moosmum

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.

Yeah. That just blows me away. Great to Peta cop it , even a little. Poor owners tho', not muchconsolation. 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.

So we start with a dog. It will have a particular size, shape and coat type. It will have different levels of drive, bite inhibition, bite threshold, reactivity, trainability, yada yada. We mate it to another dog. It will have all those features (as all dogs do). We've focussed on structural soundness and haven't worried to much about the other stuff. Along comes a family. They have kids. They don't have two hours a day to exercise a dog and it probably won't get any formal obedience training. They'll be looking for a pretty quiet dog that has strong bite inhibition, low levels of reactivity and isn't much of a barker. How are you going to pick a pup from two sound randomly bred dogs that suits those requirements for them. They may all be sound but that won't be enough. You're not being revolutionary if you think all dogs should have basic structural soundness regardless of breed. Pat Hastings and others have been teaching and preaching it for years. Some of us have been listening. I didn't say it was revolutionary. Or that no one was concerned with it. Or that it was the only concern. Just that its a shared one. There are too many to list. I HAVE said purpose is central to it all. Theres nothing random about purpose, so why should your selection be random just because I singled out conformation as one common value in a dog. Out of many?

Sociology and philosophy to some one who can't understand it when its explained in terms of physics and biology. So much for using more familiar language :laugh: I Don't give any single problem to any single group. I have said the environments as a whole are inseparable. What affects one affects all. But fleeing the group denying it, unless it happens overnight, is too slow, and risks bringing that culture with it unless the cause is openly addressed. It is inherent in the pedigree system. Any other philosophy needs to be spelt out. Clearly and directly. That requirements for issue of pedigree registration papers apply only to issue of those papers, and any endorsement from that body. That a breeders 1st responsibility is to a purpose for the community. Not to a philosophy. The world has changed and every thing can be legislated out of existence if the activity includes acts which can be considered cruel. Even if only a portion of those undertaking the activity are abusing their rights. Because people are disconnected from the activity today. A reconnect needs to be more deliberate and clear than new protocols and rules for those already aware of the need.

And what if a handful of ignorant callous trainers used live baiting to attempt to get their dogs to chase better? Like has happened? Do you think novelty race meets (which, by the way have occurred for a range of breeds) would change the AR agenda? There is an infant sport in NSW called lure coursing. All breeds and crosses of dog can participate. The dogs chase plastic bags The GR Commission report has roped it in with Greyhound racing calling for any pet who participates to be registered as a "coursing dog" and criminalising ownership of small animals by LC dog owners. The reason dogs chase ANYTHING is prey drive. It shouldn't be demonised and it can be managed. We have a bunch of people who know sweet FA about dogs and care even less driving the rhetoric. They are shaping the space and dogs are NOT their purpose. The fact that many dog owners are being duped by them is a real and genuine issue. 1) I think in that case the closer ties of community to the purpose would have made that a topic for more open discussion and resolution with steady change to the sports culture to reflect the communities expectations. Thats the purpose of inclusion. To take the best of what works for all parties. 2) Yeah. You lose purpose if you don't be inclusive. And every one loses a bit of value. We reduce dogs. 3) Then why is that not being taught and demonstrated by those who profess to know best? why are you allowing others to shape the world? Why can you not appeal to others who value dogs enough to object for a common cause? Who else has the organization to stand as a unit?

The environment does not respond. BUT- It IS shaped by what it contains. Its our collective responsibility to shape it so it favors our purpose. Here is a hypothetical. What if the Grey racing industry were not exclusive? What if, way back when it began, it was a racing DOG interest? Greys would still be the best and fastest. Greys would still be raced against other greys because anything else would be ridiculous. But if each country race meet at least,there were novelty races held for pet owners. A fun day out for the family and their pet. I assume those who took up on that service would learn a lot about dogs, training, husbandry etc and racing specificly from the industry leaders. Those people would have accepted a lot of things that a greyhound breeder or sportsman does for the purpose of racing dogs. A lot of them might have enjoyed it so much they would turn to the sport and trying to breed train or race their own Greys. Some practices would have changed along with community expectations. Maybe more dogs chosen for a love of running in front of a pack, or pleasing their owners than for a prey drive. The world we have would would be a different shape now. How much we we will never know. We shape the space we occupy collectively. We cant do it exclusively. A shared purpose is essential. Dogs are the purpose. The values that add to dogs depend on an INDIVIDUALS purpose in keeping them, but they are all dogs.

