Pjrt

Hmm well all Dachshunds are ‘dwarfs’ having achondroplasia. They are not long, they are short. I find it quite odd myself that we deliberately, purposefully, perpetuate achondroplasia. Of course not all dogs with this condition lead miserable lives, but many do suffer consequences of the genetic choice humans make on their behalf. If this statement is actually adhered to, it might not be a mandated breed ban, but it would be hard to justify breeding Dachshund….

This is a really interesting topic. I find epigenetics endlessly fascinating.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/756482385800550?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&mibextid=0NULKw

Well there are different registries these days. I have to be registered as a breeder with DACO because I have 1 entire male dog. So technically I can call myself a breeder. Anyone who breeds a dog is a breeder. the idea that the kennel clubs should be the exclusive breeders is kind of weird

Adopt dont shop is redundant now anyway (in relation to pets) as nobody shops anymore, only ‘adopts’. I have heard quite a few of my own clients speak the words directly at me when telling me they have a new puppy ….. ‘that we adopted’ …..not from a shelter but directly from the breeder ! Personally I rather like the line ‘breeders don’t fill shelters, buyers do’ The vast majority of the dogs in the shelters here in SA are thoughtlessly bred, even more thoughtlessly purchased, working & bull mixes that are barely suitable for anyone other than experienced and dedicated dog people!

Reminds me of something I wrote here previously some while back.. Try convincing the farmer with a ‘short coat border collie’ who works hard daily and saves him the wages of several men, that his dog is less worthy than the show winning pedigree border collie, and vice versa...... All dogs have value in the big picture. Before the introduction of conFORMation dog shows, domestic dogs were bred almost exclusively for purpose. And more often than not, practiced their purpose. The look of the dog was secondary to what the dog could do, and even when ‘looks’ we’re taken into account, preferences were usually based on the terrain the dog was expected to work in and how. as Conformation dog shows rose in popularity, that drove down diversity by its very nature. the concept of uniformity and purity has been a disaster for domestic dogs. Anyone who thinks dividing and limiting gene pools towards a dead end has their heads in a strange place. the very nature of the ‘working v show lines’ is so divisive and does dogs no good. Within breeds, I doubt breeding exclusively towards either goal is a great thing. It seems all the pedigree conformation system has done for dogs is divide, limit, reduce.... In days gone by, I doubt Fred would have cared if Dave’s Labrador had white feet. Dave probably would have watched Fred’s dog and if Fred’s dog had some ability that Dave thought could enhance his own dogs, blokes would have got the dogs together to see what the results were. Maybe they gained some desirable traits, maybe they didn’t. Because they were using the dogs for a purpose they could nut that out pretty quickly and decide their next move. Meanwhile, Mark from a few districts over might have heard about those pups, that were a bit short on leg and a bit too flashy in their marking for the purpose that Fred and Dave needed, but reckoned they might be just the ticket for his slightly different terrain. Once working his new pups, Mark worked out they were lacking in the scenting department for his needs, but decided to take a chance crossing one out to his best little spaniel, and managed to gain the best working dogs he ever had! ( for his purposes) The idea of conformity & purity in dogs is the biggest disease we have bestowed on ‘mans best friend’ and no amount of health testing can undo what driving toward that end has done, whilst ever we still drive in that direction. I use the example of our ‘ beloved’ Australian breeds to demonstrate this. EVERY single Australian breed could only have existed in its current form since, well, since Australia began! And in all of those breeds I can think of, none of them ran off a ship in the form we know them today. They’ve all become what we know them to be today, since Australia was settled. Most recently, the Tenterfield Terrier, our newest ‘breed’ . I feel a little bit ragey when I see discussions about so called designer dogs. Pedigree show people get their knickers all mixed up decrying these dogs. But, in reality, I see new breeds and types emerging. Contemporary dogs bred for contemporary purpose. Just like the old days when the breeds we know and hold close today, we’re being developed, these contemporary ‘breeds’ don’t just hatch out of an egg. They take generations to emerge. We just happen to be the generations witnessing this transition, as I’m sure, in fact hope, that generations to come, will be able to witness the emergence of new dogs to suit their time and purpose. Because things change, and that is ok!!

