moosmum

O.K. I think I am going to need to explain this by doing it as formal research. I did find rules which pretty much stated the same as your example of recent additions in my original search. Not as clearly stated, but amounting to the same. That was done before 2013. As for the guide to writing an effective constitution, I did not just assume the whole theory was correct and make assumptions from there. I wanted to see how that worked in practice. In a body set up for the breeding of dogs, that should in practice be easier to see in action, since you have not only the culture set by the constitution and rules, but a biological product of that culture with an even shorter generational life span. The environment reacts to both the culture and its product. To my own satisfaction at least, I confirmed the theory behind those rules of a constitution by looking for the mechanics in action. I have tried to explain the mechanics of that in the B.S.L thread. (appologies to Ricie, for hijacking his thread, though tacit approval was given) Looks like the more formal research publication people have urged me to on this is the only option, and with luck I will continue to learn enough to do that. I have been hoping I could get the K.Cs and others to see what I see with out that. I see it as urgent because if correct it means the constitution has set up a biological process that gains momentum towards to an end goal of removing dogs from the environment. It amounts to new direction in biophysics for human culture and physical processes of learning, language psychology and other fields. I have no formal qualifications and doubted my ability to write a paper like that. Seems its a sparse field anyway. Hopefully I have learned enough to do that. It amounts to new directions in biophysics so should be demonstrable if correct.

I breed miniature horses. I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose. So how are all those health issues emerging in Miniature Horses going? Should we ban them too? Or insist on outcrossing for size? I have NOT insisted on banning OR out crossing. Health issues identified: Before progeny from my stallion can be registered, he must undergo and pass a veterinary inpection. If he shows any signs of having those conditions, or of having surgery to correct those conditions, He will not pass inspection and his progeny will not be eligible for registration. D.N.A on file. ( my choice) We have the same problems with 'newbies' or those who see big dollars and think if they pay lots, they can ask lots. That problem is evening out ( very slowly, since horses are so much more long lived than some other species) as the market is flooded with inferior types and people do start to realize there is more to "big money" than male + female = multiply. They are also moving on to the newer 'fad' in American Shetlands. Its a common modern problem with any animal that doesn't ( relatively) need much room.... The more money people see asked for, the more they want part of that. When the money is less, the interest is more genuine and mostly more responsible because of that. I have also bred milking goats, long before they were considered worth any thing to Australian farmers, through the popularity phase when people would pay big money for anything and more for pedigree, and finaly the market settled down to achieve relative stability. The problems encountered early are mostly wiped out today, or confined to small pockets. There may be other new problems for all I know since I no longer breed dairy goats. My need for them is gone. But similar deal to other live stock. No restriction on what I could breed my animals with. If the results don't meet certain criteria they simply aren't eligible for registration. And thats fine. There seems to be an assumption that if a pedigree, registered DOG though, is used for breeding, the breeder must expect resulting progeny to also be eligible for registration in some sort of stud book no matter what that animal was bred to. That is not what I am arguing. There is no rule, in registries I have been involved with for any of of the mentioned species, that I can NOT breed a registered animal with any thing but another registered animal of the same breed. The breeder simply accepts that animal may not be eligible for registration if certain criteria is not met. Registration and/or eligibility for show is not the only value or direction recognized. I believe though not problem free, for the most part those species are in much better shape than domestic dogs of either pedigree or mutt heritage. A breeders decisions (weather they end up right or wrong) are based on value adding for the individual conditions or environment that breeders must work with. A goat farmer with pedigree stock and a goat breeder with unregistered stock both recognize the same values in GOATS to achieve the purpose of a Goat. The husbandry requirements are shared and discussed equally. The heath issues are shared and discussed equally, and tackled equally. The value of healthy stock is a shared responsibility. A breeder of cross breed goats has access to healthy stock and an understanding of what to look for, what to avoid and how to find a breeder matching his requirements, with advise to do that readily available. A pedigree goat has not lost any of its value because of that. Steve, " So it is true that some state C.Cs have it in their regulations and code of ethics that the Registered Dog can't be used with an unregistered dog" THANK YOU!! I am not aware that that rule is 'new' or not pretty universal to pedigree dogs. I noted it in every overseas registry I checked when I started this research, but it has never been formal research so no notes to confirm which. Will have to check. As to the fact people are doing it anyway contrary to rules and regs. with no more success, the very fact they sign up to a code and disregard it at all, doesn't say much for their character. Actually the goat breeder who breeds registered stock and wants to enter them into shows and be awarded due to their closeness to the standard and get top dollar way over and above what his neighbour will get has at least a slightly different criteria and value placed on different animals for selection. In my breed of sheep a stud Ram which has won at Dubbo can expect up to $40000 for him. I hardly think the guy next door who has a commercial flock with no papers and no chance of a championship is going to get more than a couple of hundreds dollars for him - even though they produce great meat. I breed working Maremma which are registered pedigreed and a person who breeds this breed who is not interested in registering them has the same goal as me in seeking a great working dog.I dont show my dogs and around here if its a great looking dog resembling the conformation standard and it cant work is of no use to me or the people who take my puppies. We have the same value placed on a working dog but I believe using the pedigree system is a more useful tool to help me and those who come behind me to select the best dogs for my breeding program. We have hundreds of members who dont show and use the registered pedigree system to select therapy dogs, assistance dogs, search and rescue dogs ,agility dogs, obedience dogs, medic alert dogs, etc. There is no rule within any state CC codes or regs that someone must breed for the show ring I wasn't speaking of financial value alone, but yeah, I agree a pedigree should most always be worth more financialy. I believe that increased value would remain in dogs too, if that rule were brought in line with other live stock enterprises. More likely to increase, as the purpose could become better understood by those outside the pedigree system. As it is by sheep breeders. Reality is never the same from one point to another, one time to another. The realities of what one person gets from his dogs, or sheep, or horses is never going to be the same for every place or time. To expect all needs or values to be found in a single environment or system is unrealistic. Too late for me to at this.

