moosmum

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.

NO. And until people can agree there are dog breeders/people, and non dog people and that the division stops there, all that CAN be done is keep eliminating the lowest common denominator. If you won't allow community focus and discussion of COMMON expectations and what those should be, society can only agree on what is NOT acceptable to common expectations. If we can't teach shared values that aid purpose for dogs (through discussion) all you have is minority groups who will fail to meet common expectations. And a shared expectation of eliminating those. But nah, its more important to be seen as exclusive and elite.

Environment is limit. Purpose and values are a biological response to environment, They over comes limits, to increase environment. Purpose and value ( response) are NOT inherent to an environment. The K.Cs are an environment.Purpose and values are not inherent in the standards. The standards and rules create that environment. They are not a response. The biological response to the K.C environment must be brought to it, by its membership. This is impossible while the environment itself governs the identity of its members. If only K.C membership allows a breeder to be recognized AS a breeder. To demand ADHERENCE TO limitations of your environment( before you can be recognized as a 'breeder') makes those environmental standards your purpose and value. No other purpose or value can be recognized. Only the standards of pedigree. There will be no change while thats the case. It threaten the memberships identity as breeders to allow any other purpose or value. Effective change can only be brought to the K.Cs when members longer define the term 'breeder' by the limitations imposed on their own membership. Until then, all any of us can do as breeders, is eliminate anything that does not fit into this image of self identity. It IS just an image. Any one who breeds dogs is a breeder and there can be no purpose or value in that for a dogs natural environment ( the communities of man ) while a K.C environment claims the only legitimate purpose or value. That K.C environment must discount a belief in dogs to create a belief in the limitations of standards and pedigrees. The K.Cs are doomed if they keep insisting the limitations of their own environment are what gives a breeder ( or a dog) a valid identity. Your identity as breeders can NOT be the environment you choose to work in. Only an identity independent in its environment can allow the response needed to bring value and purpose to it. Nothing wrong with predictability of breed ( or environment) but to demand nothing else forces an endless culling and intolerance of what we can't predict (or 'recognize' as part of the 'standard' environment) Through enforcement of standards that reduce an ability to respond any other way. Shrinking the environment by standardization of its conditions. You don't recognize dogs as part of a canine species if you state that you don't recognize DOGS bred with out adherance to a pedigree standard and protocols- If only some are recognized. If your purpose is dogs, you must recognize the species- not just breeds. 'Breed' excludes the diversity and adaptabilty of a species to its environment. 'Breed' is bound to limitation of 'standard' environments where species is not. Species is bound only by the limitations of the responses available TO its environment. My explanations aren't the problem. Or not all of it any way. Its a whole new way of looking at things. Of perception. It needs thought to make the shift. We have the cart dragging the horse.

Nothing to lose by giving it a go, every thing to lose if we don't. This 'group identity' thing is our down fall. No one has to divide us, we do that our selves. policing your own?! Can't work. You expose bad practice in your own group and you are attacking your own identity, because thats what you have accepted- an identity, Contained in the group or environment you work within. Rules that draw a line, or restrict member activities to standards specific to their group before any other keep it that way. Standards create the conditions of their environment. To insist no one strays from the environment where those conditions dominate means they can't change. That environment, if contained, forms an identity. Change or difference threatens the identity. So how to show members the K.Cs will still have the K.Cs and their standards intact, by accepting their identity is as breeders? A K.C members identity as a breeders is NOT contained in the standards of the pedigree? Thats just the environment they have chosen to work in. Your identity as K.C members can not and does not define you or your purpose for anyone outside of its boundaries. Your practices do.The benefits they might bring to the community do. To the community, you are breeders. Nothing special. Nothing deserving of exemption from common expectations. If practices aren't meeting expectations you will pay the price. Not as individuals, but in your identity as pedigree breeders, if you insist you are bound and contained as such. If members are not contained and bound to the pedigree environment they chose to work in, alone, it will still be there. It can even grow, because it can change and evolve to incorporate responses that that aren't there now, as part of its identity. 'Standards' are environment. Environment is limitation. 'Values' are a response to environment. They over come limitation. To say your environment is also your identity means you accept its limitations as absolute and no additional response or values are required. They are contained in the standards and limitations of your self identity. So if they are not, you try to over come that with more exacting standards. Trying to build responses and values into an environment. But all that can do is place more limits on that environment of identity. It needs response, but its NOT a response once its standardized as a condition of the environment. Its a LIMITATION of response and values. It changes expectations of what is acceptable. So less and less is acceptable, regardless of any value it could bring as a response to 'other' conditions, in other environments. There IS no other way to explain this. Its biological physics translated to human communities and organization. It explains the evolution and direction of those human communities and the organizations that affect them. You reject the community, its purpose and its values while you insist on an identity that is distinct from that community. You leave no choice but to reject your identity in turn because the costs of continued support are not worth any value it gets in return. Any value in your identity is contained, in its own environment and standards. For Dogs sake, its physics. Its space and time, its genetic programing of cultural identities.

