moosmum

You are mostly right. The pedigree system is no more or less flawed than any other section. Its all a mess. As for opening stud books, I am not saying they should be. Thats a case by case thing. I am saying in the current culture of pedigree breeders thats very unlikely to happen in a timely way when it might BE needed, because there IS a fostered disbelief in 'breaking' a closed line, or altering accepted standards. Cross breeding. Its seen as a dilution of standards. The pedigree breeder culture MUST accept that there can be value in a non pedigree dog before they will accept any dilution of pedigrees as they are now, At this point in time. 'Standards' of practice can be brought to dogs with out a pedigree. Standards are not the preserve of pedigrees alone. The pedigree 'Breed' standards are set in time. So there needs to be recognition of value in breeding for purposes other than the pedigree itself. For the dogs and the people who want them. Regardless of a pedigree. And the only way I can see to do that is to encourage good knowledgeable breeders to put that knowledge to use. Show what CAN be accomplished with GOOD practices out side the pedigree standards. Cross breed for purposes outside the pedigree system to meet demands and promote the practices that DO bring value. Pedigree dogs can contribute to values out side the pedigree system itself, and non pedigree dogs can still contribute to a purpose. Then you should start to get support for common purpose in keeping dogs instead of this steady attrition. The opening of stud books would still be up to the breed clubs and the K.Cs. But there would be value on display to compare and choose from. Demonstrated.

So this is a sport for pet dogs of all breeds and crossbreeds that has no live baiting, no wastage and no gambling. Result? Restrictions, legislation and criminalisation of participants. Just fantastic. Last attempt. You ban one environment where things aren't doing well and it will have flow on effects to other environments. How can not? The whole environment that supports dogs is a single environment. There is a belief in the K.Cs that pedigree dogs are the future- Nothing wrong with that belief, except that it comes with a DIS- belief there can be any future in non pedigree dogs. That Disbelief is actively promoted in the community. Destroying its appreciation and understanding of any purpose for dogs in the community. Unless you happen to be part of a K.C registered body. ( which sees itself as distinct from the general community anyway) Every time a part of that community environment is lost it has flow on effects for the K.Cs .And vise versa. This is entirely predictable. So glad we're supporting your theory. Bully for you. Wish it felt better from the inside. You do realise that crossbred dogs are captured by this too? You think this makes me happy!!? Of course I realize cross bred dogs are caught up in this too. It is a single species. What effects part affects all.

So this is a sport for pet dogs of all breeds and crossbreeds that has no live baiting, no wastage and no gambling. Result? Restrictions, legislation and criminalisation of participants. Just fantastic. Last attempt. You ban one environment where things aren't doing well and it will have flow on effects to other environments. How can it not? The whole environment that supports dogs is a single environment. There is a belief in the K.Cs that pedigree dogs are the future- Nothing wrong with that belief, except that it comes with a DIS- belief there can be any future in non pedigree dogs. That Disbelief is actively promoted in the community. Destroying its appreciation and understanding of any purpose for dogs in the community. Unless you happen to be part of a K.C registered body. ( which sees itself as distinct from the general community anyway) This disbelief is not based on the dogs themselves, but on the practices of those operating outside of a K.C registered body. There is nothing definitive about practices that divide a pedigree from a non pedigree breeder. So both are affected. Every time a part of that community environment is lost it has flow on effects for the K.Cs .And vise versa. This is entirely predictable.

Yes. Sheridan's is an accurate precis. FFS I'm trying to save your sorry 'victim' butts, poor you and poor my my breed. Guess you are on your own. Suggest you start by explaining how you are saving poor us in language we can comprehend. With you there. I find it incredibly difficult to read mm's posts. I can comprehend basically everyone else's posts, even the longer ones, but there is another language in mm's posts which just don't seem to sink in. I've even read a so-called explanation and it made no sense. I don't really have much to add to this conversation but I would suggest the reason the owners of Greyhounds are suggesting they'll have to put their dogs down is because the money they were getting in prize money etc. was going toward feeding their dogs. Maybe I'm just a farmer's daughter but if I don't have a use for an animal (including enjoying their company), it has to go. With the tide of Greyhounds being out of a job, there will most likely be many needing homes & not enough homes - would it be better if people end up on the street just so they can feed their dogs?? Or perhaps it's a sensible choice to put the dogs to sleep rather than risk it ending up in a bad position due to a rushed rehoming process. If I can't be understood maybe a few breeders should make an effort to understand evolutionary biology on their own. Seems an important field to ignore if you are trying to develop breeds for posterity. Its a two tiered system of the dogs being bred in an organized system, and the cultural effects on that by the breeders. I give up. I suspect your beliefs quite literaly blind you to a logic of any other reality.

