sandgrubber

Did anyone catch the 'dog' segments on Paul Merton In China 6:10pm Sunday, 17 Jan 2010 Documentary CC PG I was at once grossed out and amazed to see all the 'pretty' punk dyed poodles. Worst of all was hearing that the guy had forty some dog grooming parlours (sp?) and was planning to hit 60 by the end of the year. No way am I exporting to China!!!! Not to mention the follow up segment where he goes to the restaurants specialising in dog meat dishes.

Thanks for the notice. So sorry to hear it's bad. Here's hoping it doesn't travel North.

Inbreeding depression is reduced viability (eg, low litter sizes or low survival rates offfspring) arising from inbreeding. Zookeepers worry about it a lot when they select mates for rare animals. Whether or not it occurs in pedigree dogs has been a subject of discussion on DOL. Note, the report also mentions the opposite effect. To quote: "When animal breeders wish to produce pure genetic lines, as they sometimes do, for example in laboratory animals, they will mate brother with sister generation after generation. Most lines die out due to the exposure of deleterious recessives that are normally hidden. However, any healthy lines that survive are likely to have lost many of the deleterious recessive genes they started with, a process known as genetic purging." hush your mouth, surely nothing good can come of :D shock horror, inbreeding The purpose of the quote was to show that the report gives a balanced, non-dogmatic position. Island biogeography is FULL of plant and animal populations that start from a single founder, and hence are highly inbreed. Eg, most of the native species in the Galapagos or the Hawaiian Islands descent from a few individuals that happened to drift to the island. Many of these are healthy and robust. Extreme inbreeding can produce healthy popuations, though, as I understand the academic research on the subject, it is more likely to lead to failed lines. My own bias is strongly against ANY dogma. Biology is wonderfully complex, and many 'rules' have exceptions. There may be cases where close inbreeding would be useful to rescue a rare breed with high incidence of some genetic problem.

It's not the electronics which will inject any scientific rigor into this enterprise. Do these folks....RSPCA UK, Sydney Uni & RVC ever talk to, or look at work, from other places? Denmark already carried out a useful study re cause of death & longevity, across purebreeds & crossbreeds. Interesting results there....a little bunch of pure breeds, trumped all the others. What is really funny & quite against the current bandwagon....the strangely shaped little dachshund with its long barrel body & short legs, came out in the top group. Now it could be worth doing similar studies to see if this is replicated in other countries with other genetic pools. Following on from this, then it's likely not a simplistic equation....that pure breeds have been developed into a state where genetic conditions, uniquely, abound. Which is why there's such good research IMO coming out of some of the top US university schools of veterinary medicine. Another issue that give me the scholarly chills.....is the RSPCA UK's bloke's reference to 'consumer pressure' as driving the project. Now that's a surprise....I'd expect it to be science, if a university is involved. Consumer perceptions about ideal dogs, should in itself be something to be critically studied. Not accepted as truisms. No wonder then that some riders on the bandwagon seem to be talking the language of advertising. I have seen the press do more damage than the RSPCA, and I wouldn't take any press release at face value. I would have to see the details before I concluded that this study wasn't about both pure breeds and F1/crossbreeds/DD's. As for scholarly chills . . . sounds like you haven't had a good bout with post modernist intellectuals who tell us that science is all value based . . . no one is objective . . . and that improvement comes from putting our biases up front for examination. Vet research is often funded by drug companies and pet food companies, so much veterinary research requires skeptical reading. I am much happier with 'consumer preference' as a driver, if it means complaints from puppy-buyers and voiced opinions of pet-owners, than I am with 'science' as established by some multinational conglomerate.

