moosmum

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.

Westiemum, Re paedophilia: The society we lived in in the days when paedophilia was routinely covered up was a different world. The expectations of the community were not as they are today. Because it was an issue that was taboo for discussion- Sexuality and expectations of sexuality were not discussed. Even families of the victims, or victims themselves often covered up the abuse because sexuality was for behind closed doors and to discuss these matters left people feeling exposed and vulnerable.Dirty. Even to consider the issues. Its open discussion that has lead to the change. Recognition. That human beings are sexual animals with diverse aspects to their sexuality. Recognition of our sexuality and its diverse aspects. THAT has enabled us to form common expectations- That a persons sexuality is their own business, as it should be, until it harms some one else. What constitutes 'harm'. We Recognize the diversity. We accept it AS PART of the HUMAN condition. Unless someone forces another to accept what they can't. Forces their diverse sexuality on another, who is unable for any reason to accept that 'Type' of sexuality. As in a minor who hasn't the maturity, or an adult who simply chooses not to. The same people being pilloried for holding their silence back then, would likely react to the allegations differently today. Because the expectations of the community are better understood. Their responsibility to those expectations are better understood. Such abuses today are less likely to occurr, far more likely to be reported, and far more likely to be acted on. Not because people are better, but because they are more able to respond to the expectations we hold in common. Because the issues were recognized as community or human issue. We discussed the issues to reach agreement. Its not perfect and never will be because we can't control the environment and how it will affect people, based on their diversity.But it keeps improving as our recognition of the common problems does. Through discussion. It didn't happen overnight. Its taken a generation. That seems to be normal in changing expectations. But the average generation of a greyhound racing identity, or a pedigree dog breeder is shorter than that humans life span. The recognition and discussion tho' are needed before anything at all can be done to form to the common expectations, and then for people to respond to them when they are clear. Sadly for the Greyhound industry, dog racing is no longer a common pursuit. Its limited to Greyhound owners. I think change would come given time, but it will still always be out of step with the community, so not viable. Because theres no common expectation to be reached when its always going to be type of dog 1st for the identities involved. That doesn't include the community in the disscussion. Only one type is acceptable to the industries purpose, A greyhound owner type. Pedigree breeders are in the same boat. They recognize a few more types, but they are still not inclusive of community expectations for their purpose. Only pedigree types. Theres no recognition that any one else could share their purpose, so go off on their own and wonder at backlash. Moosmum we will have to agree to disagree. I hope I've understood you correctly. The standards for the treatment of children and animals are set by our society, not select parts of society such as the greyhound industry of it which carve out parts of it for themselves and think they can do what they like. They can't. People have hidden behind the 'it was different times' argument for years. People knew then abuse of young children was wrong and have since said so (and showed by their actions at the time they knew it was wrong) and its still wrong now. The covering up and turning a blind eye to paedophilia is still happening - until recently, I used to deal with it for a community organisation - and no it isn't less common. And people are still turning a blind eye. Read the Nyland Royal Commission report and case study five in particular. Its also evolving into different forms and regardless of diversity IMO the abuse of animals and children is never OK and never has been. As I've said before, IMO the conditions for sustainable change do not exist in this industry. Common expectations are only part of the story. If this industry wants to survive it must change and to change takes leadership, resources and expertise - and a ton of it over time which does not seem to be there. And people are already reporting it's back to 'business as usual' and I have no doubt further evidence of that will be make public sooner rather than later. (Please read previous posts). I take your point about the exclusiveness of the greyhound community - and thats precisely my point too. We live in a society where the views of broader community count and until the industry learns and respects that (which I doubt they ever will if it is back to 'business as usual') their industry will continue to live on borrowed time. Yep. I think we understand each other :D I do think the paedophilia issue is changing for the better, slowly, and is more likely to be reported these days, and will continue to improve, but never be gone either. So we agree to to disagree on that.People are also more aware of its prevalence, so more chance of picking up on it. For the rest, I agree They Greyhound industry is unlikely to ever to meet community expectations because it is so isolated and I can't see that ever changing. especialy this late in the game. Maddy. Asal said it. Its all connected. I am not defending the Grey hound racing industry, though I do regret a whole purpose for keeping dogs is being lost,( and sooner or later, likely the breed) because it was deemed an exclusive 'property' requiring a certain 'type' of person. I prefer they have this chance, tho' I think it will be blown. Because they won't accept that the sport could be turned into a more common one, with more public oversight by doing that.I think it would allow the industry to get in step and stay in step with community expectations, given time. I doubt they have time now. Its an exclusive interest to greyhound owners and I doubt there is any way now to convince them it could be otherwise. They have no wish to respond to the sport in any other way. As for the difference of people not obeying leash laws and people who deliberately encourage a dog to tear a live animal apart- The person who gets attacked, or sees their child atttacked, or their pet torn apart in front of their very eyes because some idiot thought leash laws are for those 'other' people isn't going to make that distinction. Off leash dogs biting, causing accidents, peeing and crapping on other peoples lawns, attacking guide dogs etc is a lot more personal when any one can be exposed to it just walking out their front door. Making money, over producing, most of those other things you listed are NOT exclusive to the grey hound industry. A precedent has been set. A new level of expectation. The Govt. can make problems concerning dogs go away. Theres lots of them. And there are fewer people left to be affected by the 'new standards' each time they are passed. Fewer people left to demonstrate better responses. Pedigree breeders would be smart to notice the similarities.

