moosmum

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

here

I have all I want here. Its a matter of being able to keep it.

it will be interesting to see how long it takes the dog and cat owners to wake up to the elimination of their democratic rights to innocent until proven guilty before or after these laws are passed, won't it? this is a pretty good message although its on a different subject https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/11898581_985454184830311_5714031444219459086_n.jpg?oh=fbdcfb1a3c0afd58cb0a8beedbd49408&oe=589D6FB5 Yes to the message! Taking away choice doesn't make people more responsible, it just means they have less ability to respond to the conditions that affect them as individuals. It might take people a while to wake up, It will be interesting. It will depend on how its enforced and lots of other stuff, but people are used to the idea that responsibility is for Govts. and not the people they represent. I think most will suck it up. Steve, where are are you with this? Do you think some thing like this is possible?

I have no idea how you would go about setting some thing like like this up, or what level of interest you would get. Maybe more along the lines of an 'Animal Companions Alliance' might sound more appealing? A sort of promoting mutual benefits thing. At 1st glance, a Dog breeders Union sounds more straight forward and simpler. Theres precedent. But when you think about it, Simply bringing all the various groups together in co operation is a union any way. Providing they join as individual members rather than group memberships so every one receives equal representation and recognition. More about what values you can contribute to making this work better for every one than conforming to any single group standards. So people can take responsibility from the pooled resources.

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now. We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable. Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms. Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights. Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats. They will suck that up too as a 'different' representation of their membership. One thats no longer fit for the self image of a K.C member. While The K.Cs can't recognize diversity they can't support it. If you won't support diversity, you are a barrier to diversity. Which is why we are in this situation that can only get tighter while WE accept a representation from from a group that demands diversity not be recognized. They can't continue to claim they represent the interests of all dog owners if they can't recognize all dogs. They can't expect members to make use of protocols to out cross as a means of improvement, when needed, if their own statement is that such an out cross is not recognized. If you push the idea long enough that breeding dogs is a pursuit for professionals backed by 'standards' only, it should be no suprise when that pursuit becomes industrialized. So we are now an industry. It should be representative. I could support a Union. Maybe over time that could see dogs, with diverse representation, return to some semblance of a community concern with hobby interests proving best results. If you can't support diversity, you can't defend anything that threatens the identity of that statement. You are right Asal, re; professional support. Maybe a broader union definition than dog breeders? Actually ALL dog owners need to stand and be counted, I had mine as pets all my life, My Dads dog Blue guarded my cot when I was born and I never went anywhere alone, he was always beside me, it was not until I was nearly 30 I actually bred a litter. All dog owners should have the right to decide if they only want to have theirs as a pet or if they may one day decide to keep their dogs line going. Our politicians want to take that right away. There is not a dog born today that is not the legacy of those who loved and bred its parents and ancestors before it. AR want to break that chain from the past to the future. Yup. Maybe we need a companion Animal enthusiasts Union. As an errosion of rights, at its most basic, we are being denied the right to choose our own companions and act in their best interests, as individuals in our own environments. We are forced to source from a 'standard' list of acceptable candidates and keep them in 'standard' conditions deemed acceptable, but not adaptable. So when either is no longer acceptable in a changing environment, they are gone. This is NOT responsibility. Its a denial of any ability to respond. Its the only reason A.R has any influence worth mention. This is what predictability as the only valid goal does. It removes the ability to respond any other way than the Standard. It comes from recognizing nothing out side of a standard. You lose responsibility. If you lose the ability to respond you lose the ability to adapt. The 'Standard' of available response can only shrink.