No breeder I know and respect considers what they do "work". As for blaming the ills of the dog world on the ANKC. The issue is bigger than that. The causes are myriad and a simplistic finger-pointing response that lays all blame at the door of registered breeders is a nonsense. The rise of the double income family, 450 sq m blocks and higher density living, changes to the cultural demographic and yes, animal rights campaigning are all shaping changes in attitudes to dogs. The amount of misinformation about dogs, dog breeds and dog raising is rife. I think that is the space where the ANKC best operates but when you have little money and the press prints what it wishes to, its a tough ask I'd like less finger pointing and more solutions that go beyond "they should". As I've already said, "they" should be "we". This is a very good point, however in the beginning PETA had bugger all money too, just a bunch of zealots. So how did they get so prominent and wealthy? They were very clever in their advertising in the beginning, still are in many ways. They knew that sex sells so they got people to strut around in the nude, the news will report that so free advertising that reaches millions. Easy peasy. Next they appealed to celebrities, celebs want to be seen to have a social conscience so they will join a cause, every time a celeb speaks people listen and the media report it, again free advertising. I think if the brains trust of DOL can put away their cynicism (I am guilty of this as well) we could change the narrative on animal ownership in this country. Everyone here is at least 10x as smart as any of the PETA loonies so I am sure we could come up with some super marketing ideas to promote pure breed dogs and responsible ownership, and work on implementing some effective and lasting welfare practices. Yep. But I realy think the emphasis has to come off promoting PEDIGREE dogs, and promoting dogs with out the constant reference to pedigree. If an appreciation for the species can be taught, the pedigree is a logical conclusion or peak of the values and foundations learned to support the species. A dedication to the species will almost always lead to a breed. I think that to a point it has to come from a pedigree/pure breed point of reference because even with the bad rap pures get they are still respected as a "brand". That's why so many crossbreeders still try to market a dog with "papers" and make up registries to stick their dogs into, because the brand of a pedigree dog still has value. A pure breed dog is a dog with a known history and that is an ideal when people need a dog that fits their needs. While lots of people say they like variety and difference the reality is that if the dog doesn't fit their life they aren't likely to change their lifestyle to fit the dog, they are more likely to get rid of it. They don't always link the concept of pure with matching their lifestyle but that is the lack of communication and marketing more than anything else. As is the perception that pure breeds are for dog snobs. O.K . Good points. But I also think this addresses Steves concerns about how a minority is influencing the majority who have nothing to do with them. Its a culture thats developed over a long long time and what the K.Cs are today isn't what they always were. What they are today, or were yesterday doesn't have instant effects. Theres a time delay for effects to be felt and alter the culture. Just look at the people wanting to know what BREEDS their mutt has. Breed has a huge influence even if pedigree doesn't. Breeds and pedigrees are inextricably linked. I think the pure bred marketing would come from the simple fact that the majority of dedicated and knowledgeable mentors would be from the ranks of pedigree breeders. That those people and orgs. in general would be the ones contributing most to dogs in our communities. Demonstration of value is the best sales pitch. I think it would lead to better quality of members as well as less sniping ( and therefore attrition) within the orgs. It would be less about who is realy just a BYBer, a puppy farmer or whatever, and more about what dedication they bring to the foundations of good breeding practices and the purpose behind their individual breeding programs. The idea that there must BE a purpose to breeding practices, but it doesn't have to fit a single mold to have value to a section of the community. We need to accept that to some degree, or we caught up in this elimination of what doesn't suit our own standards, then complaining when we are the next victims. Because what we are realy doing is eliminating standards, or values. A body that can do those things has got to be a damn good brand.

That's the whole point i think. It's a complicated issue and the idea that the ANKC is the one at fault is overly simplistic. Says she watching her 18.5 year old Toy Poodle toddling past. Its not about whos at fault. I don't think any one here is trying to lay blame. Just discuss what is. If the K.Cs ARE blamed for any fault, Its not for things that were conciously chosen today, but mistakes made at inception of the orgs. that inherently carried through in the cultures development. And what I find so scary is that there are so many organizations and bodies that have made the same mistakes, far removed from anything to do with dogs. Maybe that has a lot to do with with how intolerant todays culture is of people who don't get every thing right 1st try.