Yes. Sheridan's is an accurate precis. FFS I'm trying to save your sorry 'victim' butts, poor you and poor my my breed. Guess you are on your own.

If there is ever a ban placed on the breeding of dogs with specific conformation it wont be only placed on those who are only breeding dogs with traceable pedigrees or those who only place importance on them. There are many many more people who are breeding dogs with brachy heads than those who use a pedigree system who will be affected .The banning of Scottish fold cats doesnt mention a pedigree or whether someone even has a pedigree for the cat or if they are wiythin the cat pedigree system - its about how the cat looks. The pedigree system has already done what they wanted and made it against their codes to breed close relatives because some u beaut professor decided that it was all about in breeding rather than selection. The Pedigree system, like the Grey hound industry, is not an inclusive cultural identity. Its an exclusive one. No. Banns won't only affect pedigrees. They will affect cultural standards and values. Because they won't be shared. Again, Its a single species and can't be divided along lines of value. What reduces one section of the environment reduces all in one way or another. Less resources available for purpose. We lose purpose. Sharing values through inclusive cultures allows for the best of all demonstrated values to be chosen in support of any specific purpose, adding to it. Exclusive cultures do the opposite. Reducing the 'standards' (or values) we accept reduces the species. Its all those standards and values together that allow the community to choose from those that ADD to their purpose.

Because a pedigree is the value chosen to divide the pedigree breeder identity from the general environment. Thru' an inherent, promoted, DIS-belief in other values.

No, It doesn't. So we are left with no other choices in our response. I wouldn't call them 'ideals' Its how things work. See Richard Dawkins( evolutionary Biologist) on Faith. 'Beliefs' are fine until you accept them as truths and refuse to any challenge to them, yet act on them as truth and ask every one else to do the same. Only hes talking religious faith and human generations/ environment. Here we are talking of a biological 'belief' and its effects on dogs and their environment. Much shorter generations and much faster effect. A belief in the pedigree system is beneficial. It ceases to be beneficial when it demands breeding outside a pedigree system ISN"T beneficial and there is no value to be had out side its own systems. Its not about the pedigree system its about what groups of people within an industry - any industry see as cruel when it doesn't match up with those who think otherwise. All of those activities such as fox hunting, pig hunting, rabbit hunting, etc have dogs chasing live bait - why would those involved in these activities be eager to stop people doing what it is they all see as normal and not cruel Its about changing views within the community,some win some dont depends how loud those outside of the industry shout - its about treatment of animals far far removed from a pedigree. I have NEVER said its about the pedigree. Its not about your belief in a pedigree, which is beneficial. Its about a disbelief in any other values. Yes, community views are changing. But these industries do not consider themselves just a part of that community. They have a separate identity. I doubt those who hunt etc, are adding their voices to this debate- they won't want to be drawing any attention to their own practices or purpose because will would make them next. They will be brought to attention sooner or later. Just like every one else in line while we wittle away environments where dogs can thrive, and people who can support them with the responses they've learned and can teach by doing that. But if its a single species, there must be recognition its a single community/environment and we ALL share responsibility for its health. We can't share the same values if we don't see to it they WILL be shared.

Exactly. The insular, isolated identity of a participant in that industry. An identity with its own individual traits, world view and realities that can't understand what people outside the industry are trying to tell them, and people out side the industry can't understand the value of its practices. There is no way to share the benefits with out commiting to that identity . The benefits are limmited to that identity and not shared with the environment beyond it. Any who tries for quicker change within the industry can't gain acceptance as a true part of that identity. Gambling is an entirely different matter and there will always be alternatives to gamble on.

