moosmum

Predictability! The reason for breeds in the first place. We choose purebreds because we have a far greater certainty of getting desired features and characteristics - size, coat, temperament, bite inhibition, bite threshold etc etc I agree. If predictability includes reliability. Reliably predictable isn't the same as predictably reliable.

Except your example ignores the fact that the phrase includes the word primarily. If a breeder is breeding for the purpose of bettering the breed then their primary focus has to be on nothing else as their first priority in their breeding program - nothing within that constitution puts greater importance on anything else. If the primary focus for ANKC breeders has to be what is best for the breeds then how can it be possible for them to have making a profit as a primary focus? Like it or not this is the defining difference between a purebred breeder and any other - no matter what they have to consider future generations and not just the one litter they are producing today. There is a definite need to consider how someone interprets and defines what is better for the breed and I think many have it wrong but its still about that higher goal and always will be. Yes. I agree. I said it was superfluous for the same reason. What I did not have time to add is that while profit is not the primary motivation for a pedigree breeder, If the registering body is viewed as an organism, profit IS a source of energy and vitality. The organization may be vital enough to do with out that source,or it may not. I have modified post 126 as I'd run out of time when it was posted

Very nicely said. Your emphasis is more on public relations and education.... rather than marketing. And I think you're spot on... in that the whole point of purebred breeding is that it's not commercial. And marketing is designed to fit the commercial world. In fact, the evidence appears to be that it's the very non-commercial nature of purebred dog breeding, that allows the best of that world to show thro'. For the dogs themselves in terms of welfare, for the pet -buying public in terms of likely better socialised companion dogs & breeder support, and for the the breeders themselves who become involved in a highly professional & passionate hobby alongside like-minded people. All that determines the goals of breeding purebreds, not commercial interests. Disclaimer.... by saying p/breeding is not commercial (at its best), I'm not saying that the breeders shouldn't practise good business skills in what they do. I agree with this view.

I am looking for supportive information and having dificulties finding it,but I have seen it,its there if you know where to look. 1st, There is a theory advanced by Hendrick Gommer, A biological theory of law:natural law theory revisited. He postulates that an organization is an entity that obeys natural law.The constitution rules behaviour of the organization/organism.Negative instruction imposes limits and stricture that will impact on adaptive ability, vitality and its ability to multiply or grow. This is an analogy I have used often and it it does seem to hold up to scrutiny.look him up if you can't follow.Its very interesting,and realy quite simple when you have an understanding of biological law. Then you have the psychology of organisations.This is set in place by your constitution. I have been looking for a piece I have read,origins unknown. The subject was writing constitutions. It explained simply and concisely how a constitution affects the mentality of its constituents. It listed some rules of writing a sound and stable constitution. Two of those rules were: 1)DO NOT use negative commands or instruction. ie: A member shall not.... unless there is no alternative,in which case the reasons for the negative should be spelled out. Rules well written should negate the need for negative instruction in most cases. I think they called it a introducing "double negative" due to the unplanned negative effects in organizational psychology. 2) DO NOT use superfluous instruction. The piece went on to give demonstration of how disregarding these 2 rules corrupt and change the message by reinforcing priorities or giving them false values.Introducing outside influences that can destabilize the organization.I can not remember where I saw this, but the information is there for anyone who has better access to it than I have. It ties in very nicely with Hendrik Gommers theory. IMO both these mistakes were made with the K.Cs central, common constitution and the effects are being demonstrated in the problems faced by ANKC breeders. I don't have to tell you which rules,you can see for your selves if you care to look at your constitution with an open mind, but will give an easier (for you to look at) example. Your rules state that breeders will always breed for the purpose of bettering the breeds. Later, this was amended to include: a breeder shall not breed primarily for profit. This was superfluous instruction if the goal is betterment of the breed. It introduced judgment on profit. Making a profit can be seen as negative, and can be seen to undermine your goals. It has introduced an influence irrelevent to your charter. The subject "profit" will now have a negative affect on your charter.It was a negative instruction. It will affect how you market, how you perceive fellow members. Part of the problem is that negative instruction tells you that a certain area is NOT to be looked at or considered. A breeder DOES NOT consider profit in their planning. Breaking those 2 rules has demonstrable effect that can be explained. I doubt this rule would have ever been seen as needed, but for previous,similar mistakes made in the writing of the constitution which had already introduced instability. If you look at your organization as an organism, those previous mistakes served to reduce the ability to multiply (or gain new blood) with an instruction to not move out side of your charter,but instead made it self contained,which is unsustainable.An organism must interact with its environment. Out of time again.

