moosmum

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.

It doesn’t prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place. For example, terms such as ‘reasonable actions’, ‘reasonable access’ and ‘appropriate feed and water’ are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed. We must remember that the issue is much larger than a supply issue. The pet industry is worth billions of dollars a year to the Australian economy from vet services, pet insurance, grooming, pet food, pet toys and more. You can’t just shut puppy mills down without it having an effect on the economy. There has to be legislative changes to deal with this. What we are seeing now is • Serious health issues in dogs as a result of selective breeding for specific aesthetic traits. • Poor health and welfare for breeding dogs cause by high intensity commercial breeding operations and a lack of resources to ensure compliance. • High rates of impounding and euthanasia. • And more and are symptomatic of a system which allows for the treatment of companion animals as a perceived right rather than a responsibility. As identified in the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce in its 2012 report, companion animal welfare and management is a whole of community responsibility involving breeders, pet shops, pet owners, vets, law enforcers, local and state government, and animal shelters and holding facilities. No one group or entity can be looked at in isolation. There are so many things wrong with the current system and requires a holistic approach. The changes will happen eventually but it will take time and implementation of them will be gradual. For instance: • All dog breeders to be licensed • Breeder license number to be part of the microchipping information • Requirement for all pounds, shelters, vets and RSPCA facilities to report to ensure enforcement This type of reporting legislation is nothing new. It has already been implemented i n the financial services industry as part of the money laundering legislation. It covers the financial sector, gambling sector, bullion dealers and other professionals or businesses that provide services covered by the Act ...so the current desexing strategy is in place because it doesn't work thus protecting the sensible economy associated with the pet industry, while at the same time it gives the impression the authorities are doing something to address the pound issues and overpopulation? Nah, obviously the devils in the detail. No one can be trusted to be responsible. So we license and set out every last detail of breeder protocol to be followed. No more reasonable action, reasonable access or appropriate feed and water. Tell 'em how many litres per kilo over 24 hours. The details of any reasonable action, exactly what an approved enclosure looks like and punish any deviation. Make it a strictly regulated, licensed industry so puppy farms will be a thing of the past. (not) So we all know what responsibility looks like. We will finaly understand dogs. And none would dare to deviate. Sorry. I still say very short sighted. I can almost guarantee that within a single human generation 'pet' dogs would be almost non existent. Problem solved. Well meaning maybe, but very little understanding of any real value behind the partnership between man and dogs or how to preserve that. It is NOT by taking responsibility from Man and placing it with government, informed by 'industry leaders'. Yep. In many places there already are laws around all this stuff and they are not laws that make the lives of animals better overall, despite being well meaning. AND they can only be enforced for those that abide by them AND they aren't necessarily enforced even then. Punitive legislation for people making no attempt at responsibility is expected. But when you are telling people what responsibility MUST look like, all you are doing is taking it away. Reducing the ability to respond in any other manner. Because of personal beliefs and indoctrination, not science. Because an inability for variable response IS NOT response-ability. Its simply 'Fixing' a set response that is unable to adapt or evolve and unable to 'respond' to altered environment. Not responsibility- Just fixed reaction, with no need to understand or reason.