No, It doesn't. So we are left with no other choices in our response. I wouldn't call them 'ideals' Its how things work. See Richard Dawkins( evolutionary Biologist) on Faith. 'Beliefs' are fine until you accept them as truths and refuse to any challenge to them, yet act on them as truth and ask every one else to do the same. Only hes talking religious faith and human generations/ environment. Here we are talking of a biological 'belief' and its effects on dogs and their environment. Much shorter generations and much faster effect. A belief in the pedigree system is beneficial. It ceases to be beneficial when it demands breeding outside a pedigree system ISN"T beneficial and there is no value to be had out side its own systems.

The same can just as easily be said of dog breeders, by people who are kept at a distance from the industry and have no understanding of it but what they see in the media. You may disagree, but this is just the beginning. Unless the public is given a stake and the means to reclaim responsibility for direction of the species its inevitable. A pedigree can not define a dog or a breeder. To act on the message that it does is to reduce environments able to support dogs. All a K.C can ever realy be is a SPECIFIC environment. If its the only legitimate environment, it will work over time to reduce all environments. By denying those communities an ability to respond favorably to the dogs produced there. They will always be held to be sub standard goods produced unethicaly. Those communities will forget how to respond to those dogs to get the most out them, if any attempts meet scorn and resistance and the products always said to be inferior. Regardless of what dogs are used or careful expertise, if the practices or responses aren't taught. They can't be taught if the K.Cs insist, as an expert identity, that none out side their orgs. could possibly have any credentials. The dogs loose value to communities because they aren't getting the most out of them and so the dogs aren't meeting their needs. That spills over into affecting pedigree dogs as well, if people aren't being taught how to respond to the species. Because it IS a single species. So the Kennel Orgs. blame the community for their lack of responsibility and reduce the chances that they will be associated with any of that by condemning the environments that show so little respect (for those values no one may teach them.) They hold on to good breeding stock, spey early and issue limit registers to say we take no responsibility if this dog is bred from out side the pedigree system it comes from. It was not for breeding. The quality and suitability of domestic dogs deteriorates with few known good candidates available for even semi predictable quality to join with any dogs that do stand out for desired traits (if not pedigree) while the more reliably bred pedigrees them selves are rarely bred 1st with a family pet in mind and popular sires from the show ring are over represented. Domestic dogs are no longer bred 1st for for suitability in purely domestic environments. As the environment/community for domestic dogs: We lose responsibility, or an ability to respond favorably to the species and so it no longer meets our needs and expectations. The cost is too great and its easier to do with out where things go wrong. So as a community, we ban another possible environment where dogs were still welcome. All thats standing in the way of a CHANCE to reverse this process is to say 'A dog is a dog, and a breeder is a breeder and we should take personal responsibility to see that anyone who wants to be involved with Dogs can be. We will do our best to help them understand how to respond to the dog to get the most out of it, and any dogs produced have the lives intended by the breeder. As citizens who value dogs. Not as representatives of the only valid system that can practice with any degree of ethics. To do that doesn't take any value away from a pedigree dog or breeder. It adds value in the eyes of the community for the service of a healthier environment for dogs, and a new appreciation of the value of knowledge a pedigree provides. A pedigree dog will ALWAYS offer more predictable traits for more specific requirements. As long as people learn to respond to and value dogs, that predictability will be sought and favored in ownership and breeding. If that response is not taught, The community with an ability to respond FAVORABLY to the species will shrink further and less need seen for dogs of any stripe. More so Pedigrees because they're even more of an unknown than a mutt in the publics eyes, and the process of buying is often not pleasant. One day it will click with some one. Hope its not too late. There are physical laws governing response-ability that affect the evolutionary direction of any species. Set or fixed ideas are like a genetic code for a fixed trait. They reduce ability to respond or adapt to environmental change or stress by blocking the direction of responses that don't support those beliefs. A collective of people with the same 'genetic' message or belief will affect their environment collectively.