Sure, but to whom? Is one customer as good as any other? Do those people think they are buying good produce from McDonalds? Are you the junk food of dog breeding or the gourmet kitchen? :laugh: :laugh: I think it can be the gourmet kitchen. MacDonalds or gourmet side by side...We won't always choose gourmet,but we know very well what the better choice is even with out the marketing and hype.

O.K. You're right please accept my apology - I must have misunderstood. So go slower. When you say quote I am saying they don't address the main, negative perceptions already out there,and that I firmly believe they are a direct result of those rules. That only changing those rules will remove those perceptions. When you say things like this what do you mean? What perceptions, what rules ? Thank you Steve, Accepted. I have it all in my head, but it is complicated. I will have to try and go slower, but I'm afraid its going to take longer than I hoped. I need to think carefully and remember it is likely confusing.. It does require change but NOT one harmful to pedigree dogs or breeders IMO. If my theory were put to the test, it wouldn't have to change how you do anything. I think it would change how you express the things you do - and how the things you do are expressed. It should remove a lot of barriers for you in your marketing and increase interest in your "product" with out a need to organize promotion groups or funding, or increase the role of the registries. I think it would result in a shift of perceptions on both sides, so that the average person is happy to listen, and the average breeder is ABLE to stand up and take pride. Does anyone follow what I said about how your constitution defines you? :laugh: I haven't forgotten your questions Steve.

Sorry Steve, You misunderstood me. I don't want to join your group. I don't want to join the "other" group. I do want to preserve and develop our pure breeds to their fullest potential. I do want to foster the human/dog relationship indiscriminately. To keep people aware and appreciative of that potential, understand and live with it comfortably. I hope then that fewer people will be making mistakes so we are more worthy of the gift. If thats incompatible with your philosophy I'm sorry,because I think you would have a lot to contribute. To me, its about the future of all dogs in our modern society,not my alliance with or the agenda of any group. :)

No matter which group you belong to you believe your group is the best or you wouldn't belong to it. There isn't anything wrong with having the division unless of course you are not able to be a member of the group you want to be because your values and philosophies are different. Thanks Steve, Your post has allowed me to sort this out in my own head a little better. My problem is that I feel we are FORCED by the division to choose sides and I guess I resent that. Because once you choose sides nothing is solved. We spend all our time trying to justify our selves,defend our selves, or attack the "other" side just to try and survive and it seems to me dogs are the losers on ALL sides. It would be nice we could be free to get on with the job of breeding the best dogs we can according to whats best for our own goals and needs. To open free and unbiased discussion and flow of information to benefit every one. I think in the long run, neither "side" can survive with out a balancing influence from the other. I don't want to chose sides.

Do you want to explain, with results of proper scientific research, what is the problem with line breeding? "Popular sires" is rather a myth in any case. If a dog is popular, his get are generally outcrossed, and continue to be outcrossed. Moosemum - have you read those ANKC rules you denigrate? What is it about them which you think causes problems? I have been breeding for a long time, and I have absolutely no interest in cross breeding dogs - which is exactly how my ethical peers feel. A pedigree is only a tool for the breeder, and it is a proof of ancestry for the owner. Reading the pedigree and working from there on any matings is crucial. Of course "the public" should have purebred pedigree dogs. They should not be exclusive to anyone. Dogs are workers, herders, hunters and pets. I feel great pride when I send off a potential champion with a little girl, or an older lady. I love it when they phone me to say that everytime they take the dog out anywhere, people stop them to admire the dog. I like it when their vets tell them it is a beautiful healthy dog. I have done my job. Problem with this is that there are not enough pedigree dogs to go around. People began buying FujitsuxMaltesers because they couldn't get the purebreds. 200 maltese were bred Australia wide last year and not many more shih tzu. I have "middle of the road" breeds - I am not a big time breeder - or a hugely winning exhibitor - but I receive 2 to 6 times more enquiry than I have pups available Ethical breeders need to breed more pups before the marketing begins - and they wont do that because AR told them 20 years ago it was very norty to breed unless they wanted to keep something, and they would be puppy farmers. Thanks Jed, I have no problem with how the K.Cs operate, their protocols for pedigree dogs or the running of the stud books. Only with their rules regarding those dogs who will not fall under their charter. I won't mention them again. I've done that in an earlier post and do realize its a sensitive topic. I think I've explained much of my rational already and my goal isn't to upset any one. I have read the thread on the low numbers of Maltese being bred by pedigree breeders and it bothers me a great deal to see whats happening. In many areas. I've been trying for a long time to get a handle on why these things are happening, rather than just asking what to do about them. Find the root cause. So far the best explanation I can come up with is the one I have put forward here and I have done so because I believe it could change what is happening. I intend to sum up in my next post,and leave it be. If others can't see what I think I see, then it serves no purpose other than to upset people. I have to say a huge thank you to the moderators of this forum for their patience in allowing this fair hearing. :)

