moosmum

I still say we need a single body to speak for all. The divisions caused by the current situation mean there can be no consensus on practical, inexpensive, enforcable legislation. So it provokes ill considered knee jerk legislation that is complicated by exemptions and riders for different groups who deny any responsibility. And while all this goes on, and on, nothing is solved because the root problem is lack of value and purpose for dogs in modern society. And all parties denying any responsibility. The commercial breeders can say they have the most stringent conditions to be met, the pedigree breeders that they have the best out comes and long established protocols and fewest numbers of dogs bred, the backyard ( intentional) breeders that they have the right to decide what they want in their own backyards with that choice being hijacked by other groups. Yet each one of these groups have numerous members who have little concern for the dogs and are in the business for money, or prestige, or simply are simply inept for one reason or another. The only dialogue on what practices we all agree on aren't discussed- only whats unacceptable is discussed and usualy in context of showing another group is better. This just keeps highlighting the problems to legislate away. What value does society get from dogs in all this? There are only headaches and we are legislating the DOGS away. You will not legislate a value and responibility for dogs.It must be taught, by example. No one is holding their hand up.They would not need to if it were recognised that its a shared responsibility. Its no ones problem so becomes a political issue. If these various groups can't work together to form a common consensus on just what best practice means,they are unable to promote best practice at all. They will only be able to draw attention to the poorest practices, to look good by comparison. New registries form to address shortfalls in the system. To gain credibility, they try their best to have the most strict of rules and protocols.So they too, can deny responsibility. The list of problems grows, because the public is not shown how to appreciate the benefits. Another, all encompasing registry is NEEDED if society wants to keep dogs, in any meaningful way. Or, The K.Cs could allow their membership to breed dogs that will not be elligible for pedigree registration, if they don't want to pay double fees, to allow a natural evolution of the species with a focus on knowledge and practice, written ernestly into their constition. This focus on negatives promoted by various groups in competion for their ethics only de-values dogs further and confuse the public as to what a good breeder is and what their own responsibilities are.

Unfortunately its not a myth.What people won't accept (and just watch the flak I cop for posting this) is that Puppy Mills exist to feed demand. You've got "Registered Breeders" who produce a litter every two years, subject prospective owners to inquisitions and onerous conditions, then bemoan that people buy fluffy crossbreeds from pets stores. At the end of the day, breeders can be as selective and exclusive as they want, but if the annual demand for puppies is X, and reputable breeders only produce Y, then X-Y must come from other sources. Of course you can sit back and say that puppy buyers should be better educated, and that half of them probably shouldn't be buying puppies, but the reality is what it is. Government regulation will only work if it is broad enough, and well resourced enough, to capture everybody. Conceptually its simple. ANYBODY that wants to breed puppies for sale, must be registered and regulated, and subject to a code of practice and monitoring. It wouldn't eliminate all undesirable practices, but proper veterinary care could be enforced, and overbreeding reduced. Requiring brood bitches to be registered and vet certified could also help. The problem, as always with any dog legislation, is WHO is responsible for enforcing it, and who will PAY for it. No flack from me. Any one who genuinely cares for dogs and their welfare can see that there are major problems- trouble is there are so many groups pushing for solutions that suit their own agendas. Most of the problems seem to come back to the divisions between dog interest groups all pushing for solutions to symptoms, not causes,so as not to disadvantage themselves. A single body that speaks for all, while promoting purpose and care in the breeding and ownership of dogs is needed, not more legislation brought about by pressure from single interest groups who have no trouble finding ammunition from a society that is not taught to value dogs. The more legislation is seen as the solution, the more likely it is all we will be left with IS commercial breeders.Lots of revenue for govt. creating jobs. Supply meets demand,strict regulation and licencing to over come problems that do show up..... And no more worries of peeps doing the job of dog breeding with out being "qualified". If thats where we end up, dog WILL have become just another commodity.But thats what we seem to be pushing towards. Any solutions need to take an wholistic view and not just single issues. No one group has answers that address the root problems.( May be Peta, just get rid of domestic dogs, problem solved) Dogs must be bred and held in care "by the people, for the people" Not single interest groups with agendas irrelevent to the rest of the population. We need to find a way to do that and that takes a society TAUGHT to value the whole species and all their broad potential. The willingness is there, or we wouldn't have so many pushing for change. Lumbering people into groups according to their practices, then trying to eliminate the whole group, only serves to push us all closer to commercial only breeders.Promote practices and care, not groups.

