so she really knew exactly what was going on with her dogs. She used extreme caution when choosing parents and imported dogs (and exported dogs) around the world trying to improve the elbow and hip scores with many other breeders involved. She was highly involved internationally in the breed and if anybody knew what was going on it was her. So I do trust what she told me and looking at the current number backs up what she said. BTW she also put out most pups on breeders terms (though her contract was far more fair for the buyer) she did this as part of her efforts to improve the ED HD rate. She scored every pup she produced so knew if there was a better rate of dogs with good scores comeing off of any given breeding. She would them turn to some of those pups from that line for breeding trials. She did this to allow for the best dogs to be bred from and thereby removing the pressure to use the dogs she may have selected to keep from the litters that may not have been as good. She was using lateral pedigrees to breed away from affected dogs and to breed into lower scored lines of dogs. Anyway, it is fantastic that ED and HD are not a real problem in Australia. They are one of the loveliest breeds in my opinion.

So that is 198 Registered breeders accounted for. What reasons did the other 72 registered breeders say they bred for?

Great info! Can you crunch the numbers to break down each group of breeders? For example, in the group of people who breed for money, what is the breakdown of why they would leave breeding (of course the same for each group of breeders). Would be very interesting to see if the reasons people leave breeding are different depending on why they breed in the first place.

Here is a bit more on joint disease in Berners This report from Europe where there is likely some controlls on health test reporting says 72% ( 7 out of 10) have Elbow Dysplasia, or that only 3 out of 10 dogs screened do not have it. 'Gisela Haas reported on a Dutch study that found 72% of 97 BMDs studied had some form of elbow dysplasia.' http://www.bmdca.org/health/Orthopedics/Elbow_Dysplasia.php

I am going to repeat this, as it does explain why there are 2 different prices and may explain why 90% of the breeders you contacted say they no longer breed. Berners in OFA (orthopedic foundation for animals) Reported 16 out of 100 scored have Hip dysplaisa (2 out of 10) a crippling disease of the hip joints. Reported 30 out of 100 scored have Elbow dysplasia (3 out of 10) a crippling disease of the elbow joint. Meaning that appx 50 dogs out of 100 dogs do not pass health testing and have a crippling disease of the joints ( some dog will have both ED and HD). So when you pick up a pup and take it home, you will have around a 50% chance it will be affected by either HD or ED. That is why any dogs that passes health testing is then suddenly breeding quality, because there are only going to be around 50% of the dogs that will pass health testing. (Edited to add, OFA is voluntary reporting, they state that as many as 50% of the people with affected dogs do not report. They state it is safe to almost double the reported affected rates for any breed. So this means that the affected rate in Berners could be almost twice as bad as the above rates) I will repeat this again too, What does the contract say she is going to do if your dog has HD or ED since it has a 50% chance of being afffected? Will she then pay for the testing? Will she then refund your purchase price? Are you prepared to own and care for a dog with at least a 50% chance of having hip dysplasia or elbow dysplasia?