Westiemum, Re paedophilia: The society we lived in in the days when paedophilia was routinely covered up was a different world. The expectations of the community were not as they are today. Because it was an issue that was taboo for discussion- Sexuality and expectations of sexuality were not discussed. Even families of the victims, or victims themselves often covered up the abuse because sexuality was for behind closed doors and to discuss these matters left people feeling exposed and vulnerable.Dirty. Even to consider the issues. Its open discussion that has lead to the change. Recognition. That human beings are sexual animals with diverse aspects to their sexuality. Recognition of our sexuality and its diverse aspects. THAT has enabled us to form common expectations- That a persons sexuality is their own business, as it should be, until it harms some one else. What constitutes 'harm'. We Recognize the diversity. We accept it AS PART of the HUMAN condition. Unless someone forces another to accept what they can't. Forces their diverse sexuality on another, who is unable for any reason to accept that 'Type' of sexuality. As in a minor who hasn't the maturity, or an adult who simply chooses not to. The same people being pilloried for holding their silence back then, would likely react to the allegations differently today. Because the expectations of the community are better understood. Their responsibility to those expectations are better understood. Such abuses today are less likely to occurr, far more likely to be reported, and far more likely to be acted on. Not because people are better, but because they are more able to respond to the expectations we hold in common. Because the issues were recognized as community or human issue. We discussed the issues to reach agreement. Its not perfect and never will be because we can't control the environment and how it will affect people, based on their diversity.But it keeps improving as our recognition of the common problems does. Through discussion. It didn't happen overnight. Its taken a generation. That seems to be normal in changing expectations. But the average generation of a greyhound racing identity, or a pedigree dog breeder is shorter than that humans life span. The recognition and discussion tho' are needed before anything at all can be done to form to the common expectations, and then for people to respond to them when they are clear. Sadly for the Greyhound industry, dog racing is no longer a common pursuit. Its limited to Greyhound owners. I think change would come given time, but it will still always be out of step with the community, so not viable. Because theres no common expectation to be reached when its always going to be type of dog 1st for the identities involved. That doesn't include the community in the disscussion. Only one type is acceptable to the industries purpose, A greyhound owner type. Pedigree breeders are in the same boat. They recognize a few more types, but they are still not inclusive of community expectations for their purpose. Only pedigree types. Theres no recognition that any one else could share their purpose, so go off on their own and wonder at backlash.