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 breed miniature horses. I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose. So how are all those health issues emerging in Miniature Horses going? Should we ban them too? Or insist on outcrossing for size? I have NOT insisted on banning OR out crossing. Health issues identified: Before progeny from my stallion can be registered, he must undergo and pass a veterinary inpection. If he shows any signs of having those conditions, or of having surgery to correct those conditions, He will not pass inspection and his progeny will not be eligible for registration. D.N.A on file. ( my choice) We have the same problems with 'newbies' or those who see big dollars and think if they pay lots, they can ask lots. That problem is evening out ( very slowly, since horses are so much more long lived than some other species) as the market is flooded with inferior types and people do start to realize there is more to "big money" than male + female = multiply. They are also moving on to the newer 'fad' in American Shetlands. Its a common modern problem with any animal that doesn't ( relatively) need much room.... The more money people see asked for, the more they want part of that. When the money is less, the interest is more genuine and mostly more responsible because of that. I have also bred milking goats, long before they were considered worth any thing to Australian farmers, through the popularity phase when people would pay big money for anything and more for pedigree, and finaly the market settled down to achieve relative stability. The problems encountered early are mostly wiped out today, or confined to small pockets. There may be other new problems for all I know since I no longer breed dairy goats. My need for them is gone. But similar deal to other live stock. No restriction on what I could breed my animals with. If the results don't meet certain criteria they simply aren't eligible for registration. And thats fine. There seems to be an assumption that if a pedigree, registered DOG though, is used for breeding, the breeder must expect resulting progeny to also be eligible for registration in some sort of stud book no matter what that animal was bred to. That is not what I am arguing. There is no rule, in registries I have been involved with for any of of the mentioned species, that I can NOT breed a registered animal with any thing but another registered animal of the same breed. The breeder simply accepts that animal may not be eligible for registration if certain criteria is not met. Registration and/or eligibility for show is not the only value or direction recognized. I believe though not problem free, for the most part those species are in much better shape than domestic dogs of either pedigree or mutt heritage. A breeders decisions (weather they end up right or wrong) are based on value adding for the individual conditions or environment that breeders must work with. A goat farmer with pedigree stock and a goat breeder with unregistered stock both recognize the same values in GOATS to achieve the purpose of a Goat. The husbandry requirements are shared and discussed equally. The heath issues are shared and discussed equally, and tackled equally. The value of healthy stock is a shared responsibility. A breeder of cross breed goats has access to healthy stock and an understanding of what to look for, what to avoid and how to find a breeder matching his requirements, with advise to do that readily available. ANY breeder has access to stock with predictable traits and health status. A pedigree goat has likely gained value because of that. A cross breed goat has likely gained value because of that. Over what was being produced here 30 years ago. Steve, " So it is true that some state C.Cs have it in their regulations and code of ethics that the Registered Dog can't be used with an unregistered dog" THANK YOU!! I am not aware that that rule is 'new' or not pretty universal to pedigree dogs. I noted it in at least 2 overseas registries when I started this research, but it has never been formal research so no notes to confirm which. Will have to check. I do know it was part of Regs. in at least one country overseas 45 years ago. As to the fact people are doing it anyway contrary to rules and regs. They sign up to a code and disregard it, doesn't say much for their character.

I breed miniature horses. I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose. Registration or pedigree is another matter. The progeny MAY be registered or not, if I prefer to fore go registration, or if the resulting progeny do not conform to standards. Regulations only govern an animal that WILL be registered, in which case, it must fit with breed standards and the pedigree will be incomplete if parentage is unknown or unable to be verfied. Registration requirements vary, in some registries it will be classified as as foundation. There are no rules I am aware of preventing pedigree cattle or sheep or even pig breeders to ONLY breed animals that will be eligible and registered into the stud books for that pure breed. Pretty sure a working stock dog breeder has the same options open.

