moosmum

Pedigree dogs are a great accomplishment we should all be proud of. they are the culmination and demonstration of good breeding practices. THAT is their biggest selling point, or should be. They have been leading the way because of that. They are still gaining members who believe in that. The best breeders don't breed a dog because its pure, they breed it because its good. But a line has been drawn. The K.Cs attracts those members of the community who believe in better breeding practices, yes. But you can concentrate knowledge within the K.Cs for only so long. A member of the K.Cs can have little influence on the general public. How many times do we see breeders refusing use of commonly used publications or media because they don't approve of the company? So while knowledge is concentrated in the K.Cs, Its lost else where. Knowledge isn't shared and spread, its with held. Ignorance outside of the K.Cs increases and thats the base you draw new memberships from. What message do these ignorant people get from the K.Cs as incentive to join? Are they going to be attracted because they see pedigree dogs as the pinnacle of good breeding? Or because they think a pedigree itself will always demonstrate better breeding? That is the paradox contained in the charter. People join because they believe the former and thats what they want to promote. The rules and charter say otherwise and favor those who joined for the latter reasons. An organization will, over time, get the culture that is written in to their constitution and rules. Its the culture that always gets the advantage to grow. What makes a good a good breeder is no longer clear and needs to be constantly redefined. It can't be defined by practices. Practices can't ever be unique to the pedigree itself. Pedigree dogs are the RESULT of Best practices. They can't replace best practices. Pedigree dogs are the logical conclusion of best practices, but don't always equal them. So breeders are left to define themselves by what they aren't. I can only explain what I see. I can't swear I'm right, but theres been nothing to tell me I'm wrong so far.

H.W (Tried to reply to specific lines in your post and deleted quote tags) The benefits you mention for associate members with mixed breed dogs are given on condition those dogs genes will not be passed on. The benefits come with an acceptance of suppression. Breed specific legislation is entirely dependent on recognition of breeds as specific.It has far more to do with pure breeds than their mixes.

I apologize for my confusing posts. I tend to think in terms of natural or biological law so need to find a way to translate what I see into a more usual language. Pedigree dogs are inextricably tied to mixed line dogs. They will not survive with out them. If you eliminate or suppress the cause of your existence, where is the demand for what you have become? What drives you to become more, or decides what "betterment" means? If somethings improvement is not driven by environmental demands, who decides its an improvement? For an organization/organism to be successful it has to reliably meet the needs of its environment. The most successful will also have the most positive influence on its environment.

Care to provide an example of a Kennel Control ruling beyond its boundaries? The ANKC has been openly against BSL from the get go and continues to hold that line. The fact that an organisation established in the interests of purebred dog breeding and registration is not in favour of crossbreeding should be a no brainer. Nonetheless has plenty of members wo neither breed, nor own purebred dogs via its Associate register and thought its CC affiliated dog training clubs has done a lot for dog training ordinary pet owners throughout Australia. Frankly I have no idea what you're on about with all these "rulings". What rulings? Very happy to try H.W. Don't know how this will go since my i.net connection is near zilch atm.So may have to do this over several posts/days even. I have spent the last 10 years or so trying to figure this out and confirm. I believe I have done so, to my own satisfaction at least. But an explanation won't be done in a few minutes. These rules for writing a successful constitution are not hard to find. I haven't made them up.Seeing how they work in practice is much harder. 1 explains about the effects of negative rulings. Another the effects of ruling out side of your charter. You write your charter to set the goals of your organization. In the K.Cs case, to set up a registry for the breeding of pure bred dogs. An organization can ONLY operate on the messages and instructions contained with in that charter, and WILL do so. Language and nuance is critical. I agree, cross bred dogs have nothing to do with that. Therefore, any ruling concerning cross breed dogs and open lines is out side of K.Cs charter. Its sets up what I believe is called a double negative. Your charter has already set up a registry that does not include mixing breeds, so the ruling against members partaking of the practice is superfluous. If they breed cross breeds, they will not be eligible for registration with K.Cs any way.Cross breeding has no bearing on what the K.Cs do. That ruling outside of the K.Cs charter means now it DOES affect the K.Cs, The membership has chosen to sit in judgement of the practice.Its seen as antagonistic to K.C goals. So there has been a line drawn between whats done within the K.Cs, and whats done outside of them. The K.Cs can NEVER allow a positive influence to those practices. Because of that, those practices will suffer disadvantage, or a sort of oppression. They are not free to thrive and evolve in a healthy manner.They are always under attack. The message radiated by the parent body has been corrupted. Those messages inform the intent.Instead of using the registry as means to record whats gone before to make better decisions for the future and work towards betterment of our pure breeds, the message has become that purity and closed lines alone lead to better dogs. You aren't defined by knowledge or your practices. Purity it is. Closing and keeping lines closed is the key to improvement, else why are open lines a threat? The theory behind the advise not to rule outside of your charter is that an organization takes on a biological life of its own. Its a population. Such a ruling is usualy a ruling against against that organizations environment. The environment for pedigree dogs can be defined as what they grew from. What gave rise to them. So foundations are a better description here. What gave rise to our pure breeds must be retained if they are to remain relevent to their environment. With out it, they loose their place, purpose or role in their environment.