So the fact that the "elitist" ANKC allows non-pedigree and crossbred dogs to compete in their dog sports is what precisely? Mutt bashing? What's the Associate Register? Protectionist? And all the ANKC breed club rescues taking on non-pedigree dogs (mostly non-pedigree actually). What's that? Treating dogs like bastard children? You are over defensive. But catering to people with associate registers and dog sports as long as the dogs taking part are speyed or neutered is kind of patronizing. Different standards.

WHAT change? Breed dogs so that the GP can have the 'right now' dog from us, not the pet shop? Sell to anyone who wants one rather than vet homes? Breed anything with a uterus to any dog with testicles and forget about health testing? Breed for what's popular regardless of what the breed standard says? Push pups out the door at six weeks cos they're cuter then ya know? It's not ANKC breeders filling the pounds. What seems to be the go these days is the idea that a pup can be had by anyone, at zero notice and that they are all just a standard dog in different costumes. Is THAT the change that we should be attempting to accommodate? The "its just a dog" paradigm is one that I want no part of and I expect that there is at least a proportion of society that agrees. The idea that what the majority wants is best does not fly with me. No. Show them how its done right and demonstrate the difference.

No breeder I know and respect considers what they do "work". As for blaming the ills of the dog world on the ANKC. The issue is bigger than that. The causes are myriad and a simplistic finger-pointing response that lays all blame at the door of registered breeders is a nonsense. The rise of the double income family, 450 sq m blocks and higher density living, changes to the cultural demographic and yes, animal rights campaigning are all shaping changes in attitudes to dogs. The amount of misinformation about dogs, dog breeds and dog raising is rife. I think that is the space where the ANKC best operates but when you have little money and the press prints what it wishes to, its a tough ask I'd like less finger pointing and more solutions that go beyond "they should". As I've already said, "they" should be "we". This is a very good point, however in the beginning PETA had bugger all money too, just a bunch of zealots. So how did they get so prominent and wealthy? They were very clever in their advertising in the beginning, still are in many ways. They knew that sex sells so they got people to strut around in the nude, the news will report that so free advertising that reaches millions. Easy peasy. Next they appealed to celebrities, celebs want to be seen to have a social conscience so they will join a cause, every time a celeb speaks people listen and the media report it, again free advertising. I think if the brains trust of DOL can put away their cynicism (I am guilty of this as well) we could change the narrative on animal ownership in this country. Everyone here is at least 10x as smart as any of the PETA loonies so I am sure we could come up with some super marketing ideas to promote pure breed dogs and responsible ownership, and work on implementing some effective and lasting welfare practices. Yep. But I realy think the emphasis has to come off promoting PEDIGREE dogs, and promoting dogs with out the constant reference to pedigree. If an appreciation for the species can be taught, the pedigree is a logical conclusion or peak of the values and foundations learned to support the species. A dedication to the species will almost always lead to a breed.

The major difference which links in with some of MM points is that the people who are members of a group. ANKC, AAPDB and the MDBA hear it, see it, and we know its in the mix . We can all tell our stories of how our members are targeted and how we are punched up on pretty much every level by animal rights. As groups we have choices in how we will respond in order to create change or fight for where we are and want to stay. The rest of the members of the wider environment who are not being kept upto date on what is going one will still know to keep an eye out for the radicals but they wont see a possible ban on them breeding certain breed types coming. Whats more we all know - those within and outside of the ANKC environment that they [the ANKC - own the breed standard that they run the shows that these breeds compete in and everyone seriously expects that if it is a situation where any part of what they publicly proudly make so much money out of is under threat that of all groups, all environments or all members of that environment that this is where the battle will rage . If this environment group isn't going to pull their gloves on and fight for those who breed these breed types then who will? And to be honest why would the rest of the world want to be included rather than get as far away from them as possible to save themselves? Yes. The disconnect again. Ordinary people are pretty blind to the threat of having dogs taken away from them.