In my experience in Australian academia, the inclusion of a variety of stakeholders is widely advocated in forming advisory panels, and you don't get your grant funding if you don't get a broad mix on your advisory panel (especially for CRC's). Eg, a business advisory panel will have a few representatives from labour, a childcare advisory board will typically try to include interests of owners, parents, workers, and local government. I was working on bushfire research . . . we sought land owners, fire fighters, aboriginal representatives, tourism operators, research scientists, ecologists, local government, state government, national government . . . the whole kit and kaboodle. I see no problem with including a zoologist, geneticist, reproductive vet, a gene testing company rep, someone from a welfare organisation, or whatever on a dog breeding advisory panel if they have experience and credentials relevant to the problem. If I were picking a panel I might insist on a statistician with broad experience cause I see a high frequency of people drawing generalisations (on both sides) based on flimsy data and personal bias. I think it would elevate the debate if people could unite behind statistically defensible studies.

I wonder if all the cross-breds that pass through the RSPCA doors will be subject to similar testing before rehoming .. to give a clear indication if the problem is really a 'purebred' dog problem, or just a 'dog' problem in general .. bet they won't be ... Actually, comprehensive data on prevalence would be a great thing!!!! As more genetic tests become available, I want to be able to say 'no' to those tests that have less than, say 0.5% prevalence in my breed. It would be even better if the data were in some sort of open registry, cause even 2% occurrence can be ignored if it can be tied to specific lines . . . and lines you have steered clear of. You're only doomed if you lie down and play dead. If they are following the recommendations of the Bateson Report, if I read it right, the reporting will be done via vets when the dog comes in for care, and will apply to cross breeds and mixed breeds as well as pedigree dogs. I may be wrong. But the devil is in the details, and I think we need to see the details before passing judgement. Also, if they are departing from the recommendations of the Bateson Report, which is good in recognising that puppy farm problems may be at least as bad as those of pedigree dogs, I think it's worth observing that and rubbing their noses in it.

I'm tired of kennel zone in Perth Metro and am thinking of relocating. I only recently realised that some (many?) WA shires are pretty nice about making exceptions to the two dog rule for registered breeders. The Rangers want to know and have the right to inspect, and they may charge a registration fee of some sort . . . but some seem happy to have a four or six or eight dog household on a rural lot in their jurisdiction. Would be interested to know of people's experiences with different shires in WA . . . thinking, in particular, about south of Perth, near-coastal, but not necessarily on the coast. Eg, Harvey, Waroona, Murray, Bunbury, Busselton.

I find that, with an all black, or all chocolate litter, most puppy buyers can't tell the pups apart. If they pick a pup on one visit, they'll pick a different pup on the second visit. Exception being if there's a runt . . . the runts are often very popular. If I get someone who can justify their pick, eg, they want to show and they like the conformation of one pup better than another, I respect their right to pick. Otherwise I nudge people toward the pup I think suits them best. Temperament is hard to call in a half-hour visit. Often the most boisterous pup will have eaten a lot and be acting placid, while one of the calmer pups will be doing zoomies. I point this out to puppy buyers, and by-in-large they seem happy with the pup they get.

Inbreeding depression is reduced viability (eg, low litter sizes or low survival rates offfspring) arising from inbreeding. Zookeepers worry about it a lot when they select mates for rare animals. Whether or not it occurs in pedigree dogs has been a subject of discussion on DOL. Note, the report also mentions the opposite effect. To quote: "When animal breeders wish to produce pure genetic lines, as they sometimes do, for example in laboratory animals, they will mate brother with sister generation after generation. Most lines die out due to the exposure of deleterious recessives that are normally hidden. However, any healthy lines that survive are likely to have lost many of the deleterious recessive genes they started with, a process known as genetic purging."

I've begun working my way through the first few chapters of the Bateson Report. I find it interesting reading, though sometimes at odds with points of view that seem to dominate DOL discussions. For example, Ch. 3 which deals with Inbreeding has some interesting references on inbreeding depression in wolves based on field studies in Scandanavia. I have heard people on DOL forums deny that there is good evidence for inbreeding depression. Discussion here seems to be going right for the recommendations. Would others like to move discussion of the concepts and evidence in the text to some other forum on DOL?

That is the problem. It would take several years of veterinary schooling -- after all the basic science, biology, etc. that they do before vet school -- to cover all the things a vet really should know to be in general practice. Perhaps students get more than 10 minutes on genetics & breeding, but they certainly don't spend many hours on it, and many get more time on dealing with owner grief over pet death, or on bird lungs, than they do on dog breeding. Some vets go into vet school knowing something about dog breeding . . . some will pick it up when they do resident training or when they go into partnership with a more experienced vet who has done the yards, and some won't learn because it's not their area of interest and few of their clients are breeders. Having a Dr in front of your name doesn't guarantee that you know everything!

Here's Jarrah and her daughter Monica with Jarrah's 10, nine day old, pups. Both girls have milk. Jarrah gets milk and helps Monica with her litters too. Anyone else have girls that share pups?

Poor dog. Here's wishes for a maximum conviction for the owner. Would be interesting to know what else he's in the frame for. Clearly, a violent person with a lack of empathy, in need of whatever correction the correctional system can offer, and a hefty fine and confinement if the correctional system can't correct. [Too bad cruel and unusual punishment isn't an option.] My guess is the 'sympathy' vote will find a caring home for Boof. Poor puppy deserves it.

The seminar doesn't do much for welfare (sic) or I suppose it depends on how you define welfare - whether you genuinely care about canine welfare or whether your interest spurns from an animal rights ticket. Say what? I run a boarding kennel. I get pedigree, DD, BYB ('purebred' but not pedigree), and oops litter derivations in more-or-less equal numbers. Some of them (from each category) are clearly unhappy, or clearly make their owners and/or their owner's neighbours unhappy through temperament/behavioural traits. Too excitable. Demand too much stimulation. Dig holes, bark, chew everything, destroy their dog beds, even a few who deliberately crap in their beds or pee in their feeding dishes. Some interact poorly with other dogs. I am not saying there is anything wrong with these dogs. Many of them would have been great working dogs with huge stamina and high intelligence. The problem is that they have ended up in suburban backyards, and they don't fit into the place they've ended up. You may call it 'dumming down' . . . although sometimes low drive doesn't mean 'dumb'. But whatever words are used . . . I think it advisable that there is realistic understanding that most of the pups born -- that is, those who find caring homes -- will end up in the suburbs. Some temperaments/behavioural tendencies do better than others in the suburbs. Pedigree dog breeders need to recognise this in their breeding programmes . . . or else avoid placing pups as pets in suburban households. The converse may also be true . . . if you want to breed working dogs, you may want to selectively breed out couch potatoes with mild drive. The point is, breeding for temperament is important and improvement of the science behind breeding for temperament can serve us all. yah, yah, yah, it would be great if more owners would put their dogs into agility or run them twice a day . . . but there are a lot of owners you are not going to reach with that message. Sure, it might be better if those owners had gotten a pet rock and not bothered with a dog. But welcome to the real world. There are a lot of dogs out there demanding/requiring a lifestyle that their owners aren't willing or able to provide them with. In the long term, it may be better if more dogs were bred with temperament that suits suburban lifestyles. In my experience as a breeder, many behavioural traits are hereditary. I have often watched very specific behaviors such as pawing in a cute way to get attention, having very high food drive, or being ultra-broody and lactating when there are pups around, pass from mother to daughter, sometimes for several generations. As a pedigree dog breeder, I would like to have a better grip on behavioural inheritance. As someone that boards dogs, I wish there were better understanding and management of temperamental traits when dogs are matched to their owners.

My first litter: incident. Pup threw up. People took pup to vet and rang up $100 vet fees for exams etc. Turns out it was carsickness. I hadn't yet learned not to feed pups for a few hours before they went to new homes. Since then I've given puppy buyers as many tips as I can about vets in their area, and recommended several times that if they think anything is wrong, to notify me before they go to the vet. If there is a specific reason for caution, eg, I've had a few pups with overshot jaws, and a few litters that were likely to develop KC given high incidence in our area. I give them a written description of the problem and, for bad bites, a guarantee that I'll pay the cost of surgical procedures in the unlikely case that they are necessary . . . but ONLY if they notify me and give me the option of choosing the vet, or getting a second opinion from a vet I respect. With KC I let them know that it's like a baby with a viral infection . . . in most cases will pass without treatment but meds may soothe symptoms, antibiotics not likely to be effective, vet care needed if energy level drops or temperature rises. I generally go for the free 6 wk insurance from Pet Plan . . . which ensures that severe KC treatment costs won't become an issue.

Councils tend to arbitrary behaviour, with fees set willy-nilly. If you don't like what they are doing, you have to speak out. It's a painful time-consuming process. But if people don't take the time, there's no point to having local government. Personally, I think 'breeder permits' are a good idea. But many good ideas get implemented in a bad way.

Maybe not with all people but with a far chunk of them it is downright callousness. In every town I have lived there has been many many people just having litters upon litters as it is cheaper just to dunk puppies/kittens in buckets of water at birth than to desex. (or dump them at 6-8 weeks after mummies boobies have dried) I know heaps of people who just drop one dog/cat at the pound so they can get a new dog/cat. BYB's would have nothing on the thousands of people who own dogs but don't desex and then just dump unwanted puppies. That is being callous. Knowing each season your bitch will have pups and you can just dump/drown them. I agree . . .the difference is semantic or of degrees. The most critical callousness is that of people who allow dogs (cats, ferrets, rabbits, or what-have-you) to breed without adequate thought about where the resulting puppies will go and what sort of lives they will lead. I am p.o.'d with people who defend the 'right to breed' without recognising the widespread abuse of that 'right'. I don't like government intervention . . . but nudges from the government in the direction of making spey/neuter be the norm seem to be a good thing.

If you want government processes to hear your words, get involved in the political process. I doubt that your local Member reads DOL forums. Interest groups effect change when the effectively exchange with the outside world . . . not from chorus behaviours.

Jed . . . what's the secret of doing quotes? I mess them up every time. Your post below is a masterpiece of technique. Retort follows after the quote of quotes Thank you. I love learning, I love a good seminar. Alas, there's not much for me there - we already have a central registry, its called the ANKC, I know what happens to house dogs which go to kennels, from reports of Dr Bennet's seminar in Tas, I would think it was a waste of my precious time, Dr McGreevey's views are well publicised. I hear he is interesting, but flawed. Oogh, canine research, I like that. Will someone be able to tell me about new breakthroughs in the identification of the gene responsible for RD, or luxating patellas, or even the mode of inheritance? That's the type of research I love to hear about - the sort that will make me a better breeder. If it's not a promotion of cross bred dogs, representatives from the ANKC should have been invited. If it walks like a duck, quacks, looks like a duck, it's a duck, pure and simple. I don't think it is a promotion of cross bred dogs, it's a promotion of animal rights and being further allowed to encroach on the purebred dog fancy. And yet another bashing of purebred dogs and their breeders, using skewed figures overridden by unbiased research which research will not be mentioned, to brainwash people into believing that purebred dogs have a myriad of problems which will be solved by some academics with an agenda and little practical experience. You were hoping for a good roll up to push your agenda. Sounds like Don Burke revisited to me. Gee, many have said they will be attending. Perhaps the ones who have PM'd you are frightened you might bite them? Maybe work on your image a bit? Absolutely not permitted, so you might try harder in future. Does "all getting along" mean we all have to agree with you? Erny - that bothers me too. No one is saying the right things *goes off to study Sun Tzu again* Sandgrubber I agree with you. Registered breeders are only as good as their integrity, mentors, source of learning, and will to learn. Some learn and succeed, some just do the same thing in the same place for years, some come, fail, leave. As much as we like to bag the ANKC, it is working for health and quality in purebreds. There's a difference between working for health and quality and driving people out Whether cross breds will come under a health and welfare umbrella is another matter. I think not. The purebred community has one goal, and one agenda, although both very broad. The mong breeders have as many goals and agendas as they number. The worst of the pedigree dogs are better than the worst of the designer mongs, but the registered breeders do have an organisation, which the mong breeders do not. And I very much doubt that most of the mong breeders want an organisation, they simply want to continue to do as they like, and rake in the moolah. the mongs already have the greater market share and have had for years. Few registered breeders give a rats about that. Supply and demand and promotion plays a large part in that. I don't see mongs as having any relevance to registered dogs, nor do I care what mong breeders do, except for damage done to the dogs. Mong breeders have different goals, different aspirations, different motivations. Hostility? Unfortunately, most of the public does not understand about a lot of things about breeding dogs - not the mechanics, the things breeders stive for. I don't think they particularly want, or need to understand, although it is not "secret business". They do not understand the relevance of points in the breed standards, they do not understand that by changing a point, something else will be changed - and mostly, they don't care. They want a happy, healthy dog which fits their lifestyle, which suits their particular training style and which is easy for them to love. Consider - the Cav standard calls for straight silky hair. Too easy. Some cavs have wavy hair. The wavy coat tends to be coarser. Not a big deal? Nope. Except that the straight silky hair knots less, holds the dirt less, smells less and requires less grooming. And if it knots, the knots are easier to remove. I know when I sell a pup with the hair type as required by the standard, it is unlikely that the dog will be at the groomers in a matted to the skin mess. It's only a small point, but it's a point which means the difference between success and failure for some owners. It is, in fact, a very important point, although very few owners realise it, and some breeders don't either, although the ones who have lived with both coats do know. That's the kind of thing breeders know and strive for, but the public doesn't know. There are many many items like that with every breed, and these are often the things which highlight success or failure for the pet owner. Boxers have a reputation for slobbering, but a boxer with a correct mouth and satisfactory flews slobbers very little if at all. People don't understand the standards, they don't understand the difference between a coated dog they have to groom for a couple of hours a night, and one which is ok with a bit of a brush off every week. They think all boxers slobber. I think it is rather sad that someone who doesn't seem to understand the standard wants to crossbreed dogs to change them. You should first understand that which you wish to change. And puppy buyers generally are more satisfied with purchases from reputable breeders (read this forum for verification) and the majority of breeders do try very hard to do the right thing. A larger proportion than the mong breeders, as far as I can tell. Yep, some mongs are great but it's all Russian roulette, isn't it? Breeding purebred dogs shouldn't be Russian roulette. I think there is a basic, rock bottom challenge that the pedigree community is not facing. Some of our breed standards promote things that run contrary to breeding good suburban pets . . . which is what most of our puppies end out being [pardon awful awkward English language]. For example, as a Labrador breeder, I know that breeding for the duplex coat that is appropriate from pulling in fish nets in the Bay of Fundy and enshrined in my Breed Standard, results in dogs that suffer from the WA summer heat. 90% of my pups go to pet homes -- mostly because of the Lab's deserved reputation for easy temperament and low grooming needs. If I get a lovely bitch pup who lacks the duplex coat, do I run her on as a brood bitch? Or the father/daughter line that doesn't like to swim? Not true to the intent of the breed standard, but less inclined to dig in the water bowl and slosh water all over the place. Do I promote a line that done well as Guide Dogs due to high biddability and strong loyalty to person, but useless in retrieving trials? I'm not taking sides . .. just saying there is a legit debate . . . and I think some people are trying to cut that debate off . . . and in my eyes that reflects badly on the pedigree dog world. Actually, I am taking sides. I strongly believe that the world changes. Dog breeds need to change to adapt to changing environments. I welcome genetic tools that will help that adaptation. I almost decided to have a go with kelpies . . . a breed I greatly admire for endurance, intelligence and suitability for a hot climate. But seeing how unhappy many kelpies are in the suburbs, I decided that breeding them was a bad idea. There aren't that many openings for herding dogs these days . . . and the openings that there are are better filled by people who run 10,000+ sheep, not by ageing yuppiie dog lovers like me. Lots of Aussies like the kelpie look, keen-ness, intelligence, and strength. I would love to see kelpie lines devel oped that were better adapted to suburban life. Given that dog breeds have evolved over time to varying 'work' demands -- eg, Labs became retrievers, not bringer-in-of fishnet dogs, many 'fighting' dog breeds are now house dogs, and cart dogs all but died out a century ago -- I think the desire to make dogs fit in better with suburban lifestyles deserves serious consideration. Breeding to suit a function is a long honoured fact in the pedigree world. We need to accept that the function of many dog breeds has changed. We allow for appearance to evolve . . . why not also allow temperament to do so. As for cross breeding .. . I think the Lab was improved by cross breeding with a hodge-podge of gun dog and occasional other breeds ~1800 to 1950. I don't think we should be jumping on others who try to create new breeds through cross breeding. The example I know is the Rat Terrier . . . mostly a 20th century breed that mixes ground-dog prey drive with more affable traits . . . and which would not exits if the extreme anti-cross-breeding community had its way. I can see some sort of 'spoodle' being a great family dog . . . and I wouldn't condemn anyone for trying to breed some heat tolerant and not so food obsessed traits into Labrador lines to come up with a new breed.

Not rude at all. Sorry. Most of the DOL complaints about the RSPCA seem to be directed to the VIC branch, and there is a tendency in these discussions to tar the RSPCA as a whole for policies implemented in one state branch. I agree, it would be good if CC people would seek membership in the VIC RSPCA. [i'm in WA .. . haven't heard many complaints about the RSPCA here other than my own problem that they are not allowing chook-farmers to use recycled egg cartons for farm-sales]. If there is, indeed, a problem with the NSW branch not accepting CC members, why not embarass them the denial of membership -- which flies in the face of widespread Australian values?

Pedigree dog registration numbers -- eg, the decline of the GSD, doberman, and many long-haired breeds, shows pretty well what the public wants in dog temperament. The semi-surprise is the rising popularity of the SBT . . .who in my experience, tend to have never-failing friendly energy, be larrikins, and sometimes be scrappy when it comes to other dogs. Guess Aussies are willing to put up with a mild tendency to DA to get a crazy little, ever-enthusiastic, short haired ball of energy. I don't think anyone is proposing to breed the 'guard' out of all guard dogs, or the 'herding/high energy' out of working herding dogs. Just to help people who like some breed or other, but want non-working lines that will be more appropriate as pets achieve that objective. I think there are many who like aspects of, say, the kelpie, but don't want to end out with a dog that goes neurotic through being confined to a back yard with no work to do, or a bluey who doesn't hock-bite strangers who appear in its territory. As a boarding kennel operator who tries to see dogs as social animals, I see loads of dogs from herding dog breeds that become fence fighters, barkers, and semi-neurotic, and loads of staffie crosses that can't be mixed with other dogs because the fighting side of the SBT character is too strong. As a Labrador breeder, I know most breeders who work with my breed will cull any dog from their breeding program if that dog shows signs of HA or DA. And glory hallelulah if anyone finds a 'biddability' gene (I doubt it will happen). I would be grateful for the development of genetic screening problems that would permit identification of such dogs before they reach maturity . . . so that their genes will not be passed on and their temperament faults can be used to advantage by placing them with a family that likes Labs, but would like more of a guard dog. I also think that APBT people would be in much better shape re BSL if there were a way to select out the 'pit' temperament factor. Pitties are often lovely dogs . . . but some do carry the fighting dog tendency in a big way.

Mike Goddard's abstract reads: Genetics of Dog Behaviour and Breeding Programs to Improve Canine Welfare The most important step in any breeding program is to decide on the objectives. Since most puppies sold become pets, the main objective should be to breed dogs that become successful pets. Two sets of traits contribute towards this – behavioural traits and health traits – and both of these also impact on the welfare of the dog. Some abnormalities are due to a single mutant gene such as progressive retinal atrophy (PRA). In many cases the mutant gene is recessive so a dog can carry the mutant gene but appear perfectly normal. In some cases there are DNA tests to detect such carriers. However most diseases are due to many genes and environmental factors (eg hip dysplasia and epilepsy). In these cases the best strategy is to estimate the overall genetic merit of the dog for each trait and select those with highest merit. This would be helped greatly by calculating estimated breeding values for each dog for each important trait but to do this would require that a central registry was kept of dogs' status for traits such as HD and epilepsy. Among behavioural traits, fearfulness, aggression and over excitability are undesirable traits. They are also controlled by many genes and by environmental factors and the best way to improve them is to select animals with desirable estimated breeding values for these traits. O.K. Nothing new there - what is the aim of the seminar. Actually, there is something new and significant. From what DOL'ers repeatedly say, the health and temperament message needs to be put out to the DD community . . . and there are still some in the pedigree community who could stand to hear it as well. I would love to see some organisation working for quality control in cross breeds . . . or for all dogs equally. In my experience in kennels, some DD's are wonderful, healthy pets and quite healthy, while others seem to be the result of breeding two dogs that no reputable pedigree breeder would think of using. No better, and no worse than pedigree dogs. The non-pedigree dog community seems to be gaining market share from the pedigree community. I think behooves the pedigree dog community's interest to listen, look, and not prejudge. I congratulate mic for keeping his or her cool in the face of hostility.

I agree completely. I'm afraid it's easier to just curse the RSPCA. In WA we don't find the RSPCA much of a problem (or are there people they've bothered who aren't speaking up). I'd guess that's historical accident, not a result of good organisation in the K9 community. I would say it's the VIC and maybe QLD/NSW people who need to mount a a challenge. So I take it you haven't read about how people who were identified as members of a canine council were refused membership? Serious question. It is a bit hard to run for board if you aren't a member, and a bit hard to be a member if they exclude people from certain groups. I have not read about this, nor do I find it easy to believe. I don't find it hard to believe that someone would misrepresent events with respect to RSPCA. I wrote to the RSPCA and asked. It took a couple months for them to reply. The reply is as follows: Thank you for your patience in waiting for my response. Whilst I did not believe it to be the case that we refused membership to people on the Canine Council, I also wanted to check with senior management. I can confirm that in Victoria, we do not exclude anyone on the Canine Council or any breed association. Exclusion from membership is only based on exceptional factors such as a prosecution for cruelty – of course, this could apply to anyone. If you have any further concerns regarding this matter, please do get in touch with the RSPCA in your local area. I hope that helps to clarify the situation regarding membership in Victoria. Kind regards, Fiona Atkinson Events & Membership Manager RSPCA Graphic Logo Deleted here 3 Burwood Hwy, Burwood East VIC 3151 | W: www.rspcavic.org P: 03 9224 2262 | F: 03 9224 2507 | E: [email protected] So, either someone is not telling the truth, or the person who was refused membership was refused membership for reasons having nothing to do with being on a CC. As our law uses the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", the ball is in your court to offer evidence that people are refused membership because they are on CC's.

I don't think callousness is the problem. Sadly, more pups and kittens are born than there are good homes to take them in. No wonder so many vets have spey/neuter as a mantra. It must be depressing to be the one holding the green needle for so many animals who never found a loving home . . . and knowing that for every one that is euthanised, there are probably several who meet a less humane early death.