moosmum

I absolutely understand that dogs like Rottis are protective by nature, bless them. It's been my observation over the years, that dogs tend to be a little more protective of their female owners/handlers, especially when around unknown men, than their male owners. I would have to agree with that. In our case, I'm also the trainer and one with the bond. O.H loves the dogs, but doesn't work at a relationship. My dogs have shown they will defend O.H as well, but if theres no detectable threat, I'm the one they watch against it. And kids. We have noticed that we have to control ourselves much more too. Our feelings towards people can affect the dogs reactions if we allow 'feels' when its not called for. Even if we are careful not to display them. Heightens suspicion? Our dogs are friendly towards all invited guests, but when O.H had resentment to one for things said behind his back, THAT was the one person my dog chose to block with a warning when he got too close to me, too fast for her liking.

The K.cs don't have to accept any thing they don't want want to include. They must recognize it though, if its a dog and they claim to be for dogs and not just pedigrees for their own sake, exclusive of dogs. A species diversity allows it a range of response that gives it adaptability to change and challenge. A species ability to respond governs how it evolves to meet those challenges and changes. A Breed doesn't hold the diversity of its species. Its ability to respond is limited to its condition(s) as a breed, in a specialized and isolated environment. If you will only recognize set 'types' of the species, You aren't just favoring the predictability of 'breeds'. You'd have a right to do that. As people who give a place to dogs you will favor the ones that bring value to the environment YOU provide. But if you won't recognize the species, you exclude the diversity inherent to it, and the people and conditions that keep them. You exclude response beyond recognized conditions. You will only recognize limitations- of isolated, fixed and restrictive conditions for predictable types, with out ability to respond other wise. The conditions that distinguish 'type' from species. That is not for dogs. Thats for 'conditions' that bring predictable results. Thats antidiversity. Dogs won't survive as if those conditions are imposed on the species. Thats what happens while the species isn't recognized. Conditions are imposed to have breeds. Thats O.K.IF we recognize the SPECIES for its diversity of response to meet the demands of any conditions it needs to overcome. Breeds will always be limited to the conditions that give them a distinct identity.Even when that condition deteriorates. That won't change with out recognition of the species beyond breed. The Dogs ACT site in its opening statement makes that declaration. No doubt many affiliated orgs. do. That we accept the conditions of breed limitation, but not recognize the diverse responses of a species to its human environment. The message the species sends to its environment- is that diversity of species is unacceptable. We refuse to recognize it as a species. Only divided into precise but entirely separate components with nothing in common. There is no entire purpose.Only pieces held apart. Yet if you need to look at the condition of the species, you need to put the pieces together to see if how it works.It won't work if theres no purpose to hold it together.You are missing the nuts and bolts. There can't be a species. Only predictable, recognizable component conditions for one with nothing in common to give the species purpose or adaptability to its condition. A kind of chaos. A dogs purpose is to respond to the conditions of humanity in ways that improve those conditions. Humanity is the dogs environment. Its increased when more people see and recognize the value in keeping dogs. For what it does for the human condition, a dog improves his own. The species has response-ability to its environment, to shape its condition through how it responds. A breeds 'purpose' is to restrict its responses to the conditions of its identity as a breed. At least while nothing else can be recognized. The value Humans see and recognize in the breed depends on what value they find in its condition, as it is now. A breed has no response-ability to its environment or condition. It depends on the supporting conditions remaining unchanged. They don't and won't. A breeds identity can only evolve, respond and change if theres recognition that its species condition is never static. Its condition will change (and has). The responses to the changed conditions can't come from its condition?! It can only come with a response independent of its condition. From its purpose to its condition. With out recognition of the species condition, response isn't possible from a breed. The environment is forced to respond to the breeds. Thats beyond the ability of environment. Thats not the in the nature of environment. Environment demands. It doesn't respond. Identities respond to demands. If they can't, the available conditions are reduced. Pugs can't breathe? We reduce the Pugs to those who can, but won't alter their conditions to enable better breathing. We wouldn't recognize a Pug if we did. Because its his condition we recognize. Not its abilities of response to our demands to breathe. His purpose is to fit into the standard conditions of his being. We can't address the condition of a Pug if its only its condition that gives it a recognizable identity. Humanity has its own environment. The K.Cs formed an identity, of common response to an aspect of their environment. Dogs. That was a positive move that could have promoted faster and better responses from the canine species. Through demonstration of the benefits and values it contributes to the purpose of dogs. But their statement of purpose included the instruction that the environment inhabited by that collective identity would recognize no other condition. No environment or purpose beyond the pedigree condition. They state they do not recognize a species, only their own conditions. They promote a demand, that only a dogs 'conditions' give him purpose and value. Reality is, a dogs ability to respond to his condition, and how it does, decides if there is any purpose. Environment demands that response be adaptable to any conditions of the species environment, or those conditions/environments are lost to it. They serve no purpose in those conditions with out responding to them. The K.Cs are to maintain the conditions of breed group identities and response, into standard, static environments. Without recognition of other states the conditions a C.C member can respond to are limited to those conditions alone. Their environment and its conditions are self contained in the body of an organization bound by common purpose. Its Exclusive of any other purpose. Its members gives up autonomy of response. They have an over riding member identity, whos purpose is its 'self'. NOT Dogs. Its purpose is to 'set' and limit Canine Conditions The statement of non-recognition removes "The purpose of" the pedigree system to a dogs condition, to make the "Pedigree system" the purpose for a dogs condition. The dog is no longer the purpose of the K.Cs. The conditions are. Recognize the species and a pedigree system can benefit the dogs, even the ones that system doesn't actualy accept. Because with out recognition, there is nothing to accept but conditions. Without response-ability, any conditions will be unacceptable sooner or later. Grey hound racing, pet stores, puppy farms , BYBers, Pugs, G.S.Ds AND K.Cs. Because we don't demonstrate responses that work IN those environments to continue providing value. We hold those environments responsible for the lack of value to be found, when the environment HAS no ability to respond. Only to demand we live up to its expectations of us. The environment can only demand or 'expect' what is demonstrated as possibility. C.C.s making the statement they do not recognize mixes between pure breeds turn the response of pedigrees (to improve practices), to a condition of its environment. A cultural instruction as much as any gentic instruction to a culture of cells in the body they inhabit. Its a faulty code in the programing of cultural behaviour. It removes communication between the cell culture and its environment. The cell culture acting as if its independent of its host, taking what it needs, but not serving the common purpose that will allow survival. By each cell responding to its conditions independently, as far as its genetic variability or diversity allows. Improved response by a single cell has the ability to improve response in other cells by an exchange of information. An improvement in a cells response over those around it is replicated. Cells with the improved ability won't suffer the same rate of attrition as long as those conditions hold. They can replace those cells with less ability to recognize and respond to conditions, giving greater resistance in future to similar conditions. Under that statement of non -recognition: You are cells. You don't recognize the 'body' of the canine species or its purpose. You have created a different body whos purpose is not the good of the body you are contained in. Simply because it can't recognize any more than its own small part in the purpose. Your C.C creation is a part of a bigger body. It won't exist long with out recognition of that fact or it serves NO purpose but its own. And that is in conflict with the responses required to ensure the health of the body. Those C.Cs found a response to improve the condition of dogs, and removed it by making it the condition of their being. Their identity. A record of Pedigree. All dogs have a pedigree. The recording of it isn't what makes it a good dog or a bad dog. Its the response behind it that does. The recording itself can't be made to apply to all dogs before their value is recognized, because its NOT the measure of the dogs value. Its not possible to apply to all other conditions of dog. Not until every condition fits a 'standardized' classification and we don't expect anything more from them. The purpose for Pedigrees is lost with an imperetive to restrict the culture to that purpose, and not the dogs pedigrees should benefit.