But removal of that rule says nothing of the sort. The rules for breeding PEDIGREE dogs stay exactly as they are. The rules for breeding pedigree dogs are set into the rules and constitution even without that rule. It serves no purpose to the pedigree itself. Pedigrees would function the same way as they do now. A positive ruling ie: "We WILL..... " gives direction and purpose. It tells you to do this brings value to the purpose of the organization (or dogs) A Negative ruling gives no direction. It simply informs where there is no value to be had. Its a ruling AGAINST values to be had. What values must not be accepted into the pedigree system. Its a ruling against the environment, or what is out side the pedigree system. In this case, every thing out side the pedigree system. Never mind the fact that its STILL a dog. The language of the constitution says there is no value in any direction outside of a pedigree. The culture of its membership are bound to express that. Just as much as the language of genes govern expression. Exactly what constitution are you referencing ? ANKC origninaly, though I haven't found access to that more recently than several years ago. Though I would use as reference any registry with a rule against members breeding dogs out side of their protocols. There is no reason to exclude what was not there to begin with. As for individual breeders striving to do their best, I believe they do. Cells respond independently to their environment. How that is expressed in a cell culture though, depends on the language in the genetic code that binds them. My link I cant spot anything here to resemble what you say is there. No time to find it again before next week. So far the link you provided seems to deal with the affiliated bodies more than individual membership. I do recall checking the U.S and one of the Nordic countries as well and that rule seemed to be universal. If it has been changed, it certainly isn't public knowledge or the understanding breeders are operating under.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure.... Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test . as much as I would love to share your optimism I just can't find an example where the findings of scientific research have not been misused in the past. In this case I see organisation trying to use these new technologies for all kind of not so ethical manipulations, e.g. 'increased production' = bigger litters...mass production...military purposes...food production (see China)... Wow Willem thats a new way of looking at this that Ive never considered but we are talking about dog breeding and breeding for better health temperament, fertility,and longevity etc. Im struggling to see how this could be such a bad thing or worse than hit and miss especially when these sort of things have in the main been neglected. Ill think on this but right now I cant see how more knowledge and more information could be anything but a good thing. Its hard to consider someone would use such info to the detriment of purebred dogs rather than to their benefit. It can be harmful if you are depending on those methods to over come continuing problems- Good breeding practices with out those aids becomes harder, more complicated and impractical for small hobby breeders. More suited to a commercial venture and less part of a communities responsibility. Reducing the environment. It sacrifices more of the value in small hobby breeders.Less purpose for breeders and more for science driven by the ecconomics. MM Im not even going to try and answer that because to me that's just straight out illogical,seems a bit nutty and not based on the real world of the purebred pedigree hobby breeder . Makes perfect sense to me and illustrates direction forced by lack of other choices open. You are creating what will become the realities of pure bred pedigree hobby breeders.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure.... Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test . as much as I would love to share your optimism I just can't find an example where the findings of scientific research have not been misused in the past. In this case I see organisation trying to use these new technologies for all kind of not so ethical manipulations, e.g. 'increased production' = bigger litters...mass production...military purposes...food production (see China)... Wow Willem thats a new way of looking at this that Ive never considered but we are talking about dog breeding and breeding for better health temperament, fertility,and longevity etc. Im struggling to see how this could be such a bad thing or worse than hit and miss especially when these sort of things have in the main been neglected. Ill think on this but right now I cant see how more knowledge and more information could be anything but a good thing. Its hard to consider someone would use such info to the detriment of purebred dogs rather than to their benefit. It can be harmful if you are depending on those methods to over come continuing problems- Good breeding practices with out those aids becomes harder, more complicated and impractical for small hobby breeders. More suited to a commercial venture and less part of a communities responsibility. Reducing the environment. It sacrifices more of the value in small hobby breeders.Less purpose for breeders and more for science driven by the ecconomics.

But removal of that rule says nothing of the sort. The rules for breeding PEDIGREE dogs stay exactly as they are. The rules for breeding pedigree dogs are set into the rules and constitution even without that rule. It serves no purpose to the pedigree itself. Pedigrees would function the same way as they do now. A positive ruling ie: "We WILL..... " gives direction and purpose. It tells you to do this brings value to the purpose of the organization (or dogs) A Negative ruling gives no direction. It simply informs where there is no value to be had. Its a ruling AGAINST values to be had. What values must not be accepted into the pedigree system. Its a ruling against the environment, or what is out side the pedigree system. In this case, every thing out side the pedigree system. Never mind the fact that its STILL a dog. The language of the constitution says there is no value in any direction outside of a pedigree. The culture of its membership are bound to express that. Just as much as the language of genes govern expression. Exactly what constitution are you referencing ? ANKC origninaly, though I haven't found access to that more recently than several years ago. Though I would use as reference any registry with a rule against members breeding dogs out side of their protocols. There is no reason to exclude what was not there to begin with. As for individual breeders striving to do their best, I believe they do. Cells respond independently to their environment. How that is expressed in a cell culture though, depends on the language in the genetic code that binds them.

But removal of that rule says nothing of the sort. The rules for breeding PEDIGREE dogs stay exactly as they are. The rules for breeding pedigree dogs are set into the rules and constitution even without that rule. It serves no purpose to the pedigree itself. Pedigrees would function the same way as they do now. A positive ruling ie: "We WILL..... " gives direction and purpose. It tells you to do this brings value to the purpose of the organization (or dogs) A Negative ruling gives no direction. It simply informs where there is no value to be had. Its a ruling AGAINST values to be had. What values must not be accepted into the pedigree system. Its a ruling against the environment, or what is out side the pedigree system. In this case, every thing out side the pedigree system. Never mind the fact that its STILL a dog. The language of the constitution says there is no value in any direction outside of a pedigree. The culture of its membership are bound to express that. Just as much as the language of genes govern expression.

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard. Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions. 16% in a survey is not too many. moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose. Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool. Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog. But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away. It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin. Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing. Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity. The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs. So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job. As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today. That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow. No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs. Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only. Is that it? It THAT the rule you constantly reference and push about it being the root cause of the problems? Yes. I have been quite clear on that from the start. But thats not true - there is no rule which forbids members to recognise value in a dog ineligible to show. Show me where in the constitution of the ANKC that this is stated. If a breeder wants to demonstrate their success in breeding dogs which conform to the current view of the standard then the show ring provides a reward for them but to suggest that this is the only reward a breeder seeks or can receive is way off the mark. I think you confuse a pedigree with a registered pedigree.A dog can still have a pedigree if its not registered on the Kcs system even a hand written one scratched up equivalent to a birth certificate is a pedigree and as I have pointed out numerous times the ability for breeders to use dogs which are not registered, which do not have a pedigree - registered or other wise is now and always has been available when there is a good enough reason and when the necessary criteria is reached. There is a system in place which protects the breed from everybody making their own individual decisions in this regard which comes from the breed clubs. Its the only value recognized by the CULTURE. Individuals will always recognize the individual priorities relevent to them, and their own unique perspective. But that is environmental. And why there is often so much difficulty in gaining recognition for those efforts.