The first question is why is the dog in the pound in the first place? Is it because it is an escape artist and the owners are having trouble keeping the dog confined. Is the dog there due to other behavioural issues - snapped at a kid. (Owner may not be forthcoming with that info hoping the dog will not be PTS and they will find it a home). Is the dog there because it is truly dumped because it did not stay cute and fluffy and small or if a cross breed, did not develop to what it was supposed to be? Rehoming dogs from the pound will depend on their looks, their age and what kind of reeducation or conditions they now require (such as high/solid fences, no children). My experience from working out of a pound, most were crossbred. We occasionally had pedigree where we could chase microchips, but they were a much smaller group than the cross or "purebred" as the current fad is (even for your oodles). Of the pedigree dogs, majority were escape artists. The remainder were predominantly from a different demographic. Poorer families, ethnic with possible different views (without being racist, older Asian, islander or aboriginal families). Difference could be, a pedigree costs double the price of BYB. So those of lesser economic means, may enjoy the pet, but not be in a financial position to get said pet desexed. If they are in typical QLD housing commission properties, the 3 foot cyclone fencing, quite often decaying may not be suitable to adequately contain the animal. A lot of socio-economic issues to deal with. Society as a whole needs a shake up how we look at pets and being responsible for our pets. Australians in a general sense look at having a dog/cat as a given right rather than something we are fully responsible for. Even to facilities offered by the powers that be that allow us to take our dogs here and there.. (As compared to some European countries) Puppy farms are becoming a smaller percentage of the problem compared to BYB. Puppy farms still need to jump through red tape to operate. Believe me, I certainly do not support them. But what is becoming. A bigger problem to control is the increase in BYB hiding two or there dogs in back yards and breeding each season and also forming their own little breeding rings. Saw it when I was a council ranger. Very hard to control and also vey hard to police. They hide under the radar of officials.. Two dogs here, two dogs there. Unregistered with council, if they cause no nuisance, they do not get reported by neighbours. Advertise on gumtree or similar sites. They are really reportable to no one. Council does not have the resources or finance to keep up or constantly check. We also have certain red taped we have to follow. We can't go barging in waving the proverbial big stick with reason. Proving good reason can be hard. Just look of gumtree now and you see ads "parents papered" and health tested. Yeah they may be. May be on the limit register, but unless desexed before sale as a pup, no guarantee they will be desexed at 6 months or even 2 years. Attitudes have changed over the years, where cross bred mongrels are now flashy and have designer names. "Rare is getting used more and more often" You cannot tackle the dog in pound problem until you tackle the human problem of irresponsibility. True. Its a breeders choice how they deal with that irresponsibility, and buyers choice to go with it or not. Personaly, I wouldn't buy a pup from a breeder who desexed early. Its not a choice I would make for my own dogs and as an experienced owner, I would want to know my breeder does not think they are selling to some one incapapable of making their own choices for their own dog, responsibly. I'm not saying its wrong. For some buyers its likely very right. Just not right for me. Early desexing doesn't tackle irresponsibility. Just means part of the responsibility is removed. Controlling more aspects of dog breeding or ownership does nothing to tackle irresponsibility. It denies response-ability.

Also clever marketing, :laugh: but I love the goals and the support their community is giving. And how much its already giving back.

Hope this works, I'm a P.C git. Can't put a more direct link. http://www.saugeentimes.com/ This takes you to a small online version of a small town paper in Canada.Theres a story "Knights play for more than just a win" that takes you to the story and further links. Relates to the formation of the humane society. What a lovely,dog supportive community and an example of what could be....