Yup. My guys are encouraged to love children, and to welcome guests and attention from people. I am well aware that they have a very strong protection drive that comes naturaly. My job is to see its never misplaced or over done and final judgments are mine to make. The dogs learn responsibility to their own freedom of action. There are social rules. The dogs listen and watch. An invite to enter has a different response to an uninvited entry, another to a person who remains out while I talk to them, or who ignores an instruction. Its important to me and my dogs that they recognize and accept the social rules if they are going to do their jobs in a safe and reliable way. They can't do it at all if they are kept away from people. They couldn't learn to recognize and accept the wide range of 'normal' human behaviors and types.

Such a beautiful little girl. A lovely tribute to her. So sorry for your loss, Its hard to accept they are gone when they have been so much part of our every day. Hugs.

Will def. give that more work than I have been. From being able to discuss this, I'm thinking maybe Over stimulation could be be part of the problem? And he does seem better the last few days, so touch wood, we can get past this with out drastic measures.

In this case, I'm pretty sure its sexual. He is not bored with over an acre and a half to run with at least one VERY active playmate/teacher besides the old girl, horses and chooks, kids AND his toys when he must stay inside. The last thing I needed was a 2nd puppyhood in my 10 ( 11!?) yr old, shes as bad if not worse than he is all over again. Lots of time outs for the pair once she starts carrying him 'round by the collar or has him bolting from one hole to another 'round and 'round the house. I gave him my bed spread after he ruined it, left it on the bed for now. At least it might save the 2nd layer. He tunnels under besides adding to the fluff to picked up :laugh: He may be asserting some dominance with the old girl , I will keep an eye on that, and try some more formal training.

If theres a good chance his sex drive will moderate, I am happy to keep him entire. None of my 'big' boys have been neutered and it has not been a problem so might wait and see how it plays out. The girls are pretty good at putting him in his place, The smallest and oldest needs back up now and again. Thanks guys I can always change my mind or do it later...council Rego due next month and with his enthusiasm, I thought it was worth considering IF it wouldn't cause probs. so its good to know it might sort itself. Keeping him busy is easy, keeping myself from being just as busy running after him is harder He Is shaping up nicely but hes like a cat in where he can get to! A 'high drive toddler' and him together has me spinning in circles :laugh:

Thanks for the reply. :laugh: He is a Tenterfield if that makes any difference? Over bite isn't terrible, but any improvement possible I will encourage. Bigger dogs I am more familiar with growth, and never needed to deal with an over sexed one! I haven't had such a small breed from puppy hood, any other small dog I've had has been a rehome. Happy to delay if its still for the best in such a small breed.

