Rspca Responds To Bateson Report

[Jed]

hI Steve, Yes, I know. I actually misread the sense of your post, although I never read it as a cav bash, realised after I had posted, and couldn't be bothered going back to fix it, so I should apologise to you!! We are on the same page, anyhow.

[sandgrubber]

I have a slew of titles, and a lot of peer reviewed articles and a couple of books to my name. I breed pedigree dogs. Does that make me an expert? Not at all. I'm just an opinionated person who likes to shoot their mouth off.

Same with Dr B. His bio blurb looks like a middle-rank PhD who couldn't get tenure. I would guess his degree is in sociology, as the only peer-reviewed papers he sites are from Soc. journals of the 1970s. If it were in biology, I'd expect to see some citations from veterinary journals of the biological literature. His ideas about dog breeding seem libertarian to me: he seems paranoid about controls.

We all do 'labelling'. It is not a conspiracy inspired by evil animal libbers. Look at the use of BYB and DD labels on DOL. Some people do sling the 'puppy mill' label around unfairly . . . but there's a lot of evidence to show that a fair fraction of the pups sold each year were born in establishments where large numbers of breeding bitches are kept in confinement and given little exercise of stimulation. If it's on the animal lib agenda to improve the welfare of dogs in such establishments, good for them . . . I think a lot of pedigree breeders would vote with them on this issue.

The 'overpopulation' problem with dogs is real. A fecund bitch can easily produce 50 pups over her lifetime . .. and even a small breed with small litters can leave behind six to 10 pups. A dog can leave behind several hundred pups. The numbers of dogs pts annually because they didn't end out in a good home are huge . . . and there are clearly more pups born than there are good homes. A small minority of bitches, and an even smaller minority of dogs should be bred from. The more careful the selection of breeding animals, in terms of temperament, health and conformation, the better off we in the dog world will be.

I personally think Limited Registration, and spey/neuter contracts are a good thing, and it's going to take a lot more evidence than is presented in these two articles to convince me that the decline in pedigree dog registrations was caused by animal lib people foisting their ideas off on breeders. Note, many of the 'endangered' breeds listed in Battaglia's Table one have actually seen a gain in numbers over the period covered by the data, most numbers jump around a lot, and I wonder if there is something else going on. I'm surprised to see the greyhound listed as a 'rare' breed. Perhaps some breeds are turning away from the AKC? I'd say the attitude that 'I only breed when I want to keep a pup' combined with condemnation of pedigree dog people who breed without showing do a lot more to decrease pedigree registrations each year than does any plot from the animal lib folks.

The point is often made on DOL that it would be desirable if non-pedigree breeders were held to the same standards that most breeders hold themselves to. Fair point . . . and a point that Dr Bateson (whose academic credentials are far better than my own or Dr B's) takes on board.

As for tying the Bateson report to animal libbers. . . it would be good to see some discussion of Chapter 2 of the Report, where Bateson discusses modern views of animal welfare. I, personally, was surprised and pleased to see reference to dogs as 'sentient' and deserving certain standards of quality of life.

Edited January 20, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Steve]

I have a slew of titles, and a lot of peer reviewed articles and a couple of books to my name. I breed pedigree dogs. Does that make me an expert? Not at all. I'm just an opinionated person who likes to shoot their mouth off.

So what would you say defines an expert?

[Steve]

Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia

Carmen was given his first dog by his grandfather when he was five years old. That was the beginning of a lifelong fascination with all aspects of dog behavior, breeding, training, and showing. He has personally bred and finished several Champions, Select Dogs, Futurity and Maturity winners.

Today, Dr. Battaglia is considered an expert as well as a highly respected AKC Judge of more than 40 breeds.

By education, (holding the Masters and Doctorate from Florida State University), he is a researcher, lecturer and author. His articles have appeared in the "AKC Gazette", "Dog World", "Dog News", "Canadian Shepherd Journal", "South African Dog Magazine", as well as dog publications in Australia and Ireland.

Being very active in the dog world, Dr. Battaglia is a Director of the American Kennel Club and has served as Chairman of such important committees as: National Genetics Committee (German Shepherd Dog Club of America), the American Kennel Club Committee for the Future, the Operations and Planning Committee, as well as the Health and Education Delegates Committee.

The AKC called upon his expertise in genetics to create and develop their DNA program. He is also a much sought after speaker on this topic for television and radio talk shows.