Oh, so inherently flawed……. humans are idiots

I really wish the countries and clubs going down the route of outcrossing & back crossing all the best. but I can’t help turn my mind to the HUA v LUA Dalmatian project. There are still plenty of ‘purists’ out there decrying a healthy version of the Dalmatian because of ONE cross FIFTY YEARS AGO!!! So I can only barely imagine the shit these breeders are going to have to push up hills to fight for better versions of their breeds today. https://ckcusa.com/blog/2019/november/the-dalmatian-back-cross-project/

The problem I see is the dogged pursuit of ‘purity’. That can only ever go one way. To the bottom of the ever shallowing gene pool. Close a gene pool, keep breeding within that closed gene pool. Problems arise. Health Test the shit out of everything. Chuck out anything flagged in a health test depleting the gene pool more. More problems. More advanced health testing….more genes lost. All the while insisting everything that’s not deemed ‘suitable’ at 12 weeks is desexed…. that’s the other side of bringing back heath with out crossing…..there not much left out there due to the mindset of desexing. The saying ‘for the betterment of the breed’. Wtf does that even mean. It’s like people need to see incremental forward movement in everything these days. Somehow can’t be happy that something is great the way it was and work on keeping it that way. ughh I could go on and on. But for me, while I appreciate a ‘breed’ a ‘pedigree’ it is not the future for dogs. The whole show scene, the locked in standards, it’s almost run it’s course. It’s a blip in time. I just hope dogs can claw their way out of the mess. There are as many great dogs outside the pedigree arena as there are inside of it. We just need to see past, outside. and thanks @moosmum for taking the time to post. I always enjoy your critical thinking. Another thing disappearing ….. I have a clumsy way of expressing myself but I love reading critical thought.

I’ve always thought one of the quickest easiest ways to see more moderate examples is for judges to select away from extremes and trends, to choose those more traditional moderate and balanced examples. I think judges are often breeders themselves and get swept up in it all. Let’s face it, dog showing is a competition. People like to win competitions. Some at any cost. Judging alone isn’t going to be a solution though. kennel club purebreed /show breeding as it’s done in the dog world is quite literally inherently flawed. If you keep breeding into a closed gene pool long enough any idiot can see that’s a dead end road paved with problems. You can health test the shit out of these dogs but all that does is further diminish the available closed gene pool. The ONLY way to help improve things is out crossing and mixed breeding. I think that really scares people who are welded onto the ideal of purebreed

Thank you.

That is sad. I used to run a rescue, but we really on took unclaimed strays from 3 local rural councils who we had contracts with. I don’t call private surrender ‘rescue’. People need to rehome their own owned dogs. It was only in exceptional circumstances like deceased estate we took private surrender. So I never heard of breeders surrendering dogs. Personally I think private rescue are making their own beds by taking private surrenders. If we stopped giving people the soft options people might take a bit of damn responsibility for rehoming their own unwanted pets. I really do understand it’s not always simple. But while ever there is someone willing to take owned dogs, their will be people willing to dump them on those people. I think it needs to stop being like that.

Yep I’m all for limiting numbers to something that 1 person could manage and give that number of dogs a fair life and enough interaction. 10 seems reasonable to me. In SA pretty much for my entire 50 years or so, we have had limited number on domestic dog ownership. The general rule in suburbia is 2 per unattached dwelling and 1 per attached dwelling. So it’s actually unusual to meet an average jo with more than 2 dogs. It’s really kept a lid on byb here. Yes, plenty of folks still do it, but mostly with only a couple of dogs. Low volume mixed breedings is actually a healthy thing for volume and genetic diversity. The real problems start with the higher volume of dogs on site. Easy fix there. we will never be able to legislate away the hoarder types that will covet what they are doing, until it comes to light somehow.

The bit I’ve bolded is ridiculous. I agree that there should be a cap on numbers for sure. 10 seems fair to me. But seriously, to limit a bitch to 2 litters!! I’d say maybe 5 would be more reasonable, and as for limiting the age of a stud, that’s basically insane! That is legislative overreach imo.

Ps. Here’s a link to the SA premiers post about banning puppy farms. It gives you a really good idea of what the general public understands *face palm* https://www.facebook.com/100044312232166/posts/pfbid02Y7V4FwZ9nEtnmGXqM6zbFW1x2DXvnCTuhgpUEZoukaTNaJuUzmFsbZKxmU8RW46gl/?d=n

