moosmum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC/950109/ That one rule change allowing K.C members to breed outside of the registry system could, over time, address all the concerns raised in this paper. By creating a culture receptive to environmental demands. AND more knowledgable, with a broader experience and understanding of breeding practices,goals and possibilities. Much less intrusive,restrictive, or complicated than choosing to be "victims" of increasingly unsustainable changes. What has this paper to do to do with breed specific legislation? Most any other solutions to the problems mentioned will need to be breed specific, weather thats forced on members through legislation or agreed upon within the K.Cs breed club members. Either way, the solutions will be restrictive rather than creative while that rule exsists. It will always place limmits on direction.

Beautiful dogs. Heres Little pup, when she was, and now

We go in circles here. I bow out after this, because it seems to be true.... K.C breeders are unable to recognize their own environment. This means comunication between the environment and the breeders who operate with in it are lost. I have not over looked the desire to protect the breeds. The ruling has nothing to do with protection of breeds.It only says that what occurs OUT SIDE of the registry is unacceptable.So its not worthy of improvement. Nothing to discuss, begone. It does not just ensure further legislation for puppy farmers, but all affairs in our dealings with dogs. A practice or thing is deemed unacceptable, full stop. K.C breeders can truthfully say "this is a bad thing, Its not what WE stand for" and because of that, they refuse to take any responsibility for "it". So, the experts on dogs refuse to communicate with their environment on the issues, and how they can be avoided.They don't teach the value in what they do. Lets say an environment and the species that thrive in it communicate. 1st method by impulse. This is provided by the genetic blue print.In dog speak, its what "drives" the species. The goals. The purpose. In humans, we add to our purpose and goals as a species when we unite under a common cause. (document, constitution, religon or purpose) That affects the impulses that drive us. Goals GIVE purpose. Our actions in satisfying those drives affect the environment. 2) is response. How we respond to our environment. If our environment throws up problems in achieving those goals, how do we respond? Response- ability. ie: Spey and neuter are responses to over breeding. If we take responsibility, to respond to the problem. If the species (or population, breeders in this case) does not recognise its own environment, its unable to respond to problems. It can not take responsibility. So it attacks the environment instead, to get rid of the problem. The environment becomes an antagonist, not some thing you work with, and respond to, but some thing to be eliminated. The environment for breeders of dogs, regardless off their affiliations, is a community that supports and can value dogs. Pedigree breeders will always be a small part of that environment. They are not "IT". And if they do not take responsibility and recognise that, It will continue to be erroded from under them, and every one else too. That rule denies any value to dogs out side of the K.Cs. It stands in the way of promotion of values out side the K.Cs,simply because breeding out side of the K.Cs own self imposed boundaries is unacceptable to their members. They have cut communication and don't teach/show a value to the environment. Dogs attacking? Not within the K.Cs! Unacceptable. Eliminate the problem dogs. Puppies raised in squalid conditions? Not any more, that was unacceptable and has been out lawed.Hoseable concrete from now on. Unsocialised pups in pet shops? Ban shops selling pups. Instead of teaching the value of socialisation. or choosing a type of dog you have the ability and expertise to control.Or the health requirments for dogs. Because now all that is not a K.C problem. Not their responsibility. They are the experts, but will not communicate or teach values out side of their own boundaries. Goals are a positive. They set direction. A negative ruling can ONLY place limmits on that direction and the K.cs direction is now all inwards. Successful or better breeding practices are denied out side the K.Cs.because no matter how good or responsible, its unacceptable in that it occurs out side the K.Cs own protocols and boundaries. Those boundaries and protocols will now require further restriction to KEEP those practices or problems outside. The expectations that come from the environment can't be met.