Better go and look at the figures the - ANKC is very much a minority group in fact in 2015 only 79 breeders in australia who were registered with the ANKC had 10 litters and defining the wrong - this is the tricky bit . Some people don't see any wrong in dogs being humanely PTS if they don't work or run fast enough - some call it wastage and animal cruelty but others call it life. There is nothing in the animal cruelty laws which defines culling dogs which don't cut the grade humanely a criminal or even a cruel act. Some people think killing a dog for any reason unacceptable - look at the thread re rescue dogs who are aggressive .So its O.K. to kill a dog because it has a temperament that doesn't fit requirements for quick and easy placement in a family but not O.K. to kill a dog that doesn't fit requirements for winning races or herding sheep and cant be quickly and appropriately rehomed? How do you expect that they the ANKC will act against those doing the wrong thing by ever growing community standards when they encourage it and actually have regs which govern maintaining. I can just see them going after a pug breeder and throwing them out because they have bred dogs with breathing problems. So in all seriousness what do you see as things which are wrong or some of their members are doing wrong that they should be acting against - that there is a reasonable expectation that they would act against? The figures the public sees are the figures that matter. Thousands of young animals euthanised for not being suitable, thousands of animals tortured for the sport. Societies which represent breeds and breeders hold the future in their hands. For example knowing the huge euthanasia rates in greys why does the association not restrict breeding to numbers that are more sustainable? We know why, because registration $ are important, but that just proves the point that money trumps welfare in the these bodies which have the power to enact change but refuse to do so. "It wasn't me" isn't going to be enough when the question is asked "why didn't you do anything?" You know what the issues are in the dog world just as I know what the issues are in the horse world, address those issues and be seen doing it. If someone's poor practices are tolerated by the governing bodies we need to ask why. If everything is perfect and no one ever does the wrong thing then show it. If someone does the wrong thing show how they are dealt with. Was listening to Temple Grandin speak the other day, she said "don't let bad become normal" "we can't escape the phone camera it's everywhere". She hammered the point that industry has to be open and honest and seen to be addressing the issues. It was in the context of production animals but it applies across the board I think. Essentially we need to address issues, zero tolerance, and be seen to be addressing them. If someone is breeding so many they need to cull a significant portion then that is not best practice and not sustainable. The public isn't going to care if it's only one person doing it they are going to ask why is that one person still allowed to do this. Why didn't anyone who knew about it put a stop to it? So why didn't we? Bad becomes normal when we only show case the bad. When we don't show the good, and how it was achieved. As for percentage and numbers of pedigree breeders, the percentage and numbers are irrelevant. The group identity has influence as an 'expert' and distinct body. Even more so when they teach the 'pedigree breeder' identity is the only correct response to community demands and expectations from dogs. Zero tolerance is not the answer. Teaching effective response is. Teaching how to respond to the species to get maximum value with the minimum cost -to that species and the environment it exists in. Teach effective response so people have the tools to take responsibility for their own choices, and those who don't will not prosper for it. No matter what their group identity is. People recognize a LACK of values. When they understand the reasoning behind positive values they have the tools to address them. Not before. eg; the example of the grey breeder working with rescue and minimizing his own wastage with carefully planned breeding. Taking personal responsibility in SPITE of industry demands. How does the group industry identity reward that? Does it hold his example up as a favorable response to community demands? And does the industry identity contribute anything positive to community so that it sees a need to preserve that identity? How do they include the community to foster an interest in this purpose for dogs? Because thats how you teach an ability to respond to the challenges of the purpose. By demonstrating the rewards of doing so. To the community. The costs imposed can be kept to a minimum, when the community has an interest in seeing that they are. Because THEY benefit from seeing they are kept to a minimum. The industry can't do that for itself. It has to be for the communities benefit, not their own. The ability to respond, or take responsibility, is governed by physical laws. Identity and belief (or perceptions of identity) impact on that ability in the same way as genetics impact on a species ability to respond. The environment places stresses on a species or identity. An evolutionary or adaptive response may or may not be the result depending on an inherent ability to adapt, and the diversity available to facilitate that adaptation through more effective responses. The most effective being favored for success by the decrease in stress factors being felt. The environment does not 'respond' to a species or identities demands (or costs imposed ) Those only deplete and limit the environment available over time. Rejection, due to damage. A species or identity only gains favor in the environment by demonstrating responses to environmental stressors that DON"T impose costs on the environment. Neither gets a favored response or benefit from the environment with out a purpose that benefits the health of that environment. Thats how the environment (or a supportive community) grows and expands. To support the species or identity that can respond the stresses and demands as they occur. So there are fewer stresses and costs imposed on the species or identity- less attrition from a healthier, evolving environment or community. It seems this concept of a community as an environment, and peoples role as a species with distinct identities, traits and abilities to respond is hard for people to grasp. Responsibility is an individual trait and diversity aids that ability as a species. Specific set identity that can't show a benefit the community beyond that identity imposes costs on its environment and resources that must limit it. Specific and set identity as a goal limits the diversity and response it allows. Re; Temple Grandin 'open and honest and SEEN to be addressing the issues'- An industry won't do any of those things with out recognition its 'being' is not a given, but depends on delivering a service to appreciate and uphold. Not costs and impositions its easier to do with out. ANKC may have nothing to do with the Grey industry, but there are enough similarities in cause and effect to take notice.