Similar story here, though not so many generations. Pups from my current girl would be 4th generation. My kids grew up with her ancestors. Her Dam is still as active as the Tentie pup shes helping raise at 10/11 y.o and only seen the vet for spey, chip and vaccs. Ditto with her G.D who is also still going strong as one of my kids dogs at 13. I never wanted to breed because I prefered to limit my numbers to what I personaly wanted and needed. I could no longer find dogs that fit the job and situation I depended on them for. When I did after a total of 10 years search, I bred them because they were worth continuing. And kept them going because the results are too, I can't afford 10 year searches and mistakes, and because buyers ask me to because they have said they have never experienced a dog like them. It was nice to contribute to those higher expectations. Expectations that I attributed to their pedigree heritage, and benefited a pedigrees status by reafirming its intent and purpose. My kids want to keep them going so they and their kids can have dogs that live up the expectations they have learned to hold and value. I have only kept one entire female at any time, and kept her replacement when needed. You can continue. Its been made near impossible for me to source the male to breed this girl with before the last season I'm willing to risk on a 1st litter. Known buyers are waiting. I watch my 20 month old granddaughter playing with this huge dog, trying to teach her to dance and taking her blanket to the dogs bed for naps. She will miss that.

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now. We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable. Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms. Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights. Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats. They will suck that up too as a 'different' representation of their membership. One thats no longer fit for the self image of a K.C member. While The K.Cs can't recognize diversity they can't support it. If you won't support diversity, you are a barrier to diversity. Which is why we are in this situation that can only get tighter while WE accept a representation from from a group that demands diversity not be recognized. They can't continue to claim they represent the interests of all dog owners if they can't recognize all dogs. They can't expect members to make use of protocols to out cross as a means of improvement, when needed, if their own statement is that such an out cross is not recognized. If you push the idea long enough that breeding dogs is a pursuit for professionals backed by 'standards' only, it should be no suprise when that pursuit becomes industrialized. So we are now an industry. It should be representative. I could support a Union. Maybe over time that could see dogs, with diverse representation, return to some semblance of a community concern with hobby interests proving best results. If you can't support diversity, you can't defend anything that threatens the identity of that statement. You are right Asal, re; professional support. Maybe a broader union definition than dog breeders?

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now.

You will have more people driven to either produce or source dogs under illegal conditions with no over sight or expectation of basic decent practice. ( as long as there any value placed on the product that could sustainably be produced under such conditions) And no type of mentorship to encourage or teach the practices that bring results that CAN be valued . There will also be reduced mentorship for those able to meet demand legaly. Even the expertise of those will be more limited over time. Their breadth of experience and knowledge of their subject is limmited. The overall quality and reliability of the product drops again dramaticaly with even less of value to support over time. The cost to the community of supporting dogs, the species, becomes overwhelmingly the focus. You can't keep pushing for the govt. to tackle this problem or that one concerning dogs, then complain when its clear people don't understand the subject and do it wrong, or in ways that impact on you. If they don't understand DOGS then its because those who promote DOGS aren't doing a very good job. If thats not the job of the K.Cs, who else has any authority on the subject? According to the various K.Cs, No one they will recognize.