Author of several different books on dog breeding, Dr. Battaglia has gained worldwide recognition, most notably for the program he developed - "Breeding Better Dogs". Popular demand has prompted the creation of a seminar for dog clubs which mirrors his book and a video of this method which has been presented across the country and is considered an imperative foundation to any successful breeding program.

[bryan_mannix]

I have a slew of titles, and a lot of peer reviewed articles and a couple of books to my name. I breed pedigree dogs. Does that make me an expert? Not at all. I'm just an opinionated person who likes to shoot their mouth off.

Same with Dr B. His bio blurb looks like a middle-rank PhD who couldn't get tenure. I would guess his degree is in sociology, as the only peer-reviewed papers he sites are from Soc. journals of the 1970s. If it were in biology, I'd expect to see some citations from veterinary journals of the biological literature. His ideas about dog breeding seem libertarian to me: he seems paranoid about controls.

Sandgrubber. I enjoy your posts.

I'm just an opinionated person who likes to shoot their mouth off

You will fit in well on DOL then!!

I too have a range of publications in internationally peer reviewed journals as well as some published book chapters. Like Dr B none of them touch on canine genetics. We know not all PhDs are equal. The proof is in the publication record.

Here is what an expert in genetics looks like.. Steve Jones

[Steve]

I have a slew of titles, and a lot of peer reviewed articles and a couple of books to my name. I breed pedigree dogs. Does that make me an expert? Not at all. I'm just an opinionated person who likes to shoot their mouth off.

Same with Dr B. His bio blurb looks like a middle-rank PhD who couldn't get tenure. I would guess his degree is in sociology, as the only peer-reviewed papers he sites are from Soc. journals of the 1970s. If it were in biology, I'd expect to see some citations from veterinary journals of the biological literature. His ideas about dog breeding seem libertarian to me: he seems paranoid about controls.

Sandgrubber. I enjoy your posts.

I'm just an opinionated person who likes to shoot their mouth off

You will fit in well on DOL then!!

I too have a range of publications in internationally peer reviewed journals as well as some published book chapters. Like Dr B none of them touch on canine genetics. We know not all PhDs are equal. The proof is in the publication record.

Here is what an expert in genetics looks like.. Steve Jones

Well if thats the case why are we being bombarded with the opinions of people LESS expert and LESS experienced than Dr B ?

[Jed]

Sandgrubber

We all do 'labelling'. It is not a conspiracy inspired by evil animal libbers. Look at the use of BYB and DD labels on DOL. Some people do sling the 'puppy mill' label around unfairly . . . but there's a lot of evidence to show that a fair fraction of the pups sold each year were born in establishments where large numbers of breeding bitches are kept in confinement and given little exercise of stimulation. If it's on the animal lib agenda to improve the welfare of dogs in such establishments, good for them . . . I think a lot of pedigree breeders would vote with them on this issue.

"Labelling" in canine circles came into this country 15 - 20 years ago via America. Prior to that, the terms byb, puppy farmer etc had never been heard. According to reliable and published sources in the US, the terms came from animal rights movements and they then migrated to Australia.

One of the things about having been around for a long time is that you have memories, and I can assure you that these terms are labelling.

There is no oversupply of purebred dogs. And that is acording to the RSPCA. Every purebred dog in pounds which is sane and healthy is rehomed quite quickly, and usually for hundreds of dollars.

There is an over supply of some classes of dogs. As I don't breed them, they are not my problem. I have rescued quite a few of them, but they still aren't my problem.

I personally think Limited Registration, and spey/neuter contracts are a good thing, and it's going to take a lot more evidence than is presented in these two articles to convince me that the decline in pedigree dog registrations was caused by animal lib people foisting their ideas off on breeders. Note, many of the 'endangered' breeds listed in Battaglia's Table one have actually seen a gain in numbers over the period covered by the data, most numbers jump around a lot, and I wonder if there is something else going on. I'm surprised to see the greyhound listed as a 'rare' breed. Perhaps some breeds are turning away from the AKC? I'd say the attitude that 'I only breed when I want to keep a pup' combined with condemnation of pedigree dog people who breed without showing do a lot more to decrease pedigree registrations each year than does any plot from the animal lib folks.

The numbers of purebred dogs bred in Australia is in steady decline, as the ANKC stats show. Recent increases in numbers are largely due to registered puppy farmers who export to McDougall, rather than increases in registered pups avaialbe to purchase in Australia.