This kind of rhetoric sounds fine in theory. In reality there are a myriad of conflicting values held by society and it is up to the democratic process to resile them. A process thrown to the wind by Mr Baird by his picking one of 78 recommendations from the Commission's report and announcing it as a done deal. Where is the community deciding THIS as a whole??? The amount of misinformation surrounding this issue is, quite simply, astounding. Most people are responding emotionally. Fair enough. But they are responding to limited facts and a deliberate campaign of misinformation. Lets start with the "facts" that Greyhound racing is banned in most US states. And Greyhounds all sleep 22 hours a day and will be thrilled to live in your 2 bedroom flat while you work 10 hours a day. Then who should take responsibility for seeing correct information is given? Where are these individuals who will stand up and take that responsibility? It starts with individuals. You see a problem and understand that a better response is available. Who has the ability to respond? Who is going to take response- ability? Not the organization that is 1st consideration of identity.. Its only responsible for itself. It will not be held responsible for individual identity. There can be no such thing in its select individuality. Its identity is set. It IS an individual with fixed traits. An identity. Who is going to see the community has the correct tools ( or information ) on the best ways to deal with these problems if they they are the preserve only of specialist group identities. Theres no one left to co ordinate responses to every ones benefit. If you have the ability to respond then you have an ability to use it. Thats taking responsibility. By making sure people see your purpose benefits THEM. And they want to respond to it to get the most out of it. We can avoid B.S.L because people understand their own ability to respond as individuals to a need.

I think they might have to start enforcing their own rules if various governments are just going to wave a magic wand and shut down an entire industry because some are treating animals badly. Just look at all the puppy farms... I'm sure the RSPCA would shut more down if they could prove there was a problem and when they did there were sufficient sanctions to stop repeat offences. There's a double whammy - proving what looks obvious to us - isn't so easy with the current law, and when they do successfully prosecute the most appalling cases - the offenders get slapped with a tiny fine as if animal cruelty doesn't matter. NSW and other governments are using the wrong fix for the wrong problem - similar to BSL applied in Victoria - not dealing with the source of the problem or preventing dog bites etc. Will end up like Italy with 95 different dog breeds banned or declared dangerous? It is no longer the job of the government to fix the problem. It is the job of industry to fix it. Government has been extricating itself from regulatory roles for quite some time now, none of this should be a surprise. If an industry cannot show it self able to self regulate it is not considered a viable indsutry any more. Its NOT the job of Govt. and its not the job of ANKC or any other group. Its an individual responsibility to the community. Not to a group you identify with. Where the K.Cs fall down is in promoting the group ( pedigree breeders) as the solution. Instead of the practices and knowledge that provide solutions. Theres an inability to demonstrate the proof of them while the pedigree itself is required 1st, for recognition of good practice to be aknowledged. The group identity supercedes community expectations. If pedigree certification is needed before a K.Cs can aknowledge good practice or results, they are not taking or promoting responsibility for good practice and results. Only for a group identity defined by a pedigree. A breed will eventualy fail to meet community expectations while its identity is decided by groups in specified isolation from that community. No self appointed "group" identity can better its environment from the perspective of that group alone. The environment/community as a whole will decide direction and validity. But it MUST be given the ability to respond effectively, thru promotion of SHARED values and demonstrations of their benefits. A single, isolated group identity can only operate on beliefs, truth from its own perspective. Other environments face different realities. Their relevance can't be ignored with out risking chaos. World politics ATM. attests to that. A group can not replace personal responsibility with group beliefs. Individuals respond for change to occur. Groups can only provide an environment to encourage it. A 1st group identity divides us into group identities, based on beliefs, not realities.

