moosmum

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.

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.