Another over bite here. Pup will be desexed , but after opinions on age here because I want to give over bite best chance of self correcting as much as as its going to. Will desex at 6 months affect that, or would a delay be better? This pup has a job, displays very good drives for it, and I though I'm prepared for less intensity I rarely neuter a working dog so unsure if 6 month neuter will ruin his drive or it should be allowed to develop more 1st.( vermin alert/control) I am prepared and experienced at management, but this pup is showing signs of being an over sexed humper! So opinions please- 6 month desex or delay to 18 months?

Whoa there, Gruf. You're mixing the sensible with logic. :laugh: I don't disagree that a dog's worth should be judged to some extent on its function but with the oodly dogs, function is an unknown. They can't be claimed to be hypoallergenic, they can't be claimed to be non-shedding, they can't be claimed to be good family pets, and really, they can't be claimed to be anything because it's all rolls of the dice. Comparing an oodly dog to.. a greyhound: The greyhound will be a big dog, probably weighing between 25-35kg. It will have a smooth, short coat that sheds fairly minimally. It will have most, if not all, the traits of a sighthound. When you breed two greyhounds together, you know what the basic template will be. On the other hand, the lab x poodle could be a smallish dog, it could be a medium dog, it could be quite a large dog, its coat could be one of many things. It's impossible to predict which traits from which breed will end up in each puppy and because of that, you can't say it's good for [X] function (such as non-shedding pet) because it's an unknown. An update for anyone interested, regarding the BIL's lab x poodle.. Yesterday, it was confirmed that its other knee has now gone. Below is a quote taken from the breeder's website: I guess that sound health with hybrid vigor doesn't include hips or knees. Their dog will likely be crippled with arthritis before it even gets close to being an old dog. Great family pet, right there. Cos hybrid vigour is about species not breeds. Actually, I think it was originally about peas. Are 'peas' not a single 'genus?' Like 'canid?' At any rate, I don't think the physical laws of genetics alter depending on species.

We can't just demand people conform to the environment we want with out opposing whats there, and the possibilities it contains. We can only demonstrate possibilities through our own responses, and hope people can recognize the value. So we create an expectation thats how it should be. At least til our conditions change or we find an even better response or both. But If we can only accept a standardized environment, and expect a standard response, we won't be able to cope with change or respond to it effectively. If Oodle crosses are popular, its because people value what they offer to their purpose and expectations better than alternatives. If you want to change that, offer more and see that its familiar enough people can recognize it when they see it.

Makes perfect sense to me. Its not where it comes from. Its the purpose behind its existing at all...what qualities were found in its ancestors that people (responded to) took responsibility for extending into the future. Doesn't matter where it came from or who bred it, as long as there was purpose to it, That served the needs of some person who could recognize THIS dog can add value to MY purpose better than any other. But Reliably good dogs can only keep happening or be found if breeders and their buyers understand a shared purpose, and their own abilities to respond to it effectively. That they can or will TAKE responsibility for their purpose. To the best of their ability in whatever conditions they have to work with. Not hand responsibility to a group identity with the expectation that environment will meet any conditions thrown in your way with its own. The 'environment' the dog or its breeder comes from has little to do with its quality, except for how supportive it is of the breeders and their response to the purpose. How and if a breeders response to his purpose is rewarded. Accidents will happen. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Life ISN'T predictable. Predictable responses won't always work. If life throws me an accident thats better than what I've come to expect, be buggered if I'll throw it away because I don't approve of where it comes from, or prevent a repeat because it doesn't represent my predictably standard environment. An environment that only supports predictable standards would mean only standard responses are accepted or rewarded there. That limits the possibilities of my purpose and of my dogs. No change, only reduction. Teach purpose for dogs and breeding, show anyone how to respond to it, no matter where they exist NOW, and the purpose and responses of those who don't offer anything real will be exposed with recognition of them. There won't be rewards for people to offer so little. Teach people to EXPECT more by giving it and share how. But I forget, It has to be recognized 1st. Thats not the standard response. And my purpose isn't the standard. Its a good dog by the standards "I" have come to expect. Not one predicted or dictated by an environment I'm restricted to, if there any reward to be got. If my purpose has no value to anyone but myself theres no reward beyond my own dog, so its going to be hard to even find him. As long as we keep referencing a K.C environment for 'best practice' in opposition to any alternative, we ensure the rewards for a good breeder or a good dog depend on the environment they come from and we won't be rewarding effective purpose and responses from any because we aren't focusing on them. Only on standardizing the k.C environment to meet all environmental conditions and demands thrown its way. Trying to counter act the unpredictability of environmental conditions through an environment so predictable its no longer there. An Environment can't be static and support response.