Look, I agree with with most of what you guys are saying. I do agree with the o.p. I'm not "against" accreditation systems or marketing plans. I am saying they don't address the main, negative perceptions already out there,and that I firmly believe they are a direct result of those rules. That only changing those rules will remove those perceptions. What benefits are they bringing to pedigree breeders? Are they needed? What are they doing FOR pedigree breeders? They are causing a lot of harm. There are good people who refuse to have any part of pedigree registries because those rules are in place. Others who have given up because of the effects they have on the membership and,IMO how they try define themselves within within a flawed logic. For example, it becomes more urgent to appease your peers than allow for differences in what people want. I repeat: The formation of the registries gave a thematic choice. The addition of those rules underlines the DIVISION. You are with us,or against us. I don't believe any thing you do other than removing the cause of the division will make enough difference. People would still have a thematic choice,but its a lot simpler. Its no longer pedigree.... or nothing. It becomes knowledge used for purpose,with fore thought and organisation.....or take your chances. IMO Pedigree or nothing is what those rules say to people. Thats the message you are sending,and your members are instructed in.If you don't agree, read that thread again on American Staffordshire Terriers. You want your symbol, the pedigree, to stand for your values. It would. If only you could move past the symbol itself to what it represents. You are unable to do that because the symbol itself has defined your difference in the constitution.. Not the knowledge it represents. Its become all or nothing. Introduces judgement. The criteria used to judge knowledge is the pedigree. There is the implication this knowledge doesn't exist out side of pedigrees. It restricts your knowledge to what can be learned within pedigrees and denies validity to any knowledge out side of pedigree dogs.It RESTRICTS your knowledge.IMO Its flawed logic that gives ammunition to anyone who takes offense to that stance,and will continue to do so. I believe pedigree breeders have much more than any other sector to contribute to the human/dog relationship in all areas, but the division is the focus. It isolates them and prevents their other messages from being given credence.

The fact that a significant number of DOLers neither own nor breed pedigree dogs is somewhat ironic in that context. Yes, it is. But I think thats how the public will see it.

Back to the thread on American Staffordshire terriers. Chris001 came to DOL for information and guidance.He left with our disgust. For what? He started with enough to appreciate what pedigree breeders had to offer. That information was selling pedigree breeders. It changed out comes for an unknown number of dogs from a welfare perspective. Thats 1 more person who is a little better informed. He learned that hes not ready to breed, That he needs to educate himself more before he considers it.He was going to desex his dog. He might give the same knowledge to some of his mates. I doubt he will recommend DOL or pedigree breeders to his mates.The message was tainted. When people come to Dol for advise and guidance, your replies represent pedigree dog breeders. Like it or not,you ARE marketing pedigree dogs. Your sending messages on their behalf. So if we are educating these people,collectively and with out judgement, They LEARN what makes a good breeder. We continue to learn from each other. We might not always agree,but facts are being shared so we can use our own judgement to make informed decisions. Why would you need a program to step in and do quality control? If people are discussing and debating, making informed decisions and pedigree breeders are guiding that, people have a far better idea of what a good breeder is. Based on facts given freely. You give your market the information. In the end, they will determine whos a good breeder for them. Its up to breeders to live up to the truths they promote. They can be judged on merit, not affiliation. And hopefully,that brings quality control. If a buyer is disapointed, he can't hold all pedigree breeders to blame. Its pedigree breeders telling him, all breeders are not the same.

Pedigree dog registries created a thematic choice. With the introduction of those rules the division was underscored. I think there needs to be an avenue left open for spontaneous,natural evolution in the way dog breeds 1st came about if societies are to take ownership of the results or stay connected to the proccess. In baring your own membership from taking part in that,you pass judgement. I believe a pedigree represents knowledge, so think marketing knowledge rather than pedigrees is the way to do it.The symbol isn't the product. Otherwise its kind of like telling people they need a degree to practice medicine,so they sign up for the hypocratic oath, receive one and its up to them to study. Will that get rid of charlatans and witch doctors? Could such a society ever agree on what makes a good doctor? If we want reliable quality meat on our tables, should we insist cattle breeders can't supply that by cross breeding? Or that a producer who doesn't use use pure lines only must have an inferior product,or lack integrity?