Yes. Me. I don't call it a win for dogs or against BSL. You don't want ABPTs banned. Fighting against BSL by advocating that another dog breed be banned? That's the flaw in your logic. Any line of argument, as used by the APBT people during the fight to stop BSL, that tries to put other breeds in the crosshairs, is hardly going to endear the wider dog community to the APBT side of the argument. Don't use the "we're all in this together" argument while shoving other breeds into the spotlight for targetting. That's illogical too. It's also bloody unfair. Nope we aren't all in this together, as clearly those who have ANKC registered animals are not subject to BSL Yes Ricey, I also read and care. I work in my own way to bring change, because I think BSL is just one symptom of the mess the dog world is in, and that there is a common cause. That it affects ALL dogs and owners regardless of affiliation and the only way to over come these problems is to aknowledge that we ARE all in this together. The K.Cs cant survive with out their grass roots, or foundations. Its their support base, source of growth and new blood. Its made up of all the ordinary people who choose to have dogs in their lives. The current K.C constitution binding members asks us to sign up to a belief there is no legitimacy to what occurs out side of the K.Cs. Passes judgement on its foundations by disallowing them within its membership. Because there can be no separation from your environment,Your definition of yourself and what holds you apart can only narrow. Its a double closed system with no out side influence permitted on breeds, OR those who breed them. It has ruled negatively on its foundations and therefore as an organization, regardless of the individuals who make up its membership, can only ever have a negative effect ON its foundations. Legislation such as B.S.L is just one way we shrink our environment. Its a symptom. Ruling negatively on an issue ( such as cross breeding) is a way of restricting the environment you work within. A negative ruling or law can ONLY restrict. It becomes taboo and we don't look too closely at whats taboo. So, when problems are caused by restrictions that make us unviable, we tend to try to restrict them too instead of being able to see where the problem starts. Like a noose, it gets tighter. A closed environment, such as the K.C, can only shrink, unless its self contained. Its no longer self contained when it rules beyond its own boundaries and a negative ruling can only have negative effects on that. The K.Cs ruling against members breeding out side of their own charter means that as an organization, they will always hold themselves apart from whats seen as a hostile environment. It will be treated accordingly. What individuals believe is not relevent to the direction set by the charter. It forms the intent of the organization and rules dictate how the intent is to be achieved. Negative rulings (ie against) limit direction and alter or corrupt intent, positive rulings clarify it.

So sorry to hear this. Your boy lived with love,in the best of hands. Run free Teddy.

