moosmum

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.

That too. Unless you keep telling them different. You couldn't have just said so? I have. In many different ways. If you can't be bothered to understand the science for yourself, I guess it can't touch you. Only 'A.R' can. So 'round and 'round we go. Nah, Its covered. I''m not doing this again.

A few points- Re the above. Those breeders do not have the flexibility they should or could have. It is extremely difficult to openly and honestly source good dogs from pedigree breeders who know and understand their own dogs back ground and traits. Their purpose in breeding at all is questioned and tarnished. Nor can those breeders compete in any way to demonstrate successful qualities and traits. Not when nearly all events designed to demonstrate those qualities and traits are K.C sponsored and not open to unrecognized breeds. Breed wardens I believe just add yet another level of bias to what qualities are being sought, when catering to more variety of needs would do more good. Breed wardens decrease possibilities and who can benefit from the breeds in question when we should be finding ways to meet MORE needs. Working dogs may be better off in some ways,some times. They are are still affected by many of the same problems with limited selection criteria of ritualized 'testing' for purpose, popular sires, and closed industries dictating what can be used by the way its tested - In a ring, not in the field. The evidence says to me that the Pedigree breeder Identity does not believe in dogs. They believe in pedigrees. The pedigree breeder Identity teaches the community that supports it, and Dogs in general, not to believe in dogs, but to believe in a Pedigree. But the Pedigree breeder Identity can't give us demonstrations of why we should believe in a Pedigree. So none of can believe in dogs. And you cry victim?!

Who promotes the breed specific traits as so predictable?

That too. Unless you keep telling them different.

I don't know. I don't have a purpose for such a cross myself. It would depend entirely on some one seeing a purpose. Maybe for increased resiliance over rugged terrain? But adapting to purpose when you see one is evolution. It needn't change the whippet, or sighthound, but could become a new breed for registration if theres enough need to support that purpose. The predictable, inherent speed is the obvious value brought to the cross and maybe whippets and sight hounds are just fine as they are for now. As breeds. But let the purpose evolve. Or would you rather the purpose and standards of the dogs remain frozen in time? Like the greyhound industry? wWhat is the reason for the disconnect? There is one.