Seems to me Zero tolerance is fine, but only when every one understands why so are practicing it at an individual level. Information on how to achieve best results with least cost ( not just financial ) means poor practices are more likely to be shunned. Because people have expectations and people have an understanding why poor practices don't support those expectations. So we all need to start talking about what we should be expecting from those who breed dogs,what we should expect from dogs, and why. That is the only way people CAN be responsible. When they can see the value and benefits brought by GOOD practices. If they SEE and understand how certain practices add value, they will look for that. Or be shunned in favor of those who do. Shunned or favored as a group, if thats how they identify themselves . If the group identity comes 1st, then that group identity will decide the value of those benefits to itself before it allows them to gain favor within. Individuals must benefit their fixed group identity to gain favor in that group. But the ultimate judgement comes from outside the group, from the community. If breeders are going to say they know better and should be allowed to do things as they have always been done, then they better be demonstrating the success and value of those methods to the community. By Community standards, not just their own group identity standards. Its community standards and expectations they they depend on. So they had better be showing that what they do makes the community better. That there are benefits to the community in supporting breeders. And that means making sure breeders understand what the community expects of them and the dogs they breed, beyond their group identity. All dog breeders ARE in the same basket. It is a single species and the expectations of the community will apply to any breeder. Registered or not. Zero tolerance in the present climate is not aimed at people who do the wrong thing. Its aimed at group identities whos separate group status isolates them from common expectations. By their own group environment. Identity politics. They will not be meeting expectations, Because the group identity refuses to recognize that all breeders are in the same basket. Because you share a group identity, that doesn't confer the right to ignore broader community expectation, or to enforce that 'group' expectation on the broader community. Responsibility doesn't put a single group identity 1st, and still expect broader support. That just absolves individuals of responsibility to the community, for a group identity they have little ability to influence. Because a group identity is founded on what separates it from the community, as long as it comes 1st. Ultimate responsibility is to the community. The environment that supports them and demands value in return. That value needs to be demonstrated. Not just the costs the community or environment should not have to pay. A group identity as 1st priority can't respond to community demands with out 1st reaching a consensus AS a group identity. Their values( or 'standards' ) as an identity come 1st, so are pretty much fixed in time, instead of responding to the demands and expectations set by the environment that supports it. That would require new standards that conflict with the group identity as its been set and accepted. So a shared identity apart from the general community must actively include the community in POSITIVE, demonstrated and shared values. Or it will ultimately be pressured by demands and expectations it can't meet. A victim of its own separatist ideals that do not benefit the environment it exists in. Until people recognize all breeders are in the same basket, start talking about what expectations we ALL as a community share, how can you possibly insist a single group identity offers more value than any other to the community and have people believe that? By whos criteria? I guess the Greyhound industry thought the values they demonstrated brought benefits too. To the Greyhound industries. The Grey hound industry is in strife because the shared identity, distinct from other community dog interest groups, did not allow for adaptation and change to suit more modern community expectations. It was not offering value worth supporting to any one other than the Greyhound industry. The costs of carrying that BY the community are seen as too high. There are an awful lot of other identity groups failing the community because they are doing just fine, thank you very much, under the standards and values their group understands better than any outsider ever can. To place personal identity with a distinct group 1st, fails to contribute value to the HUMAN community. Group identity as 1st identity is unable to adapt and take responsibility for how that group is perceived, and respond to that. It responds to the group, not the environment or community that holds it. So pressures to meet demands will be seen as group persecution. They are victims of their environment, not a force to improve it through their own actions as individuals demonstrating improvement.

Not to mention a lot of families where no one is home most of the time, and a lot of kids who would rather be in front of a screen than behind a leash. And very little active/social promotion of dog ownership aimed at the general population, or out side of a dwindling K.C membership. Here in Aus. anyway.