Hi outbackdean, There are people here much better qualified to help you out, but I have a few questions that will make it easier for them anyway. How much time a day do you spend with your boy? Does he spend plenty of time inside with you or out side mostly? How much excersize and mental stimulation does he get daily? When you are not with him, what has he got to keep him occupied? Does he like to chase things? (apart from his tail ) Is he a nervous or does anything in particular stress him ? Do you still do obedience or any other training with him? Till some one better qualified comes in ( they will) I would be interrupt the behavior whenever I see it, get him to focus on something else, starting with me 1st.( 'cos only I can correct and redirect) try to teach him better ways to cope with what ever is causing this.Basicaly try to give him plenty else to think about. You describe him as higher drive. What "drives" him most? Wishing you well with this, must be very upsetting.

My 1st dog lived to 18. There from when I was 11 years old till I had 3 kids of my own. As long as I can remember he had a black rubber ring he found some where. It would go with us on walks and when he got tired of carrying it I would place it 'round his neck. He was not a lab, but we often had people think he was a guide dog when they saw me use his toy as a 'handle' :laugh: That toy either followed us, or he found identical all his life through at least 6 moves and a year he was 'fostered' while we were over seas. Haven't seen one like it since

I don't think its too unusual, I've known a few cats who were quite protective of their 'pride'(?) and if their people or other pets are included in that, then they get the same. Brilliant footage, and cat tho'!! And a very lucky little boy. The best I saw was a large black Lab. who stuck his raging head in a cat door under a house, where a mother cat had kittens.Mum was behind him. A tiny little black thing barely a kitten herself. She Screamed, leap on his back with back arched and tail upright clawing into him with all feet at once. The dog yelled and reefed his head out of the hole and ran circles with the cat riding him till he took off out of the yard. :laugh:

We've had minor aggression over the years, Mostly just quick spats and all noise. ( that I don't realy count as aggression) More serious incidents resulting in minor scratches etc: 1 bitch is very high drive and dominant. And likes to make things happen to get her way. She challenged an old girl for top dog position and was stopped almost instantly by myself and my male. No injuries,We were too quick. Never repeated. I regret that the male was there at the time because he is very protective of his pack. It took 3 days for tensions to ease, with the male growling and posturing at the younger when ever the 2 girls were close. The old girl stepped back into her position and tensions eased. Mostly. For the last 7 years we have had a small bitch who fits the profile ie rehomed several times. Definitely has increased the potential for more.She will posture and strut, challenge the bigger, drivey girl. For the past year I've kept those 2 females separated for peace in the pack and the little ones safety. There have been no serious incidents though they have lived together for 7 years. The change in management came with the passing of the old, top female. The little 'rescue' upped her strutting and posturing for the other girl, and would be an accident waiting to happen otherwise. The male who intervened in the 1st incident would also defend the little rescue, so her presence adds LOTS of tension if I allow both bitches to run with the pack at the same time. Other bitches have learned to ignore the little ones posturing. The Moo tries , but is just too 'hot blooded' for me to put that much trust in her control. I think any one who runs multiple dogs has a good chance of encountering aggression sooner or later. Some times it can be fixed,some times managed. As my pup grows, the terrier is starting to try provoking aggression to her too, so the little one realy is the problem and that situation will need watching too. Pup could take her on easily now but is being taught to ignore and respect.

Lots of examples of dogs knowing things, but most can be explained if I look hard enough. A trip to the river one year with the whole family and our very 1st dog tho' thats not so easy. The dog ( a cattle fox terrier cross) spent the whole time this one day trying drag us kids from the water and running along the banks barking. 1 hour after we left there was a flash flood.

Brother in law brought his new wife and grandson to visit us on the farm. My dogs are large, but very well behaved. They have free run inside and out. The wife was horrified and kept making pointed comments about the dog being inside. I ignored them. Its my dogs home, she was behaving perfectly and not frightening or annoying anyone. The poor little boy couldn't even play outside 'cos there might be "Poo Poo".( maybe from the chooks,not the dogs who go 50 yards away from the house) The new wife has never been back. Had visitor recently barking at the dogs when they met for the 1st time.