People who have dogs for ANY reason are part of a big community, with a common interest, and responsibility. To dogs, And the communities they live in. Its a space we all share. So we have to find common values to make that work. Its not a bunch of little communities with nothing in common. Separated by walls in their own world. But we treat it like it is, so when things go wrong because we have 'Different' values we say how horrified we are and how unacceptable. And it is. But no one can take responsibility. The ones who should have were in their own little world of different values. They failed on community values. WE aren't responsible. WE have different values. But WE are not part of the general community either, so its not our responsibility. WE have a different identity. That was their space, their identity and they blew it. The values the community holds are common ones. Ones that we encourage as individuals. If enough people say the same thing it get pretty loud and Govt. has to listen. Its ALWAYS going to be some other space or identity failing. If we are targeted, We will claim people are out of touch and unrealistic, Its a small minority, most do the right thing. We are not responsible, can't be responsible for that. But if thats your identity, you ARE responsible for what it is, and what it becomes. As long as your identity is distinct from all others. If we had COMMON values and responsibility as a whole community, we'd find and share solutions to common problems, that can affect any one. We could listen to concerns. A serious breeder would be one who works to meet the expectations of those values, and we could play a part in teaching what they should be, by showing what CAN be. But its not like that. Because we must preserve our identity as some thing else, some thing better, 1st. So as the single community we realy are, all thats left to do is deleate the lowest common denominator. In almost every problem that comes with having dogs, pedigree or mutt. If some thing doesn't work for us, we must remove the lowest common denominator. A group identity CAN'T be responsible for individuals who fail community expectations. Theres a DIFFERENT measures of success. Different demands conditions and expectations. Those people have a different identity where success is some thing different. The priorities are different. If your group identity is going to be its own private space, you will respond to THAT space and those priorities. If we can't accept a COMMON identity and share things that help make it work, It CAN"T work for the majority who hold an interest. So we we remove the lowest common denominator of the problem. That all we can do because everything comes down to a group identity in a different space than our own. Just look at almost any solutions we find to almost any problem concerning dogs. Because dog people have no common identity. Just problem ones. We don't teach people what to expect, the best way to find it, how to manage it or why. Only whats expected of THEM by OUR group identity to be favored with membership. Then wonder why fewer and fewer understand what to expect, how to find it or manage it. Thats not our responsibility. We say thats an individuals responsibility. If they fail, its their groups responsibility. You can't have it both ways. Either we take responsibility for our own actions in the community, or groups are held responsible. If retaining a distinct group identity holds more value for you than meeting community expectations, you can't. Its just not going to work if we're all working from different places for different purpose. They are dogs no matter where they come from. They are all bred for man, Any breeders purpose is a dog. We are all responsible for making sure its done as well as it can be. By talking openly about how and why we do things. Your values. If they work with better results, the community benefits and will support them. If it doesn't work, the community will demand better results. If you can't meet them AND keep your 'Prestige' as a part of an elite K.C identity, the K.C identity itself can't change. Its set as a group identity but only individual response can bring change. Its impossible to eliminate the pieces of the world you won't live in, and keep it. You can only be responsible for seeing your own little bit of the world works so well, people expect others to match the expectations you have set up. Values are the things we do to make some thing work better. Values are a response to our purpose in the environment. Yes, the pedigree is a value. But our purpose isn't to make Pedigrees work better. The purpose is DOGS, not pedigrees. Pedigree is a value, not the purpose. It can't be the purpose if its for dogs. It can't be both value and purpose. You can't respond to that purpose as a group identity, separate from the community AND allow individuals to respond as the community demands and expects for DOGS. Not while the pedigree defines an identities purpose, instead of the dogs it should be. The pedigrees value won't be recognized by the community if thats the single value that defines your purpose AND sets an identity as a breeder. The community WILL recognize the value of pedigrees when individuals can respond to the pedigree as way to improve dogs, not JUST pedigrees. And that means allowing pedigree dogs and their breeders to contribute to more than just pedigrees. Insisting that they do. K.C culture as its set, makes the value of pedigrees their whole purpose. It makes breeders reliant on a pedigree and a standard for their identity as 'good' breeders. A K.C breeder relies on meeting the needs of that identity, not the needs of the community. They have found value in a pedigree and made that the purpose of their identity. Instead of a value to add to a breeder identity. Its not a value or a response to community any more, its a definition of community.