The idea of "I only breed when I want to keep a pup" is another notion brought to us from USA, where it was fostered by animal rights. Once breeders bred to supply pets, or to make a few bob to keep the dogs going. Now all this is seen as filthy. Again, my memory tells me this is so, as does various articles over 15 - 20 years from breeders in America, charting where this notion arose.

I also agree with limited register, to prevent unsuitable people breeding.

Condemnation of people who breed without showing has driven some from the hobby, but those who breed in volume without showing are not phased by any condemation from within the hobby.

Once, breeders encouraged those who bought a bitch to breed a litter or two, for the future of the breed, and to keep up the supply of pet pups. Buyers of good dog pups were encouraged to keep the dog entire, so that people could use him. If you wanted to breed from your pet bitch, your breeder would mentor you, and probably sell the pups for you, via their enquiries.

Now breeding "pets" is seen as wrong. That notion arrived because the newer/younger breeders took up the culture coming into the country. If you buy quality from an "older" and more established breeder (ie, been going 20 years of more) you are likely still to buy on main register without any restrictions, than if you buy from someone who has been established for 10 years or so.

Labelling, and changes which creep in gradually are seen as the "norm" by those who have only been in the hobby since those changes and labelling have been in force, so they see it as normal, and best practice, whether it is or not.

Dogs ARE pets, and I personally think "breeding to improve the breed" means a lot more than breeding one for yourself. To me, it means putting good quality healthy pets out there in the public domain, so families may enjoy the fruits of my breeding, not having a closed enclave where breeders are the only ones who have purebred dogs.

And I believe that because I was brought up in that culture, and in the culture where if you wanted to begin showing, a breeder would choose the very best pup they could for you, and give you as much help and advice as possible. When you bought a bitch pup, the breeder asked if you would like to breed, not restricted you as much as possible.

Commercial breeders saw the gap in the market when the registered dog numbers fell .... people wanted purebred dogs, but had very long waits. And soon we had 20, 30, 300 dog kennels supplying the public with purebred and crossbred dogs. Because the registered breeders were not producing enough for the demand. They were only breeding for themselves.

I put most of my dogs on limited register, because they are going to be pets, and I know the owners will spey them. However, if someone wants to breed, and they are genuine I choose a good dog, and give them all the help I can. For the good of the breed.

There have been many articles, in dog magazines both here and in the USA in similar vein to those articles Dr. Battaglia authored, written by people as well known and successful. I think they have been appearing for at least 15 years.

And I believe that article because I have seen the culture change during my life as a breeder. And none of those c hanges, imho, have been for the better.

[asal]

sadly so true jed.

i bought my first purebred puppy some 30 years ago. what a change from today.

if the puppy was up to standard you could have main registration , encouraged and mentored for the good of the breed.

not today.

want main registration. ooooo so you want to be a puppy farmer. not with my puppies.

when the puppy farmer and backyard breeder labels began to bandy about i tried to warn the bandiers. hey we all have backyards we can all be branded with the tag. dont you see what you are doing. manufacturing the very knives that will stab you?????

deaf ears all round.

now its happened

n "responsible" has now morphed into lifetime guarantees?????? you cant even guarantee that for your own child! yet your now unenthical if your not prepared to do so for any puppies you breed?

as for dna, theres still too few things and the process is still being researched for so many I know many who have spend tens of thousand trying to test n breed hd free and failed.

i see the same mess from the beef cattle worlds embracing of ebv technology and muscle scans.

conformation has gone out the window. great ebv's. pity they are so weak in the back and legs the bulls cant serve past 3 to 5 years when their serving lifetime should be 15?

at lest the beef studbooks havent fallen for restricting their members from how many calves they can breed (for the good of the cows/breed) or who they can put them too.

although the contamination of unsoundness is not going to be bred back out in a generation when at a guess 90 percent have the new improved genetics in them. only a precious few resisted the flood and their studs are being rushed. if they were dog breeders though they would be refusing to sell any with papers scared of being labled "..... farmers" with the resulting stigma attached.

Edited January 20, 2010 by asal

[asal]

breeding is so much more complicated than doing a few dna tests and thinking wow now they are guaranteed if they past them there another couple of tens of thousands of genes still to be located and their affects mapped

[Are You Serious Jo]

I have a slew of titles, and a lot of peer reviewed articles and a couple of books to my name. I breed pedigree dogs. Does that make me an expert? Not at all. I'm just an opinionated person who likes to shoot their mouth off.