It doesn’t prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place. For example, terms such as ‘reasonable actions’, ‘reasonable access’ and ‘appropriate feed and water’ are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed. We must remember that the issue is much larger than a supply issue. The pet industry is worth billions of dollars a year to the Australian economy from vet services, pet insurance, grooming, pet food, pet toys and more. You can’t just shut puppy mills down without it having an effect on the economy. There has to be legislative changes to deal with this. What we are seeing now is • Serious health issues in dogs as a result of selective breeding for specific aesthetic traits. • Poor health and welfare for breeding dogs cause by high intensity commercial breeding operations and a lack of resources to ensure compliance. • High rates of impounding and euthanasia. • And more and are symptomatic of a system which allows for the treatment of companion animals as a perceived right rather than a responsibility. As identified in the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce in its 2012 report, companion animal welfare and management is a whole of community responsibility involving breeders, pet shops, pet owners, vets, law enforcers, local and state government, and animal shelters and holding facilities. No one group or entity can be looked at in isolation. There are so many things wrong with the current system and requires a holistic approach. The changes will happen eventually but it will take time and implementation of them will be gradual. For instance: • All dog breeders to be licensed • Breeder license number to be part of the microchipping information • Requirement for all pounds, shelters, vets and RSPCA facilities to report to ensure enforcement This type of reporting legislation is nothing new. It has already been implemented i n the financial services industry as part of the money laundering legislation. It covers the financial sector, gambling sector, bullion dealers and other professionals or businesses that provide services covered by the Act ...so the current desexing strategy is in place because it doesn't work thus protecting the sensible economy associated with the pet industry, while at the same time it gives the impression the authorities are doing something to address the pound issues and overpopulation? Nah, obviously the devils in the detail. No one can be trusted to be responsible. So we license and set out every last detail of breeder protocol to be followed. No more reasonable action, reasonable access or appropriate feed and water. Tell 'em how many litres per kilo over 24 hours. The details of any reasonable action, exactly what an approved enclosure looks like and punish any deviation. Make it a strictly regulated, licensed industry so puppy farms will be a thing of the past. (not) So we all know what responsibility looks like. We will finaly understand dogs. And none would dare to deviate. Sorry. I still say very short sighted. I can almost guarantee that within a single human generation 'pet' dogs would be almost non existent. Problem solved. Well meaning maybe, but very little understanding of any real value behind the partnership between man and dogs or how to preserve that. It is NOT by taking responsibility from Man and placing it with government, informed by 'industry leaders'.

So sorry for his loss Ricey Only just noticed this post. But what an impact hes made. Re; Fostering Bull Breeds ....Thats a worthy legacy he leaves behind. His life makes a difference. Easy running Hobbes.

But we already have legislation around lots of things (microchipping, breeders permits, registration, age of sale) and it isn't fixing the issues because it isn't enforced. More unenforced legislation won't change anything either. Education and changing the attitudes and will of the majority works two fold - 1. in changing people's behaviours; and 2. in changing political will and pressure on governments to spend resources on enforcing the legislation we already have. Those two things are what changed things with regard to slavery and the rights of women, and are why rates of things like drink driving and smoking rates, and racism, actually have reduced, not just a dictatorial government putting in new legislation without the will of the majority behind it. Agree. There have been improvements and I think will that will continue. Peoples expectations change and further legislation is, I think, Short sighted when what we have now IS changing expectations ( clear from OP )

I agree. With their popularity, I'm sure it would be quite possible to select for dogs based on common expectations of good health and vitality. How to get breeders to recognize that favoring the standard 1st diminishes those values is the hard part. Common values Vs breed specific values. .....If it doesn't conform to a ridgid, accepted standard, its got no recognizable value worth contributing. Or so they are told. Hard to push against that. If it can't be accepted there should be common standards for all dogs before breed standards, we will drive dogs to become uncommon. Standard by standard.