Umm, You don't have to sleep with them. There IS NO Separation of breeder practices by group. No group can ever be exempt from poor practice. No group can ever say sh*t doesn't happen in 'My' space. To insist Pedigree breeders have a 'different' space will see pedigree dogs ( and others) eventualy, go the same way as as the greyhound industry. No doubt. In accepting that all DOGS and BREEDERS have equal legitimacy to Man and his communities, the focus shifts from 'Groups' or environments, back to individuals and their own practices, where it belongs. Does this PERSON live up to the expectations of our community? Forget your 'own' space for that. Doesn't matter if a person lives up to K.C expectations if they are not also community expectations. With SHARED environment, conversation can shift to those values and practices, ( not groups ) that bring bring best results for Dogs and the communities they live in. Bringing shared responsibility of communities, A better educated and informed public. Puppy farms would fail on the expectations of a more responsible and informed public. Its the way to ensure puppy farms DON"T succeed hobby/enthusiast breeders. The way its going ATM, Puppy farms and commercial breeders have all the advantage available. Its a matter of Saving pedigree dogs, and domestic dogs in general. I find it very hard to respect a group that would rather 'die' and destroy a welcoming, valued space for dogs for every one, than change a belief that only a 'pedigree' can give a dog, a breeder or an owner validity. That superiority of pedigrees is a given, regardless of practice and environmental purpose. Thats what it amounts to. Any body claiming to be FOR dogs has a responsibility to shape and form those expectations. For dogs. Or they fail dogs at the most basic level. Its very unlikely puppy farms would ever have become an issue if the premier Breeder bodies had accepted in the 1st place that they are not THE environment for dog breeders, just one of many with a responsibility to the communities that support them to demonstrate value. A responsibility to a healthier environment than whats been left in their wake with a belief superiority is in a pedigree, not a dog or its purpose and values to its own space . You think your 'Group space' can single handedley meet community expectations, for all of us, go for it, But you will be judged by the worst, as a group. You fail my expectations. I have lost hope for my breed, along with most anyone who valued them for their purpose. Oh, right, your incomprehensible posts have actually been about you. Gee, sorry about not wanting to be likened to BYBs and puppyfarmers. Guess your expectations were always going to be dashed on the rocks of other people's ethics. So who coined those terms to be used as a comparison of 'Group"? You want to be seen as some thing 'Other' then don't complain when you are seen and judged as some thing 'Other'. Like the greyhound racing industry. Some thing 'Other', so its loss won't be missed by most. My breed means nothing to you. The value buyers look to find in breeds means nothing to you. Only the 'standard' minus any value that might be sought out side a show ring. Yes, thats the point isn't it? That the environmental expectations that drive development of a species (or breed) are always going to be dashed on the rocks of some 'OTHER' ethics, while those are defined by pedigrees, not practices. Or purpose. Not realities out side a show or trial ring. No value in that for me, and increasingly, no value in that for any one else either. A reduction to the lowest common denominator. The Standard alone, not the values it was built on. Till collapse. But you cling to this idea you are victims of your environment, Some thing 'Other' So you don't have to take responsibility for what the environment IS, or what it throws at you. IN ENGLISH. Get a dictionary.