Mystiqview, I agree with pretty much every thing you wrote. I'm not after more rules or regs either. I agree with Steve that pure or cross shouldn't come into legislation. I have been trying to say that a specific rule of the K.Cs was made out side of their charter. This means it will now affect both the org,and what lies outside of that orgs boundaries if you can accept the physics of biology. The eccology of "Dog breeders", no matter which group they choose to align themselves with has been thrown out of a natural balance through restriction of environmental influence.Because that ruling can ONLY ever restrict,we are locked into a cycle of restriction to deal with the imballance. This rule ensures further legislation. Its deletion would not affect what pedigree breeders do in any way unless of their own choice.It does not require further legislation, or for any one to align themselves with any group. It does allow for the environment or eccology of dog breeders to regain a healthy balance and to concentrate on whats required, whats possible and whats expected, rather than whats unacceptable. Goals.Not restriction. This is straight out physics of biology applied to human populations and I'm sure could be verified. It certainly seems to be supported by all the evidence. Its social engineering to bring about a positive, healthy breeder eccology and removes the cause of the majority of issues being faced by ANY breeder that prevent better out comes. Most of the issues being brought up can be shown to relate to the exsistence of this rule within K.Cs. People don't seem to get how the physics of biology come into play when writing any document to support a group or community united under that document, or how the physics of biology can affect the outcomes. You are writing a biological plueprint for a population and how it interacts with its environment. Ruling out your environment gradualy undermines every thing you stand on.

I agree Mystiqview. Steve, I think I see where where we are getting each other wrong. 1st, I'm not breeding and I'm not looking for a group to belong to. 2nd, If you don't have 'that rule' and after another look at your site with this purose in mind, Yes, It does look like the MDBA is just what I was wishing for. The problem for me is that while this- attitude can be seen as a credit to any accepted registry, then WreckitWhippets statements are like a self filling prophesy. How can 'they' be otherwise, if 'they' are deemed to be unacceptable no matter what they do? Where are examples and incentive to improve practices going to come from? If any who try for better are shot down as unacceptable before any one even knows just WHAT they ARE doing, or their motives? So for myself, its not Only about viability of breeds and organisations, its about allowing better/improved practices some recognition, and improving welfare out comes for the people/animals who are most represented in pet owner stats. Its about not denying better practice, or improvement to those who don't come under a K.C charter. I will P.M you next few days.

No one is asking them to represent any but those signatory to their own charter.The pedigree breeders who follow their protocols. They CAN'T represent any one else. So no, it would not encompass all breeders. They are quite entitled to represent their members as they fit. Removal of that rule would not change that. For dogs sake, there is no US and THEM!! There is only a community and its expectations. Any division of those expectations is the K.Cs own device. That rule is a political statement beyond the bounds of what they do. Its not their business to make rulings there unless they DO accept responsibility. By re-inforcing that they don't do it, with a negative ruling, its not JUST that don't do it, its that they are OPPOSED to it. Anything that does not occurr within the registry. So the communities expectation is now divided and all placed on this one organization to provide for all needs. We should expect nothing from out side the K.Cs right? So they carry the expectations of us all. Its an un-realistic expectation. So when its not met, another org . starts up in opposition. I say opposition because thats the only position open to any whos needs aren't able to be met within the K.Cs. Of course they can't meet the expectations of the whole. Opposition is written into the charter. Its not a real division. Its written words that can be unwritten. They oppose by choice. They chose their antagonist and named their fight.Its all who are not with them, so we are all drawn into it. They would not need to meet the expectations of us all if they did not oppose those who might meet other needs. With out that rule, with out that division, there is just a community. Some keep dogs, some don't. Some are pedigrees, some aren't.Some breeders register with a body to promote their own specific goals and interests, some don't. But each of those people carries then their OWN responsibilities to meet the expectations of their community.The expectations are the same for any breeder or owner... that they excersize due care and take responsibility for their own choices. Its not opposition to the K.Cs that cause the problems, but its opposition that they recognise.Its what they see and what they react to because its what they named it, this outside influence.There is no US and THEM. There is only expectation. An all encompassing organization is only needed if the antagonism can't be removed otherwise.

All those reasons. And thats why I believe allowing K.C members to breed dogs that will be in-eligible for registration would would work. An all encompassing Org. Would not be needed. The general public would have a K.C influence, and a stake in understanding the realities and responsibilities of breeding. An understanding that joe average could support. And the minute you do that everyone who is now a member because they only want to be seen to be associated with purebred dogs leave. Purebred registered breeders have been promoted as superior , their dogs have been promoted as superior - the management, the group the membership dont want to educate or support those who they believe are not doing the right thing. Hell they dont even like some of the breeders who do breed registered purebred dogs and would like to see them chucked out. Anyone can breed dogs and most can give some justification as why they do what they do but being able to breed predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs capable of breeding predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs generation after generation takes a philosophy and belief system which takes on the job of doing so as an honour, a life's work almost like a religion as well as skills, knowledge experience and education. These breeders use the registry and the pedigree system to profile their pedigrees, gain knowledge of other dogs and the health and temperament in their ancestry they put everything they have into selecting and managing their dogs for optimum health for generations to come. When this is the general aim of purebred dog registries/KCs why on earth would they say its O.K. for their members to be doing exactly the opposite and breed dogs which are ineligible for registration? why on earth indeed why undermine the very essence of what breeding should be about. Oh! You mean thats NOT already happening? Whoo hoo!