yes that seems to be the intention But I don't think it WAS the intention, to begin with. Just asking for changes to meet community and welfare expectations. That has not happened, and can not happen fast enough. There has been at least one generation of breeders since PDE, as far as average ( human) breeder span. Show ring awarded examples of poor practice are still rife and in some cases, for some breeds, going backwards. Internationaly if not nationaly. It seems international trends trickle down universaly too. Peta and the like, yeah, no pretense there on their intentions. Thing is though, So far, People still want DOGS enough that these extreme animal rights types wouldn't have a hope in hell of banning dogs. While the majority of people find value and purpose in keeping them, they haven't a hope of banning that. They are NOT the threat as long as that holds true. Poor breeding ( and husbandry) practices ARE a threat. One that gives Peta and the like any clout they have. Poor practices don't meet needs or expectations. There is no value or purpose in a poorly bred dog. Unless of course its being rewarded in the show ring, or a pet living in a home with such lowered expectations of dogs its only asked to be quiet. Diseased, crippled, unable to breathe, move freely, short lived or not bred for an ACTIVE role in Mans communities = a dog with little purpose but human vanity. Status. A cause for animal rights activists. While these types of dogs are PROMOTED in show ring results as prime examples of quality breeding they are forming expectations of the acceptable and desirable in any who don't already expect better and more. PETA stated their intention to do away with ALL companion animals well before PDE was made. In fact PETA coined the term "companion animal" because it didn't sound as "touchy feely" as "pet" and it would be easier to ban a "companion animal". So really, in light of that, they ought to be banned, ought they not? I cannot see any reason why not, after reading this. No one can justify continuing with a breed which suffers. No. You can't. IF, as a breed, they continue to be bred to standards that demand such extremes and are awarded for such extremes that they do suffer. I'd rather see changes in the culture of pedigree breeders that can avoid that. Too many breeds are headed for a similar fate and once there is a precedent it won't stop there. I think we all need to stop focusing on 'Where' a dog comes from to either justify or condemn poor/better practices and start selling expectations and practices. Those can bring value whatever purpose a dog is to serve, no matter where it comes from or goes to. Instead of arguing about who is doing it wrong, promote ideals and expectations to live up to. DEMONSTRATE how better value is to be had. Allow that demonstration, encourage it, and the breeds are better able to follow. The public can start to cheer that on and have an avenue open to drive change. I think the breed clubs are too insular and caught up in promoting existing standards for any degree of support to initiate change. Within clubs that require international agreement, its near impossible to gain 'approval' for anything different to whats in front of every one now. The public is no position to influence that when breeders 1st loyalty is not to dogs, or those who might buy them, but to a standard. Necessity CAN drive change, But demonstration is needed before its value can be recognized. Seems to be physical law of biology, backed by psychological research.

Not very hopeful. I can see that going down hill fast. Again, I am convinced the insularity of pedigree breeders is the cause. Each generation only has whats in front of them to form values, and each generation will expect less, and have less to work with. Permitted to cross breed for a "pet" market, I could see thoughtfully planned, health tested litters competing with both BYBers and puppy farms to promote better practices and dogs. Informing buyer expectation in the general population. Supporting the idea purpose and value are just as relevant in non pedigree dogs. The ways these are achieved. About time. Dogs that might not win in the show ring but having great value for companion purposes being retained for breeding because of value else where being recognized. And in turn comparative and alternative values being recognized by pedigree breeders and judges alike. I realy don't think we have time for anything less. We have some wonderful breeders, putting their hearts and souls into improvement, but until the pedigree is better understood to be a tool for better practice and not the end goal for their unique difference, they are pi**ing into the wind.

yes that seems to be the intention But I don't think it WAS the intention, to begin with. Just asking for changes to meet community and welfare expectations. That has not happened, and can not happen fast enough. There has been at least one generation of breeders since PDE, as far as average ( human) breeder span. Show ring awarded examples of poor practice are still rife and in some cases, for some breeds, going backwards. Internationaly if not nationaly. It seems international trends trickle down universaly too. Peta and the like, yeah, no pretense there on their intentions. Thing is though, So far, People still want DOGS enough that these extreme animal rights types wouldn't have a hope in hell of banning dogs. While the majority of people find value and purpose in keeping them, they haven't a hope of banning that. They are NOT the threat as long as that holds true. Poor breeding ( and husbandry) practices ARE a threat. One that gives Peta and the like any clout they have. Poor practices don't meet needs or expectations. There is no value or purpose in a poorly bred dog. Unless of course its being rewarded in the show ring, or a pet living in a home with such lowered expectations of dogs its only asked to be quiet. Diseased, crippled, unable to breathe, move freely, short lived or not bred for an ACTIVE role in Mans communities = a dog with little purpose but human vanity. Status. A cause for animal rights activists. While these types of dogs are PROMOTED in show ring results as prime examples of quality breeding they are forming expectations of the acceptable and desirable in any who don't already expect better and more.