I agree. However the number of these dogs who are dumped because they do not live up to the claims of their breeder ('non-shedding' or size being the biggies - ie false marketing) would suggest that there are many people making uneducated cross-breed choices on the basis of false information. And thats the major point of my post: false cross-breed marketing. FB and the newbie threads here show time and time again that the general public do not make the distinction between responsible cross-breeders and puppy farmers/irresponsible ones - in time they may, but not now. These cross-breeders simply come up with a marketing terms and false information to sell their puppies. Why do these cross-breeders come up with these cutesy marketing terms in the first place instead of describing them by their cross? The answer is to claim their dogs are something they are not and to mislead and falsely market them using false information (non-shedding, hypo-allergenic, kid friendly, 'family dogs' etc etc). What defines a 'family dog'? What type of 'family'? Its nothing but a marketing term. If this was any other industry or 'product', the ACCC would be very interested in their claims. The fact that many cross-breed puppies are still sold through petshops and online as impulse buys and end up in pounds, compared with the numbers of purebreeds in pounds proves the point. At least most (not all) registered pure breeders and hopefully now most Cobberdog cross breeders will try and ensure their puppies go to thoughtful homes with truthful information. You're right - some purebreeders are horrible and are a big part of the problem. On that we absolutely agree. There are a couple of registered purebreeders I know of who I steer well clear of and never recommend. They are truly nasty, take gate-keeping to a ridiculous degree and do everyone a grave disservice. But there are some fantastic ones as well - and thats where I send people who ask me. Horrible breeders are not restricted to purebreeders. The mass cross-breed puppy farmers I have dealt with have been cruel patronising money hungry lying b*st*rds, And most backyard cross-breeders are not much better. So IMO this is not about 'horrible breeders' who sadly exist everywhere. Its about a group of cross-breeders who falsely represent and market what they are selling to the general public. Of course not - rescue is not infallible either - but the fostering system increases the chances of a good match as opposed to an uninformed response to false cross-breed marketing on looks or characteristics which the false marketing of these crossbreeds encourages. The best protection the puppy buying public has is to buy from someone who loves the breed, knows the breed, breeds for betterment of the breed and socialises their puppies well - and that ain't a cross-breed puppy farmer. Yet as I keep saying the general public do not make that distinction between responsible or irresponsible cross-breeders or do their homework. If they did, most would not buy online or from petshops (and they would go out of business). How many DOLers have said 'I bought my cross-breed from a petshop/mass-breeder when I didn't know any better'? I have no affiliation with the ANKC and would welcome proper registration under another affiliated body - not a problem - as long as there is some control somewhere. Steve I know you have worked really hard on breed development and you are probably one of the biggest advocates of the cobberdog in Australia. And with guarding against unintended consequences such as false cross-marketing, this cross-breed probably has a bright future, eventually as a registered breed. And that's genuinely a good thing. But IMO Cobberdog cross-breeds or registration as a purebreed are not a panacea to the problem of rampant cross-breeding and false cross-breed marketing to the general public. Not everyone who wants a cross breed will consider a cobberdog, wants a cobberdog or even know they exist - so they'll likely respond to false marketing of other crossbreeds and around the cycle will go again. O.K. Firstly I see more staffy type and working dog type dogs in rescue that never get out the other side and into a new home than I see other cross breeds that have been purposely bred. I also see pure breed rescue is flourishing. In my two breeds Beagle and Maremma there is a never ending supply of dogs for Beagle and Maremma rescue and there are hundreds of specific breed rescue groups all over the country. Plus many purebreds are marketed as non shedding, less prone to causing allergies and child friendly. Cross bred breeders don't have a monopoly on that either. There are good and bad breeders in any group and it is just as difficult to find a registered purebred breeder who is doing it all right as it is to find a cross bred breeder who has it all covered. The marketing for purebred dogs tells us that they all health tested - well guess what ? Most registered breeders dont and whats more the anti marketing of purebred dogs tells us that many of them are actually selected for characteristics that cause their quality of life to be low quality and for them to suffer because of it. These days the breeders don't have to do much work on telling the general public the benefits of cross breds because the RSPCA and the AVA and the state universities are right out there about it. Hit google and ask for non shedding dogs and its purebreds that come up - so is it possible to have a non shedding purebred but not a non shedding cross bred? What Im trying to say is that grown up people make their decisions on purchasing anything based on their own variables and suggesting that every one should only want registered purebreds is equivalent to telling me that everyone should only want a rescue dog. So when we see cross bred dogs advertised and people buying them they have as much right to determine that suits them better than what you would choose. The fact that there are choices is a good thing and people who won dogs which are not purebred or not registered with a kennel club as purebreds can still be fantastic owners and the dogs make great pets.Cross bred breeders don't have a monopoly on puppy farming and if there weren't so many people telling the world how great their cross bred puppies were people would stop buying them. Both sides are capable of spreading crap about what they see as the best and real world but people buy dogs of any type because they are able to make their own choices - some will like purebreds others wont care if they are purebred or not. There is just as much argument - if not more that the marketing of purebreds and the pressure on breeders to only breed a litter or two a year and God forbid for the pet market has helped puppy farmers of both registered purebred breeders and cross bred breeders. Its supply and demand. Or Purpose and Response. I think ALL breeders would be more successful, and owners too, if people were taught to ask before breeding or buying, what is the purpose, and do I understand how to respond effectively to it. No Org. can replace individual purpose or response. That is always going to be individual. It won't ever depend on the environment a dog is bred in , but on the purpose and responses of the breeder, and those who buy the dog. Teaching where to buy from is not the same as teaching to consider the purpose, and the responses that make it a worth while one, that works for the individual. The environment that bred the dog doesn't guarantee anything except that the dogs parents had a place in that environment. It doesn't quarantee a purpose, and it doesn't say the dog will respond effectively to its environment. That it will live up to your expectations. Only breeding for demonstrated effectiveness to purpose gives you a good chance the resulting dogs will be able to respond to it effectively.

