moosmum

well put! :)

on the other hand, if i was deliberately putting myself in harm's way for the benefit of the community, i'd like to be able to look at my dog as a loaded gun, and i was taught to treat every gun as if it was loaded. at the same time, i'd hope that any handler of such a weapon was very well trained and cool-headed. i don't know how much onus should be placed on a dog to discern by itself. some, i assume. i admit to knowing very little of pp dogs. Enough discernment that you aren't going to be hit on the back of the head while your not looking 'cos you didn't give a command, and kids are given a "puppy license". At least here. Enough discernment that my dog trusts me to handle most things myself, and only acts when I can't/don't, and only while there is an active threat.Not just a bunch of people goofing around. Using a gun comparison, yes you would hope the handler is well trained and cool headed.In that case, he doesn't carry his gun around half cocked.

Yes, and he was under extreme sensory confusion with moving lights, incredible noise and likely water in eyes and ears.Very easy to make a mistake I would think.

"Personal" protection is... personal. There may easily be a different set of criteria for choosing a purely "Personal" protection dog over a purely working dog. Discernment would be one of them. To me, a dog bred for police/security/defence force etc is not the same, though they can and do often serve both purposes. I don't see a working security type dog with protection training as the same as a "personal" protection dog. A dog who will bite in offence is not needed. My choice in a personal protection dog would be one I can safely take into any situation,or else its most likely going to be locked away when I need it.

I haven't voted. It would depend on too many other factors. In this case, yes I would likely give the dog back, but as a child I was forced to do just that only to have the dog spend the next 2 years of his life trying to get back to me. He would turn up dragging a chain and I would have to go through the heart ache of handing him back over and over again. When a friends GSD disapeared he didn't wait long enough to get another. He was always comparing the younger GSd to the old. The new dog went missing for a week and was found with a young boy who adored him and wanted to keep him. The friend took the dog back. I asked him to give him up. He didn't, but was killed not not long after in a motorcycle accident. I hope the mans family managed to get the dog back to the boy.

Attacks have always happened. But there was a different attitude 40 years ago when dogs were more of a community issue. Accepted as part the community and dealt with by the community. Like with the kids, the nearest handy adult would deal with what was in front of them. Most attacks weren't news worthy because they seldom got to that stage. Fatalities were rare and usualy fault was attributed to the owner. It was part of life.Don't mess up 'cos stuff happens.

My Lou would cover me with her blanket and get me her toy, as if to say " O.K, lets be silly!" If we tried to ignore a game she would hold her squeaky toy to our ears and let rip. I miss her so much . But she taught me that kind of pain is what keeps us human, as long we accept it as part of life and move on, To let ourselves take it on again. I owe it to her to let her memory make me stronger, not weaker.

I wouldn't want to rely on my horses.The flight instinct is very strong. A pack of dogs would likely be a different story. Most horses that stand their ground will only do so up to point.Once their confidence is shaken flight takes over. Some would be more capable than others, but I've only had one horse I think would chose to fight rather than flee once a dog is actualy attacking.

Yep. And not to base your experiences solely on proven science, We forget too much that way. Its usualy a long step behind experience and observation.

My horses don't run either. They are used to dogs and will approach a stranger very aggressively. The dogs aren't generaly bold enough to stick around. My kids were once trapped on a gate by a "pet" ram belonging next door that had turned very aggro. when I went down to rescue them the horses were there already trying to run him off. Turned into a bit of a melee with me, the horses and dogs all after the dumb beast who didn't want to give up. Those were also minis.

Theres a Mule forum in the U.S that tells of a bunch of people riding out with a few dogs and and a pack mule. A Cougar started to stalk the dogs and the story is the Mule grabbed the cougar by the tail, whipped him 'round a bit then stomped it and rolled on the carcass. Included pics. taken on a mobile. I believe it.