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive? The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure. So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown. Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it. Thank you for your reply. As I have said before you are probably right except it will be a pity for the good folk in the industry and they do exist and they have complained but it has fallen on deaf ears. The entertainment and gambling factor of the industry are not to blame for this it is the "win at all cost" mentality. Unfortunately it isn't only in the greyhounds it is across the board in all sports, it is why human athletes get drug tested and are being found positive. Gone are the days when sport was just that sport, now it is business, pity. One example of this is country football/cricket they are paying players from other places to play for them so now the kids that don't make the grade instead of being at the footy or the cricket on Saturday they are entertaining themselves in other ways and not all of them are wholesome. Generally m-j I think we are in agreement - I just don't believe so much in 'the good people' - not one public whistle blower I'm aware of in all the years of greyhound racing? But anyway, yes it is a pity that what might have been a good clean fun hobby has now become 'business' - and when it involves animals you can absolutely bet that greed will overrule any sense of animal welfare and decrease our collective humanity. I think this is why I'm so angry with this industry - as it not only reflects on them, it reflects on all of us. And I wonder if the huge outcry over greyhounds is because they are closer to us than, say horses. The are a companion animal species who live in our homes - and while some people have horses as well most of us don't. So it hits hard. And yes absolutely agree - the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either. They are out there :) the vet that went onto the ABC show (there is a link at the beginning of this thread) is one example and look what it achieved, nothing. There are many people out there that could tell stories and some have but it got them nowhere. It seems that a certain few of the industry appear to have it sown up so this is why I was hoping legislation would sort it out. I'm not going to hold my breath though the GBOTA put reforms on the table I'm guessing to enhance their chance of keeping the industry and some of those reforms got taken off 3-4 days after the ban was lifted, which really peeved me, same ..... different day. I just hope when the next push to close it comes there will be more thought put into what is going to happen to the dogs. Can you honestly say you were surprised by this? I don't want to see the breed disappear through the complete banning of racing but it seems like the arrogance of those involved is just.. incredible. As soon as they believed they had won, it was back to business as usual. Apparently they'd already reformed enough and everything is fine. A greyhound trainer in Sydney was charged with live baiting the day before the ban was lifted but that's okay because reform, reviews, some paid "research", a liberal application of smoke and mirrors and.. everything is fine. The public can stop looking now, back to business. The arrogance of some is incredible. the question is, do you destroy all? including the 80% the report said are the honest, the caring in the quest to destroy the arrogant? In war it is called "collateral damage" there are a few million survivors of that fleeing that horror and the loss of their homes and way of life, according to the news, many are drowning in the attempt. those to have tried it to get to australia are locked up for longer sentences than pedophiles, rapists and murderers. now add those who have pets for whatever purpose to eliminate the arrogant But Asal! ( sarcasm alert) It may well be that 20 percent of animal owners over all are not responsible, depending on what response we are expecting. Don't obey leash laws, don't spey or neuter, don't health test etc. But the ones eager to see an end to this industry are a superior type to Greyhound racing identities, whos loss is for the greater good. Other dog enthusiasts will be an even better type if they lose this portion. The standard will be better.(not) If you are always going to make the negative standards your focus, where do people learn about alternatives that are working? What demonstrations are YOU making available to drive BETTER standards? Or maybe the ones who CAN provide them are being targeted within their own group identity, for not conforming to it? Like say a pedigree breeder who breeds for a longer nose or smaller head on a Brachy Dog? The proposed Vic. Legislation and what may still happen to the grey hound industry should be a wake up call to all Companion animal keepers. Your responsibility isn't to the indentity standard you choose, but to the community and playing your OWN part in shaping what people will come to expect.

Yep. K.Cs/C.Cs pretty much invented the 'Typing' of breeders in creating an Identity to be kept apart. The list is as long as any diverse practices can be, and all and any 'Type' will be targeted as long as some breeders fail to meet expectations. Not based on their individual practices, but based on their 'Type' as breeders. They all have the same purpose, in Dogs. They all have to meet the expectations of the same target, humanity. But 'Typing' ensures the expectations humanity holds will not be based on their humanity,( or Caninitiy? :D ) but on the type of dog, or type of person. Because One group won't accept commonality. Any expectations we have of people, (or Dogs) is going to be compromised and limited if their differences are the focus of their identity and how we interact with them, and not our commonality in diversity. They ask we 'accept' their differences. Thats impossible with out sharing them. Its for THEM to accept their difference and take responsibility for it and how its perceived, not as types, but as individuals. We can only learn to RECOGNIZE their difference, IF they allow familiarity and they can't because they won't recognize OUR difference to become familiar. We can only accept what we can share. It seems we won't share dogs. So its actualy ani-diversity to identify yourself as a type of person (or your type of dog) deserving of special consideration based on YOUR difference and not OUR commonality. That creates a situation where others are expected to bear responsibility for your differences. In this case, The Govt. and you might not like their response. You can't complain of being 'typed' if you claim a type as your identity. Claiming a type as your identity blocks change or evolution of that identity because it requires an agreement of limitation to belong. It doesn't allow for individual human potential. So much for political correctness and Identity politics.