Idealy, yes. There should be only the one standard that includes both working and show lines. The way the K.Cs constitution is written ensures that K.C breeders as a body will breed for the show ring environment 1st and foremost, tho' individuals may strive for more- Its the K.C/ showring environment that gets the kudos. There is no effective recognition of the many other environments out side of the K.Cs that contribute to the development of a breed, such as working homes, pets or other service to man. Had the constitution been written differently,I believe there would be far more variety within breeds,enabling them to cater to the many different home envirionments people provide even within breeds. The differences would be more acceptable because the standard would be subject to a far broader scrutiny with the whole of environmental possibilies taken into account, with greater encouragment to be catered for. A show ring win would not be seen as the only true measure of a breeders sucess, but the icing on the cake. I believe the general public would be wiser too, on the selection of a dog and the importance of finding a breeder who can meet their own individual needs. There would be more understanding that an individuals purpose and goals have a place in any breeding program. Without that tolerance of these environmental influences on breeds within the K.Cs, we see breeds split into smaller groups when ever there is debate on what should or should not be acceptable with in a a K.C recognised breed.

And in this country when having the opportunity to add Amstaff's to the list being essentially a Pit Bull, they exempted papered amstaff's so the "your breed is next" has already been tested. And thats the important point to you because? Ah, You don't care what becomes of domestic dogs. You feel that as long as even pockets of K.C breeders exsist to keep a pedigree going, Anything worth while in the species will be preserved and developed. Through predictability? Domestic dogs can go. You wish to ensure a pedigree can never be confused with a domestic dog. You can decide that for us all. ALL dogs have a pedigree. Not all have an accessible recording of that pedigree. As a registry only, The K.Cs were set up as a keeper of those records. Anything else is political and not the place of a registry only. If the K.Cs are to have real value, its as keeper of those records. The record doesn't bestow the value! Its the knowledge and practice behind them that should be ongoing and valued. It IS ongoing and can only be as good as the membership you can attract. If "domestic dogs" are to go, the process won't favour a record. The only thing that can turn this around is for people to recognise the VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE and practice of dogs and breeding. And then the K.Cs real value is self evident. (edited for punctuation)

Even better if people understood the real value of a pedigree is in researching more than just how many show ring awards are attached to the ancestry. There is no other recognized measure for successful breeding practices given such priority within the K.Cs, even if it IS recorded. As I read the situation, allowing members to cross breed would add value to traits not specific to the show ring environment, but to the broader community environment as well. Making it easier for members to breed for pet homes and situations, broadening gene pools. Encouraging the environmental demands that are lacking to keep predictability but add RELIABILITY. Encouraging the greater development of canine sports and activities at a community level to encourage purpose and goals in dog breeding. And ensure that registered breeders are recognized for the knowledge and purpose they specialize in, not just show ring awards that have little to do with the purpose of dogs. Giving RESULTS of breeding practices more avenues of display and recognition. Such an action would bring MORE value and understanding to a pedigree through broader uses and APPLICATION. And bring back a sense of purpose for dogs in the broader community.

If you're interested in health or temperament, pedigrees do a crappy job of recording history. They tell you breed, birth date, colour, and immediate ancestors back three, five, or if you push it, more, generations. They tell you about which dogs are imported and record titles. THEY DO NOT TELL when the ancestral dogs died or what they died of. They do not tell you anything about the dogs' health or temperament. They do not tell you about siblings and half sibs and whether they lived to a ripe old age or were pts'd for health or temperament problems. Environmental selection criteria. Or if you prefer, market selection criteria. That these qualities have been neglected by many within the K.Cs over time also supports Hendrick Gommers theories. The K.Cs become like an encapsulated sub environment. The goals and criteria evolve separately from, but still dependent on, the larger supporting environment. The messages and demands from the environment within over-ride those from the actual supporting environment from without. The recording and attention to these details by registries today recognizes that environmental demands are not being met and treats the more obvious symptoms. That action does not seek out or address the root cause.

Forbidding K.C members from breeding a dog inelligible for registration - on a Cultural level,this affects both how the K.Cs are percieved, and how members promote themselves. It serves to de-value un-recognized breed dogs in the eyes of the community. Thats the majority of dogs. As this proccess continues, fewer appreciate the species or recognize their responsibilities in regards to it. Or have avenues where pride,values and purpose are promoted for the average 'pet dog'. Pedigree dogs must then be "protected" from an un-caring and ignorant comunity.So pedigree dogs become an ever more specialized field, requiring more protections and becoming more issolated from the mainstream in the process. Sorry, but I'm convinced more than ever this is what is happening. I truely can't fathom why such fear at the thought of a rule change that will have no effect on the pedigree system at all, other than to make more members welcome to promote socialy responsible dog breeding and attitudes, with purpose. The science is there to back this theory, but there seems to be a fear of looking at it, even to save pedigree dogs. Predictability and strength of certain traits will always be valued as long as there are people who value dogs in their lives for any reason or purpose. To promote reason and purpose for ALL dogs can only bennefit the pedigree system and would have huge implications for welfare.