I have a PhD in the natural sciences and am an idiot when it comes to law. I found your post quite confusing. Please define 'natural law'. Do you mean this in the legal sense (Locke) or is it supposed to have something to do with biology? The short answer is Biological Law :laugh:

I have a PhD in the natural sciences and am an idiot when it comes to law. I found your post quite confusing. Please define 'natural law'. Do you mean this in the legal sense (Locke) or is it supposed to have something to do with biology? Thank you sandgrubber, You might have to consider me abnormal :laugh: I don't, but lets say I have a severe form of ADHD possibly bordering on Autism. I avoid any major problems because I do have a very good grasp of natural science and use that to understand people and my environment. It works very well for me. I don't have a PhD in anything, So its difficult for me to find the right words.Its very frustrating because I understand what I'm trying to say perfectly. I guess I see the world differently and its hard to show people what I see. I'm talking about Natural Law all the way. Biology, cause and effect all that. Being human and having so much control over our environment IMHO doesn't negate the effects of natural law on humans as a species. I understand humans by seeing them as a species of animal. What works at the molecular level, with genes etc, is mirrored all the way up. This ties a whole heap of areas together, biology, law, psychology, anthropology. The list goes on almost endlessly once you know how to look. When I look at the rules set out for writing a successful constitution,I understand them because I can apply natural law to understand how they work. It helps that I found an explanation that used natural law to explain their relevence. Because of this, when I've said "constitutional law" I'm thinking biological or natural Law as it applies to a successful constitution. Not the standard meaning, of Law in a Legal sense. I'm not alone in my reasoning. If you want a science based explanation, Maybe you will understand Hendrick Gommer ( A biological theory of Natural Law:Natural Law revisited). As far as I am aware scientificaly speaking, this is a theory only, but one that hasn't been disproved and is able to be applied very broadly, gaining a lot of interest. In my world, its fact, because I live by similar theories very successfully. I apply Natural Laws to most areas of my life. What works on a cellular level seems to work right up the food chain,once you learn to look.I haven't read it myself, just some reviews. Enough to know there seems to be the explanation and the "how to" people need to change the course of pedigree dogs. A rough example for the non- scientific DOLers : The American Constitution specificaly gives the right to bear arms. This is a positive ruling.It favours those who choose to own guns by its active support.Results will be unpredictable, but will act on the American population to encourage gun ownership over time. Those who disagree have no support from the constitution. Because guns are so easily obtainable, people will abuse the right, but getting rid of them is unconstitutional. In that culture, if you feel vulnerable to guns how do you defend yourself? You might get a gun. The more often that happens, more people feel vulnerable and the more pressure there is to get a gun. You have an effect on your environment. If this isn't corrected soon enough, it may reach a point where so many people feel a need own guns they acheive dominance within their population. There is no chance to repeal that part of the charter. The right becomes a "drive" within that population. With out a gun, they are vulnerable. It all comes down to cause and effect of natural Laws. As I see it, the K.Cs have ruled against every thing out side their charter. Thats their environment. That there are problems isn't a mystery. The end result is. Will the K.Cs destroy their environment? Will it destroy them? They destroy themselves? Looks to me like a lot of each is happening. I don't expect it will be easy to get people to see this. The K.Cs are not a supportive environment for people who understand the concept. Hendrick Gommer can explain for the scientists among Dol. I don't have the background to explain simply what an academic has written a thesis on. To me, Its only natural and gives you a whole lot of tools to success.

I don't think you will be on your own there. :) It would take some getting your head around, but if you have the idea its a start. I have an advantage in a very good understanding of natural science/law. IMO What I see backs it up very clearly.And its scarey.

Constitutional Law mimics natural law. Happy to explain if you tell me what you are having problems with. If Pedigree dogs are struggling in their environment, Breeders blame the environment,and fight against it. Its the only one they have. You can't separate yourself from your environment.You depend on it. The behaviour of the population can be modified through constitutional changes.

I like the native American way of looking at it, where dogs would be , not human, but the "dog people"

I could be way off the mark here, but laying on her back with legs in the air suggests kidneys to me.

I don't understand what these rulings bring to pedigree dogs? Without these rulings, A pedigree dog represents breeding with fore thought, purpose and knowledge. Using knowledge, planning and history to breed better dogs. Pedigree dogs could represent a community of people dedicated to maximize the potential of the species. Your membership would come to represent this. It would be pretty hard for people to find fault with that ideal.Communities could respect and support this for a common goal With them,the ideal is corrupted and stands for closed populations,predictability and purity above all other considerations,including those of your market. The pedigree becomes proof of this and assumes more importance than the dog it represents. You are no longer selling "better dogs". You are selling a representation of "purity" and closed lines.A pedigree. IMO These ruling are the source of the elitist label and no efforts to overcome that can be effective while those rules are in place. The battle against your environment is unneeded, and ultimately changes and destroys the environmen. No one can win. I see no reason why the K.Cs should be any more than the registry they set out to be.The addition of those rules demands more with out direction. I hope this is being looked into. I can find only support for this argument, and lots of it.