Thank you Corvus. I also think they are inexorably linked.

No Poodle X Labradors are not cobberdogs now . Cobberdogs are the result of breeders who are attempting to develop a new breed by using several breeds of dogs to achieve a large group of dogs which will be able to be recognised as a breed in its own right with predictable characteristics. They did this by using a pedigree system. The stud book is still open and they have the ability to infuse the breed with dogs which have no relation to their stud stock to include in their breeding program but they don't. They dont because they have been testing for,watching for all diseases known to occur in any of the foundation breeds and eliminating them from the breeding program. They have been selecting for animals which have particular temperament and personality suitable for assistance work which will not shed and which wont require the level of grooming which is usually required for non shedding dogs. They have been testing for 27 different genetic diseases and havent seen any of them for 7 generations. Every time they go out and introduce a cross breed they have to start again with no real knowledge of what they may bring to the gene pool - no knowledge until it turns up - of what they will need to test for and work to eliminate into the future. There are hundreds of people world wide working toward being able to show this is a predictable recognisable breed and if they all decided tomorrow to chuck in a cross breed without having to justify why they wanted to do that it takes the work done back generations. Breed clubs of any breed are in the same position. As a registry if the ANKC listened to individuals or splinter groups and simply stuck in new things into the breed standard or added to or took away registration requirements just because someone wanted to have it done a different way it would be anarchy and it's why they only listen to the breed club. Surely you're not suggesting that breeders should be able to cross breed without a good story about why they want to, what they hope to achieve and how it will be managed or criteria to fit ? Any breed club can approach the ANKC and have permission granted for them to open their stud book ,I am aware of two breeds with open ANKC stud books right now. Currently in the UK every breed has had its stud book opened and dogs are able to be entered if they fit a certain criteria and that is probably the future for the ANKC too. The ANKC allow stud books to be open, they allow crossbreeding, they accept new breeds into their registry but they dont allow you as an individual breeder to simply decide that you will take a different breed here or there and put it in the mix without having to tell them why and how. This is why the code of ethics is worded the way it is and why purebred breeders are against cross breeding in their breed unless it is sanctioned and goes through the system. Now why the ANKC haven't come out and said this when it is being slammed for closed stud books is beyond me but for anyone including the RSPCA or a Uni professor could believe that it would work by just willy nilly allowing every body to chuck in the neighbours dog rather than having a system in place to ensure it doesnt do more harm than good and that we are still left with specific breeds rather than generic dogs makes no sense either. Fact is the ANKC stud books are closed but the system is in place to allow the stud books to be open for any breed at any time. They could simply say all of their stud books are open if the dogs being added fit the criteria - same thing just sounds different. But thats not what I am suggesting at all. Only that the breeding of dogs that will not fall under the charter set for pedigree dogs, not be forbidden. To enable a bridge to public perceptions and their perceived needs and yours.A bridge that doesn't have to compromise your charter. I think a bridge is badly needed for both "sides" to work together. To encourage new blood into the ranks of dedicated breeders and a means of keeping them interested in what you do best. A ready tool for educating people on practices that are proven to benefit dogs as a whole.To stand more simply, for responsible breeding practices based on facts, welfare, and outcomes. Wouldn't that Influence their practices with uncompromised truth? Give Cred.? Brand name through integrity? I believe the pedigree 1st for legitimacy stance is compromising the truth of your message,it seems contradictory. You are to some extent governed by market and its the public that holds your success.If you refuse to aknowledge their their requirements at all, they will continue to turn away. If they continue to turn away ,you can't sustain your numbers. If your own numbers drop too low,your breeding lines do too. Our breeds suffer.

The manager at the Royal Guide Dogs who originally got the idea to cross Labs with Poodles, is on record years later, regretting bitterly what he did... & what it started. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/labradoodle-pioneer-regrets-fashioning-designer-dog/story-e6frg6n6-1225860829155 Even tho' the 'Labradoodle' has since been picked up in breeding for pets, the Guide Dogs reverted to Labradors. The 'popularity' of the 'Labradoodle', like the other designed crosses that followed, rested on statements about 'combining best of both breeds' (massive over-simplification) & cutesy labels. So the man who originated the Labradoodle is frowning on his 'mixing' experiment & others that followed, in retrospect. And just a caution about invoking 'evolution'. That term is scientifically specific...it does not refer to man-made interventions. Possibly a more accurate term for what you're trying to get across is 'development' (?) I 'm not sure. As a whole species, they may still be evolving ,abeit with human interference.Its not always premeditated?