It's most people, including most breeders. You'd think most pet owners would be in favour of higher standards of breeder care and health testing. So why do they keep buying puppy farm dogs? Because 'registered breeders' ie, ANKC member body, and their members, come across as exclusive, which they are, by the very nature of the membership. They go and buy puppy farm dogs because those breeders work within the larger less exclusive environment of 'most people' I'm not saying it's great, just saying that it is that way 'Registered breeders' need to find ways to become less exclusive and more involved with 'most people' .. If they don't at best they will just remain their own little exclusive environment with little meaning to most people, at worst they will cease to exist because of the pressure of 'most people'.......which in the interests of staying on topic, is pretty much what has happened to greyhound racing NSW They go and buy puppy farm dogs because they can get one from them - because there is no where near enough bred by ANKC registered breeders to fill the demand. Sure some wont like how some registered breeders make the process harder but most of us don't in fact lots of us will sell to anyone without a care in the world about where they are going. For now the environment [ the general public] is as desensitised to the way a particular breed characteristic makes the dogs they choose suffer as the people who are breeding them are. Registered breeders who are breeding them are a drip in the ocean of the rest who are breeding them. The other bit of the environment wants less dogs to suffer because of how they are selected and it gets bigger and louder every day. The strategy from every one breeding them and owning them is denial whether they are pedigreed or not and until there is an acknowledgment that its a problem and it needs to be dealt with its a threat to the status quo - but Im curious as to how such a small minority ecxclusib=ve group[ environment] is expected to be able to control what those outside of their environment do and how they can not be in the muck as the plug is pulled. The greyhound thing really was/ is exclusive. You cant breed a grey or race it unless you were part of that exclusive gang [environment] but anyone can breed a pug without being a part of any environment [ group]. You can't control what those people out side your environment do. ( tho' thats attempted now, by calls to ban them ) What you can do is help to shape the environment to hold higher expectations, to be better than that. The Grey industry has been far more exclusive. Technicaly, you could breed a grey just as easily as a Peke. But there would be little purpose to it. Purpose Is central to these issues. A big part of why catering more to people who want a PET is essential for the K.Cs.

Yep. But people expectations are also shaped by what they get and see. If you don't see dogs that stand out for being extrordinarily good, you won't expect to find dogs that can be.