Feel free to provide proof that pedigree dog breeders are sticking their heads in the sand. The proof is in this thread, in the show ring and in vet surgery's. I could ask you to provide proof that they don't have their heads in the sand but that would achieve nothing. I am interested in solutioms not point scoring. You are taking a very combatative approach to this issue. This issue is too serious for me to play word games. I suggest you check the information going out from the state CCs - and the varied discussions on facebook will show you that breeders do not have their heads in the sand. And I also suggest that you watch carefully because some breeds will be banned in due course - and everyone will say "oh those damned breeders" but where is the proof - either way? Not all dogs are healthy, as some horses, cattle, sheep and children are not healthy no matter what tests are done. That's nature. I think the majority of breeders are trying - but it will make no difference to the eventual outcome. I'd like to see some proven figures. We were told that up to 70% of Cavaliers had CM/SM. yet a survey by the Cavalier club in Australia found that less than 2% had CM/SM. As a breeder, how do I overcome that rumour?? dog-fan Where did you get that idea? what is "ineligible to show"? If it is non-stud book, of course it is ineligible. There is not even proof that it is the breed it is stated to be. One of the reasons I breed pedigree dogs is that IT IS TOO HARD to breed decent dogs without knowing something about where they came from. I use dog X and my pups look like another breed - I use Dog y, and the pups have cow hocks and bad mouths. Because I didn't know who the grandparents were, and it turns out they were exactly the same. NO one is forced to breed pedigree dogs. It is for many people - including me - to be assured that the dog they are using is (a) purebred and (b) from parents who are of acceptable quality. I knew most of the dogs behind my dogs, and can see photos of the others. And before this comes up - plenty in the dog world, including me - use dogs which are not heavily shown or titled. However, titled dogs are more visible, and usually better quality dogs. It is the bitch's owner's choice what dog to use. Where did I get that idea? From the constitution and rules of the K.Cs. Forbidding breeders to breed from a dog ineligible for registration means that there is no value recognized in a dog ineligible for registration. or not conforming to a recognized breed standard. The show ring is the measure of conformity and ( I may be wrong on this point? But I believe) any dog with a full pedigree is eligible to show? I have no argument with any of the points you bring up, or your right to breed only pedigree dogs. Or to show them. Nor do I believe an unregistered dog should be eligible to show. Only with a constitution that denies there can be value out side of that system. Because by its very nature, it will OPPOSE values out side of that system. And the SPECIES depends on those values. Not just the K.Cs. A constitution will only do what is written into its charter and rules. If there are problems, look to that charter and rules to find where that direction is coming from. I have done that, and my conclusion, based on research into how to write a successful effective constitution and rules leads me to that ruling. For reasons I've already out lined in this thread, on advise that a successful constitution avoids negative instruction. The reason given is that a negative instruction does not set clear direction, Only implications. Negative instruction can never bring value, but can only restrict values INTO a direction that may be unforseen. Its a ruling that states opposition to some thing, Most often the environment that constitution must exist within. If those values out side of that organization aren't recognized, but opposed, that equals a directive to reduce the environment. And this all seems to be borne out.

I know some of the most valued breeding dogs around are ordinary show dogs. Most breeders I know value dogs by what they produce in the whelping box. There are also the instinct dog sports. I get this sense from some folk that they think that pedigree dog folk don't think and worry about these issues and are blind to the extremes of breeding. Maybe you need to search out some different forums. They DO talk about it, they do worry about GSD hind ends and other extremes and they sure as hell DO criticise. I have shown horses, and have many dog breeder friends. So I DO know these are things breeders are concerned and worry about, and striving to correct. Which is why I have NEVER said they are not, or blamed breeders in any general sense.

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard. Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions. 16% in a survey is not too many. moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose. Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool. Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog. But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away. It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin. Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing. Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity. The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs. So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job. As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today. That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow. No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs. Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only. Is that it? It THAT the rule you constantly reference and push about it being the root cause of the problems? Yes. I have been quite clear on that from the start.

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard. Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions. 16% in a survey is not too many. moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose. Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool. Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog. But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away. It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin. Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing. Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity. The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs. So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job. As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today. That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow. No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs. Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only.