Umm, You don't have to sleep with them. There IS NO Separation of breeder practices by group. No group can ever be exempt from poor practice. No group can ever say sh*t doesn't happen in 'My' space. To insist Pedigree breeders have a 'different' space will see pedigree dogs ( and others) eventualy, go the same way as as the greyhound industry. No doubt. In accepting that all DOGS and BREEDERS have equal legitimacy to Man and his communities, the focus shifts from 'Groups' or environments, back to individuals and their own practices, where it belongs. Does this PERSON live up to the expectations of our community? Forget your 'own' space for that. Doesn't matter if a person lives up to K.C expectations if they are not also community expectations. With SHARED environment, conversation can shift to those values and practices, ( not groups ) that bring bring best results for Dogs and the communities they live in. Bringing shared responsibility of communities, A better educated and informed public. Puppy farms would fail on the expectations of a more responsible and informed public. Its the way to ensure puppy farms DON"T succeed hobby/enthusiast breeders. The way its going ATM, Puppy farms and commercial breeders have all the advantage available. Its a matter of Saving pedigree dogs, and domestic dogs in general. I find it very hard to respect a group that would rather 'die' and destroy a welcoming, valued space for dogs for every one, than change a belief that only a 'pedigree' can give a dog, a breeder or an owner validity. That superiority of pedigrees is a given, regardless of practice and environmental purpose. Thats what it amounts to. Any body claiming to be FOR dogs has a responsibility to shape and form those expectations. For dogs. Or they fail dogs at the most basic level. Its very unlikely puppy farms would ever have become an issue if the premier Breeder bodies had accepted in the 1st place that they are not THE environment for dog breeders, just one of many with a responsibility to the communities that support them to demonstrate value. A responsibility to a healthier environment than whats been left in their wake with a belief superiority is in a pedigree, not a dog or its purpose and values to its own space . You think your 'Group space' can single handedley meet community expectations, for all of us, go for it, But you will be judged by the worst, as a group. You fail my expectations. I have lost hope for my breed, along with most anyone who valued them for their purpose. Oh, right, your incomprehensible posts have actually been about you. Gee, sorry about not wanting to be likened to BYBs and puppyfarmers. Guess your expectations were always going to be dashed on the rocks of other people's ethics. So who coined those terms to be used as a comparison of 'Group"? You want to be seen as some thing 'Other' then don't complain when you are seen and judged as some thing 'Other'. Like the greyhound racing industry. Some thing 'Other', so its loss won't be missed by most. My breed means nothing to you. The value buyers look to find in breeds means nothing to you. Only the 'standard' minus any value that might be sought out side a show or trial ring. Because thats what is happening. Yes, thats the point isn't it? That the environmental expectations that drive development of a species (or breed) are always going to be dashed on the rocks of some 'OTHER' ethics, since they're defined by pedigree, not practices. Or purpose. Not realities out side a show or trial ring. No value in that for me, and increasingly, no value in that for any one else either. A reduction to the lowest common denominator. The Standard alone, not the values it was built on. Till collapse. But you cling to this idea you are victims of your environment, Some thing 'Other' So you don't have to take responsibility for what the environment IS, or what it throws at you.