Those that are pushing this movement are not interested in the pedigree - they are only interested in dividing and conquering. What we should have spotted and what we all should be protesting about and sending out petitions for is for people who own an entire dog is to not have to surrender their base human rights. Hansard tells us that they have moved through and admitted what some of the rights are that they want to take off dog breeders. The right to privacy, the right to a presumption of innocence, the right to free enjoyment of our property, the right to be able to purchase a product of our choice from an easily accessible source, the right to free trade, the right to not have our property taken from us without due process, etc. This isnt made up - its in hansard as part of the plan. THIS is the biggest issue that everyone who owns a dog that they want to breed, whether that be one or one hundred, whether they own a purebred or cross bred, registered or unregistered ,whether they want to source a puppy from a breeder or a pet shop are the real issues. They dont just want to limit numbers, take away exemptions make everyone have a licence They want to leave dog breeders with less rights than a pedophile. breeders should be able to have the same human rights as any other person who lives in this country because it is THIS they are trying to take way from them. Even if the number limitation does not fly and I don't believe it will, even if Vicdogs get their exemptions back and I dont believe they will, even if they change requirements for a DAB or change the codes it still leaves the fact that a person who is a dog breeder has their rights removed if these part of this bill are not removed. Of course they don't care if they are pedigree or not. They are DOGS. It seems its only the pedigree people who have trouble understanding that. Dogs ACT has on their web site 'We do not recognize or encourage breeding between different breeds". Before pedigrees, a breed or type was still a breed or type with out a pedigree to 'recognize' it. There would be no breeds with out a recognition of those dogs to start with. So there in writing is a statement that the foundations and environment of pedigrees, the dogs that gave gave rise to the standards are not recognized. Its the pedigree and its standard that is recognized. Not the dogs. Not the species. They recognize Pedigrees and the standards that define them. They recognize the environmental standards of a K.C pedigree that defines their membership. Then wonder how to encourage those members to accept changes to the very standards that define them as breeders! They depend on the K.Cs, the environment that sustains them as breeders, to address any demands for them with out a need for PERSONAL responsibility, Because their adherence to its standards is what DEFINES their identity as breeders. They can't address the demands of the environment because they only recognize the K.C environment as the one that sustains them. Their own tiny portion of it. They don't need any thing else. Seems they are just finding that K.C identity/environment is not enough if it can't adapt to the demands of the environment that supports the K.C Identity. Its got nothing of value to to offer if DOGS aren't valued universaly.

With only 304 views to date on this forum, with thousands of members, I get the impression most peeps don't concern themselves too much with what they see as 'politics' and are content to let others worry about such things. Maybe a new heading to stress their rights to source and keep dogs are under threat? looks to me that even here, people are unaware. Or unconcious. I will sign this petition and IF dogs vic gets one out will look at that one too, or any others. My support is for dogs. I don't much care at this point where any action in support FOR dogs comes from. Theres little enough of it.

I don't think legislation is the answer to puppy mills either. Informing people of the practices that contribute to best results, and explaining how and why they work are. Allowing people to take responsibility for their own choices. Puppy mills aren't the govts. responsibility. They are the responsibility of people who know the problems. If there are so few who understand whats involved or at stake, thats the fault of those who do. For failing to demonstrate the value of what they do. You can't dictate people choices. They will buy from sources that best meet their needs. They can't responsibly do that if they have no understanding of the processes involved, or the species they are dealing with. Teach the value of BETTER practices, and better welfare results will follow. Stop this focus on what we don't like and show case what we do like and why. Start focusing on the VALUE of dogs, and and not the costs and failures. If we have microchipping and registration details we have accountability. We have legislation for prosecuting cruelty cases. You can never legislate every detail that constitutes cruelty. Its easier to recognize when an animal is being deprived of its needs than it is to detail every step to meet them, because that depends on the individual, and it depends on the environment you have to work in. The way things work atm is like handing a baby to woman whos been in a coma since birth and wondering why shes not a responsible mother.

Nope. Not too long a bow at all. Its essential if we are going to KEEP pedigree dogs. Or any credibility.

Haven't read that, But I think it fails for the same reason most of these so called solutions do.... You are not promoting an expectation that people respond to the challenges of dog ownership. You are not promoting responsibility. Instead you are trying to create an environment where people aren't going to be challenged with that responsibility. There is no EXPECTATION of responsibility. So you try to make it a condition of your environment that to own a dog it must be desexed. Under those conditions, Its not a demonstration of responsible dog ownership, Its taking away responsibility.

