Sheridan

I'm told the dog is found.

The Anatolian club is aware of him.

My dogs were bred with care and attention to temperament and health. Their parents weren't just shoved together to make pondscum some money in the lead up to Christmas.

I know of a number that shed badly.

Whoa there, Gruf. You're mixing the sensible with logic. :laugh: I don't disagree that a dog's worth should be judged to some extent on its function but with the oodly dogs, function is an unknown. They can't be claimed to be hypoallergenic, they can't be claimed to be non-shedding, they can't be claimed to be good family pets, and really, they can't be claimed to be anything because it's all rolls of the dice. Comparing an oodly dog to.. a greyhound: The greyhound will be a big dog, probably weighing between 25-35kg. It will have a smooth, short coat that sheds fairly minimally. It will have most, if not all, the traits of a sighthound. When you breed two greyhounds together, you know what the basic template will be. On the other hand, the lab x poodle could be a smallish dog, it could be a medium dog, it could be quite a large dog, its coat could be one of many things. It's impossible to predict which traits from which breed will end up in each puppy and because of that, you can't say it's good for [X] function (such as non-shedding pet) because it's an unknown. An update for anyone interested, regarding the BIL's lab x poodle.. Yesterday, it was confirmed that its other knee has now gone. Below is a quote taken from the breeder's website: I guess that sound health with hybrid vigor doesn't include hips or knees. Their dog will likely be crippled with arthritis before it even gets close to being an old dog. Great family pet, right there. Cos hybrid vigour is about species not breeds. Actually, I think it was originally about peas.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms. Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs.. I said relevant code of practice. There is more than one. The commercial one you've noted and the one for the private keeping of dogs. Well the relevant code of practice in Victoria lets Vicdogs members off the hook and they are regulated no differently than any dog owner if they have less than ten dogs so being regulated by that is a far cry from being regulated as other breeders are. What part of more than one code of practice did you not get?

Above from Shel's blog. So why isn't rescue regulated? Does it not fall under state jurisdictional codes of practice?

I thought AWDRI (?) was a fairly decent rescue with a good reputation. Seems not?

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms. Victorian breeders who are Vic dogs members and who have less than 10 dogs don't have to follow the code of practice for breeding dogs because they currently have an exemption. Other breeders in Victoria who have more than 3 dogs have horrendous things to comply with suited to large scale commercial breeders and the big stink is because if the exemptions are removed the Vic Dogs members will have to do what everyone else has already had to do to legally breed a dog - Get a DAB. So it is actually the cross bred breeders who cant be members of Vicdogs who are regulated by the code of practice and Vicdogs members who own more than 10 fertile dogs.. I said relevant code of practice. There is more than one. The commercial one you've noted and the one for the private keeping of dogs.

I don't use Rescue Remedy for my dog anymore. I use Brauer's Calm tablets. I find me more effective over a period of time.

Purebred dog breeders are regulated by their state domestic animals legislation and the relevant code of practice, something the Victorian agricultural minister, Jaala Pulford, doesn't seem to understand or at least, won't acknowledge. Her picking at Dogs Vic members in the press and at the inquiry seems to indicate an agenda beyond getting rid of puppyfarms.

Either a purebred breeder who is complicit or who is lied to. I know one of the latter, someone who rang me in great distress on finding out about their dog.

As someone with breeds that don't shed and one that gets mistaken for an oodle most of the time, it amazes me that people fall for the non-shedding aspect of oodledom. I have met a number of people with oodles recently whose dogs shed more than Labradors in general. They always seem so puzzled about it.

And it's very clear OL and AA (and the RSPCA to some extent) have very fixed ideas, will not change their minds, and cannot understand a reasoned, logical point of view. Breeders are all bad no matter what. That's it. That's their position.

Registered breeders cannot argue restriction of trade in one breath and argue they should not be treated like a commercial enterprise in the next. the pet shops can in spades pretty rich to tell us that selling a puppy bred by a breeder will have poor outcome for the puppy and the buyer. BUT its fine for rescue pups and dogs? thats like telling Harvey Norman you can only stock Westinghouse and no other brand, THAT certainly is restriction of trade Then feel free to argue that to the politicians. Given one of the objections to this Bill's amendments is Dogs Vic's members are not a business it is not an argument that should be made about them.

Registered breeders cannot argue restriction of trade in one breath and argue they should not be treated like a commercial enterprise in the next.

Has Pulford had a bad experience with a Dogs Vic breeder, I wonder?

Pulford maligned Dogs Vic breeders today as not being up to scratch, apparently. Indicates she really has it in for them.

with a bit of luck by the time it happens there will be so few dogs and puppies of any breed available anyone who really wants a dog but cant find one will snap them up. as for if the vic govt get their planned changes though that will be sooner than you can possibly imagine I hope that isn't the case but if it did as you said would be good for the Greys maybe they're not everyone's cup of tea. There won't be any greys. Will that make you finally happy? If there is no dog breeding at all? Cos that's what's happening in Victoria right now. I have no time for people who cannot see past their own nose. Huh?? Are you talking to me? If so can you please elaborate as I don't understand what you are getting at. This is a thread on racing Greys and the demise of an industry not breeding dogs in general. Either you're disingenuous or you don't know what you're writing. What did you think asal meant by referencing the Victorian legislation?

The comments by Animals Australia and by proxy Oscar's law believe they were sufficiently consulted though. Having read through the transcripts and comments on Oscar's law fb page I find it hard to work out which is right. On the transcripts they (ol) are saying they weren't consulted officially and on the fb page they are saying they were in someway part of the consultation process. They also have no costings or information regarding how many people will be needed to enforce the new legislation and they also have no idea about how many people it will affect, but they still want to push it through. What a mess. --Lhok I took a look, Lhok, and it makes interesting reading. Well, horrifying reading.

with a bit of luck by the time it happens there will be so few dogs and puppies of any breed available anyone who really wants a dog but cant find one will snap them up. as for if the vic govt get their planned changes though that will be sooner than you can possibly imagine I hope that isn't the case but if it did as you said would be good for the Greys maybe they're not everyone's cup of tea. There won't be any greys. Will that make you finally happy? If there is no dog breeding at all? Cos that's what's happening in Victoria right now. I have no time for people who cannot see past their own nose.

Shows OL has very little understanding of ... well, anything really.

'Without understanding the full implications'. Thanks for being so utterly patronising. i understand you well enough to realise that you cannot make any argument without devolving into academic claptrap. I understand the implications. I understand what you wrote. I did not write the same thing as you. I pointed out your argument is twaddle.

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies? Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread? And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/ Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules. I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't. And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses. You are only NOW explaining to me what you meant and just because you thought it was perfectly clear that doesnt make it that it was perfectly clear to me. I wasn't using a previous post to do what you accuse me of I was using it as a way of explaining why I thought you were saying what I thought you were. Now I know what you were saying I apologise that I didn't get it at the time . How the hell was I supposed to know if my interpretation was right or Hazywal had it right until you clarified it? Unless Ive missed something this is the first time you have clarified it. Im sorry that I took your question the wrong way. Obviously I have some other things confused because all I see is a whole group of people being judged as complicent because they didn't stand up and report those that you say they knew were doing the wrong thing. But the some of the wrong things you seem to have wanted them to report were not reportable and I believe that many did report the things that were against the rules and illegal. Self regulation meant it was covered up and corrupt. Just as the grey industry has codes and rules and regs so does the ANKC and there are many things that are considered ethical as per the code of ethics for the state CCs that I believe are not ethical and lots of things that happen in the rescue arena that I dont think are ethical To a point that the MDBA was born because I also learned that some things are not against the law or codes and even those that are can be pretty hard to prove, and the bullies who want to keep the status quo are pretty scary, but just the same were so unacceptable that something needed to be done. excellent reply Steve. as for that comment Maddy That is your opinion,(and that does not necessarily make you right, nice as it might be to think you and you alone can see the glorious truth of your version of the truth) but denigrating me to the degree nothing I say is valid, does not change the fact you want to blanket punish all for the sins of a few. As Steve said by what right were you given to judge them as complicit of crimes this majority were probably unaware of? Are you campaigning just as hard for the churches being disbanded because so many priests and ministers were complicit in the actions of the pedephiles in their ranks? Same scenario no matter how you want to paint it. But then children don't deserve you interest or protection, they might grow up to abuse animals? Yet research points that those who don't kill themselves (stats reveal 70% do not live to see 30) turn to their pets for comfort. They certainly dont get that from the church I increasingly get the impression the Animal Rights people for whatever reasons in their past hate their own species, so to destroy a majority to punish a minority where animals rights are concerned doesnt concern them at all because they have no sympathy for others of their species I think this is the result of a far 'left' P.C brigade, who see injustice and rather than accepting we have and always will have a flawed society that must be a work in progress, DO 'hate' their own species. Perhaps more than those they rail against for promoting hatred, because they call it justifiable (and get away with it) to label whole groups as unfit for recognition as part of the human species, based on the actions of a few and according to their own entitled standards. Any critical even of how those standards are applied are targets of this dismissal and hate. So you can't critisize a woman with out being sexist, or any member of any group who wants to claim minority status, with out being racist, homophobic or biggoted in way or form. Promoting the idea themselves, that you can't make an observation referring to individuals, with out implicating their whole human 'type'. They are encouraging a gentic 'Typing' of humanity and basing their judgements on type. Not as individuals, influenced by their 'condition' as humans. Conditions they condemn and oppress, rather than alleviate. In the name of those they see as oppressed! Repeating a cycle of fomenting hatred and oppression by 'genetic 'Typing' and 'Typing' of victimology. Before I get the condemnation for this post, No, I don't mean ALL 'left' leaning people. I am likely one. I refer only to those people these observations clearly apply to. Twaddle. Blaming the left for PC-ness has become very fashionable in the last few days and it's rubbish. I will note that you suggesting that the left sees injustice and wanting to do something about it means that the right thinks it's perfectly fine that people are poor or that animals are abused. No, you didn't write that but if you insist on characterising people one way the opposite must also be a truth. Be careful what you argue, academic, for there are gaping holes ready to be tripped into.

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies? Regarding your question of why I haven't reported things.. as I mentioned several times, many of the issues are not against any rules. Bosley's mum had litter after litter with epileptic pups and there is no rule or law against creating that misery. As for speaking out about it, I don't mean to sound snarky but what on Earth do you think I'm doing in this thread? And yes, HazyWal understood what I meant. She and I don't necessarily agree on many of the points of this issue but at least she doesn't base arguments off entirely incorrect interpretations of what I'm saying :/ Steve, using previous posts to back up something that you misunderstood does not make you right. I asked (and I thought I was perfectly clear) what you would do if you knew of an ANKC breeder doing something that was either A) Ethically very questionable or B) an actual breach of rules. I'm not talking about greyhound breeders drowning puppies, nor do I believe it likely to occur. You misinterpreted my post and instead of just acknowledging that, you felt the need to try to prove yourself right, even though I'm telling you that you weren't. And asal.. there are no words for how misinformed and ignorant you are in this discussion. This is going to be my last reply to you because pro or anti, my patience gets very short with those who to turn reasonable discussions into circuses. By 'reasonable discussion' you appear to mean anyone who takes a contrary view to yours. I disagree with asal the vast majority of the time. We do not get along. However, asal (or indeed Steve) posting views you disagree with is not turning a thread into a circus, it's disagreeing with you. If you can't tell the difference perhaps, again, you should step away.