Re; The thumb nail- Except WE have been the ones pawning our problems off on the Polies. As dog breeders, we are responsible for seeing we demonstrate the possibilities. Regardless of what conditions you have to work with. Not demand someone else create the conditions that favor us. WE ask for legislation to govern the conditions of others, forgetting that we are ALL 'others' if we don't have common ground.

spot on. you raised so many valid points there. yes its a bit odd its bad to buy a breeders puppy from a pet shop but fine if its a rescue in the window? if its bad for one then its bad for both. but what is the truth? especially the pet shop scenario, the old pet shops like the one you described are wonderful socalising opportunities. 30 years ago there was a pet shop in kingswood near penrith like you describe, except the puppies were kept a pen seperate for each litter and that is exactly what was done, the breeder would bring them in the morning and take them home that aftrnoon, the staff would spoil them rotten and the puppies had a wonderful day interecting with new people every day. many of the people who brought their puppies in like that worked so could advertise them, and refer the caller to go see them at the shop. the shop took a percentage of the sale price . They did it for all breeds, pure and cross. again so right about the ankc's and their members, in the rush to eliminate anyone they do not see as being as themselves they will destroy themselves as well, but sadly so few can seem to grasp the fact, or that the ankc's came second to the people who created and maintained the breeds for hundreds of years and decades before the ankcs try to gather and claim themselves the sole representatives of good dogs. They are everywhere with or without a piece of paper to prove it. always have been, all we can pray for is this mess is resolved before all are destroyed by this shortsightedness. how many remember the fact the pedigree stumpy tailed cattledog was bred into a genetic dead end when only one registered breeder was left and made sure it stayed that way by refusing to sell any on main register? it was the massive gene pool of much loved and preserved families out there in backyard land that supplied the appendix register to include in the ankc seach for new blood. ANKC'S ARE NOT THE BE ALL for good dogs, surely that example alone should make them do a serious rethink? Asal, Yes, this pet shop also kept litters separated. I dreamed last night I was swimming in fast flowing flood waters alone in twilight, pushing my granddaughter in front of me and my dog helping. There were only the tops of power lines and signs visible. I saw the tops of a set of Iron gates and pushed them open. As I swam thru' with my granddaughter my dog was swept away past. I saw the top mattress of a set of double bunks that was also an island with grass and roots and dirt. I lifted my granddaughter into the center but it started filling with water, so I had to keep moving her closer and closer to the edge. The 'Island" was floating and had nothing to support it. The roots attached to nothing but the Island itself. A good analogy for the K.Cs I think. There is nothing to support your floating Island of standards to be some thing more solid or allow it to grow if its parts can't recognize any value in whats not already part of its being. If its parts believe the island only has integrity because the 'condition' of its being NOW are what allows it to be. Some of those pieces of sh*t and weeds floating past might be made into soil and grass, If the Island can recognize them as other conditions of earth and life it can respond to and alter for its own growth. The Island is responsible for making them some thing it can use. If it can't recognize its responsibility to interact with and shape its environment, it serves no purpose to any thing around it. There are many canine 'conditions'. Recognizing only some of them does not improve those conditions, it reduces them. Recognition does not equal acceptance. You DON'T accept what you can't or won't be a part of, because you can't bear responsibility for it otherwise. But you can't improve on what you won't recognize as a condition of your environment and what you have to work with, and you can't build on what you have WITH OUT some thing to work with. We have humanity to work with, and we have the canine species to work with. No one has to 'accept' the conditions they can't be part of. We CAN recognize them all as human or canine conditions tho', and improve them so they are more acceptable to more of us. Thats not done by eliminating conditions of either species because you can't accept them. Its done by taking a PERSONAL responsibility to be acceptable to more of them, no matter what conditions you prefer. Making your OWN standards more agreeable to a HUMAN consensus. That is responsibility. Not forcing others into your own mould. Thats NOT taking responsibility for your own identity or any other. If C.C conditions are unfavorable to C.Cs, its likely because they are not agreeable to those they wish would support them. Your 'Standards' don't offer enough to the diversity of your species. You are responsible for that. By putting a personal identity or standard above a species identity or standard. You want dog breeders to have more favor from their environment, you have to offer support to dog breeders, so they are better able to offer some thing that of value to the human condition. Meet expectations. Pedigrees are good. They offer value to specific 'types' of DOGS. But they can't meet expectations alone, whats left of them. DOGS are the purpose and pedigrees don't make dogs, breeders do. A pedigree Standard has limits. To type. Dogs don't. You limit Identity to type by identifying as a 'type'. Over a breeder. Or a 'type' of Human, over a human. Because then you have to stay true to that Type, and define it by its limitations and not its potential. A type has limits to potential that can never meet every ones needs or expectations.