Guaranteed ancestry. What a dog looks like may not be what a dog is. A pedigree is not just a piece of paper. Family trees matter. They don't matter just in pedigrees though. They matter in any dog. Steve, I believe this addresses your post also. The same things matter weather you are breeding to a pedigree or not. You may believe otherwise, but we are not talking about you the individual, who has a choice in your beliefs. We ARE talking about a culture, bound by that rule in its constitution and the cumulative effects of how that rule will be interpreted at any given point in time, and applied to any problem in any given point in time. By the culture. The same values, knowledge of ancestral history, apply to ANY deliberate breeding. Those values don't depend on a certificate of pedigree to validate them. Not in reality. The belief they DO require a certificate of validation is why pedigree breders don't teach those values outside of the K.C environment though, and why those values are being lost. WITHOUT that rule, a pedigree would represent the knowledge and ancestry behind a breed. With that rule, all it can be is a certificate of validation. It can NEVER guarantee those values are there or fully appreciated by the breeder. Putting forward arguments af natural law are not 'pointless' when any species depends on those same laws for survival and viability. Despite artificial selection. The sciences of Physics, psychology, language, Evolution and biology are not irrelevant because you select a dog rather than take it. All those subjects are relevant and seem to support this theory. The 'Its not us' and 'show us the proof' responses to the problems are BECAUSE of that rule. It doesn't allow members to see there is problem and respond to address it. To ask, 'How can we add and demonstrate better value so those traits are no longer seen as a problem?' The problem is seen in other terms. "How do we eliminate those problems and who/what dogs will be the target?' We sure as hell wont eliminate those problems by pushing for that rule to be removed because right up until there is no life left that rule will stay. If there is an acknowledgment of that and discussion can move on to finding REALISTIC solutions to help ensure we do what is best for the dogs we may make a small step forward. You have to know which battles you can win and right or wrong no drum banging is going to change that rule. But based on what I see here - there is a hell of long way before strategies are actually developed that will see the breeds still exist into the next century. Until its clear you speak for all K.C Orgs. then, I will trust the silence means they are waiting for the RIGHT answer, when and if that becomes clear. If its about the dogs. Maybe thinking of some of the enormous positive implications of change, if it turns out to be correct, as I have no doubts it will. Physics governs life. Human cultures mimic and repeat 'Laws' laid down at the cellular and genetic level. This ties together various 'human'science disciplines that appear to reinforce this theory. We are talking cultural evolution. A cultural imperative, as much as any genetic imperative. I don't see you getting any where with out changing physics. You do realize I am not promoting the opening of stud books, I hope? Because I believe this solution in most cases would mean an end to increasing 'red tape' and restrictions, as well as increasing genetic variability without that. It does not ask the K.cs to be any more than the registry they set out to be. It does not force them into a greater role. Or to 'police' anyone more than current rules allow. It doesn't COST them anything. It only brings value, unless they believe a pedigree has MORE value than the dog it represents and I prefer to hope thats not a reasoned position. You want realistic solutions based on faith? Right up until theres no life left? Be careful what you ask for. I don't believe you can health test, "experimental breed", blame or even out cross your way out of this. Not with out addressing the cause. Yeah, you have to know which battles you can win. And which will cost most. And what the prize is. Then take responsibility for your choices.

Guaranteed ancestry. What a dog looks like may not be what a dog is. A pedigree is not just a piece of paper. Family trees matter. They don't matter just in pedigrees though. They matter in any dog. Steve, I believe this addresses your post also. The same things matter weather you are breeding to a pedigree or not. You may believe otherwise, but we are not talking about you the individual, who has a choice in your beliefs. We ARE talking about a culture, bound by that rule in its constitution and the cumulative effects of how that rule will be interpreted at any given point in time, and applied to any problem in any given point in time. By the culture. The same values, knowledge of ancestral history, apply to ANY deliberate breeding. Those values don't depend on a certificate of pedigree to validate them. Not in reality. The belief they DO require a certificate of validation is why pedigree breders don't teach those values outside of the K.C environment though, and why those values are being lost. WITHOUT that rule, a pedigree would represent the knowledge and ancestry behind a breed. With that rule, all it can be is a certificate of validation. It can NEVER guarantee those values are there or fully appreciated by the breeder. Putting forward arguments af natural law are not 'pointless' when any species depends on those same laws for survival and viability. Despite artificial selection. The sciences of Physics, psychology, language, Evolution and biology are not irrelevant because you select a dog rather than take it. All those subjects are relevant and seem to support this theory. The 'Its not us' and 'show us the proof' responses to the problems are BECAUSE of that rule. It doesn't allow members to see there is problem and respond to address it. To ask, 'How can we add and demonstrate better value so those traits are no longer seen as a problem?' The problem is seen in other terms. "How do we eliminate those problems and who/what dogs will be the target?'

