moosmum

Defeatist, when there is so much that can be done. Could start by joining ACA . Not just breeders, but state bodies, for a voice. And Stop discrediting breeders, weather they be ANKC or 'other'. There are solutions, but little support when the expectation on Breeders is they prove they aren't part of the problem, while there can be no real distinction between 'types' of breeders that can ever be claimed exclusively. You really do reap what you sow.

Poor little boy. Child proof enclosure would have prevented this, but I think the parents in this instance should be held more to account than the dogs owners, who at least ensured their dogs were secured in a private area and moved to a safer one away from where the child was originally. Training for owners of large/more risky breeds if undertaken should include public awarness. We have licensing for motor vehicles, but safety education around them extends to the general public.

Ban the people from participation if they won't do the right thing, or cover up for those who don't. Use the laws in place, and demonstrate/highlight better out comes for those who DO things well. Organisms and organizations evolve and thrive when they can demonstrate value. Poor behavior and out comes are Subjective, not objective. Unfortunately, ANKC has been promoting the opposing belief for too long and these instances of banning practices out right instead of demonstrating how they can be improved on is the only out come available under that assumption. Its contrary to reality. The objective is not faulty. Its not where the value is. If it were, we are all headed the same way.

I don't think it is a good move, if the answer to deficits is to scrap the whole thing. Doesn't bode well for the keeping of domestic animals. Not when the focus is constantly on discrediting the practice, and promotion of its successes inevitably cops the same treatment.

I don't think it is a good move, if the answer to deficits is to scrap the whole thing. Doesn't bode well for the keeping of domestic animals. Not when the focus is constantly on discrediting the practice, and promotion of its successes inevitably cops the same treatment.

These days, Thai Ridgeback and Kangal. Kangals are out of the question at my age, have way too much hair and neither breed at all suited to the environment I could provide. Way too risky! There have been so many other breeds I have liked at various stages though, from Lakeland Terriers to Akitas Airerdales and Giant Schnauzer or Black Russian terriers.

As above. Argue you have not had duty of care for an entire Dog in this instance. The fee you are being asked to pay is for an entire dog, and thats not what you took delivery of, nor should you be responsible for a late fee if that duty of care was undertaken in a reasonable time frame of accepting delivery.

Happy to say 'Done' T.

Happy to do that, Thanks T. Enjoyed your link too. While they do represent all stake holders, there needs to be clearer incentive or direction for people to support that. At the moment, most pet owners are happy to sign these petitions in support of legislation they have no real understanding of, under the impression its not going to impact them, only improve practices. Blissfully unaware of broader repercussions. But there still needs to be not only provision, but an expectation on, all owners to support a genuinely representative body. Tying to a national data base/chip org. creates that expectation, and that those services and knowledge provided be used as part of responsible pet ownership. If the information provided by Embark (or similar, if shown to be more useful) is expected for all entire dogs and provided as a matter of course, those unplanned litters with unknown parentage and no real purpose are going to be far less appealing. Esp. when people doing the right thing are made aware of things they never knew they should.

We are closer than most realize. I think the changes I have proposed are essential, asap, if we are to have any chance of avoiding that future. With changes being proposed and enacted, the quality of the dogs we have to select from as pet owners is going to be so impacted any value to had will be in terminal decline. Embark provides COI, breed breakdown and tests for over 200 genetic conditions and more and more as they become available. Maybe not always 100% accurate, but the best available atm. So called solutions so far are all restrictive/constrictive. They don't provide better abilities of response.

I don't think that will change until there is a body to represent the general pet owning public, made up of same. Seems we pay for registration, but get little benefit ourselves from the processes. I believe if we are to pay for registration fees that assist with animal management, that must in fairness include real and informed (and Informing) representation of just what these fees are supporting. A portion of any fees collected should be used to support inform and educate the public on such matters, and encourage participation for real effective ability of response by the pet owning public. Responsibility can't be effective while its not presented either to or by those its expected from. Much more effective solutions to problems are out there- But as you have pointed out, their isn't effectively representation. Ie, I believe instead of discouraging breeding through high fees for entire dogs, they could include genetic testing of all entires through Embark( for the extensive and inclusive range of genetic conditions tested for, and the research it funds) this automatically fosters greater understanding of risks or benefits associated with breeding that animal, and the responsibilities that might go with it. The results could be tied to microchip details and be made available to any purchaser of pups/dogs. I have 100% confidence that such a move would revolutionize responsible dog breeding, management and community responsibility. Fees could also fund the running of a site similar to DOL, but for all pet owners and interests where links to upcoming legislative debates, research results etc must be posted, and can be effectively debated before enactment. A single national microchip data base, community forum and information hub, plus mandatory D.N.A testing of entire dogs where results are made available to prospective buyers could combine with sales pages for buyers and assist with financing. The community must be more involved. This gives them the tools to take responsibility. Not just for breeding that takes place, but for buyers as well. There is always risk, those who can demonstrate they have done all they can humanly do to avoid it, should not be penalized.