A full life doesn't make it easier to say good by. So sorry for his loss. Run whole and strong Harry.

So sorry Perrys Mum. I think my 1st ever dog here in Aus was a Koolie. He taught me so much, and showed me the potential of what we could have. He set my expectations for anything to come after. The missing .... to me is like being followed by a shadow. There every where you look, but just a shadow. Run free

Perrys mum, yes he did. I had a very hard time trying not to blame the little Pom cross for her habit of taking on what she never would alone, knowing he was there to back her up but getting in the way of his normal efficiency too. Fm, I do. His love and trust for me in particular was such a powerful thing. His protectiveness very visible to any one who came. He warned me when a stranger with a tommohawk turned up at dusk and showed then he would do more than just put himself between us and a human threat, if he sensed it might be more. He showed that it didn't matter if a threat might be from some one he knew, or was friendly with the day he sat a 6 ft 10 man down again for leaping up to follow me from one room to another after I'd told him to wait there ( and settled instantly when the man sat back down and we told him 'not on'.) He was like having a professional body guard. If hunters were here, guns had to be pointed down at all times. I miss him pushing me around on my computer chair for his ear rubs, pure love in his eyes and his goofy toothy 'smile'. Thanks all.

Another, just because.

Yep. I think that dogs ( and people) are born with their ABILITIES of response. But environment and how those abilities are nurtured, the motivations provided or perceived will play a big part in how those abilities develop. Weather they are enhanced or suppressed. Conditions contrary to abilities of response will bring conflict.