Disapoint? I don't see how you get a personal criticism from that. I don't care what your personal criteria is for dog or human, and of course they would be different. The point was, no matter what you know of back ground, pedigree or culture, The value is in the person, or dog in front of you. Or it isn't. What ever personal criteria or back ground info.you have. And that it SHOULD be personal. With room for it to be personal, as long as others aren't forced to pay a price for your personal choices. As for the rest, I think you underestimate the abilities of a culture to influence direction of the environment that holds it over time. I am not talking about a conscious 'plan' but an unconscious direction taken by introducing a form of 'doctrine' into constitution or rules that has no bearing on goals set. A cultural doctrine that favors elimination of imperfection to achieve a perfection that can never be universaly agreed. It can only ever appeal to an ever decreasing audience. Because individual, personal values can have no influence on long term direction.

No. I would advocate removal of that rule so that Pedigree breeders are not ruling against some thing outside of their jurisdiction, which is PEDIGREE dogs. A dog ineligible for a pedigree is outside a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against just about every thing NOT in a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against the environment the registry system itself needs to remain viable. The pedigree dog used might be jurisdiction of the registry, but surely its not bred FOR the registry alone, but for a human and a purpose. The purpose surely is dogs, not the registry itself. The registry alone can not meet the needs and expectations of Man. Dogs can. A 'Registry only' making a political statement can not be a 'registry only'. They invite an expectation and the pressure they will be more. IF breeders are free to meet the needs of Man 1st, I believe the culture will change to reflect those needs better. If that turns out to mean admitting other values/dogs into the pedigree system, it should be easier to accomplish with a culture willing to see values in other directions but inwards. I believe I have a similar situation with my kids. I couldn't care less what someone else's kid does or what some other parent allows their kids to do but I do what I can to control my kids . I couldn't careless if someone else's kid has sex with someone else kid but I sure as hell care if my kid has sex with someone else's kid that doesn't fit my criteria. That's not because I have or want jurisdiction over someone else kid but because I have jurisdiction over my own . Breeders are already free to meet the needs of man first and herein for me lies the answer. That criteria surely doesn't include the kid slept with must come from the same family or cultural doctrines for any value they bring to the family to be recognized. Surely a persons value as a human being is recognized before cultural doctrine or identity?

No. I would advocate removal of that rule so that Pedigree breeders are not ruling against some thing outside of their jurisdiction, which is PEDIGREE dogs. A dog ineligible for a pedigree is outside a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against just about every thing NOT in a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against the environment the registry system itself needs to remain viable. The pedigree dog used might be jurisdiction of the registry, but surely its not bred FOR the registry alone, but for a human and a purpose. The purpose surely is dogs, not the registry itself. The registry alone can not meet the needs and expectations of Man. Dogs can. A 'Registry only' making a political statement can not be a 'registry only'. They invite an expectation and the pressure they will be more. IF breeders are free to meet the needs of Man 1st, I believe the culture will change to reflect those needs better. If that turns out to mean admitting other values/dogs into the pedigree system, it should be easier to accomplish with a culture willing to see values in other directions but inwards. When you are a member of a state CC which has this ruling you agree that the state CC has jurisdiction over dogs you own which are registered with them. If you as a dog owner want to mate your dog with any other dog the CC has no jurisdiction over you or your dog but it does have jurisdiction over a members purebred dogs. They don't want to have any say over what a dog not their business is able to do. Breeders are already free to meet the needs of man first and herein for me lies the answer. I disagree. If a breeder is not free to choose a mating based purely on the value it offers, even if that dog will be ineligible for registration, then they are breeding to meet needs of the pedigree system 1st.