Or delete the rule that misdirects breeders from the dog to the pedigree. Even logic alone should point out the fault in that rule. The insinuation is that there is some danger inherent in dogs with out a pedigree that must be defended against, If a ruling against breeding any dog ineligible for a pedigree is required. That is an assumption all pedigree breeders, under that rule, must work with. So what separates a dog with a pedigree from a dog with out one? Thats a question the K.Cs must constantly strive to answer and define. But the answer is : NOTHING but the pedigree itself! So the dog goes, bit by bit. What lies outside a pedigree is a dog. And that is Hendrik Gommers Theory in a nut shell. It works.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice. Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are likely pretty ignorant as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again. Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another. The people doing these kind of crosses are not generally "pedigree breeders". I've seen quite a few claims of "improving breeds" made for new "breeds". From what i've heard the much hyped Australian Bulldog has succeeded in raising levels of dog aggression above what you'd find in BBs. Is that an improvement? You don't just get the 'good' genes from the breeds you use. You get the lot. There have certainly been authorised outcrosses over the years. Use of Golden Retrievers to solve the problem of a minute gene pool in Flatcoats is one example. English and Gordon Setter crosses were authorised in Scandanavia some years back again due to lack of numbers. In sighthounds, the only "new" breed in recent years has health issues completely unknown in other sighthound breeds. Reason? The use of Shetland Sheepdogs to put coat on the Silken Windhound. If you can't test for conditions (as you couldn't for MDR1 at the time) outcrossing doesn't always improve anything. I agree. I think its often a better option to allow availability of demonstration examples for some time before inclusion into a pedigree. This would allow for observation and testing before selection of individuals who bring best value to the mix. When you are artificially selecting animals you get what you select for - you lose things you don't select for .Its virtually impossible to be able to work on more than one thing at a time and get the desired results. Asking a breeder or a group of breeders to eliminate dogs which have extreme health issues due to the way the head is shaped AND also focus on hips, elbows, colour, temperament recessive polygenic and reproductive issues all at once is really a bit of a joke. it wont work effectively if there isn't an understanding of the possible risks and patience to see it through, Any purebred breeding program requires a breeder to identify the goals for each litter ,fix what they are after and then go back and fix up what they may have lost while they took their eye off it. If in fact the temperament or anything else has slipped while they are working on what they have considered the major goal then once they have achieved the goal they can begin to keep what they now have and fix anything they have to in order to finish the project. So at the end they have the good bits and not the bad bits.But it takes time and knowledge. It certainly takes a pedigree breeder who gets it and sadly there are few who really get it but to suggest that dogs being used in such a project should not be included in a pedigree before the availability of demonstration examples completely ignores why a pedigree system is used in the first place. Without a pedigree record with every dog that is used for breeding identified via a pedigree , the person or people working on anything can't determine where it went right or where it went wrong to use the info to move them forward in ther goals Edited to add there are issues relating to the system that will prevent much progress. For example in order to protect the breed the system doesn't enable a handful of breeders who don't agree with the breed club to get approval for an experimental breeding program. Good reason for this but it also very much restricts anything being done to one philosophy and anyone seen to be aiming at one goal which doesn't fit with the mob mentality with focus producing a champion is bullied and ostracized It is difficult to believe that this subject can be truly examined on this forum. Man has been selecting dogs for centuries with out a pedigree system and it worked well enough to bring us distinct types and unofficial 'breeds'. Much more slowly, yes. But steady improvement and reliability was achieved because the dogs allowed to thrive were those selected by the environment that supported them- Based on Values demonstrated. Those dogs who brought best value were most sought for breeding. Those with less value were not.It was a value adding system. It allowed for INDIVIDUALS to focus on their own priorities and add value to the whole as it applied to their own situation and specific purpose/environment. Domestic Dogs only environment is humanities communities and society. Thats what governed the selection process to give rise to the species. There was nothing artificial about that selection process. Its wasn't perfect, 'Mistakes' occurred. But because of the broader selection allowed, and the value seeking nature of environment, those mistakes were 'mostly' short lived. Thats where a pedigree realy shows its benefits and value.In tracing both negative and positive values to speed up and make more efficient that NATURAL selection process. Great value to be had from a pedigree, no doubt about that. When applied to specific groups of dogs classed now as pure breeds, a pedigree has incredible potential to add to the values for purpose of that pure breed. Those values for purpose are ALWAYS decided by environment, and will depend on what values the ENVIRONMENT can recognize as worthy of support. The only successful response of a species is to make sure it adds value to its environment to earn that support and favor that will allow it to thrive. Value adding. It becomes UN-NATURAL only when environment is excluded from that process. As happened when K.Cs ruled members must not breed a dog ineligible for registration. That took pedigree dogs OUT of their natural environment and placed them into an un-natural environment we call the K.Cs. The K.Cs become a distinct environment of their own with that rule in play. Purpose of the breeds is no longer to serve the environment that grew them, and MUST support them for viability, but to serve the K.C 'Owning' that pedigree. Independent of the environment that supports the species as a whole. Where ever the current K.C cultural priorities lie is where the focus will take the breed in any given time period. Disregarding environmental priorities which are always individualy specific to allow for the whole range of environmental values. The species purpose to mankind, his environment, will always be secondary to those priorities. So yes. It is a joke to expect Pedigrees breeders under the current rules to be able to work on more than one thing at a time, when current trends in the show ring replace environmental values for purpose. Yes it has worked well enough to bring us distinct types and official and unofficial breeds but this is 2016 and we are talking purebred dogs and what is required to improve their health and welfare .No breeder then or now could ever work on more than one thing at a time and get as good a result as timely toward their goal. Appologies Steve, my post was incomplete at the time of your response. Has been Edited because it takes me time to formulate my thoughts. Should be much clearer now, but I am limited in eloquence. No individual breeder can do it faster, I agree. Its the cumulative effects though of MANY individual priorities ( or environments) all at once that drive direction of the whole. This is not allowed under present rules of constitution, where only a single environment at any one time is able to be recognized. The overall needs and demands will be the same, but that environment is only able to have limited focus at any given time.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice. Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are likely pretty ignorant as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again. Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another. The people doing these kind of crosses are not generally "pedigree breeders". I've seen quite a few claims of "improving breeds" made for new "breeds". From what i've heard the much hyped Australian Bulldog has succeeded in raising levels of dog aggression above what you'd find in BBs. Is that an improvement? You don't just get the 'good' genes from the breeds you use. You get the lot. There have certainly been authorised outcrosses over the years. Use of Golden Retrievers to solve the problem of a minute gene pool in Flatcoats is one example. English and Gordon Setter crosses were authorised in Scandanavia some years back again due to lack of numbers. In sighthounds, the only "new" breed in recent years has health issues completely unknown in other sighthound breeds. Reason? The use of Shetland Sheepdogs to put coat on the Silken Windhound. If you can't test for conditions (as you couldn't for MDR1 at the time) outcrossing doesn't always improve anything. I agree. I think its often a better option to allow availability of demonstration examples for some time before inclusion into a pedigree. This would allow for observation and testing before selection of individuals who bring best value to the mix. When you are artificially selecting animals you get what you select for - you lose things you don't select for .Its virtually impossible to be able to work on more than one thing at a time and get the desired results. Asking a breeder or a group of breeders to eliminate dogs which have extreme health issues due to the way the head is shaped AND also focus on hips, elbows, colour, temperament recessive polygenic and reproductive issues all at once is really a bit of a joke. it wont work effectively if there isn't an understanding of the possible risks and patience to see it through, Any purebred breeding program requires a breeder to identify the goals for