:laugh: 'Little Pup is the same, a game of try to get it is her fav.thing. Thank dog shes learned give. Slowly learning that when her orange is too mangled and juicy to throw or roll on its own she can bring it in exchange for a fresh one and and that I can throw or roll it far better than she can.She finaly starting to bring it of her own accord. only because I'm just not agile enough for sustained chase games.

Was going to post a pic of my boy and the 'present' he gave me yesterday, but better not. Some might find it offensive. Heading to the stables and watched my boy who went ahead as usual pounce and grab at a grey fluffy ball.Catching up, I found him with a rat he had dispatched very quickly. When I told him what a good boy he was he gave it to me very politely. :) Id just been off to get pics of the yellow tailed cockies in the tree so managed to snap my big "low prey" boy in action. Rats in my stables are not often, there is rat sack placed where dogs can't reach and as a precaution, dogs are kept out and the door closed unless they are with me.

I agree. I can't see any way the ANKC or kennel clubs could ever represent 'all dogs' when Dogs NSW are actively involved with and take profit from BSL in NSW. They provide 'breed assessors' designated to either 'pass' or 'fail' dogs based on visual ID (arbitrary and inaccurate) assessment, and remove assessors from their list that don't 'fail' enough dogs. They take half the fee for all breed assessments. They also run a course that is supposed to 'build skills on visually ID-ing different dog breeds' but focuses most of its time on the Bull and Terrier breeds (including the APBT even though they don't recognise them as a breed) and is marketed almost exclusively to councils. Council officers from Victoria are traveling up to do this course and then using it in court to justify their declaration that a dog is restricted (and therefore should be destroyed). I can't ever see them being a representative for all dogs/owners/breeders and to be honest there are plenty who wouldn't want to be represented by them given the above. You're likey right, but I can hope the traditional K.Cs genuinely want sustainability to the extent they are willing to look into this. To take responsibility for their own future rather than embrace victim status.It looks very much to me like its their only option for viability of the established breeds. If that ruling against breeding outside of the K.Cs can create a culture where members are unable to recognise their own environment when it comes knocking, so can't accept responsibility to it, ( as has so effectively been demonstrated here) A reversal of that ruling should bring changes in the culture that cause it to BECOME an acceptable represention of needs. Slower than starting from scratch maybe, but at least with a possibility of saving the established breeds. A completely alternative registry based on purpose may not be able to do that. It would need to be an understanding of membership that "betterment" for dogs starts with actively promoting a better understanding of the species 1st, as a responsibility of any dog owner. Not promoting the poorest practice and assigning blame, but taking responsibility to change poor practice to better practice. For the rest of us, we have the same choice- accept victim status in all of this mess, or take responsibility, in which case an alternative registry may be the only option we are left with for biological sustainability of the species. If no one steps up, that leaves us with commercial breeding as the only biologically sustainable alternative, and the final commodification of dogs.

:laugh: Hope you had a Happy Christmas Steve, and that you have great new year.

There is now and always has been the potential for anyone to breed an animal which is not normally eligible for registration with the KC if you can justify why you think it would benefit a breed and have the board agree it would do no harm. That is not allowing for your environments needs- that is deciding the environments needs. Because you have ruled against your environment, you are tied into a process of elimination to achieve success. With out responsibility to your environment,it can only react in kind.