Umm, You don't have to sleep with them. There IS NO Separation of breeder practices by group. No group can ever be exempt from poor practice. No group can ever say sh*t doesn't happen in 'My' space. To insist Pedigree breeders have a 'different' space will see pedigree dogs ( and others) eventualy, go the same way as as the greyhound industry. No doubt. In accepting that all DOGS and BREEDERS have equal legitimacy to Man and his communities, the focus shifts from 'Groups' or environments, back to individuals and their own practices, where it belongs. Does this PERSON live up to the expectations of our community? Forget your 'own' space for that. Doesn't matter if a person lives up to K.C expectations if they are not also community expectations. With SHARED environment, conversation can shift to those values and practices, ( not groups ) that bring bring best results for Dogs and the communities they live in. Bringing shared responsibility of communities, A better educated and informed public. Puppy farms would fail on the expectations of a more responsible and informed public. Its the way to ensure puppy farms DON"T succeed hobby/enthusiast breeders. The way its going ATM, Puppy farms and commercial breeders have all the advantage available. Its a matter of Saving pedigree dogs, and domestic dogs in general. I find it very hard to respect a group that would rather 'die' and destroy a welcoming, valued space for dogs for every one, than change a belief that only a 'pedigree' can give a dog, a breeder or an owner validity. That superiority of pedigrees is a given, regardless of practice and environmental purpose. Thats what it amounts to. Any body claiming to be FOR dogs has a responsibility to shape and form those expectations. For dogs. Or they fail dogs at the most basic level. Its very unlikely puppy farms would ever have become an issue if the premier Breeder bodies had accepted in the 1st place that they are not THE environment for dog breeders, just one of many with a responsibility to the communities that support them to demonstrate value. A responsibility to a healthier environment than whats been left in their wake with a belief superiority is in a pedigree, not a dog or its purpose and values to its own space . You think your 'Group space' can single handedley meet community expectations, for all of us, go for it, But you will be judged by the worst, as a group. You fail my expectations. I have lost hope for my breed, along with most anyone who valued them for their purpose.

Can't you guys even see what you are doing?! You complain about every one being tarred with the same brush when a pedigree person is in the spotlight for fails in duty of care. But you can't seem to accept that a PERSON shouldn't BE representative of a group. But people won't speak openly about expectations of the community and what they are.Or how breeders can meet them. Because its always someone elses space . How badly the different spaces are failing is the topic. If you do that, Always keeping 'Your' group separate and self contained, you force everyone else to do the same. A person is entirely responsible for their own actions. OUR only responsibility to that is making sure they understand whats expected as a community.

I see what you mean but as I said above, polcing our own is fraught with difficulties. Since when were men told police your own and stop rape and pedophilia or you will all be castrated? since when have we been told police your own or you will all be jailed in case you murder? Steal a car, rob a house, commit corporate crime, the list is endless. Since when did it become everyone's fault and accountability for those who commit a crime? Thats what the police are there for, arrest the perpetrator, not everyone living within a ten K area, same thing, conviction by association in that case in the general area . not hold the entire population accountable or everyone cops the sentence. That's what we are being duped into if you aren't taking it in. since when does having an animal of any kind mean you must be responsible for the actions of every other who has? Is every married man held responsible for not ending domestic violence? Or could be jailed for inaction against those who do? Every woman held responsible for not ending child abuse? or she loses the right to keep her own child? why fall for something that pits all animal owners against each other? If you don't stand together and demand a entire group should not be punished for the misdeeds of some. you not only don't know but never knew or met, Thats how AR is dividing and conquering. Its been a slow progress, I can remember when The campaign began in the 80's, a whole new word game began, setting breeder against breeder and when did Peta begin, March 1980, its been a long time but they have little