Same with Dr B. His bio blurb looks like a middle-rank PhD who couldn't get tenure. I would guess his degree is in sociology, as the only peer-reviewed papers he sites are from Soc. journals of the 1970s. If it were in biology, I'd expect to see some citations from veterinary journals of the biological literature. His ideas about dog breeding seem libertarian to me: he seems paranoid about controls.

Sandgrubber. I enjoy your posts.

I'm just an opinionated person who likes to shoot their mouth off

You will fit in well on DOL then!!

I too have a range of publications in internationally peer reviewed journals as well as some published book chapters. Like Dr B none of them touch on canine genetics. We know not all PhDs are equal. The proof is in the publication record.

Here is what an expert in genetics looks like.. Steve Jones

Well if thats the case why are we being bombarded with the opinions of people LESS expert and LESS experienced than Dr B ?

They have a better PR machine, it's as simple as that.

[sandgrubber]

I'm flummoxed with using quotes on this system. Quoting myself:

"I personally think Limited Registration, and spey/neuter contracts are a good thing, and it's going to take a lot more evidence than is presented in these two articles to convince me that the decline in pedigree dog registrations was caused by animal lib people foisting their ideas off on breeders."

Jed, I find your story plausable and entertaining, but I still haven't seen any evidence that the animal libbers are behind the changes of attitude. Pray tell, how did the animal rights people convince Australian pedigree dog breeders to become more snobbish and less generous about breeding dogs that will become good pets? 'Don't breed unless you show' hardly seems like an RSPCA or PITA mantra. Modern animal rights people favour a more natural dog breeding environment . . . no kennels, family around, parents selected cause they are much loved and easy to live with. Could it be that the animal rights people just a convenient scape goat for a decline in pedigree registrations caused by a complex interchange of factors. 'Old Maid' was a terrifying label in the world I grew up with. I don't think it helps to blame someone for a rotten marriage by finding some group responsible for throwing the label around . . . much better to aim to raise children who can see through labels and think for themselves. But I'm a bit drunk and running on.

Steve: As a scientist, I would expect, for someone to consider themself an expert on pedigree dog breeding, that they can at least read and cite the relevant peer reviewed literature, eg. in genetics and hereditary diseases, particulary as applied to Canis sp. I've had some depressing experiences in the canine world finding that supposed 'experts' (including an all-breeds judge of some repute) lack basic science education and do not match up to my own paltry understanding of the dog genome and its implications. And I do feel incompetent in my understanding of genetics: I get a headache when I look at Nature Genetics cause I don't even understand the abstracts much of the time. Some supposed experts don't even seem to understand old-fashioned autosomal recessive genes -- ie, Mendelian inheritance as I learned it in 10th grade biology in 1961. I find that most supposed 'experts' start looking glassy-eyed when I work through the extremely simple probabilities of autosomal recessive inheritance or ask questions about the mathematical derivation of the COI. What good is some computerised formula if you don't understand what's behind it?

I don't see any evidence in the bio posted that suggests Dr B would have a good grasp of modern genetics, or would attend lectures given by leading geneticists . .. or enough understanding of statistics to critically evaluate studies he might read. I would expect him to be a master of the politics of the pedigree dog world. He may know more about delivering puppies and selecting conformation in the wet than any published authority . . .

And I remain disappointed that no one seems to be picking up on the Bateman Report: Chapter 2 – Assessment of Animal Welfare (see http://dogbreedinginquiry.com/publication-of-the-inquiry-report/). As stated in the first words of the Ch 2 abstract: "The science of animal welfare and the freedoms that should be granted to sentient animals are reviewed." Is it the case that people don't give a hoot what Bateman said or what evidence and reasoning he presents . . . they just want to see how the recommendations come out?