MonElites experience at the cultural festival is I think a good example of how this attitude of keeping dogs out of public awareness can encourage yet more fear and ignorance. Inapproporiate human behavior can also add to the risks and I think that increases when people are unfamiliar with dogs as part of our society. Creates a catch 22 where it becomes more likely for incidents to occur, and LESS access granted because of that. Maybe if there was an easily accessible, council run test/trial people could enroll themselves and their dogs in for a 'ticket' of canine and owner good citizenship that would ease people minds and encourage more responsible behavior all 'round? Businesses/rail etc could ask for that to be shown?

I can see where you are coming from. I do think it comes down a very basic problem though, that CAN be corrected (over time) by accepting that any domesticated species is IN its natural environment even with selective breeding. It serves a purpose to man and is selected on the basis of that. What serves best for each man and his own needs. A man who values the purpose of a species will select the best stock he can for his environment. From demonstrated value of traits found. That gives us breeds over time. Reliable to specific environments where those traits have demonstrated value. I don't know about other pedigree small animals like cats and rabbits, but Pedigree dogs are the only species I'm aware of- Where the absolute best dog ever encountered for a purpose, scarce and in demand, might not be considered as worthy to contribute to the values people find in the species. Not even based on any value in that dog does or doesn't have to a purpose. Only on where it comes from. Where selection is no longer driven by what value and purpose people find, but where it comes from. When an animal with demonstrated value might not be able to contribute to its species effectively because best choice is denied, based on where it came from and who might benefit. That amounts to an interruption of messages from the environment to the species, and the species ability to respond. The FCI sounds to me like an extension of that ideology, and a further progression to taking dogs out of the community. Another way of again, restricting the environment. The physics indicate that cultures closed in this way can only continue to constrict, and constrict the environments they exist IN. Either until there is no environment left, or the environment rejects that culture. Dogs aren't being bred for Man if Mans choices and values are restricted. Sorry for the language if its hard to follow, but I don't see any other to use.

Clearly the revolt is happening and removal of the international agreements for other registries excluded from the FCI means that dogs can be accepted from all registries and theoretically one registry can register dogs from any country if it is not an FCI affiliate or member. This is why such agreements were cut in the first place - it has the ability to restrcit one country registering dogs not born in their own country and not enabling any diviation form a common breed standard or interpretation. . The United Kennel Club in the states and the MDBA are two examples of registries which do not have these kind of restrictions and the ability to move sideways but there is a long way to go before the FCI world wide monopoly is shaken. Even in cases such as the ANKC which is not a full member of the FCI but only an affiliate the culture rules like an iron grasp and restricts and adversely influences some definitions of ethics and what is best for the dogs under the guise of what is best for the breeds even when they are falling into states of poor health due to these restrictions. This is why I maintain it is the breeders who ultimately have the power to change things because the revolt will not come from the top - too much money and politics to fight. Yep. I agree with that too. But here is more reason to fight for it. Pretty hard to argue with physics. Any sort of monopoly in breeding direction is certainly contrary to viability.