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies? Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread? And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/ Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules. I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't. And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses. You are only NOW explaining to me what you meant and just because you thought it was perfectly clear that doesnt make it that it was perfectly clear to me. I wasn't using a previous post to do what you accuse me of I was using it as a way of explaining why I thought you were saying what I thought you were. Now I know what you were saying I apologise that I didn't get it at the time . How the hell was I supposed to know if my interpretation was right or Hazywal had it right until you clarified it? Unless Ive missed something this is the first time you have clarified it. Im sorry that I took your question the wrong way. Obviously I have some other things confused because all I see is a whole group of people being judged as complicent because they didn't stand up and report those that you say they knew were doing the wrong thing. But the some of the wrong things you seem to have wanted them to report were not reportable and I believe that many did report the things that were against the rules and illegal. Self regulation meant it was covered up and corrupt. Just as the grey industry has codes and rules and regs so does the ANKC and there are many things that are considered ethical as per the code of ethics for the state CCs that I believe are not ethical and lots of things that happen in the rescue arena that I dont think are ethical To a point that the MDBA was born because I also learned that some things are not against the law or codes and even those that are can be pretty hard to prove, and the bullies who want to keep the status quo are pretty scary, but just the same were so unacceptable that something needed to be done. excellent reply Steve. as for that comment Maddy That is your opinion,(and that does not necessarily make you right, nice as it might be to think you and you alone can see the glorious truth of your version of the truth) but denigrating me to the degree nothing I say is valid, does not change the fact you want to blanket punish all for the sins of a few. As Steve said by what right were you given to judge them as complicit of crimes this majority were probably unaware of? Are you campaigning just as hard for the churches being disbanded because so many priests and ministers were complicit in the actions of the pedephiles in their ranks? Same scenario no matter how you want to paint it. But then children don't deserve you interest or protection, they might grow up to abuse animals? Yet research points that those who don't kill themselves (stats reveal 70% do not live to see 30) turn to their pets for comfort. They certainly dont get that from the church I increasingly get the impression the Animal Rights people for whatever reasons in their past hate their own species, so to destroy a majority to punish a minority where animals rights are concerned doesnt concern them at all because they have no sympathy for others of their species I think this is the result of a far 'left' P.C brigade, who see injustice and rather than accepting we have and always will have a flawed society that must be a work in progress, DO 'hate' their own species. Perhaps more than those they rail against for promoting hatred, because they call it justifiable (and get away with it) to label whole groups as unfit for recognition as part of the human species, based on the actions of a few and according to their own entitled standards. Any critical even of how those standards are applied are targets of this dismissal and hate. So you can't critisize a woman with out being sexist, or any member of any group who wants to claim minority status, with out being racist, homophobic or biggoted in way or form. Promoting the idea themselves, that you can't make an observation referring to individuals, with out implicating their whole human 'type'. They are encouraging a gentic 'Typing' of humanity and basing their judgements on type. Not as individuals, influenced by their 'condition' as humans. Conditions they condemn and oppress, rather than alleviate. In the name of those they see as oppressed! Repeating a cycle of fomenting hatred and oppression by genetic ( maybe 'Conditional' is more accurate) 'Typing' and 'Typing' of victimology. Before I get the condemnation for this post, No, I don't mean ALL 'left' leaning people. I am likely one. I refer only to those people these observations clearly apply to. Twaddle. Blaming the left for PC-ness has become very fashionable in the last few days and it's rubbish. I will note that you suggesting that the left sees injustice and wanting to do something about it means that the right thinks it's perfectly fine that people are poor or that animals are abused. No, you didn't write that but if you insist on characterising people one way the opposite must also be a truth. Be careful what you argue, academic, for there are gaping holes ready to be tripped into. No holes. Just misunderstanding or interpretation.. You have just said much the same as me,with out recognizing the full implications . As for blaming the Left, yes, as a generalization that is unfair and untrue. Which is why I qualified that by saying I WAS NOT referring to all, Just those who fit the observation. I am sure they have the capacity to self identify without with out assuming because I said 'left' I mean all of them. THATS the mentality I am critisizing. There hasn't yet been a term coined for those I do refer to. Maybe Identiphobes :laugh: People who disregard personal responsibility in favor of a group identity. So lets just say some people who CHOSE to Identify with the Left. I don't think labels have done us much favor, If people are being forced into them with out their consent. As for "The left sees injustice and wanting to do some thing about it means the right thinks its perfectly fine people are poor and animals are abused" There you go. Assigning groups an identity they are then forced to take responsibility for. With out their consent. Thats the point I'm trying to make AGAINST Characterization or 'Typing' and why I DON'T identify with ANY group other than Human. Anything less implies limitations to my responsibility as a HUMAN. If I chose to identify as a Woman, or a Black, or disabled before I can identify with my Humanity, I limit myself to appeasing that identities self image. I am less responsible for Humanities self image, or how I contribute to that personaly. I would be accepting limits on my abilities in a Human identity to favor an identity limited to its condition. If I accept that, I can't change those conditions, I can only contribute to them. Acceptance would mean I share them, not change them. I recognize those conditions, and improve them through my own actions. I don't demand others bear responsibility. For the most part, If we must use labels for ideologies, Left and Right are pretty ambiguous and misleading. I prefer to think most people recognize injustice and want to "do something about it" Not all forms, because that takes familiarity , then recognition and none of us can be familiar with all forms of social injustice.

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies? Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread? And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/ Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules. I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't. And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses. You are only NOW explaining to me what you meant and just because you thought it was perfectly clear that doesnt make it that it was perfectly clear to me. I wasn't using a previous post to do what you accuse me of I was using it as a way of explaining why I thought you were saying what I thought you were. Now I know what you were saying I apologise that I didn't get it at the time . How the hell was I supposed to know if my interpretation was right or Hazywal had it right until you clarified it? Unless Ive missed something this is the first time you have clarified it. Im sorry that I took your question the wrong way. Obviously I have some other things confused because all I see is a whole group of people being judged as complicent because they didn't stand up and report those that you say they knew were doing the wrong thing. But the some of the wrong things you seem to have wanted them to report were not reportable and I believe that many did report the things that were against the rules and illegal. Self regulation meant it was covered up and corrupt. Just as the grey industry has codes and rules and regs so does the ANKC and there are many things that are considered ethical as per the code of ethics for the state CCs that I believe are not ethical and lots of things that happen in the rescue arena that I dont think are ethical To a point that the MDBA was born because I also learned that some things are not against the law or codes and even those that are can be pretty hard to prove, and the bullies who want to keep the status quo are pretty scary, but just the same were so unacceptable that something needed to be done. excellent reply Steve. as for that comment Maddy That is your opinion,(and that does not necessarily make you right, nice as it might be to think you and you alone can see the glorious truth of your version of the truth) but denigrating me to the degree nothing I say is valid, does not change the fact you want to blanket punish all for the sins of a few. As Steve said by what right were you given to judge them as complicit of crimes this majority were probably unaware of? Are you campaigning just as hard for the churches being disbanded because so many priests and ministers were complicit in the actions of the pedephiles in their ranks? Same scenario no matter how you want to paint it. But then children don't deserve you interest or protection, they might grow up to abuse animals? Yet research points that those who don't kill themselves (stats reveal 70% do not live to see 30) turn to their pets for comfort. They certainly dont get that from the church I increasingly get the impression the Animal Rights people for whatever reasons in their past hate their own species, so to destroy a majority to punish a minority where animals rights are concerned doesnt concern them at all because they have no sympathy for others of their species I think this is the result of a far 'left' P.C brigade, who see injustice and rather than accepting we have and always will have a flawed society that must be a work in progress, DO 'hate' their own species. Perhaps more than those they rail against for promoting hatred, because they call it justifiable (and get away with it) to label whole groups as unfit for recognition as part of the human species, based on the actions of a few and according to their own entitled standards. Any critical even of how those standards are applied are targets of this dismissal and hate. So you can't critisize a woman with out being sexist, or any member of any group who wants to claim minority status, with out being racist, homophobic or biggoted in way or form. Promoting the idea themselves, that you can't make an observation referring to individuals, with out implicating their whole human 'type'. They are encouraging a gentic 'Typing' of humanity and basing their judgements on type. Not as individuals, influenced by their 'condition' as humans. Conditions they condemn and oppress, rather than alleviate. In the name of those they see as oppressed! Repeating a cycle of fomenting hatred and oppression by 'genetic 'Typing' and 'Typing' of victimology. Before I get the condemnation for this post, No, I don't mean ALL 'left' leaning people. I am likely one. I refer only to those people these observations clearly apply to.