Edited January 20, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Jed]

Sandgrubber

Jed, I find your story plausable and entertaining, but I still haven't seen any evidence that the animal libbers are behind the changes of attitude. Pray tell, how did the animal rights people convince Australian pedigree dog breeders to become more snobbish and less generous about breeding dogs that will become good pets? 'Don't breed unless you show' hardly seems like an RSPCA or PITA mantra. Modern animal rights people favour a more natural dog breeding environment . . . no kennels, family around, parents selected cause they are much loved and easy to live with. Could it be that the animal rights people just a convenient scape goat for a decline in pedigree registrations caused by a complex interchange of factors. 'Old Maid' was a terrifying label in the world I grew up with. I don't think it helps to blame someone for a rotten marriage by finding some group responsible for throwing the label around . . . much better to aim to raise children who can see through labels and think for themselves. But I'm a bit drunk and running on.

LOL at drunk! Lucky thing!!

There have been articles in various magazines over the years, citing the originators of these terms, and the ones from the US blamed animal rights, PETA was named frequently. There is no hard evidence. It is more along the lines of "start a rumour" and judging by what was written, it started in USA, because breeders/writers there were concerned about it before it happened here. And it happened slowly. One thing at a time. I don't know that there is any hard evidence. But reading articles of that time, and following up through the years, you can see the changes - as I can, having lived it.

"Don't breed unless you show" was, I think adopted by some of the breeders here, and probably in USA too as there is the same culture. I think it was easier for people who didn't show years ago, because there was no money in breeding dogs, and the presumption was that only people who liked dogs bred them, and they cared for them well. Breeders who liked showing did so, and the ones who didn't were accepted - maybe not accepted as well as those who did show, but not castigated as byb or puppy farmers (those terms weren't in use then anyhow) and there were no puppy farms. People who had 1 or 2 or 3 litters out of their bitch were quite accepted, because they usually had a decent bitch, and bred a couple of litters, using good (ke, titled) dogs. Big time show breeders would send puppy buyers to those people without any qualms. But there was certainly no culture that you were a baddie if you bred and didn't show.

The latest one which has crept in is "don't beed unless you rescue". Where did that come from?

There is an older lady who does the same thing she has been doing for years. She has 2 bitches, mates them, and sells the pups. She has never shown. The sires are usually well credentialled dogs. Owners of the dogs are happy for them to be used. I've never heard anyone in the breed refer to her as a BYB because she has been breeding as she does, for much longer than 98% of the people in the breed at present. Everyone knows who she is. The dogs are good quality, and she isn't doing anything wrong. It doesn't fit into the culture today, and if she BEGAN doing it today, she would be criticised.

And there were lots of people who bred one or two litters, for fun, and with the encouragement of a registered breeder. I bought a few dogs from people like that, and it was accepted.

Most of the new cultures - ie, "breed only for yourself", "breed only to improve the breed" came as rumours, and were soon adopted by those new breeders wanting to be seen to do the "right thing". And at the same time, came the culture of checking the CC magazine to see how many litters breeders had bred, and going "tsk tsk" if they bred what was perceived as "too many". Lots of older breeders think it is tripe, and do what they have always done!!

Incidentally, breeding to improve the breed is now in most state COEs. It is a fairly recent addition. The COEs said nothing about it until some years ago.

Today, the big registered kennels still continue to breed a lot of pups, and that is accepted, because they were doing it before the breeders who thought it was bad were interested in dogs. There are some which are called "registered puppy farms" - but never the older ones.

Hazemar in Qld was a big kennel, Cockers and Cavaliers, show winners. No one would say a bad word about Hazel Meara, because she did it right, and she had been doing it before most of them started and she knew more than they did. Plenty of Hazmar cockers in cocker pedigrees too, and many a show person or breeder got a start with a Hazemar cocker. I mention her by name because she has passed on, and I don't like to mention people living, in case they are offended.

Also, once upon a time, people with 50 or 60 or more dogs cared for them well, nothing was out of place, the dogs were well kept and well bred. And there were no puppy farms, so if you went somewhere and there were 100 or more dogs, you knew they were well cared for. And they were.

Most of the breeders who have been doing it for 30 or more years will tell you the same thing.

I don't like to have too many dogs. They are my pets first, and if I have too many, they cease to be pets. However, kennel dogs which are well cared for have a lot of benefits which house dogs don't - they have company all the time, they usually have a couple of friends, and they have a lot of freedom. They don't bond as much to the owner, they bond to each other. And the good kennels ensure all dogs do receive quite a lot of attention.

Consider to the recent-ish PETA campaign in USA "Every dog you breed causes another dog to be put into a black plastic bag" or words to that effect. Rescuers believed it, the public believed it, and some of the breeders believed it, and didn't want to be responsible for that happening, so bred less. As there are few purebred dogs in pounds, we didn't need to take any notice, but we did.