Oh yeah, I can see thats a huge problem too, and likely more obvious to most. I don't know of another registry system that does not allow the membership to have much greater say in matters that are indvidual to their needs and direction. But I 'm not thinking change in a few small 'sub' groups at local levels. More along the lines of a revolt on international level for universal change on the grounds of the damage this does to DOGS. Not just the pedigree registered ones. It could be argued on the grounds of fair trade and possibly a few other avenues.The bruises demonstrate that. It would be much harder to achieve such monopoly, or retain it if the people who value dogs full stop are all able to drive direction to achieve human goals for dogs, not just pedigrees. I think It has broader implications for any culture that puts membership to that culture before the service it should bring.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs. As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark. I disagree and believe it will be shown to be otherwise. I believe those with greatest power to influence the culture are there because the constitution and rules favor them to be there. And all it takes is removal of one rule out of a couple of Australian state's code of ethics which does not exist in any constitution ? If it has ever existed in the parent bodies constitution before the split into affiliate bodies, I believe so. I guess that is some thing I will need to confirm. O.K. To some extent regarding the environment of the traditional system I agree with you but your language confuses me and your insistence on constitutions being in the mix just doesnt fit for me . If you leave out the word constitutions and get a bit closer to the real environmental impacts of purebred dog world we a bit of a push we might even be on the same page. If you want to look at the agreements made between the FCI and all other countries, taking into account that the FCI will only recognise one affiliate per country and a whole heap more that may take you further in your argument than constantly speaking of a constitution. The entire world of the FCI affiliated registered purebred is based on their management and rules.This creates problems for the purebred dog but its not because that rule exists in any constitution because only a couple of small sub groups have that rule and all the above reasons . Its based around the agreements and the rules of the FCI. this is true but thats only a part of it all. Constantly referring to that rule and how you believe things would change if it were removed just isnt sitting logically with me. Regardless, All indications are that a breeder org. whos members sign up to that philosophy of closing a culture to out side influences and ideas, even with an already closed registry, will lead to exactly the problems we are seeing. Physics operating on biological principles.

You basically just described the foreshore in Cronulla, only the path is MUCH NARROWER for a lot of it. There are stacks of dogs, runners, kids on bikes. On a nice weekend morning, it's very busy. The dogs don't cause any trouble, though. They pass each other, bikes, and runners on the footpath calmly, and there are bag dispensers so they are cleaned up after. Dogs that are brought up walking that path several times a week are unsurprisingly very good at it, just like dogs that are raised walking paths at the beach in California are very good at it. The problems we encounter in Cronulla on the dog beach or in the mall are with dogs that are making their first outings. They do have to learn how to handle these environments, and they won't learn it if they aren't ever allowed there. Also describes a resort town in Canada. Only incident that came to my attention was through the paper, reporting an injured dog and charges laid when a 'tourist' took a short cut through a private property, the resident dog took exception to the G.S.D with the tourist who stepped in resulting in resident dog being injured and needing Vet. treatment. The tourist wore the charges and costs. No, every one doesn't do the right thing. But I do think the culture is much more aware of their responsibilities in general, with more opportunities and example to learn FROM. I think the value of training is better understood, because its benefits are demonstrated every day in contrast to those who don't. Also noted the pound in that area covered pretty much the whole county and was rarely full. The Vet. provided a spey and neuter for pound dogs through his 'Angel' fund, where a donation could be made for a beautiful certificate on velum ( I have one) in memory of a loved pet. The community had funded through their own efforts for a 'Police' dog and out fitted van. AND Vet. treatment for the previous dog that ran into thousands from complications due to a broken leg sustained in a ball game. Like community mascots. I was lucky enough to meet both.

I think we learn more, and open more doors we didn't even know were there, when don't try to restrict what we can learn from. And when. And who. And who says its O.K? It should be encouraged to learn from what you are willing to take responsibility for.

Re; The link/big picture. Yes.

Unless its also been changed, even the closed stud books of one of our oldest breeds, The Arabian, allow for environmental influence with registries for horses derived from the breed.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs. As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark. I disagree and believe it will be shown to be otherwise. I believe those with greatest power to influence the culture are there because the constitution and rules favor them to be there. And all it takes is removal of one rule out of a couple of Australian state's code of ethics which does not exist in any constitution ? If it has ever existed in the parent bodies constitution before the split into affiliate bodies, I believe so. I guess that is some thing I will need to confirm.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs. As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark. The culture does influence the environment it exists in and what values are recognized. While breed comes before species any direction other than BSL is limited. Once achieved, there is precedence in law.

The person who bred them, and the environment and culture that favors them.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs. As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark. I disagree and believe it will be shown to be otherwise. I believe those with greatest power to influence the culture are there because the constitution and rules favor them to be there.