by little bit by bit pitted one against the other. very successfully Even crazier many of the laws being passed, the ankc's are agreeing to and implementing aren't even in the best interests of the dogs, ask any reproduction vet. But hey thats what happens when the ones in the decision making process are AR reps with no or too few with actual knowledge. Just read the conditions for keeping them in the code of practice, its the blueprint for puppy farming. Concrete kennels and pens, can be charged for keeping them in your home? This. One more attempt at explaining. The standards set an independent environment. All by them selves. The K.Cs are an environment. All good. Values are brought to support an environment, by what it contains. By what it allows to contribute. But in promoting an ideal that its the only valid environment worthy of support, those values can't be BROUGHT to that environment of 'standards'. The only values the standard can accept, are in itself. That environment accepts nothing beyond its self identity. It must constantly re-define its identity, against the environment beyond its own self. You have an identity that lives only in its 'self'. It can't 'live' any where else. The values that support it can't be allowed to 'live' any where else. It can't define its 'self' by its role in the environment, only by what that role is not. The K.cs are not anything out side their 'self'. Their values ( standards) don't 'live' anywhere else but the K.Cs. Being exclusive to those standards, no other values can be brought to them. They MUST reduce any thing that does not belong to the self of the K.Cs. They don't BRING value to dogs. They reduce values that don't bring any thing to whats wanted. The K.cs must define their role in the environment by what they won't accept. What is NOT a part of their own role in the environment or 'self'. The standards are already exclusive by their very nature AS an environment. An environment is limited only by what its make up contains. An entity is limited only by its responses to its environment. It adds value to increase that environment. If the entities of that environment can't accept 'standards' that are foreign to its make up, that can't happen. That is what exclusivity of environment does. Its a perception of self, imposed on the environment. Values can't be brought to that environment because its 'contained' in its 'self'. The role of the K.C identity in its community, are the standards that define environments as separate entities with no common purpose or values. Because they are exclusive to their own standards. So no, people in general won't defend those who aren't doing anything wrong. The environment/entity of Greyhound racing is judged as a whole separate entity that has no place in the same environment. You can't 'Bring ' health to the breeds, you can only exclude dogs that don't have it. You can't 'Bring' stability to a dogs temperament, you can only exclude dogs that don't show it. You can't 'Bring' values to those who keep dogs, you can only exclude those who don't have the ones you want. You can have standards. But standards will collapse with out the values that built them. That they are based on. *** Standards are NOT the same as values. Values are a response, to the limitations of an environment. Standards ARE the limitations. If your values ARE the limitations, your can only alter conditions by limiting them. So in effect, your exclusivity has created a demon summonsed to appear in a pentagram drawn on its navel. You believe every one breeding dogs should do so to your standards, yet yet insist you hold your standards exclusively? Then standards for all can only become so exacting and exclusive, theres no value to be added or recognized. Just standard environments that fail to meet expectations beyond their 'self' identities. An environment is the space you are in. Its made of all that shares that space. You expand the space by introducing things you want. If they add value to other entities sharing the space, they introduce them too. Because they DO SEEK VALUE. And you will adopt values YOU see demonstrated as bringing some thing worth while. The space expands and grows. But if the space itself is seen as the value, As the standard of what a space should look like, then you can only throw out the parts of the space that don't look so pretty or fit the space you will accept. You don't take responsibility for the shape of the space by your OWN responses. You eliminate the responses you don't like by eliminating the space that allows or supports them. My language might be lot less confusing if people would say what parts they don't get, So I don't need to say so much at once. Its a lot to contain in a few paragraphs. Its just physics applied to biological theory. It shouldn't be this hard.