Thanks Gruff. I wish I could be plainer, but this is the way I talk. Its not such a problem face to face. Buy yeah, you have it right. When you create an organization, you are creating an environment with its own purpose. Thats not usualy a problem, because its still just PART of an environment out of many parts. The problem is when its a closed or exclusive organization. It sets limits its pupose. Its no longer just another part of the whole. Its distinct from the rest. Its members are responding to that organized environment alone. The demands from out side are an intrusion on that space. Theres very little give and take of messages to act on. The message its members act on are those set out at its inception. The culture is set, or fixed and not able to quickly adapt or respond to change. Its an environment for its members, but since it 'acts' independently of the larger environment, its also an identity. Or another 'self' but far more influential on the larger environment than you or me on our own because of the sheer numbers of individuals all acting on the same message. Each in their own way, yes. But still the single environment and the messages its members receive from THAT environment. If its an exclusive org, Its messages must take precedence and its members a fixed single identity. The purpose( keeping pedigrees) isn't the problem. Thats an identity that serves a purpose. The exclusive nature is. Because that makes it an environment IN an identity it can't escape. It can't effectively respond to any demands out side of its ' self '. It can't be both a distinct identity and an isolated environment. An environment does not respond. It can only demand. So what is your solution? The 'environment' outside of of the ANKC Is everyone else other than their members, which is a lot of people, largely ordinary pet owners and non pet owners. The ANKC have created their own little environment in which is members are stuck, exclusively. The bigger, outside environment, ie, the general public, is demanding change, but the exclusive environment of the ANKC inhibits change by its very nature. The solution lies in the smaller environment, the ANKC, making itself less exclusive and more able to adapt to the bigger environment, the general public. I don't have answers on how they can do that, maybe moosmum doesn't either. What she has done is realise and explain the problem. The change can only come from within. The larger outside environment of the general public is putting more and more pressure on the smaller exclusive environment of the ANKC. The smaller environment will implode unless it finds ways to become more harmonious and inclusive to the larger environment. Right now the ANKC (and all that encompasses) are sort of in the pressure cooker. They have to vent enough pressure into the outside environment or they will explode/destruct. Geez MM I'm starting to sound like you! I am an uneducated person. If I can get my head around it surely it can't be that hard. You just have to think about it. Yes I understood all of that and I agree - to a point . I still get frustrated and lost when the pedigree environment or system or whatever is in the mix. As to how they can do that - I don't believe they can based on the current system and I conceded about 13 years ago that I couldn't see them changing from within. So we started another environment that isn't exclusive that has adapted and does continue to do so with changing world environment. Fact is this particular issue is about conformational characteristics which are being bred into a dog which compromise its health and welfare which is now on the radar and being tagged cruelty. This is not unique to the ANKC or the pedigree system - some may argue it was originally caused by the show system and breed standards but in the year 2016 thousands of people breed these dogs and most are far outside of this exclusive environment. They are part of the environment as a whole. if over night the ANKC became less exclusive and let them all in and throw their stud books open without any restriction and were therefore more inclusive how do you see that this would stop the breeding of dogs which suffer due to the way they are selected - how do you think by being more inclusive this would prevent legislation into the future which may prohibit some conformational issues or breeds or showing when so many outside of the current environment do so now and whether they are in or out will continue to do so. So in amongst all of this environment talk - which I would be more able to keep up with if each environment was named as a more conventional description - where in all of this do ratbags, zealots, radicals fit in when they are nothing more than a small but noisy cashed up part of the game? The 1st part of your question re; how to reduce the more extreme traits being bred. I think by starting with a DOG. Not a standard for a breed. I think we should start at the beginning, not the end. When I got into horses, I found great mentor and better friend. I thought I understood conformation. We looked at horse after horse. Picture after picture. We went to shows and critiqued for our selves. I was asked " What is wrong with this picture" . It didn't matter what breed of horse it was. They all depend on straight legs, good angles of shoulder and rump etc.to be fit for purpose. They can be little dumpy ponies or sleek Arabians or heavy draft animals. They all depend on rounded barrels for lung and heart room. Pasterns neither too straight or sloped, croups neither too long or short. When people show dedication to the SPECIES, then encourage those people to a breed, tho' they will not likely need any by then. Every one is going to have preferences of what type of dog the prefer and think they can contribute to. As for the radicals. They are small in numbers, just loud. If we can be united behind the SPECIES and our desire to keep them, that voice won't have so much volume or gain so much support.

It's most people, including most breeders. You'd think most pet owners would be in favour of higher standards of breeder care and health testing. So why do they keep buying puppy farm dogs? A big part is because there IS a disconnect. They don't understand the processes of sourcing a good breeder. They don't understand what a good breeder does or why they do it. Thats not taught or demonstrated. The pedigree is given as the answer. Not the things a good pedigree is founded on.

What a mess.

Thanks Gruff. I wish I could be plainer, but this is the way I talk. Its not such a problem face to face. Buy yeah, you have it right. When you create an organization, you are creating an environment with its own purpose. Thats not usualy a problem, because its still just PART of an environment out of many parts. The problem is when its a closed or exclusive organization. It sets limits its pupose. Its no longer just another part of the whole. Its distinct from the rest. Its members are responding to that organized environment alone. The demands from out side are an intrusion on that space. Theres very little give and take of messages to act on. The message its members act on are those set out at its inception. The culture is set, or fixed and not able to quickly adapt or respond to change. Its an environment for its members, but since it 'acts' independently of the larger environment, its also an identity. Or another 'self' but far more influential on the larger environment than you or me on our own because of the sheer numbers of individuals all acting on the same message. Each in their own way, yes. But still the single environment and the messages its members receive from THAT environment. If its an exclusive org, Its messages must take precedence and its members a fixed single identity. The purpose( keeping pedigrees) isn't the problem. Thats an identity that serves a purpose. The exclusive nature is. Because that makes it an environment IN an identity it can't escape. It can't effectively respond to any demands out side of its ' self '. It can't be both a distinct identity and an isolated environment. An environment does not respond. It can only demand. I like your posts too. they do what so many are loath too. think! Thanks. Glad I am doing something! :laugh:

Thanks Gruff. I wish I could be plainer, but this is the way I talk. Its not such a problem face to face. Buy yeah, you have it right. When you create an organization, you are creating an environment with its own purpose. Thats not usualy a problem, because its still just PART of an environment out of many parts. The problem is when its a closed or exclusive organization. It sets limits its pupose. Its no longer just another part of the whole. Its distinct from the rest. Its members are responding to that organized environment alone. The demands from out side are an intrusion on that space. Theres very little give and take of messages to act on. The message its members act on are those set out at its inception. The culture is set, or fixed and not able to quickly adapt or respond to change. Its an environment for its members, but since it 'acts' independently of the larger environment, its also an identity. Or another 'self' but far more influential on the larger environment than you or me on our own because of the sheer numbers of individuals all acting on the same message. Each in their own way, yes. But still the single environment and the messages its members receive from THAT environment. If its an exclusive org, Its messages must take precedence and its members a fixed single identity. The purpose( keeping pedigrees) isn't the problem. Thats an identity that serves a purpose. The exclusive nature is. Because that makes it an environment IN an identity it can't escape. It can't effectively respond to any demands out side of its ' self '. It can't be both a distinct identity and an isolated environment. An environment does not respond. It can only demand. So what is your solution? Theres a disconnect because of a 'line in the sand' The pedigree. Thats the line. ( and why pedigree comes up) Blur the line. Scuff it. It doesn't have to be an elite or an exclusive field to keep pedigrees for pure breed dogs, or even to keep them pure. Any one can full the criteria to become a member, follow the rules and gain those pedigree certificate to be an 'exclusive' or 'elite' breeder. Thats what we tell them to do if they are to have any credibility at all as a breeder. The full membership and pedigree certificates give them credentials as elite and exclusive breeders. Wrong message as I see it. It shouldn't be seen as an elite or exclusive field (or identity/environment) to be a breeder producing what people want. It can't be if it expects to meet the needs of the community beyond its own borders. It should be a dedicated field. You throw a whole lot of stuff out the window right there. The FOUNDATION of a good dog isn't a pedigree paper bestowed on it. The foundations of a good dog is dedication. To understanding dog husbandry, behavior, traits,temperament, purpose, conformation, health genetics etc that allows a person use use the information they have. The pedigree allows a dedicated person to do it more effectively. It doesn't give you a good dog if the foundations aren't there. Promoting the end result of good breeders work isn't the same as promoting the foundations of a good breeder. Not unless it ends there.

Thanks Gruff. I wish I could be plainer, but this is the way I talk. Its not such a problem face to face. Buy yeah, you have it right. When you create an organization, you are creating an environment with its own purpose. Thats not usualy a problem, because its still just PART of an environment out of many parts. The problem is when its a closed or exclusive organization. It sets limits its pupose. Its no longer just another part of the whole. Its distinct from the rest. Its members are responding to that organized environment alone. The demands from out side are an intrusion on that space. Theres very little give and take of messages to act on. The message its members act on are those set out at its inception. The culture is set, or fixed and not able to quickly adapt or respond to change. Its an environment for its members, but since it 'acts' independently of the larger environment, its also an identity. Or another 'self' but far more influential on the larger environment than you or me on our own because of the sheer numbers of individuals all acting on the same message. Each in their own way, yes. But still the single environment and the messages its members receive from THAT environment. If its an exclusive org, Its messages must take precedence and its members a fixed single identity. The purpose( keeping pedigrees) isn't the problem. Thats an identity that serves a purpose. The exclusive nature is. Because that makes it an environment IN an identity it can't escape. It can't effectively respond to any demands out side of its ' self '. It can't be both a distinct identity and an isolated environment. An environment does not respond. It can only demand.

Heres how I see it then. In laymans terms. You are staking every thing on a reality that exists only in the K.Cs. You won't recognize any other possible reality. Its got to be Pedgirees all the way. You will risk every thing, for every one on your belief the pedigree system alone has a future. Pedigree dogs, Or no dogs. If your faith is so great you better pray. I'll be looking for a more favorable response to DOGS else where. Theres no time for this. Looks like this is the best response I can hope for here ("Academic weasel words") I tried. Dog help you.