I would, but then I've made my own cheese and lived years with out power and several with out refrigeration. Is it in a sealed pack? What is the temp in there? I would think if its 'Off' it would be changed to look at or smell. I cured my own 2 months in a small stone pantry built on to my kitchen.

My oldest was 18 years when we let him go.Got when I was 11 as a family dog, but always mine realy and came with me when I moved out of home at 18. He came every where with the family on hollidays etc.in the days when off lead and wandering the neighbourhood was pretty standard. A beautiful looking boy, we always people stop and ask would we sell him . Also got pinched a couple times but found his way home with new collars or remains of rope. He had to be left with another family at 6 for a year while my family were overseas and sat and howled when we we went to pick him up, then jumped in the car and refused to come out to say good by to his carers, but was back to his usual self at home with no ill effects. He was a tri working mix, a little bigger than usual. Always lean and active on pal and similar foods but lots of table scraps and eggs and anything else I could sneak him. A very smart boy, I used to challenge people to think of some thing they wanted him to do and we would have him do with in 10 minutes.He traveled Aus. with the O.H and I and was a dog who went just about any where a dog has been and more. Never a problem in any situation and amazed my boss at the vets when he was taken in for a wound from a fight for his good nature and obedience. He just wandered around with me for the day taking care of the other animals and jumped up on the table and lay down to have his wound shaved. Saved a neighbour girl from a dog attack,came on 15 k horse rides, 3 legged races at school, took part in parades. A very hard goodby to a dog who was there while I grew up and up until the births of my own 3 kids.

Moss for being the bossiest dog I've ever known and for the way she slaps her paws on the ground for a sit, drop or stand and anything else it will add a flourish to!

Do you mean political resistance or physiological to the chemicals? It seems to be getting used a fair bit in the USA, not sure what that is worth though?? Political. I think acceptance in the U.S is patchy too, depending on your home state.

It hasn't been approved for human use here yet, because of resistance to the ingredients. I doubt anyones asked yet for veterinary use.

yes - that was my first thought.... It does happen, I've seen it myself in a bitch that had cycled normaly for 5 years. I would trust the vet on this one.

I don't believe this is a result of anyone trying to eliminate pure breeds. Just people trying to look out for welfare of animals. Just like laws targeting puppy farms, limits on numbers of dogs able to be kept by non breeders etc. Animal welfare is a bigger issue than ever before. These are breed specific issues that did not originate any place other than specific pure breeds. This is an environmental demand for animals that meet the needs of their environment. Until registries are set up to allow for environmental influence (by allowing for legitimate choice of alternatives) there will be more. Change from within is difficult because those who try are battling against a culture that is set and geared to please those who are already wholey accepted in that culture, before environmental demands can be met.

Because they are a registry only. I think thats a good thing, BUT ...They have left themselves open to an expectaion of more through ruling beyond the scope of a 'registry only'. That brings an expectaion of more. I've also called for more education. Now I believe thats better achieved through exposure and cultural change. Acceptance and a more welcoming, helpful and less judgemental introduction to dog ownership. We should all be promoting responsible good practices. Explaining the what and why of requirements to being a good owner, not censuring. We don't concentrate on promoting good practices. We assign blame and broadly label,then try to eliminate not the practices, but the whole label. Poor practices aren't confined or universal to any label, but are more a symptom of the slow de-valuing of the dogs themselves. From a human psychology perspective, promoting good practices and knowledge adds value to the 'product'. High-lighting the poor and bad practices de-values the product.