You’re so right Anne. But unfortunately facts often don’t align with what people want to know/hear. recently I was commenting on a FB post from our South Australian premier. The post just said ‘we’re going to ban puppy farms’ omg the nonsense and dribble in the comments. The generic ‘good, ban byb as well’. ‘I thought they already had’. ‘Adopt don’t shop’. ‘We rescued our precious fluffy from the pound’ ‘stop breeding mutts’ on and on and on it went. First thing I want to know from the broad statement is what exactly will the legislative description of a ‘puppy farm’ actually be. Next I want to know how people will source dogs when all the puppy farms and byb are gone and all we have left is limited closed gene pools held by people who don’t breed many dogs and won’t let anyone else breed from their dogs. personally I prefer to see low volume byb over commercial scale factory farming. We also absolutely MUST have mixed breeds and some volume of breeding. I know it’s pretty radical and I even posted much the same on here several yrs ago. But I’d actually like to see private rescue banned. While ever there is a place to dump dogs, people will dump dogs there. Shelters should be exclusively for unclaimed strays, deceased estate animals, animals seized in neglect cases etc. If there are no places to hand over dogs so easily, culture will slowly change. People need to understand they will be responsible for rehoming any dog they call theirs. For 50 yrs or more in this country people have just known they can surrender a dog. Most probably don’t set out with the intention, but they know in the back of their mind it’s an option. Yes, without surrender situations some people will turn the dogs out on the streets. For Some dogs that will go badly. Most would end up as unclaimed strays and get a place at a shelter for assessment and rehoming. Some might say well, just let them take it to a shelter, it’s probably going there anyway. But my argument is the culture needs to change. People need to step up and rehome their own animals. another radical idea I talk about which would imo flatten the whole spectrum of problems with domestic dogs, is to put a cap on the price. Let’s say $2000. No dog anywhere can be sold for more than that. Regardless of whether it’s a pure bred magicalmystiquehound with European imported parents or a oodlywhatsit or anything in between. Certain groups will throw their hands up at that one, yes! Because how can you recover the import costs? Will it limit imported dogs etc etc. those arguments come from a tiny minority of the wider domestic dog fraternity. And capped price puppies won’t make anything illegal. Everyone will still have the choices. Just not the potential financial gains. it seems to me so much of what people decry is the profit aspect. The ‘greeders’ well, that can be sorted with capped pricing. Controversial? Yes. But we need new thinking thrown at these issues.

Breeders don’t put dogs in shelters, ……buyers do.

My vote for best post I’ve ever read. Thank you.

I stub my toes wrench them backwards all the time. It really hurts. But I never thought about removing them. I’ve held plenty of pups in the old days for tail docking. Although I’m glad we don’t alter dogs tails now, I never thought it was a problematic procedure. Pups might squeak then be back nursing within moments. It wasn’t until I had a litter myself and was urged by other breeders to get the dew claws done, I held those pups at days old to get the claws done. NEVER EVER EVER would I do that to puppies again. It was horrible just horrible.

If all else fails see if you can get some media attention. You’re right someone out there may be looking for her or assumed she’d been lost to the floods.

It’s a Belgian ShepHERD (a young Tervueren I’d say)

For whatever reason socialising dogs seems to conjure up something completely different to human socialising. can you imagine if when we went out to the cafe, supermarket etc, basically anywhere in a social setting, and proceeded to get right up in peoples faces, yelling, screaming, jumping on everything including people, taking stuff off other people, etc etc. Of course that’s not ‘socialisation’! So why think that is what it should be for out dogs. Actual socialisation is about being confident across different environments, maintaining self control under distraction, and paying attention to who you’re with. Take your dog to an off lead dog area (not a fenced dog park). Interact with you dog in a focused quality way with play and training. Teach your dog that you are the most important thing in any environment (not other dogs!). Use your out of home time to build the relationship with your dog rather than your dog build all manner of inappropriate relationships with other dogs. For example I recently adopted an 5yo entire male Jack Russel who had never been lead walked in public. Christ what a nightmare it was to start with. But, after a few months of absolute consistency, he now implicitly understands if anyone or anything approaches us, he’s to immediately check in with me and take my direction. Which is usually stepping aside, doing a focused (on me) sit while the distraction passes. People are weird…… if they ask to pay him I say sure, and release him from his sit. He will go and take a brief pat then return to me and sit focused back to me. They get all sad that ‘he doesn’t want to talk to them’ lol. I don’t care. Would they rather he was still completely mental pulling and yelling g jumping up & down scratching them like he was at the start!! Hmmmm

As a 35 plus yrs dog groomer, and still going, I concur with everything @Dogsfevr said ^ I sent you a message with a link in it.

I myself don’t subscribe to the invention that the best, healthiest or more predictable dogs are only available inside of the pedigree system. From what I’ve observed over 30 plus years as a dog groomer and a bit of involvement with pedigree dogs in kennels, showing, owning and breeding, it’s no more of a lottery either way. I am without doubt that as many worthwhile dogs exist outside of the pedigree system,as exist within it. The same can be said for poor quality dogs inside and outside of the pedigree system.