Exactly right. This why it is shortsighted for Dogs Vic to be campaigning for exemptions for their members. Instead, they should take the reasons they believe their members are better breeders than Joe Blow public and puppy farmers (reasons limited to community good and animal welfare, forget the 'purebred' angle in this case) and campaign for the bill to be redesigned to disallow puppy and kitten sales from anyone not trained to breed and rear litters ethically. The Bill goes wrong in treating puppies and kittens like merchandise and forcing breeders to factory produce as a business. Instead, breeders should be licenced after demonstrating a knowledge of basic genetics, animal husbandry, the correct methods for rearing well socialized puppies and/or kittens and what information to give to puppy/kitten buyers and in what form it should be given. The cost to be covered by a once only test fee and then an annual or multi-annual licence fee (similar to drivers' licences). Dogs Vic breeders already have to pass an exam, lets do it properly from a community point of view. Being unlicenced, or losing your licence for proven infringements will mean you are not permitted to sell puppies or kittens under 12 months of age. Additionally, a broodstock fitness test should be designed for each species and breeders MUST have each potential sire and dam undergo this test (probably best administered by vets) at their own expense. The purpose of certifying each and every sire and dam would be to exclude breeding from stock with deformities of structure or temperament. The devil is in the details here, but that is another battle. The most important factor of all, the cost of implementing these laws (which the current Bill passes to municipal government) could be minimal if certified rescues were permitted to seize and rehome any puppies or kittens produced by unlicenced breeders. The likes of RSPCA and Lort Smith etc. would eagerly do all the investigating and happily report the unlicensed one to be fined heavily by the court system. Those members of the public currently frustrated by the deaf ears their attempts to report infringements of current legislation - advertising of underage and unmicrochipped puppies for example - would simply report to a certified rescue instead, who would leap to seize cute saleable babies. Genuine accidental litters would still be seized by rescue, but no court case and fine for the owners (unless it happened more than once. ) That is what I think should happen. As stated, the devil is in the details but get the correct framework going and fight the details afterwards. I disagree. I think license or course based solutions push this further, from a public concern for dogs in the community to a private profession like a vet. It takes familiarity away from the public. It opens the way to more abuses, professional, welfare and likely others. It creates a public easily served. Not easily familiar with what they could or should receive from that Profession or the product. It could ONLY evolve as profession then. Not as a hobby or interest. The ONLY way out of this, is to formaly recognize Dog the species comes before Pedigree the dog. That its familiarity with the species and practices that make a good breeder, not the standards he has to work within. His 'standards' are his environment and what he has to work with. Familiarity with the subject ONLY will see him make the most of it. Regardless of pedigree or lack of one. There can not be familiarity with out Recognition. P*ssing against the wind.

I'll take your word, and hold mine close. Hope they find the culprits.

Yes, it is a generalization. Is it acceptable to generalize welfare issues attributable to a group identity to dismiss the lot, or isn't it? Its the obvious solution to an identitity that refuses change in line with community expectation. I totaly agree. The draw back tho' is, you are the experts setting the standard to follow here. It this the ONLY way? 'cos you will have to live with the answer