each litter ,fix what they are after and then go back and fix up what they may have lost while they took their eye off it. If in fact the temperament or anything else has slipped while they are working on what they have considered the major goal then once they have achieved the goal they can begin to keep what they now have and fix anything they have to in order to finish the project. So at the end they have the good bits and not the bad bits.But it takes time and knowledge. It certainly takes a pedigree breeder who gets it and sadly there are few who really get it but to suggest that dogs being used in such a project should not be included in a pedigree before the availability of demonstration examples completely ignores why a pedigree system is used in the first place. Without a pedigree record with every dog that is used for breeding identified via a pedigree , the person or people working on anything can't determine where it went right or where it went wrong to use the info to move them forward in ther goals Edited to add there are issues relating to the system that will prevent much progress. For example in order to protect the breed the system doesn't enable a handful of breeders who don't agree with the breed club to get approval for an experimental breeding program. Good reason for this but it also very much restricts anything being done to one philosophy and anyone seen to be aiming at one goal which doesn't fit with the mob mentality with focus producing a champion is bullied and ostracized It is difficult to believe that this subject can be truly examined on this forum. Man has been selecting dogs for centuries with out a pedigree system and it worked well enough to bring us distinct types and unofficial 'breeds'. Steady improvement and reliability was achieved because the dogs allowed to thrive were those selected by the environment that supported them- Based on Values demonstrated. Those dogs who brought best value were most sought for breeding. Those with less value were not. It was a value adding system. It allowed for INDIVIDUALS to focus on their own priorities and add value to the whole as it applied to their own situation and specific purpose/environment. Domestic Dogs only environment is humanities communities and society. Thats what governed the selection process to give rise to the species. There was nothing artificial about that selection process. I was driven by environment. Its demands for demonstrated value. Its wasn't perfect, 'Mistakes' occurred. But because of the broader selection allowed, and the value seeking nature of environment, those mistakes were 'mostly' short lived. A pedigree has great potential to show its benefits and value in tracing both negative and positive values to speed up and make more efficient that NATURAL selection process. Great value to be had from a pedigree, no doubt about that. When applied to specific groups of dogs classed now as pure breeds, a pedigree has incredible potential to add to the values for purpose of that dog. Those values for purpose are ALWAYS decided by environment, and will depend on what values the ENVIRONMENT can recognize as worthy of support. The only successful response of a species is to make sure it adds value to its environment to earn that support and favor that will allow it to thrive. Value adding. It becomes UN-NATURAL only when environment is excluded from that process. As happened when K.Cs ruled members must not breed a dog ineligible for registration. That took pedigree dogs out of their NATURAL environment and placed them into an un-natural environment we call the K.Cs. The K.Cs become a distinct environment of their own with that rule in play. Not just a natural variable in the many different environments available and supportive to domestic dogs. Purpose of the breeds is no longer to serve the varied environments that grew them, and MUST support them for viability, but to serve the K.C 'Owning' that pedigree. Independent of the environment that supports the species as a whole. Its a SEPARATION of values and purpose. Where ever the current K.C cultural priorities lie is where the focus will take the breed in any given time period. Disregarding environmental priorities which are always individual specific to allow for the whole range of environmental values at any one time. The species purpose to mankind, his environment, will always be secondary to the K.Cs own purpose and priorities. So yes. It is a joke to expect Pedigrees breeders under the current rules to be able to work on more than one thing at a time, when current trends in the show ring replace environmental values for purpose. For a tiny groups priorities to replace the purpose dog fill in their environment.To replace variable environmental selection with one of variable timing. A dog either has a pedigree, or it doesn't. The ruling that forbids recognition of any value in dogs with out a pedigree is superfluous to that system and draws a line of separation in/of environment. Be careful what you ask for. Its no longer 'just' a closed system. Its an encapsulated system with out that recognition of value for species before 'breed'. Whats out side of that line- is to be kept out. Its a system that defines itself BY that separation of values. So instead of a value adding system it becomes a value reduction system. A negative instruction can only limit value.It can never add value. That instruction limits values to those contained in the K.C specific environment. So apart from a pedigree, what are they? Those values CAN"T be about the dog 1st. Not while its pedigrees alone that represent membership to that encapsulated environment. Not while K.C values must be held distinct from the common values inherent in the species to its natural environment. K.C member breeds under that rule are forced to constantly redefine what its own environment, membership and values DO include, to keep that unwelcome environmental influence at bay. An impossibility. There is no pedigree with out species. There are no pedigree dogs with out an environment to hold them.. It narrows priorities (and knowledge) in breeding to what IS already contained in a pedigree, known and recorded. Demands are timing variable, rather than environment variable. The more time passes, the fewer values available to select from to meet current demands. If the only values recognized must be in pedigrees to begin with, "Improvement" must be through elimination of fault or imperfection. Its a closed system. Nothing CAN be added. Protocols may be there, but the culture is set, 'fixed' on value reduction, not value adding. Its a culture programed to define its purpose (the pedigree) by what is excluded. The only thing that can be excluded from environment must be more environment or parts of it. No matter how you logicaly CHOOSE to look at it, the reality of the language in that instruction means the purpose of the K.Cs is Pedigree. NOT dogs. Its not dogs that define them. Its pedigree. The problems faced by the K.Cs in adapting to demands are less to do with the closed stud books than they are with the closed culture that holds them. That rule closes the culture to influence from the whole of their environment, restricting it to only those who value the pedigree above the species itself. The environment that holds that culture is unable to influence direction and choices. Does not matter if you tell me YOU believe other wise. The truth is in the language of the instruction, for the CULTURE. To make that a positive instruction, You would say 'We will protect pedigrees from dogs'. Positive instruction gives a clear direction of purpose that make implications easy to predict. A negative instruction gives NO direction or purpose. You aren't choosing a direction. Its the opposite of direction. It can only limit into the mirror image of a direction. By giving implication. Its harder to see the direction an implication will take you. Any signator is bound by that instruction, to that culture. That is a signators choice. K.C members are NOT victim to the world or environment they inherited. Only a victim of the environment they choose to separate from it. That culture COULD choose to respond. Removal of that rule allows response. If it chooses not to, it WILL suffer the environmental attrition of not being able to do so, by the environment IT exists in. That rule is what allows and even encourages the attrition of signators who attempt change. Those who do try to change can not be favored in a K.C environment. Not under a rule that restricts environment to what is known to be there, yet improve on it.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice. Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are likely pretty ignorant as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again. Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another. The people doing these kind of crosses are not generally "pedigree breeders". I've seen quite a few claims of "improving breeds" made for new "breeds". From what i've heard the much hyped Australian Bulldog has succeeded in raising levels of dog aggression above what you'd find in BBs. Is that an improvement? You don't just get the 'good' genes from the breeds you use. You get the lot. There have certainly been authorised outcrosses over the years. Use of Golden Retrievers to solve the problem of a minute gene pool in Flatcoats is one example. English and Gordon Setter crosses were authorised in Scandanavia some years back again due to lack of numbers. In sighthounds, the only "new" breed in recent years has health issues completely unknown in other sighthound breeds. Reason? The use of Shetland Sheepdogs to put coat on the Silken Windhound. If you can't test for conditions (as you couldn't for MDR1 at the time) outcrossing doesn't always improve anything. I agree. I think its often a better option to allow availability of demonstration examples for some time before inclusion into a pedigree. This would allow for observation and testing before selection of individuals who bring best value to the mix.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice. Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are unlikely to be familiar as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again. Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another.