1st para, I recognise that,and respect it.I think part of the reason the public can't is because of the insistence that the word pedigree is automaticalyattached to those goals and ideals. 2nd para, the idea is not to get pedigree breeders breeding cross breds. More so as not to be seen as standing in the way or affecting the autonomy of others. Your influence is more than you realise. I think being more aware of the publics concerns in "product" might have a flow on effect to give breeders more sense of autonomy in their choices.Decrease the perceived need to follow trends in the show ring.

Sorry, but you've lost me there. Why shouldn't pedigree dogs be for everyone? Sorry, I'm making mistakes and not helping myself by them. I should have said their BREEDING should not be up to just anyone.They should understand and believe in goals to be effective.

I think I have addressed your first 3 pargraphs in my reply to HDW. On deciding what message you want? No,you don't get to decide that. Your charter, contained within the constitution, rules and regulations should clearly set that out. It would have been self evident with out those rules I mentioned. They changed your charter. Without those rules,a pedigree represented knowledge to be used for the betterment of dogs. An excellent charter. Their inclusion says that to gain knowledge you 1st need a pedigree. Two threads came up while this debate was hot. One was BREEDING (breeding spitz) The other was American Staffordshire Terriers. When people were able to put aside their judgement regarding breeding with out a pedigree and simply focus on the knowledge they had to impart,the O.Ps were able to benefit from pedigree breeders and learn from them. They were able to take away some thing of value to them. You could show them that you had some thing for them. And thats marketing pure bred dogs.It was working to promote your ideals in the broader community. Its not marketing PEDIGREE dogs,addmittedly. But pedigree dogs should NOT be for everyone. Only for those who are dedicated to the goals of knowledge used for betterment.If they find they are,THEN they will have cause to sign up and reap maximum benefit from pedigree dogs. As soon as people brought in judgement based on pedigree they were lost to you. You had nothing to offer but condescension and a feeling of inferiority because they lacked that knowledge (pedigree). Running out of time again This could be much better explained by some one who specializes in the field.There are people who make a living from the examination of legislation,charters ,constitutions etc. and advising on the wording and such.How it it effects meaning, interpretation and results. RuralPug, I promise to address you other points when I have power again in the morning.

[quote name='Haredown Whippets The oldest breed of pedigreed dog in the world is one of the healthiest. That suggests to me that there is nothing inherently wrong with the system.of recording ancestry and only breeding to dogs of known ancestry.. but as more with how people operate WITHIN it. O.K, I didn't answer this well earlier,too rushed. I do agree with this... for established breeds with ANKC affiliation. Out side of that? Is beyond ANKC charter and should be. Very few developed breeds were created within any such charter, and fewer still should be developed within it. Its too cumbersome. It relies on whats already been done, whats already there. Predictable traits can't be relied on to develop new traits. We can only seize them when they occur, when they have recognizable value. Breeds have never been designed by committees. They evolve according to the values of the societies they spring from. The charter was not designed to develop new breeds but to consolidate whats been done and make it predictable Dogs developed to meet their respective communities needs and wants, became recognizable types with a following of enthusiasts THEN became breeds for the most part. Land race breeds were still to some extent shaped by their communities through culling of undesirable traits. Those rules can an effect on WHY breeds are developed. Poodles X Labradors for example. Aren't they Cobba dogs now? They proved popular before anyone considered making them a breed unto themselves. Then again, would anyone have thought to make this a breed at all if cross breeding were not so frowned on? It could have been a temporary fad. Should legitimacy be a valid need in evolution? IMHO evolution needs room for spontainious (sp?) adaptation. The value of an adaptation is proven by its success over time.