"Responsibility" describes how we respond to the limitations of our environment, to reduce those limitations, making the environment more favorable to us. Our ABILITY to respond to our environment, and increase. Making MORE of the environment favorable to our support. The K.Cs that insist they are a registry ONLY are not and can not be responsible. They simply provide an environment to work in for the benefit of specific TYPES of dog recorded by the pedigree systems they keep. The membership are responsible for how they respond to that environment. Their ABILITY to respond is compromised by the statement that the organization does not recognize the product of mixed breeds. That each breed standard is an environment to be kept issolated into itself, not changed. That an individual identity within that environment must only respond by restricting itself to the standard as its set in time. When you set standards, rules and regulations, even legislation, you are setting environmental conditions. Conditions that must be met to be recognized as a legitimate part of that environment, and not some thing foreign to be repelled or fought as an antagonist. Not a danger to the conditions that allow legitimate environmental identities to survive and thrive. Not some thing to be punished or repelled for the good of the environment.. A Pug is a condition of its environment. Its standards are the conditions set out to be recognized as a 'type' of Dog recognized by the Registering body. The Breeds, as set by the K.Cs standards. Being a Pug is a 'canine condition' for a type of Dog. If C.C members can't recognize dogs NOT included in their 'Standard conditions' as types of Dog, they are bound to those conditions alone. Their response is limited to those conditions as they are, not responding to them. Not altering them. There can be no recognition of values that could expand the environmental conditions of a Pug. Not responding to conditions, but reacting to a 'fixed' or 'set' response. Like a genetic trait. The most it can ever be is what it is today, if nothing else holds value. Over use of popular sires are one result. The show ring is the only legitimate measure of a dogs 'Success' in fulfilling the Canine conditions of a Pug. Its adherence to the standards as set. There is NO OTHER complete measure of the SUCCESS of those standards, as set. A rule of biology is the most successful should be favored in reproduction. For the values it contributes to its environment and the success of its species IN that environment. The only Values recognized are the Standards of its environment, the C.Cs. It desperately needs to be recognized that breed standards included in the records of any C.C or K.C do not and can not define the types and standards of the canine species. The records they keep can't do that. Only the response-ability of their membership COULD come to do that, with freedom to respond as individuals to the standards, not entities bound to uphold that condition as it stands. The Breed standards of a Pug, are the conditions that allow a Pug to be recognized as a distinct type of dog. Same for a Labrador, a Rottweiler or a whippet. There is nothing at all wrong with standards for types of dogs, and there will always be need for pedigrees to verify that a dog has been bred to a set of standards as a distinct type of dog. But not the only types of dog we should recognize as dogs. But it MUST be recognized that these conditions don't define the species Dog. If they are going to be a viable system of support for DOGS. They are not the ONLY types of dog that should be recognized as such. They are RECORDED as types of Dogs with a standard to define that type, but the standard must be open to response. The condition of a pug didn't make him that, the expectations of the breeders did. We shouldn't recognize a Pug as a Pug by inflexible standards or conditions. The conditions aren't as important as the expectations of the breeders. What they hope to find there. How THEY value a pug gives its purpose for BEING a Pug in the 1st place. They define a Pug, not his conditions. Define the purpose of a pug and thats your standard. In general terms. Surely its arrogance and bigotry to conclude that there is no improving on the standards you yourself adhere to, so you won't recognize value in any other standard that presents itself?