excellent point. look at the wonderful job the churches has done to "police our own" on the pedophile front. about time they were shut down too. I think its the whole idea of 'our own' Vs 'theirs' Multiple environments rather than shared environment. That environment can go, Its standard identity is foreign to 'our own'. Theres IS no common identity to account. Its all 'Other' to 'standards' of identity. See, this is why I failed as an academic. I don't write like ^. Nah, No one should. That was just...lousy. I agree with you tho'. Re policing your own.

excellent point. look at the wonderful job the churches has done to "police our own" on the pedophile front. about time they were shut down too. I think its the whole idea of 'our own' Vs 'theirs' Multiple environments rather than shared environment. That environment can go, Its standard identity is foreign to 'our own'. Theres IS no common identity to account. Its all 'Other' to 'standards' of identity.

Yeah. That just blows me away. Steve, Fair points , all of them. ( yep, The DOGS are a breeders 1st responsibility, but also the purpose) In this case, it is about cruelty that breeders must recognize and address. Overall tho', I believe its about the costs to the community vs what value they get from it. So I think we need to do what we can to make sure the community is getting the best value from their dogs, and have more say in what those values are. Looks like many prefer to be seen as victims than accept their 1st responsibility is to the dogs, and not the Orgs. and standards they originaly signed up to. I think the community has a pretty fair say in what values they want. The consumer system enables them to have choices and purchase them [so far ]from a source of their choice. There is a component of a collective feeling with in the breeding community - both within and outside of the ANKC or purebred dog world of feeling as if we are the victims of an ever increasing onslaught from animal rights. Dog breeding is certainly not the only "industry" or hobby under attack but there are various pushes to remove people's property rights and freedom to trade equally for reasons given which are not justified and are based on anything other than science and facts, beaten up by sensationalism and propaganda so when the focus starts to switch to accusations of yet more cruelty issues its understandable if they are saying poor me. >>>>>>.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We will have to agree to disagree. I understand what you are saying, and it does makes sense. Because These issues are all predictable according to biophysical/evolutionary science. Right down to being a victim of an an environment you reject, and the disconnect of the environment from the process. Devaluation. The lot. The community may have a fair say in what they DON'T want. They have very little understanding of what they could have, or what possibilities they could reach for. Responsibility for that understanding is held in reservation by one monopoly or another. ie; A choice in where they purchase from = one or another monopoly with little understanding how any of them work or why. The de-sex debate is an example. Instead of encouraging people to understand the issues that come with breeding dogs, its in every monopolies interest to simply say spey or neuter is THE responsible course to take. Then we wonder why people have no understanding of a dogs reproductive cycle and can't TAKE responsibility for it. The information has to be freely given for people to take responsibility for using it. People don't know what they don't know. If you have the attitude people aren't responsible enough to handle some thing, you see to it they never will be. You bring about what you claim. You create the reality you believe. Seems this may be where the confusion is now. Yes the community has the choice. But it hasn't directed evolution of those choices. None of those choices are responsible to the demands and needs of the community. An environment conditioned to place responsibility else where. Commercial breeders come closest, but are the result of an ailing or sick environments last ditch attempt to support the species according to community needs and demands. Its not support from a healthy environment. Its else where. The values and foundations pedigrees were built on have been lost to the environment because they aren't demonstrated to the environment for it TO favor those values. The pedigree has been demonstrated instead and found wanting. Standards are demonstrated. Our choices haven't evolved to the needs of an expanding and healthy environment. An environment that limits response, limits response-ability. In the culture of breeders AND in the dogs bred. A Bulldog looks like this (insert standard) A responsible owner looks like this(insert standard) Yes the community environment decides what it will favor or reject. But ultimately it will reject whats presented, if it must come from 'else where'. Its a foreign body. It will be rejected. The choices presented haven't been in response to the health of the environment (or the dogs). There has to be demonstrated value to needs TO favor. Not chosen from another place to fill gaps . Values IN and selected BY the environment- Not choices selected by organizations that benefit from a monopoly on set standards for breeding identities.. Values selected for success or favor will be those that can adapt to the various conditions the ENVIRONMENT might present, as it presents them. So if conditions now favor puppy farms and commercial breeders, its because values haven't been taught or demonstrated worth favor. Only "Standards" which are fixed and not adaptive. Puppy farms can do standard. The foundation values that brought us pedigree dogs are still good ones. Its "standards" that fix a place in time. For the breeds as identities, or the organization as an identity. Standards are demands ON the community/environment. The values and purpose that gave rise to the breeds and organizations are replaced by 'standards' and held as a 'property' of those orgs. Property of that environment. Only another environment, ( commercial ) can predictably adhere to such predictable "standards". The Environment can't accept that demand with out value to support it. The environment as a whole shapes what it holds, to procure what it needs. It rejects what belongs 'else where'- from another environment. That arrangement is too unstable to last. See above,Marked below >>>>>>>>> and posted within Steves quote by accident. Standards- Set a time, in place. Stagnation Values- expand a place, in time. Growth Its O.K to set standards for 'A Place'. Just not Every place. Its already different from other spaces by those standards. They can contribute to the environment and shape its values. But if those standards are to replace values every where, Theres nothing left to define or support them. Standards have no purpose without the values that support them. The values are the whole purpose of 'Standards' Value and purpose is discarded. You only have to look as far as the attrition to K.C members who try to alter the shape and space of the K.Cs. Discarded. Early or mandatory desexing etc. don't support values that contribute to any purpose for dogs. They are a result of an imploding environment, imposing standards and not sharing values. The space can only reduce value to achieve a purpose of standards for all. Values and standards are not the same thing. Values are brought by the identity to its environment in response to its challenges. When a Standard is set, there is no need for the values that brought it. Its an environmental condition of its place. It brings nothing. Its the just the way it is. We can never share 'standards' of an exclusive environment. The more we try, the more we exclude. And The K.Cs must exclude us anyway, and find new ways to do it. because they are exclusive. Our values can never match their Standards.