So sorry MonElite. Run free beautiful girl.

Agreed. I think in your shoes I would 1st, stop offering money for spey etc. I think it will cause offense. Id likely still offer a shelter though. :) as a basic requirement. I would explain to the owners I genuinely thought I was helping out, but dogs thrive best when they know, and are comfortable with their place in a pack and she has now bonded with mine, and mine with her. I am sorry. Can I please give you what you paid for her to buy her? Because to reverse that, you need to put a lot of time into it. Again, I am very sorry, but if you allow me to buy her from you you could borrow her back when ever you want her. But thats me.

Oh so you are in the mood to stir the pot again :laugh: Interesting photo. :laugh: No stir intended! I figure to remove or not is an individual choice with different factors to consider.But these pics seem clearer to me of the purpose well attached dew claws can serve.

My pup uses hers a lot. Shes very dextrous with them and its easy to see how they can be used as thumbs. I thought the pics were worth bringing up this thread again.

How about we require any animal owners at fault of not taking reasonable steps to protect their community to wear a forehead stamp proclaiming then as such? This idea was inspired by the "some people should be muzzled" comment by Christina. Crime: dog has never been trained to basic obedience or been socialised adequately and the owner regularly just lets the dog out in the evening to take itself for a walk. Result: owner must wear green IPO (Irresponsible dog owner aka Idiot Prick Owner) stamp on forehead. Ink takes six weeks to wear off. Crime: owner selects dog for aggressive traits and encourages aggression towards other dogs or cats or people Result: owner must wear red IPO stamp on forehead. Ink takes six months to wear off. During that six months owner may not reside in a household where dogs are kept. Anything that makes us point and laugh sounds good. I was thinking more along the lines of how to get people more interested in their dogs. So many just "have" them. There aren't many incentives to do or learn more more. Social benefits are decreasing. If there were ways to increase social benefits and involvement to encourage a sense of community in dog ownership, I think we would see better informed ownership.

All the best with the next steps. Thank you to all involved.

O.K, Called council and confirmed that it is NOT required unless the dog has been declared dangerous, as most here have suspected. It seems this is becoming a popular urban myth, possibly helped along by some council employees. I can understand how tempting that would be at times :D But it drives home to me how we are failing to educate people to live with and accept dogs and instead relying more on regulations and laws that are only going adversely affect dog ownership. And how easy it is to open the way for more of the same. How can we reverse that?

Would it be rude to ask which Council? certainly not rude, but I'd rather not say more than it borders on Lithgow city council area. :)

I'm not taking it as gospel,I have a feeling its misinformation. I will call council tomorrow and find just what the regs are. I can't find them online. Very little there. It is worrying that this is not the 1st time I have heard of this, but now in 2 different council areas. I was told by the owners of a dog in Lithgow they were informed of the same regulation when registering their pup. Even if it turns out to be misinformation, It makes me uneasy.

About to join obedience with my new pup. I also hope to train her in tracking and to a level where I could take her to schools, nursing homes etc for educational/therapy purposes. Anything we can accomplish to show case the usefullness of a well trained dog. Just heard that all large dogs must be muzzled in public according to local council regs. This is unverified as yet and too late to ask today. I was told its "Taken for granted" when I asked the source. Is this a common council regulation? ( we are well out of town so unfamiliar with in town regs) If its true, I find it discriminatory. I think it would lead to a false sense of security for some,unreasonable fear for others and possibly lead to behaviour problems with both dogs and their handlers. Opinions?

Done.

I'd be rapt if there were quality ring sports accessible to me. The politicians and public who think its a yobbo sport can allow the yobbo view of dog ownership to be the norm, or allow promotion of better examples for management training understanding and breeding. I think interest would grow with promotion and expertise, but doubt it would be an easy journey.

Makes perfect sense to me . How else can a consensus be reached that will keep working ?