Anyone can breed dogs and most can give some justification as why they do what they do but being able to breed predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs capable of breeding predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs generation after generation takes a philosophy and belief system which takes on the job of doing so as an honour, a life's work almost like a religion as well as skills, knowledge experience and education. These breeders use the registry and the pedigree system to profile their pedigrees, gain knowledge of other dogs and the health and temperament in their ancestry they put everything they have into selecting and managing their dogs for optimum health for generations to come. When this is the general aim of purebred dog registries/KCs why on earth would they say its O.K. for their members to be doing exactly the opposite and breed dogs which are ineligible for registration? Because it doesn't have to be exactly the oposite. There is no reason people can't embrace better practices. They have made it clear they expect better practices. And better practices are not defined by the pedigree. Better practices lead to a pedigree, after being shaped by market/environmental demands.. They don't do better, because registered pedigree breeders don't bother to teach the value of what they do. They ignore their market and say" if they don't know how to deal with the product,they aren't the sort of people we want to deal with any way." If you claim to be producing a top of the market product, isn't it normal that people need to under stand what goes into it instead of just taking your word for it? What MAKES it special? Why is that important? What good is it and how is it relevent to me? What are my responsibilities to ensure I get the most from it? How do I operate this? As producers of such an exclusive product you can't take for granted the support of your market, you have to give value. Not what you tell it is value. What the environment/market itself can recognise as value. Its your responsibility to teach the market/environment how to recognise it, before it can respond,( or show responsibility ) Demononising the competition isn't the same, Every one comes out smelling off and you are left with negative value.

That statement assumes we all have the same vision of what is success. There is now and always has been the potential for anyone to breed an animal which is not normally eligible for registration with the KC if you can justify why you think it would benefit a breed and have the board agree it would do no harm. My definition of a species success would be that it thrives, in balanced give and take with its environment for minimal stresses between them.

That statement assumes we all have the same vision of what is success. There is now and always has been the potential for anyone to breed an animal which is not normally eligible for registration with the KC if you can justify why you think it would benefit a breed and have the board agree it would do no harm. Sorry, double post.

No one is trying to eliminate anything - its just not what they do. They don't have to try. Physics of biology ensures the result just the same. The rule against your environment set it in motion a hundred and fifty years or so ago and its been working steadily at the job ever since. Its gaining momentum. The jobs nearly done.

Has anyone been watching Stephen Hawkings series (SBS? ABC?) There are predictable results of physics, in biology that shows humanity are are at the mercy of their environment in ways that cause them to doubt we have freedom of self determination at all. This rule of the K.Cs against not breeding an animal ineligible for rego. is an example. Its entirely predictable that it will damage the environment. It also shows, to those willing to learn, that we can have self determination by understanding the laws of physics (and biology) and using them to maximise success. There is a choice here. To be victims of your environment, or to take responsibility and maximise the chance of success.

Anyone can breed dogs and most can give some justification as why they do what they do but being able to breed predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs capable of breeding predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs generation after generation takes a philosophy and belief system which takes on the job of doing so as an honour, a life's work almost like a religion as well as skills, knowledge experience and education. These breeders use the registry and the pedigree system to profile their pedigrees, gain knowledge of other dogs and the health and temperament in their ancestry they put everything they have into selecting and managing their dogs for optimum health for generations to come. When this is the general aim of purebred dog registries/KCs why on earth would they say its O.K. for their members to be doing exactly the opposite and breed dogs which are ineligible for registration? To be free to promote worthy values instead of trying to eliminate an ever growing list of what is not worthy. Elimination will not work, it breeds enmity.

All those reasons. And thats why I believe allowing K.C members to breed dogs that will be in-eligible for registration would would work. An all encompassing Org. Would not be needed. The general public would have a K.C influence, and a stake in understanding the realities and responsibilities of breeding. An understanding that joe average could support. And the minute you do that everyone who is now a member because they only want to be seen to be associated with purebred dogs leave. Purebred registered breeders have been promoted as superior , their dogs have been promoted as superior - the management, the group the membership dont want to educate or support those who they believe are not doing the right thing. Hell they dont even like some of the breeders who do breed registered purebred dogs and would like to see them chucked out. Sounds a bit like the members of Islam who believe the old texts proclaiming that Muslims are distinct from humanity and all else is unworthy. It doesn't seem a sound philosophy, trying to separate yourself from your environment.The environment is Erroded, not least because internaly, there will always be doubt about where the environment starts and the separate body begins, so there is internal strife as well as outer. What is a true Muslim? What is a true A.N.K.C member? Its too easy to forget the values that bind the group together when members are preoccupied by what sets them apart. The values are lost or diminished. What positive benefits does the ruling against breeding a dog in-eligible for registration bring to these resistries? None. It can only restrict and does so in ways that aren't easy to see, unless you look. The rule, from a biological perspective says environmental influence on the breeds will not be tolerated. You speak of science, yet this ruling has no scientific merit, exactly the oposite. It can easily be shown to cause great harm to the environment, the species and the organisation.We are seeing the results. It degrades the environment. If humanity is the environment for domestic dogs, then the " market" is the environment for breeders. Any breeder has a responsibility to his market. A strong and healthy market is able to recognise quality when they find it, and promotes it as value.