All those things, plus the usual attrition, cost of petrol, difficulties with councils, all led to a falling in the numbers of purebreds bred.

The culture has also changed a great deal. There was a time when if you bred dogs, your workmates, people you met etc were interested, and invited themselves out to see the dogs, and were pleased. There was no criticism because you kept 6 or 8 dogs, and people who bought from kennels with 50 - 100 dogs didn't raise an eyebrow. These days you hate to mention that you breed dogs.

Think about why the culture changed with the public from one of acceptance to one of approbation.

The change happened very gradually, before there were puppy farms.

And I have no proof, but if you can get you hands on Ringleaders, or even CC magazines from 20 or 30 years ago, you will notice a very different culture. Also, if you can find an older breeder, speak to them. Every breeder over 50 I know is appalled about what is happening.

Last show I attended, a very old breeder, and an all breeds judge (retired), now in a nursing home, was there to watch. She hasn't bred or judged for years, but she keeps up to speed. The second thing she said to me was about the changes which have come in and those which are coming in - pre PDE - and how bad they were, and how much worse they will be.

Unfortunately, the changes came in gradually, the culture changed slowly. Changed by dog lovers/breeders, who wanted to do the best thing by their dogs!!!

I am concerned because I see more changes, also coming in gradually, and each one will be accepted - as none of them seem to be a big deal . But the small cumulative changes add up to one very big change. A complete change in culture. I have some old magazines here (hoarder!!) which might have similar articles to the one Steve posted, by different authors, but don't expect them tomorrow.

And do try to talk to people who have been breeding for a long time.

"Companion animal" is a term coined by Ingred Newkirk in (I think) 1999, 1992???. It is now accepted language in place of "pet" everywhere, including scientific papers. Newkirk wrote that part of stopping people having pets involved changing the language - in this case to "companion animal" which she believes has a different connotaton to "pet". And it does. So she has achieved that end without too much trouble. She was also bent on changing the culture, and she has done so.

Some serious searching through archives would show where some of the other tenets we hold now originated. ;)

[Steve]

I think the Kennel Clubs have aided and abetted and in some things have done more damage than animal rights.I think they gave animal rights the methods for fighting us. I think they made several changes based on PR and little else. I dont know who started it and who has contributed to it but hey didnt do it without help.

How is it that in any other species we study their reproductive systems and accept they are different and work within what they have evolved to do and yet with dogs we do exactly the opposite ? We all know Canine Reproductive specialists are saying we should ensure they are fit and healthy and breed em young and breed them often.That its no better for them to be rested but even trying to discuss this will bring out a bunch of people who want to tell you to shut up. 30 years ago a registered breeder had the right to make decisions based on what was going on in their yard with their dogs but someone decided it would be a good PR exercise to write in no breeding before a certain age, no back to back litter, no breeding after a certain age. None of us are able to test this or speak with people who have experience with this because its only what filthy puppy farmers do. We cant blame animal rights when this has been a requirement for the Canine Councils for around 20 years and they are only just getting to putting it into GUIDLEINES in state laws for people other than registered breeders who are breeding dogs. the Kennel Clubs have used this as some trophy to prove they have raised the bar.

Some breeds have a necessity to have hip scores done before they are registered. That hasnt helped them eradicate HD and the fact is even if its the worst score ever they can still breed their dogs - and so they should because hips arent the only problems - but how is this anything other than a PR exercise which lines the pockets of vets and costs the breeder more money to make a puppy.

30 years ago you could buy a good purebred bitch and have access to a champion healthy dog without a problem and make beautiful healthy babies and never go near the show ring.Try that now. Once we could sell dogs without papers.We could give the buyers a copy but if they didnt want breeding papers they didnt get any registered pedigrees. We didnt have to register these dogs 30 years ago. How has the introduction of limited registration papers helped the dogs or the breeds or breeders. Its a good PR decision because it gives us another thing to say we are better with.But the reality is that now people who want to breed those limited register dogs can do up their own pedigrees which are as much value to anyone wanting to bred a dog as a limited regsiter paper and all its done is make more money for the CCs and cost breeders more to make a puppy.You dont need to register the dog which isnt going to breed to know its parentage and record that on your health notes just as you do now with limited.The limited registration was introduced because the CCs had gone after money by making it compulsory for us to register all of our puppies and then worked out we were unhappy that the ones we didnt think should be used for breeding and export were being used that way. Its about money and it doesnt do a thing to lift the welfare of any dog but we have used it as a sales pitch to promote what we do over other breeders.