No they weren't, the emphasis was on livelihoods and the misinformation in the inquiry, the reforms that have been implemented were only a very small part of it. I do know what you are saying is true re whistleblowers that is why if the law outside the industry was on their side they would have had more power to be listened to as I said before. I know you have had dealings with scum just as I have but they are not the only ones in this industry but they are the only ones that are worth giving anecdotal credence to as the good stuff is uninteresting. If you look back through this thread, there were people involved in the industry claiming that a lot of reform has happened and that, in itself, was a reason not to support a ban. And outside of this forum, on many of the FB racing groups, the same thing was being argued. Not that any of it matters now, of course. The industry will bully and whine their way out of any of the proposed reforms and nothing will change. As for people only paying attention to the bad stuff.. maybe part of that is because it outweighs a lot of the good when you're on the disposals end of the business. Last weekend, for the first time in the roughly ten years I have been rescuing greyhounds, a trainer agreed to take back a dog that wasn't suitable for rehoming. The first time. In ten years. The other 99.9% of the time, I get told that if I "won't keep the dog myself" (trying to make me feel guilty for not keeping every dog who fails) that I should take it to a vet to be PTS. My experience with the industry has been overwhelmingly negative. Some trainers are kind enough to let me take the dogs they no longer want, but many will not if it inconveniences them by so much as having to keep the dog for one day longer than they want to. For a very long time, I defended the industry for the sake of the breed but I'm done. I won't be quiet while people like asal obfuscate the discussion with garbage about secret agendas and the RSPCA and immigrants and wars, trying to distract people away from the facts- ironically, to suit the agenda that they have. I love the breed and I don't want to see it disappear but I can't support what I know to be wrong. good post until you mentioned secret agenda's, its not secret. the only agenda as you put it was AR is not about animal rights its about eliminating domestic animals, even the victorian govt has finally noticed that the rspca is no longer animal welfare focused,I saw the letter In Jacki Kelly's office in Penrith, sent to a member of her staff, the staff member showed it to me personally in 2000 extorting her to get her family and friends to join and vote as PETA was attempting to infiltrate and take over. Considering the change in direction since the coup has been accomplished. But hey whatever floats your boat. no one is listening to you or me. there are bad people , there are good people and millions in between. the majority go with whatever flow is passing with no thought to the future or what it means You have admitted that you don't actually know shit about what goes on in the industry. Unlike you, my opinion of the industry is formed from knowledge and experience. I am not an AR supporter, I live 27km away from a pit filled with hundreds of dead greyhounds that the industry regulators are well aware of. God only knows how many greyhounds, all from one trainer. So yeah, tell me again about how my feelings about the industry are just buying into AR propaganda. You're making assumptions there. I understand perfectly well why the industry does what it does. There is no great mystery to it. Desperately trying to pretend that those of us who feel that the current industry needs to be completely dismantled are somehow ignorant of the causes or possible fixes of the issue is almost as absurd as the arguments that equate greyhound trainers with refugees. If you think people who use small animals to bait dogs, or people who will euthanase 30% of a litter without a second thought, are deserving of even more chances to continue as they are, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what is/isn't acceptable for the welfare of the dogs. Way to represent ANKC breeders, btw- as essentially supportive of an industry that is rife with massive welfare issues, just to protect their own arses. Nice work. No. I think ANKC breeders are dismissive of an industry that is rife with massive welfare issues, to protect their own arses. But its reassuring you understand causes and fixes to see whats coming.

No they weren't, the emphasis was on livelihoods and the misinformation in the inquiry, the reforms that have been implemented were only a very small part of it. I do know what you are saying is true re whistleblowers that is why if the law outside the industry was on their side they would have had more power to be listened to as I said before. I know you have had dealings with scum just as I have but they are not the only ones in this industry but they are the only ones that are worth giving anecdotal credence to as the good stuff is uninteresting. If you look back through this thread, there were people involved in the industry claiming that a lot of reform has happened and that, in itself, was a reason not to support a ban. And outside of this forum, on many of the FB racing groups, the same thing was being argued. Not that any of it matters now, of course. The industry will bully and whine their way out of any of the proposed reforms and nothing will change. As for people only paying attention to the bad stuff.. maybe part of that is because it outweighs a lot of the good when you're on the disposals end of the business. Last weekend, for the first time in the roughly ten years I have been rescuing greyhounds, a trainer agreed to take back a dog that wasn't suitable for rehoming. The first time. In ten years. The other 99.9% of the time, I get told that if I "won't keep the dog myself" (trying to make me feel guilty for not keeping every dog who fails) that I should take it to a vet to be PTS. My experience with the industry has been overwhelmingly negative. Some trainers are kind enough to let me take the dogs they no longer want, but many will not if it inconveniences them by so much as having to keep the dog for one day longer than they want to. For a very long time, I defended the industry for the sake of the breed but I'm done. I won't be quiet while people like asal obfuscate the discussion with garbage about secret agendas and the RSPCA and immigrants and wars, trying to distract people away from the facts- ironically, to suit the agenda that they have. I love the breed and I don't want to see it disappear but I can't support what I know to be wrong. By letting the purpose for the breed go. Thats what I find so sad, and frustrating. No one here is denying facts, or obfuscating them. No one here condones the wastage or cruelty. You have a set of facts that form your conclusions and solutions. I just think they are incomplete. That you need to look at WHY those ARE facts to deal effectively with them. Not just deal with whats happening, but look for WHY its happening if we aren't going to employ the same 'solution' every time people stuff up, because human nature is that there will always be proportion who stuff up, as long as there is reason for people to keep dogs. I don't think taking away their purpose to keep dogs is the answer.