moosmum

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.

Well, yes. It's the nature of any industry where animals lose their value over time. Even in the pet industry. The issue with the original plan as I saw it was that there was too little time to wind up racing activities without making keeping healthy dogs economically possible. That's a lot of dogs that suddenly have no industry support. I understand the task force was trying to find ways to enable greyhound owners to keep their dogs, but I'm not sure they had any solutions, and it's not straight forward. Some people were just gutted. It's like, what would you do with your dogs if you were no longer allowed to do nearly all the things you currently enjoy doing with them? You and I would probably not euthanise them, but we might consider rehoming them to somewhere they might be happier if we believed there was such a place. And maybe we might shake our heads in disgust over the way some people treat their dogs, but if it suddenly looked like we might lose our dogs because of them, we might do more than shake our heads in disgust next time. I think we have to decide as a society what is acceptable. Is it okay for people to make money off dogs? Is it okay if some dogs are hurt, sometimes fatally in the process? Does how much the dog enjoys it factor? Is it okay for dogs to die in accidents if there is not big money in it? How responsible should owners be for how their dogs are cared for if they are paying someone else to care for them? Is it okay for people to rehome a dog that is not successful in their chosen pursuits? Is it okay for such dogs to be euthanised? We need to answer these questions, and not just for racing greyhounds. And if we decide something is not acceptable, then there needs to be proper support in place for the animals involved so that there are options for them to transition into another kind of life. Yes. As an inclusive society.

Thanks folks. We think he was beautiful. It was over a year ago but I could not even think back on it for nearly this long. He watched us remove so many lizards he learned to alert us to reptiles and let us handle them, tho' he was put away for that if they were likely to be aggressive types- But even slight aggression and he would be sure he was between anyone/thing else and the whatever animal it was. He was besotted with newborn foals so they couldn't have been better protected, even our other dogs would not be able to check them out for a few days, when they were over any excitement. He would do the same with any visitors who weren't invited into the yard, not aggressively, just making sure they had to get past him 1st if they weren't going to be welcomed in. We never lost a chook from our pen, but when I had one separated that night he asked to go out side NOW. When we let him out he ran 'round the front of the house and we heard his thundering run as the chook came back past him from the fox he made drop it. He was not submissive at all, but very keen to please us and all training was done off lead- sit, stay, down, heal etc. Bush walks with the kids, we told them if he had a run in with ANYTHING, not to try pulling him away or stand ther calling him, but to leave the area as they called him because he would be trying to defend THEM.

I can't sign or promote a petition that discriminates against dogs based on type, or the environment they come from and not the practices or 'ethics' of the breeder. I believe this type of continued discrimination has contributed largely to the introduction of this legislation. By promoting an expectation that only a single standardized environment can or does support good breeding practices. That is not in the best interests of pedigrees, or dogs. The only environment that could be standard to all dogs is one that does not not support their breeding.

Great. Industry will be represented, while they are part of an 'Industry' with representation. You 'might' win temporary exemptions, till those who don't care about any of it prove the exemptions aren't working. The environment a breeder works in does not govern the 'ethics' of his practices. The practices of breeders (or owners) won't improve until its practices that are promoted, rather than environments. They will decline.

I believe humanity needs dogs to keep their humanity. They and other companion animals were essential to our evolution and communities. More recent science supports that, and argues that our evolution as a species is not due to 'survival of the fittest' and domination, but through co-operation. Acceptance of diversity is needed for that. Acceptance of companion animals is part of THAT. Co- operation and diversity is being hijacked by political 'correctness'. Its correct only by the standards of those who want to dominate discussion and acceptance. Freedom of speech is essential to responsibility because you can't be responsible with out free access to any information offered. But we refuse recognition of information if we don't like where it comes from. Yes, a brilliant letter. It also applies to many people breeding dogs for purposes that have no representation. We will lose even more purpose for dogs in all this B.S.

Its also part of their responsibility. To decide and act in the best interests of that dog, or other dogs. To the best of their own ability. We forget the meaning of that word 'responsibility'. Political correctness has a lot to answer for in shutting down conversation and communication. You can't take responsibility with out the correct information, and if you can't or won't listen you don't have it. You are marginalizing groups with dismissal and ridicule. Not the way to convince any you have their best interests at heart.

Rest with our love and gratitude. A giant in all ways.

another

more

For all his bulk, he won over a woman terrified of dogs since an attack in childhood. He sensed her terror and approached as meek as a kitten ( maybe lamb is a better description :laugh: ). Blew us all away. Submissive was not his nature.

another

65 kilos. His collar size was my belt size!

Because he deserves the recognition. His lines are my heart dogs. All of them. So to Pids, for being my hero, my cuddle forever puppy dog, live stock guardian, fierce defender of the vulnerable or weak, vermin eradicator, clown, the most loyal of companions and child minder. You leave shadows every where I look to remind me you were here. Awesome! A sudden and very traumatic loss to snake bite in the line of duty at 8 yrs, 2 weeks after this picture. Love you forever and hope you feel my arms around you.

Agree. I am disgusted with the lack of leadership by people who demand 'recognition' as the 'legitimate' authority on dogs, but can't even recognize DOGS as the subject. Only pedigrees and standards. There can be NO leadership if there can be no unity. No unity with out recognition.

A lot of good intentions do seem driven to think if we can banish death and pain in one environment, that its gone. They don't look to understand the consequences. Was asked to sign a similar petition to shut down knackeries in Aus. I would have signed gladly if it were to improve over sight and conditions to try and ensure there was no pain or fear. To shut down knackeries would lead to worse conditions for many.

My boss has two and while they are stunning to look at, they are the most skittish dogs I've ever met. They were socialised and treated like normal dogs, but nobody except my boss can get near them. And if they are at the park and get a fright, they just take off. One sighthound breed that I have definitely crossed off my list! Here is my Borzoi with one of my boss' s Ibizans: Oooh but they are beautiful!

Pony foals dads. R.I.P my heros.

*squee* it's a pony! Nah, this is a pony. You just have to guess which one.