I've got a Cassandra complex here. While breeding organizations actively discourage the breeding of dogs out side a registered pedigree system, Breed specific legislation is a logical conclusion, and the only option left open. This news is the 2nd confirming this in the last 12 months or so. There will more, and more. It gains momentum. And each time, there will be found genuine and (moral or ethical) support for the action. Because the 'standards' applied to keeping, owning and breeding dogs are not universaly promoted or accepted ideals for the whole of the environment that wishes to support dogs in the community. They are specific to individual breeds, and the individual environments that support breed specific standards. This has little to do with A.R activists and much more to do with an increased concern for welfare in general, along with an errosion of purpose for dogs, and the roles they fill in the lives of the people who keep them. Pet ownership is at all time lows in Australia. This trend will continue while pedigrees and individual standards are promoted over universal standards promoting purpose for dogs, and the values that support and add to that purpose. This is able to be simply ( tho' actively, with intent ) corrected, but is nearly at the point of no return. But don't blame A.R. Blame a precursor of 'Identity' politics, and its general acceptance. Where responsibility is a lost concept. Response is limmited to chosen or forced identity and not the demands or expectatations of here and now. Pedigree Breeders Identity says care is taken to not contribute anything to what takes place out side the pedigree system. To remain apart and distinct in time. Not place. To accept no responsibility for the shape the world is, here and now. Cassandra.

We need demonstrations of success to respond TO ..... And take responsibility for. As long as the pedigree is 1st consideration to responsible breeding and the only one allowed by a breeding Org., Any success can only be measured against the pedigree. No other values can contribute. That is a physical law. The environment, or Market if you like, Has no responsibility to the pedigree. They/it can only respond to the dog in front of them. And all anyone can demonstrate is failure. Under a ruling that tells its members "ethics" (or values) put a pedigree above all other considerations of value, those demonstrations of failure are assured. The O.P is just one. Either its the environment/Market pointing out K.C failures, or the K.Cs members and supporters pointing out some other 'Groups' failures. Because "Ethics" MUST divide them. Conflict is written and will continue until theres nothing left to contend over. So two or more sides, assuring no other side can put forward a better example and without knocking it down. That rule means the K.Cs alone can't meet the market/environments needs ...Not ever alone. All I see is that rule has shaped the destiny of domestic dogs to be what it is. Governed by physics. The effects it has had, even if it is no longer written, can only be reversed by a formal recognition that bias on the grounds of pedigree ALONE is not acceptable. Its membership can not discriminate against another member breeder on grounds of breeding out side the pedigree system. The purpose of the dog and the values that enhance that MUST be promoted above all else. Or there is nothing for the environment/Market to support. The market, or environment, WILL support what ever is most successful, as long as its value is demonstrated. But it has to be shown for all to see. With out someone thinking they have to knock it down. Thats not going to happen while we are all divided on lines of where we CAN find value.

This sort of regulation for starts. And the sort that gives us higher Rego. fees for entire dogs. Most of it realy, except what relates directly to clear welfare breaches and identification. Promoting practices that AVOID problems works. Promoting an idea that you can eliminate the chance of problems doesn't. Until you eliminate dogs.

About what? I think regulation is having a huge impact and not always beneficial. Making it harder to keep pets under conditions we don't approve of, or to do things that cause disadvantage to others doesn't = more responsible people keeping pets. All it does is make pets more inconvenient for more people, and fewer familiar with the requirements and expectations of personal responsibility. Transfers responsibility from owners to authority. With an assumption 'we' are not fit and able to take responsibility. Not every one is a responsible parent, but we don't regulate that because just about every one is familiar with the expectations of parents. Advise or help is as close as the next person when we do have problems Pets though are fair game and it seems should be invisible, so familiarity with management issues is much harder to find. Instead of demonstrations of how to get maximum value from them, methods to avoid conflict, or fostering communal expectations, we tend to legislate the problems away.

I used to use butter on goats udders if they became cracked and DRY. I wouldn't put it on tho' unless it IS dry, and just till vets.