For those who like to think this sort of legislation is driven by A.R- Is this an A.R response? I don't think many here would claim it is. I think most here would agree its a response typicaly encouraged by the C.Cs in general, and its what is driving this sort of legislation. Well intentioned people who believe Pedigree Dogs are the responsible choice above all else, and are either uninformed or have limited experience in the diverse practices aimed at breeding and raising happy, healthy puppies to supply their pets. People who who want to be sure the dogs they buy are being bred responsibly, and are very well informed about failures attributed to certain environments, rather than the successes of individuals, and what makes them successful. So whats wrong with the arguments used here FOR the legislation? I am in no way defending Banksia Park here, because a) I don't know enough about them. and b) Any mass production of puppies could not supply the type of dog I am after unless its a pure accident. But thats me, my experience, and my choice as a person who IS familiar with some of the intricacies of breeding Dogs. More would likely find the same, If they were also more informed and familiar. So there would not BE the support of buyers who keep this commercial industry viable. On the other hand, If Banksia Park can meet all reasonable standards set for breeding dogs and meeting welfare and socialization needs, and have a customer support base thrilled with their dogs, on what grounds do we decide they are unacceptable? When breeders of pedigree dogs larger scale or smaller will still be failing on those same grounds? The other arguments, that they are producing "Designer Dogs, Mutts for 10X the price" . Should a persons choice of dog the be limited? If so, on what grounds? Pedigree? Health? Prey drive? profits? ( largely driven by demand, don't forget) And who gets to decide? Shouldn't we be encouraging people to be responsible for their own choices?! To understand how breeding choice, raising and training all affect the choices they make ? I Believe its been established there are NOT too many puppies being produced, just too many irresponsible owners making poor choices and not filling their own responsibilities, so too many failures and dogs ending up unclaimed or unwanted in the pound system. Pet shops should only sell rescue puppies and dogs. A good breeder wouldn't want to waste the 1st few essential weeks of socialization opportunities of their puppies in a shop window. But its O.K for rescue puppies? Or adults? Maybe because they are mostly 'Mutts' anyway? Don't ALL dogs deserves the same standards of care and welfare? Where in all of this is a promotion of the practices that DO contribute to better choices in dog ownership and breeding? I have been in a pet shop where the owner took puppies from registered and non registered breeders alike. By prior arrangement to ensure facilities would be available. They were penned in a 10 foot enclosure in the center of a large premises with enrichment toys and shelter from prying hands, food and water,clean fresh bedding. Brought in each morning by their breeders and returned home each after noon. Not some thing I would want for my own pups ( because I wouldn't be able to supervise interactions myself, and for hygene/quaranteen reasons) but it looked to me like a great socialization opportunity. Trips to and from in the car, lots of interaction with all sorts of people and visiting dogs from behind a screen. People either take responsibility to do some thing well, or they don't. Either buyers take responsibility for their own choices in buying and raising their dog, or they don't. How many do or don't as a community, will depend largely on the information available and promoted to assist in those choices, and a persons ability to recognize their own personal responsibilities to them. But it helps if the information is all around them, not preserved in a single standard for dog breeders and owners. Because there can never be a single standard that meets all needs. Only one that must keep defining what those standards must be, in attempting to meet all needs. Unless this realy IS about pedigrees, vs any thing 'Less'. because if it is, its only going to cause the elimination of dogs in our lives unless there is RECOGNITION by the K.Cs that 'Dogs' are a species, not just a standard. The dogs we can appreciate and value for their place in our lives will be governed by our responsibility to the species, not responsibility to a standard.

Yep. But there are not so many of them as people seem to think who still don't 'chip and vaccinate in N.S.W at least. The advertising sites that are out in the open have very few who don't, compared with even several years ago. Ditto with Vacinations. Of those, many are having trouble moving the pups. Face book etc may be a different matter. People don't realize that with laws that are largely unenforced from the get go, there is a delay in the cultural shift in atitudes, but It does still work to make that change, and has been doing so. Attitudes don't change over night, especialy when people are not close to the subject to begin with. All this does is to reduce those who understand the subject, their depth of understanding, and create an environment most suited to those who who are happy to put profit 1st and accept no accountability.

Passing fitness tests before breeding for for any breed : While it sounds like a solution, I think that it even needs considering just illustrates our failure to promote dogs, the purpose of breeding them, and our responsibilities in doing that. What other species bred for their purpose to Man, do the breeders need to be governed in selection of stock to be ensure its fit for purpose? I think when we get the stage we need to govern selection of any breeding stock for even basic functional fitness, A.R have won by default. I think the answer is rather to start promoting the many purposes for dogs to familiarize people with the requirements a dog needs to fill those, and the responsibilities of breeders in meeting them. I see it as a massive failure to promote the value and purpose of dogs if even their breeders need to be forced to recognize they should have basic functional ability. And I believe formal recognition from the K.Cs that Dogs are a species, not a just a standard, would go a long way to achieving that.

So sorry for your loss Westiemum, and for missing this earlier as I had been following his journey towards the end and loved your care, and his character that shone through it all. I did look for a post here, but I'm too soft to look at the rainbow bridge thread often He was a gorgeous little man! I always enjoyed pics of him and these are are a lovely tribute. For such a bad start, he was such a good heart. Be endlessly happy little man Mac. Hope your own heart is still light Westiemum, It should be for his blessing.

Not trying to pick RuralPug, But I think they have been trying for some time. It looks like the agenda here IS how to encourage healthier breeding. Its pretty hard going when there is a belief promoted by C.Cs that its the pedigree Standard that makes the dog, rather than a value used to support a particular type of dog.