All those reasons. And thats why I believe allowing K.C members to breed dogs that will be in-eligible for registration would would work. An all encompassing Org. Would not be needed. The general public would have a K.C influence, and a stake in understanding the realities and responsibilities of breeding. An understanding that joe average could support.

So these people are giving the public a say in how dogs are bred, but its all one sided. People are so out of touch with anyone who actualy breeds and takes pride in a job well done, they are easy to influence.Theres no influence to counter.

For any single body to work and to be successful all other bodies would need to cease to exist . Why would purebred breeders want a majority of people who dont understand purebred breeding to represent them? My belief is that we should all join together and focus on what is best for the species however I do not believe that what is best for the species is to breed puppies which are not predictable .My group offers education and unity to all dog owners - no one needs to be a member to complete courses or join in discussions etc ,rescue members do not need to only help purebreds and there is no restriction on how many dogs a person can own or breed however, our breeder members agree with us that purebred dogs are what is best for the species we also have a great relationship with other groups who are different in base philosophies including the puppy farmers group - and we regularly have loads of input into current issues pertaining to dog ownership, rescue and breeding. Im not saying breeding cross bred dogs without the aim of developing a breed is wrong but its not what we do and I personally would not want a group of people who was made up of people who didnt have this view to represent me or my needs as a purebred dog breeder. Why would all other bodies cease to exsist ? The idea is to promote purpose in breeding and share knowledge of ALL aspects of breeding and ownership, to promote responsibility in those undertaking them. You would represent your own needs, much as happens now, but maybe with better support.

Thanks GL. I am still learning how to express this and never sure if its understandable. All for dogs, For all dogs. :D Christina, I don't think "puppy farms" should exsist at all either. But while we accept that only restrictions can lead to improvement, that we can legislate our problems away, ( With a big stick,how about a bit of positive training? ) commercial puppy farms ARE inevitable. They don't have to be. I agree with this but while ever you have animal rights and animal welfare educating breeders on how to breed dogs and having the legislators introduce regs which are not based on science - and some purebred groups going with the flow so they dont look bad and just giving in to it - no hope. Regs on kennel housing are fashioned on how to house boarding dogs or pound dogs not breeding dogs - all of the husbandry and management are based on crap and not science so before you can have your group being one dot effective you have to work out how to shut up the loud noise which plays a political game and hold the power. I would think thats the purpose in having a united body- To have a voice that speaks from a position of strength, knowledge and the goal to encourage its use so that people make their own informed choices and take responsibility for them. Owners and breeders alike. If animal rights and animal welfare are the ones educating breeders/owners, why is that?

Thanks GL. I am still learning how to express this and never sure if its understandable. All for dogs, For all dogs. :D Christina, I don't think "puppy farms" should exsist at all either. But while we accept that only restrictions can lead to improvement, that we can legislate our problems away, ( With a big stick,how about a bit of positive training? ) commercial puppy farms ARE inevitable. They don't have to be.

There can be a single body, Ifs its purpose is not to regulate or restrict members, but to support and share learning. The Legislation we have now is mostly all thats needed. Its goal should be to promote value and purpose for dogs, to work towards greatest success for the species, in partnership with man. If you value some thing enough, your actions to hold on to it will reflect that.You appreciate it and take pride in it. Purpose provides benefits that add to that value, and give a return to the environment the subject thrives in. The differences you see as insurmountable are environmental demands. Accepting there IS a broader environment to be considered allows for adaptaion in response to changing environmental demands. In choosing to breed dogs, you can choose to breed for a successful species, with purpose that ensures value to its environment so that its success is assisted, or for other goals. The physics of biology.