Many breeders back then bred puppies as pets and never went near a show ring - though they used show dogs for studs and purchased show bred puppies for their breeding programs but then we introduce regs to say you cant breed for the pet market and first and foremost you are pushed toward showing. But it's O.K to sell them to pet shops and export agents

We get this on anti puppy farm sites

A good breeder is involved in showing, obedience and their local breed club, with breeding being a 'side project' to them being active dog lovers.

A person who lives a doggy life and demonstrates all these things with their own dogs, will likely go on to produce great puppies. Ask their vet how often they breed. Contact a member of their breed club and ask how often they compete.

Well that lets me out I dont show,do obedience or belong to my local breed club.If my vet told anyone my private info Id be ticked off

and the breed club would bag me out because I dont show. Dogs are my whole life and somehow thats wrong

The ONLY thing that registered breeders can do which other breeders cant is issue rego papers and for as long as I can remember laws and guidelines for all breeders has been more strict than any CC code of conduct.

So the gene pool has been depleted by less main register and more limited registered puppies,breeding dogs which used to be sold to people who didnt want to show have become a thing of the past - better arguments for too much inbreeding.

Higher percentage breeding for the showring because thats what the code says they have to do with less breeding registered dogs because they do want to breed pet pups and they dont want to show.They are still there just not registered.

So yes Animal rights are in there but the CCs havent done us or our dogs many favours either because they have played politics and gone after the money.

Small things make big unintended consequences.

[bryan_mannix]

Thanks for the posts Steve and Jed.

Steve your last post hits home. How can we advocate the notion that pedigree dogs make the best pets when at the same time demonising anyone who breeds for the pet market.

I've known a work colleague who has at the end of the negotiations with a breeder told me that they have been left with the impression that

the breeder is a person whose hobby is participating in dog shows

when the breeder needs a new dog to pursue their hobby with they put a lot of thought into the mating

after the litter is on the ground the breeder picks the best couple of specimens for herself or her mates

and the new pet owner can help subsidise her hobby by paying a considerable price for one of the "duds"!!

Good news is they still went ahead with the purchase and have a wonderful pet to show for it.

[Jed]

I think the earlier changes to CC regulations were driven by decisions made by the committee with good intentions, later I think it was about money, and appeasing AR and public perception.

In Q, for as long as I can remember ALL surviving pups had to be registered. And there was only Main until some years ago. Didn't bother me much.

When I was a kid, our family decided we would have dacshunds. My mother wanted to show. I wanted a pup too. We approached one of the top breeders of the day - her lines are in most pedigrees today, and older breeders know her. She sold me a bitch pup, knowing I was going to breed. the dog was a pet (they all were). Unfortunately, I picked the wrong pup, not the show pup the breeder had picked (they all looked the same to me!!), and I wouldn't give her back, so no shows for me. We did obedience instead. She had 3 litters, all under my own prefix (I was 9, 10, 11 or thereabouts), although the breeder and my mother picked the stud dog (big time champion), and my mother did the whelping and raising with me helping. I bred 3 litters, 3 champions.

Imagine what opinion would be if a breeder came here and said they had sold a bitch to a little kid on main for breeding?

bryan_mannix

I've known a work colleague who has at the end of the negotiations with a breeder told me that they have been left with the impression that

the breeder is a person whose hobby is participating in dog shows

when the breeder needs a new dog to pursue their hobby with they put a lot of thought into the mating

after the litter is on the ground the breeder picks the best couple of specimens for herself or her mates

and the new pet owner can help subsidise her hobby by paying a considerable price for one of the "duds"!!

Good news is they still went ahead with the purchase and have a wonderful pet to show for it.

I suppose, on the plus side, the dog is probably a lot better than he would have bought from a pf or pet shop.

It makes me cringe. That's our new culture, that's the party line, but it must be hateful for people who are buying a pet and paying a lot, to listen to that. How insulting. Terrible PR skills, but I suppose at least the breeder doesn't have to worry the buyer will report back to the canine control that the "breeder said she was breeding pets".

Our CC now sends puppy buyers a form so they can report back on us. