moosmum

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.

and here

and here