The high pitched whining is a precurser.

So very touching, and an absolutely brilliant way to make big difference. A saint.

How to simplify this? IMO, and borne out on Dol forums. Human beings are subject to natural law. When we create a sub group,ie ANKC, we create a "population". That population is also subject to natural law. Our constitution and rules set out the behaviour of that population. You are NOT dealing with rational individuals. The behaviour of the group is dictated by those rules and WILL reflect them. To the population, those rules ARE natural law. Members are defined by them. The K.Cs made a very sensible decision to be a registry ONLY. To work towards a specific goal and that was their charter. The problems came about when the the K.Cs made rulings that step out side of that charter. 1st in ruling that no member can breed a dog that will be ineligible for registration. 2nd in ruling that no member breed primarily for profit. There may be more, but these are the 2 obvious ones. When you rule out side of your charter, its no longer a self sufficient population. The charter alone is not what sustains the population any more. The directive influence is changed. It now has effect on, and is influenced by, outside forces.In this case, negatively since they are both negative rulings. What is happening in the "Dog world" could be a text book example for teachers of constitutional law. Its no longer enough to foster a community relationship with dogs, well bred.You have introduced an antagonist to be kept out.- In this case, whats outside of the registry. The environment. So what sets pedigree dogs apart from their environment? The Unfamiliar,Diverse,the unknown, chance?. Now you have to struggle to define yourself against whats outside, in order to keep it out. The definition will continue to narrow. The 2nd ruling is an example of that.The more stress on the population,the more they will struggle against their antagonist. There will be an equal and opposite reaction from the out side.The familiar here becomes the unfamiliar there. Dogs natural environment is their human community. Take them out and put them in K.Cs " preserve" and they lose relevence and familiarity in their "natural" environment. According to natural law, The K.Cs are attacking their foundation. Its seen as undesirable. If we foster an appreciation of dogs with out judgement,THEN people can appreciate the benefits of breeding BETTER dogs.They have to learn to appreciate dogs before they can learn to appreciate a pedigree. The K.Cs rulings mean that none are worthy of nurture out side of the K.Cs charter. When people come here for advise,we see the results. If dogs are not ANKC registered, their owners are scorned and rarely given the knowledge they seek. We are attacking our roots. Cut flowers are beautiful, but don't last long. The 2nd ruling, against profit as a motive for breeding. In todays world, to make a profit you must cater to demand. This ruling ensures that the demands of the people will only be met by accident, not design.The demands are met only within ANKC. ANKC demands give us predictability,yes. But when we aknowledge demands from with out as well, thats what brings reliability. According to natural (ANKC) law,Its no longer a requirement that dogs can meet the demands of their environment.Only that they are predictable and "known". Commercial breeders are the new species on the block,guaranteed to meet the demands of their environment, the community. What ever thats become. Within ANKC, diversity of opinion results in split lines,because diversity is not supported otherwise.Diversity is "out side". This does not support research and development as I understand it. Check it out. I think its repairable. For now. I think if this argument is born out, it has far reaching implications for humanity itself. If we can't remember natural law to save our 1st true companion species,what mistakes have we made for humanity itself? The relationship between man and dog could provide a constant reminder that as a species, we will alway be subject to natural law. Edited for clarity.

So to buck the trend we should accept our foundations. Appreciate them, nurture and mentor them. So they can be understood and valued by every one. We will all make fewer mistakes. Strong foundations would invigorate pedigree dogs again. If generic cross breeds are the foundation of pedigree dogs, their owners are the foundation for new breeders.If its realy whats best for the dogs, surely thats a strong foundation.