Leema, Sounds like you have just been through a very frustrating and upsetting time. So sorry things have not worked out for all your hard work. I think you are being very unfair. A good breeder will do all they possibly can to see a dog of their breeding does not end up in trouble, and to get them out of it. I agree there are too few of them, but its very unfair to lump all together because of your recent experiences. I have seen and been part of breed rescues who go to great lengths to take care of their own breed and crosses of repeatedly here on dol. I'm sure you must have as well, and your comments would be be very hurtfull to those who do all they can and some time far more than they can easily accomodate with out turning their lives and their families, pets lives upside down. These people are doing every bit as as much as you, with as much care and compassion. I can't say if the people you have been dealing with are being reasonable or not. I don't know any of the situation. Some times what people want to do is just not practical or possible for any number of reasons and you can't be sure those people aren't hurting badly because of it. Maybe they are just crap breeders who deserve your anger in this instance. There are are far too many of those . But to accuse breeders in general of being the same is just unreasonable when there are so many examples of just the opposite. P.S. I do think there are far too many breeders who use the pedigree label just to buy legitimacy with out question of their practices or ethics.

Pedigrees are NOT the problem. They did not cause BSL. What caused it is the fact that people are so isolated from dogs and breeding that they give no thought to the parents of the pups they buy. Many no longer see them. They don't understand dog behaviour and they don't care enough about their dogs or their community to socialise and train their dogs to make them safe. No pedigrees are not the problem. They have been a terrific inovation in dog breeding. Again, I have no problem with the pedigree system. The isolation IS the problem. I agree. So why continue with a rule that causes that isolation when it would have NO EFFECT on the pedigree system ? That single rule isolates pedigree breeders from their foundations, and their foundations from pedigree breeders. It is a double closed system.It isolates both sides from the other. No legislation is going to solve that problem. I Don't blame the dogs. But I can't entirely blame people either. How can they understand when they are kept at a distance? Blaming people is easy. Both sides of this argument do that as 1st resort. So it continues.

Pedigrees are about history. The history of a dog's antecedents. People used to give a damn about such things and they valued their dogs enough to record ancestry. They cared enough about dogs and the roles they performed to selectively breed dogs for certain roles. Until not that long ago, that was pretty common. I agree completely. Just what I thought I was saying.

Take a good, long, hard look people because we are talking about the future of dogs. No divisions here. Can any one deny that the value society places on dogs is dangerously low? How does that NOT affect pedigree breeders? Isn't that what makes Reg. breeders become ever more "exclusive"? Who will be left to breed FOR? Its self perpetuating cycle thats gaining momentum. How much more exclusive can you still get? This is a whole lot bigger than pedigree dogs. The examples of how this is working against us all are near endless if you need more but the bottom line is that this isn't going to work unless the community can work together to show and encourage the value of well bred dogs, not just pedigree papers because that works against you too. The papers can't be more important than the dog if good solid breeding practices are the purpose behind them. Look at the old movies like Lassie and Rin Tin Tin, read the famous quotes about dogs through out history made by well known historical figures. Its changed for the worse and that should not have happened with the advent of an organization set up to maximize good breeding practices. It should only have had a positive influence. Good breeding practices and open discussion of what a good dog is and how to maximize that are forgotten. Its all about a pedigree. Not a dog. If no one can show where I am wrong, and all these pieces keep slotting together to complete the puzzle I can't just sit on it. Does any one understand this, or do I need to write a book after all?

I hope H.D.W is right, and I agree targeting SBT would certainly bring out some opposition! I can't help but come back to the logic that a pedigree is where breed specific originated. While pedigrees are based on exclusion, how can we expect legislation to be any different? If K.Cs world wide lead the way in all things dog, isn't B.S.L a logical conclusion? Exclusion brings improvement, doesn't it? Isn't it whats makes pedigrees what they are? They are exclusive?

We need to be concerned about BSL for survival of the BYB cross breed industry and the illegal breeding of APBT's for what reason? The people breeding these dogs that are not APBT related but fit the looks criteria need to take more responsibility for what they are breeding and selling IMHO. No one needs to breed Amstaff X Labradors selling them to naïve people who become attached to their pets for the council to seize them is gross irresponsibility on the breeders part. Better to ask why they see the need to do it in the 1st place. Why do they feel their needs can't be met through the K.Cs? Well that would be because what they do is different - is this a trick question? I guess it is if you aren't interested in looking at any other POV. Or is that a joke?