Hybrid vigor is a real thing. Its effects are only in 1st crosses, not subsequent mates and won't help much if both are carriers or positive for the same issues. Many genetic ailments these days are found across multiple breeds so health testing would still be required. That was not always the case, more so as time passes with out addressing the issues effectively. I see no reason why it should be discouraged. The poor results in examples cited are not simply because they are cross breeds, more that the pure breeds used were not effectively screened for those faults. You can not with hold quality health screened pure breeds, then condemn breeders for not using them. A good example of crying 'Irresponsible!' while the ability to respond any better is withheld. I do agree with both @sandgrubber and @tdierikx though, that 'hybrid vigor' is not a cure for most genetic conditions with out proper health screening. it can be of great use though to reclaim traits lost, give new ones, modify extremes, increase diversity or modes of inheritance for those maybe tied to faults in one breed, but maybe not in another.

Yes, I think we are on the same page. People seem to have a poor understanding of what environment is, and how it applies to either an Organization or an Organism. One breed can thrive in many different environments/situations, and gain support for that enhanced response ability. Increased diversity follows, with breeders able to focus on the traits they value for their purpose, or elimination of faults/disease that interfere with their effectiveness. Labs are in a unique place where K.Cs Standards as defined in the show ring are not such absolute arbiters of the dogs worth. Its easy to censure individuals who put their own purpose before breed standards, Not so easy to discredit breeders with the backing of organizations with broader representation than show line Lab breeders. Labs are in a better place for it. Motor vehicles evolve for performance, efficiency and safety. They are not stuck with the limitations of their original templates or split into different classes based on color. The Form limits function and value to be had from it. Which is why function dictates form and not the other way around.

Homozygosity is the inevitable result of breeding to type or standard in systems where deviation from the recognized (ie, what is familiarly seen) is discouraged. As it will be when a standard is imposed before other considerations can be met. The refusal of K.Cs to recognize cross breeds or non-pedigreed Dogs simply speeds up the process, But also ensures it. The early days of the breed standards included much more diversity. Differences were seen, and recognized as some thing not foreign to to the standard set. The less they are seen, the more they are regarded as foreign. There was more room for breeders to focus on their own priorities. Line breeding increases, not decreases the homozygosity of breed standards because its inevitable that lines will mix over time. You are right though that whats lost is very hard to get back....Impossible in a closed system, since you only have access to whats left. Domestic Dogs were selected in a natural process for the purposes they served their Human environments, and their abilities to respond to its demands. Dogs evolved according to the purposes they were bred for, and types emerged to suit. Form follows function. Breeds were recognized from those types, with much diversity from both individual preference and priority, and local conditions. Standards take precedence over individual preference and priority. Over Environment. You have a Pedigree system in decline or entropy because it has put all its value into a state, rather than purpose. A breeds Statehood has become the purpose, and all states are in entropy when maintenance of the state succeeds its purpose. Problems arising from this are difficult to address when there is no recognition of alternatives within the recognized 'Standard" or state of the breeds. When environment is recognized, problems can be readily addressed as recognized at the individual level. When Environment is not, problems tend to remain unrecognized until they are near universal to the Standard, and then a universal strategy is employed or imposed across the state, while other problems gain traction. To top that off, the only avenues available to address the problems are to reduce the state of the breed or adherents in question to disclude the problem. A viable state, standard or Objective is one that serves a purpose to its environment, and responds to its demands. Evolves and alters to meet them. One that values its own statehood above the demands of Environment can't do that. The Objective has no value. Negative Value. All value is subjective. When the value is put into the Objective, It can only manifest in the negative. Thats the reality.

You manage better than I do. Good to see you back! The dogged pursuit of purity, and the statement that that nothing 'less' be recognized. An 'Objective' with a negative bias, is a negative objective. It destroys the foundations Domestic Dogs were built upon, and undermines their foundations leaving them nothing to stand on. Like it or not, Domestic Dogs were developed by back yard Breeders, Selecting for their own needs, in their own back yards, to complement their own values and objectives. Thats what gave us the 'pure' breeds we love, and kept them 'working' reliably for their intended purpose(s), in multiple environments. No other singular objective can viably replace that.