This idea does need discussion and will crop up more and more as time goes by and effects of current influences increase. These ideas are the logical conclusion of, and supported by, current NKCs constitution and rules. The proposal put forward by Angeluca would speed the process by forcing it on all society, rather than just "the specialists". If you look at cause and effect, this proposal would finaly take domestic dogs out of the public domain and public interest and knowledge. Any rules demanded of breeders of cross breed dogs will also be be demanded of pedigree breeders. Including your panel to approve of a mating,for the simple reason that dogs will still be dogs and people to be people and "The Specialists" put forward the idea. Breeders would be held solely accountable for the actions of dogs and their welfare,since they alone claim to have the knowledge and skill to "produce" dogs that won't cause those problems. Not only that, but its the ultimate precedent supporting "BSL" .If generic dogs can be the cause of so many problems,if the problems still exsist on their eradication,it must surely be the fault of the breed(s) who are so much more predictable? Angeluca, Your idea removes personal responsibility from the general public and places it squarely on the producers. Dogs finaly become just another commodity subject to supply and demand and no need for the buyer to understand anything more than their wash and wear instructions. Dissatisfaction at fault of the producer,( ie: fault after all instructions followed ) will become more prevelant and result in greater licensing restrictions, protocols and eligibility restrictions. Dog breeding as a specialist field would require study,with course material being expanded. Specialist facilities and capital to be assessed with your business plan. . Welfare and animal rights won't have to fight against society to eliminate companion animals, only against organizations far out side any thing familiar to the general public. Breeders become an easy target to gain public sympathy for Ar. If the public is not required to understand breeding principles or life cycles? "Those nasty dog breeders, the mother was only 2 yrs old with 6 babies/not enough teats for pups/ fed raw meat" could all sound nasty to the ignorant. A species whos success was shaped by the societies they thrived best in would now be shaped to a formula agreed by a few. A breeder would be a licensed producer of a product for the masses,subject to strict quality control. Bred for the people, but not by the people. Not even for the people realy, because although breeders breed to preserve and improve according to a set, written standard, Breeding is Specificaly NOT for profit (or demand). Breeders will pretty much have doomed themselves and our pure breeds to extiction, because average Joe will have no idea of the common history between man and dog that used to be taken for granted and gave these pedigree dogs their purpose and value. They will chose a model and follow instruction and over time very few people will see much point in the extra work breeders have to instruct them in for guaranteed success. When buyers are unfamiliar, the set of instructions provided will grow to keep pace with ignorance. The breeds would stagnate and decline. An organisation needs room to grow to be viable. If you eliminate the foundation of your breeds, you can't grow.

Still haven't found my short-haired lapphund equivalent breed, or my long-legged Vallhund breed. You do realise breeds were developed from crossbreeding, right? Some breeds are only a few decades old. Some are still in development now. And there are some really amazing dogs out there that came from reasonably random crosses. For some people, a pedigree is not that meaningful and may not even be what they want. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to get what they want in a dog? Furthermore, registered breeders don't breed enough dogs to meet demand. Why should owner screening be a breeder's job if that's truly what would make a big difference? I've tried 3 times tonight to reply to you I'm sorry but every time my laptop reverts to the previous page loosing about half an hour of typing. basically breed development if done properly is fine, as they may try random breeds but the dogs they use should be tested for health and temperament. And only someone very knowledgeable in breeds and handling should be doing this. And due to a modern age recording should be done therefore still presenting a parentage. in my Idea this would be approved in the panel idea and puppies certified as a legal breeding. what I'd like to stop is the people who have 2 dogs and breed them. Sometimes this is done for greed, sometimes by accident, sometimes it is done for the love of dogs but if they love dogs then they should go about it properly with good stock that is tested, an understanding of the breed being used. I know a person who loves animals and spends every cent on them, her breed shar pei, from a backyard breeder cause their cheaper, watches these dogs grow, taking them to the vet every month for skin allergies and arthritis (at the age of 9 mths) yet still believes it's a good idea to breed those 2 dogs. Does cute puppies sells them, 2 months later crying on facebook because the sire died aged 2 due to massive spinal infection from repeated abscesses. Gets another boy this time a bull arab and going to do it all again. These people need to be FINED or arrested or bloody something!!!! 9 people out there with puppies from this sort of breeding. these Puppies will either die young, get dump due to the horrid small of allergies or be the heartbreak of a real good person who spends thousands to make them comfortable. This person takes care of their animals fed socialized, health care so under current laws, legally they have done nothing wrong. So... You think if they were only permitted to breed pedigree dogs, they would do it right?

I am convinced that dogs can love,and you can be a dogs heart person and I doubt very much that anyone could convince me any different. I don't think all dogs do love, or have this ( at least not in the way I have seen demonstrated ) but I have had several and known of many others where nothing else explains it to my satisfaction. Bonds,affection,high reward etc come into it,but realy if your going to be pendantic these things could just as easily explain human to human love. How do you define love? Edited to add: the very best dogs I have had, and will always seek out or try to accomodate if they find me, will be those who love and try so hard never to disapoint.If a higher order of thinking is needed, maybe these dogs just have that. They have been the easiest and most reliable of dogs. Am I rewarding that behaviour? Of course!