Out of time,back later. It doesn't cost anything. Nothing to organize.or promote. It all does itself with a correction.Becomes self sustaining with the correct balance of views and benefits ALL DOGS,society,welfare. Once you are free to give the real message, the message sells you.You attract people with a desire to learn and improve things

Are you talking about kennel lines or breed gene pools? *** I'm talking about breeders themselves- people willing and able to take up the challenge. The oldest breed of pedigreed dog in the world is one of the healthiest. That suggests to me that there is nothing inherently wrong with the system.of recording ancestry and only breeding to dogs of known ancestry.. but as more with how people operate WITHIN it. No, there IS NOTHING wrong with that! No need to change anything there. Its what happens outside that charter. Some breeding practices have to go.. and some of the old ones need to be returned IMO. And the number one practice that needs to be returned and hard is culling. By that I don't mean killing puppies but I do mean looking hard at the dogs you have and removing from your breeding dogs any dog that isn't right up to scratch. Of course the practice of rehoming dogs is one that sees breeders howled down as "callous". Damned if you do, and most definitely damned if you don't. *****Totaly agree. What makes a BYB in my view? A person who is prepared to breeding anything they own with testicles or a uterus. Way too easy simply to use what you have rather than look outside and over protectiveness of kennel lines fuels it in droves. *****And thats part of the cause for confusion among breeders. They are not totaly free to define themselves in other ways when they are 1st defined by pedigree to gain any chance of legitimacy. Pedigree must always come 1st. Its not knowledge, experience based practices and a desire to further them. Thats left to argue among yourselves, and will be reflected in your members. You are known for pedigrees. They define you.So ANY breeder wanting legitimacy 1st signs up, THEN looks into the rest. On the genny,so likely to be cut short. Above is my best till this evening.

I think we have a paradox. Other threads seem to be demonstrating this very effectively. I don't believe pedigree dogs can be sustained into the future until this paradox is fixed. Maybe I'm wrong, but so far every thing I know fits and explains the problems within the pedigree dog world. My goal isn't to upset anyone, its to fix the problem so that pedigree dogs can be recognized for their true value,and the concept can work. So here I go, sticking my neck out again. If you agree or not, I am not the enemy. What makes a pedigree system a more effective way to breed dogs? One would think its the knowledge of history and ancestry, combined with the community created of like minded enthusiasts able to share that knowledge and build on it. I can't see anything wrong with that goal, nor should any one be able to, seriously. So, growing knowledge and self education should be what sets a pedigree breeder apart? Is this how you see it? So why is this not what defines a pedigree breeder? IMHO it is because rules were introduced to the K.Cs constitution that were 1st, not needed to further those goals. 2nd, turned the focus away from knowledge. 3rd, prevents you from promoting your goals out side of your controlling body. 4th, tells you to "not look at" a sphere of knowledge. 5th, prevents growth of the very "product" you represent by turning it inward. There is likely more. IMHO those rules in your constitution are the ones that say a pedigree breeder will never cross breed, or breed a dog that does not have a pedigree. Before I am crucified, Please for Dogs sake LOOK at it! Even though you are trained not to. These rules changed the whole concept of pedigree dogs and corrupted it for no real purpose. When the "stud books" were being formed and the concept was new, the founding members likely saw this as a needed rule to prevent their lines being tainted. The breeds were not nearly so uniform and I believe using "Tainted" lines was not uncommon. There were no means to detect the practice visualy while the majority of dogs were still a good ways from meeting their new,stated, standards. No D.N.A testing. The same does no apply today. Any rule insisting on truth in records would accomplish the same purpose and retain focus on information and knowledge. Forbidding members to cross breed dogs, or breed dogs without pedigree papers,or even compete those with out pedigree papers unless desexed is counter intuitive. It says the focus is NOT knowledge. It is pedigree. Its not about better dogs,its about papers. It tells you there can be no legitimacy out side your own circle and serves to isolate you in that belief. It prevents you from promoting your knowledge and expertise. Instead you claim it and deny its legitimacy out side your sphere. It tells you that a continuous,unbroken RECORD is your goal,not any end result. It puts the pedigree before the dog it represents. And they seek to influence whats outside of your charter. It doesn't ensure the BEST breeders, attracted to your goals for knowledge and the betterment of dogs. Instead it attracts ANY breeder who is after the legitimacy you insist your papers confer. You have effectively closed your own lines past the state of viability. If I am proven wrong, I've done no harm. But if I'm right,for dogs sake fix it before its too late because I am convinced these are the reasons for almost every problem within the pedigree system. And I for one would like to see it succeed. On other threads it looked to me, for a very short time, that we were promoting pure bred dogs. Edited for clarity.

Chris001, you have been terrific. Sorry for this. Your experience here so far hasn't been a good one. No fault of yours.

Yep, so surely education is the answer?