Then Rebanne I respectfully apologize for what I thought was clear sarcasm in defense of breeders in general and Greyhound breeders more specificaly. Apologies to every one else who might be offended by my generalized defense of same. I wait with baited breath to see if the GSD breeders learn before its their turn. Who else does it wrong? Ah yes Greyhound breeders! Then theres Dachies. Shar Pei. Hmmm. Puppy farmers. In the end, no one can be trusted to do the right thing. If we out law the keeping of dogs, no welfare problem at all.

What am I doing wrong? Rebanne, I Don't say you are doing any thing wrong. I don't know that you are and chances are, absolutely nothing. Ditto with the other mentions. No doubt some are. Its human nature that we are an imperfect lot. There are welfare issues associated with the breeds that are increasingly becoming a focus. That will continue while people prefer to identify with a distinct group that draws a line between itself and the communities that hold them. Promoting the idea of distinct and separate values ensures those values can't be shared coopperatively - and in a shared environment thats an essential outcome to avoid rejection.

I also have been a vet nurse who has seen the suffering 1st hand. I have not said its acceptable by any means and agree an animal should never be bred to suffer. Far too many do. There is absolutely no way I could blame BYBers for this..... These deformities have clearly been selected over many generations over healthier alternatives. Those calling for BSL to tackle this problem are left with little other choice. I have been saying for some time BSL was a logical result of current K.C rules of constitution. The problem as I see it is that it is not going to end there and instead of fixing problems we are left with little choice but to legislate against their possibility. BECAUSE they are forced to operate under a negative values system and teach the same. As do many, many other accepted Orgs. society works with or under. Breeders like Jed who genuinely care and strive to breed for health 1st, and could have much to teach are lost. So we have removed a great deal of value from the environment of domestic dogs when this move takes its course. Shrunk the environment able to hold and value dogs. I wait with baited breath to see if the GSD breeders learn before its their turn. Who else does it wrong? Ah yes Greyhound breeders! Then theres Dachies. Shar Pei. Hmmm. Puppy farmers. In the end, no one can be trusted to do the right thing. If we out law the keeping of dogs, no welfare problem at all. If you can't teach and practice value adding yet need change, you are left with no alternative but value removal. The culture enshrined in the K.Cs rules means real and LASTING change is nearly impossible to implement. And some very good breeders are victims of that culture more than they are of this legislation.There is a choice to change that culture. Not much chance of affecting the legislation with out doing that 1st. Steve, this move against Brachy breeders may be planned but is only a small part of a process that has been underway since the inception of the K.Cs and the blue print inadvertently set out for the species. Theres a lot more to come that hasn't hasn't even been a stray thought yet.