'Exemptions' are not not going to save anyone. They are temporary at best. Exemptions don't prevent people doing the wrong thing. If you promote a standardized environment as the only 'correct' method of breeding and raising dogs, any one taking advantage of exemption will not be doing the the right thing. Sooner or later it will be noticed. You have changed the expectation. Only being held to COMMON expectation reduces the incidence of failure. There is nothing common to our expectations ATM > Our expectation depend on what 'group' you are aligned with. Those aren't favorable to groups you aren't aligned with. So outsiders won't look for the benefits of a group that doesn't do anything for them personaly, they will hold that group responsible for its lowest common denominator. If you won't be part of what people share in common, you won't meet common expectations. The K.Cs are not aligned with 'dog breeders' and owners. They are aligned with Pedigrees. The Difference of K.Cs could be accepted as part of diversity in practice. But if they won't practice an acceptance of diversity themselves, they will be rejected or destroy their own purpose. This process gains momentum and theres not much time left. Expectations are almost destroyed. Police, Guide dogs for the visually disabled, Customs breeding centre? Meeting at Bulla tomorrow night will be interesting. If you legislate things be done a certain way to be correct, then yes. Its an environmental 'Standard'. If everyone must do things this way, then they will come to expect that is the only way they should be done. You have created a common expectation. EVERY ONE will be held to that expectation, eventualy. Its accepted as a condition of keeping dogs.

'Exemptions' are not not going to save anyone. They are temporary at best. Exemptions don't prevent people doing the wrong thing. If you promote a standardized environment as the only 'correct' method of breeding and raising dogs, any one taking advantage of exemption will not be doing the the right thing. Sooner or later it will be noticed. You have changed the expectation. Only being held to COMMON expectation reduces the incidence of failure. There is nothing common to our expectations ATM > Our expectation depend on what 'group' you are aligned with. Those aren't favorable to groups you aren't aligned with. So outsiders won't look for the benefits of a group that doesn't do anything for them personaly, they will hold that group responsible for its lowest common denominator. If you won't be part of what people share in common, you won't meet common expectations. The K.Cs are not aligned with 'dog breeders' and owners. They are aligned with Pedigrees. The Difference of K.Cs could be accepted as part of diversity in practice. But if they won't practice an acceptance of diversity themselves, They threaten diversity, and its acceptance.. They will be rejected or destroy their own purpose. This process gains momentum and theres not much time left. Expectations are almost destroyed.

A call to action by leaders of Orgs. will see those orgs the focus of the very groups they want to combat. It would be drawing a bullseye on those orgs. You wanted exclusivity? This is what it looks like. It excludes. Every thing. Except what the mark of your exclusivity is... The pedigree and its standard. Fat lot of good that will do with out a dog. It doesn't teach values, It de-values anything out side of that mark of exclusivity. Pedigrees and Standards are NOT going to be the future of dogs. They will be death of Dogs IF they keep insisting on an exclusive membership that MUST rely only on pedigrees and their attendant Standards to indicate value, or 'exclusive' membership. A.R. did not cause this divide. Exclusivity does. It divides. Your space, my space. Nothing in common. The only stuff people CAN agree on is the lowest common denominator. Who can or will hold their hand up to defend that?

no one seems to understand that all these rules are only ever going to apply to the people who are responsible and belong to a breed society, vaccinated and microchip their puppies are are accountable even though it will mean they will be legislated out of being able to keep their dogs anymore. the people who never chip or register their dogs or puppies are safe and can continue their merry way. The people who are responsible and law abiding. Period. Those are the ones captured in a reduced available space to operate. The environment is reduced. The ones best able to meet DEMAND now, are the least responsible. They will supply a 'demonstration' of the product that dominates. A more visible one, and peoples expectations will be lowered by the results. We will have even fewer people willing to fight FOR dogs, because fewer people will see any real value in it. But lots more to complain about and legislate way. For every ounce it gets harder for pedigree breeders to operate, it becomes even harder for 'Responsible' breeders who are NOT part of an organization. They are always going to be a target or scapegoat for Orgs. believing an exclusive superiority. There is no advocacy. Yet if you get rid of those people, you have no one left to say "we will fight for dogs" Because its not going to be about dogs, its going to be about an exclusive organization. A minority group that no one understands anything about, except what makes it into the media.