Jasper was a re-home and castrated when we got him, so we never had to bother about my darling Coco conceiving. Similarly, after Coco passed it wasn't a consideration in getting a new dog, but as it turns out Chloe was also neutered. But, hypothetically, what would we have done if the RSPCA had given us a choice? I'll say this, knowing what I know now there is no way I would ever allow another dog to be castrated. Maybe I would not have made the same decision back then, but there's nothing wrong with LEARNING. Short answer now, is that if I were certain he would never be wanted for breeding, I would get the dog a vasectomy. Yep. (Nothing wrong with learning) The wrong sort of legislation says there is only one possible response to avoid problems in that area. And nothing to learn about management. So Its not something you can learn from, or about to shape an environmentaly appropriate response- This fixed reaction means no need to understand, Or respond. It absolves us of responsibility, or an ability to respond. In exchange for a fixed action. Nothing to understand. Just do it. I can agree that spey or neuter is the responsible choice for the majority of Australian Dog owners today. But it doesn't make them the MORE responsible owners any more than leaving the dog entire would. Understanding the dogs in your care and managing them appropriately, whatever that means to your own situation is taking responsibility. Dictating what actions are acceptable puts the final responsibility with who ever is doing the dictating. So should we expect people to be responsible for their own choices or not? Dogdragon, your legislation won't encourage understanding or knowing the the dogs in your care. It takes away an expectation we should understand the dog, so long as our reactions are predictable and fixed.

Ahhh! That makes more sense! :)

Other research/discoveries put domestication down as even earlier, about 30,000 years or more. About the time Modern Man separated from Neanderthal Man, possibly allowing for the split. I don't think it would have been difficult, Once wolves started to hang around human settlements. There would have been individuals that distinguished themselves for being less fearful more curious and eventualy willing to co-operate for mutualy beneficial purposes. Even now, after centuries of being persecuted and effectively culled for the trait, once in a while an individual will come to attention for its willingness to interact with humans.

I agree - its supply and demand. People want them so if the registered breeders dont want to rise to the occasion someone will take up the option. In fact why dont registered breeders who have the best for the breed at heart increase their production a bit to get in on the action ? They dont have to do it solely for the pet market but can also have more choices for the show ring and the gene pool. In some apartment buildings you can only have a dog where you can carry it off and on the premises so demand for small dogs suitable for small spaces that can be carried will be more in demand anyway. By the way they dont have anywhere near the problems that many brachy head breeds have - yet. dont know if its true but a lady whose puppies i chip said there are moves afoot to bring in a maximum number of litters bred per year any one breeder is allowed (to discourage puppy farm members) and after that is reached no puppies over the limit can be registered . Cant remember if she said there would be fines or membership suspended. but as it is many members keep a check on fellow breeders and any they dont like make complaints to the animal welfare groups to harass and hopefully drive them out, been done for decades. so little incentive to increase production, to be "ethical"and stay under the radar for elimination, stick to producing a litter for a keep puppy and surplus in the litter limit registerd only. Just read the adds here. its not impossible down the track if someone wants a dog if the animals rights group continue to succeed in branding all who dont keep what they bred as "puppy farmers" some will find it so hard to find a puppy they will turn to the cloning companies for their pet to be cloned instead? Sci-fi? time will tell the crash is already documented. just check the ANKC registrations dating back to the 80's our population increases, puppies bred steady decline ANKC trying to distance themselves from what happens out side their membership and the accusations of 'being in it for the money' brought in the rule that "No breeder shall breed primarily for profit". A mistake I believe, since in a market driven world those who can earn biggest profits are those who best meet demands. But now those who earn biggest profits are open to the sort of harassment you mention. The K.Cs are not designed to meet the needs of their environment, but to remain distinctly separate. This rule is a reflection of that and came about because of that. A reaction typical to a biological organism that does not recognize its environment. If the environment for dogs was considered as the single environment it is, that accusation would have likely been taken as a more general one, with a different response aimed more at demonstrating/educating the benefits of NOT buying from a breeder whos primary goal is profit. And not opened the gates to breeders whos ONLY concern is meeting demand, for profit. curious isnt it. like your comment " A reaction typical to a biological organism that does not recognize its environment." in this instance the "organism" seems intent on self destruction, once continually reducing numbers reach critical figures extinction is inevitable Yup. Conjuring a demon in a pentagram, drawn on its own navel. The more the environment tries to communicate its needs, The more the organism struggles to keep the environment out.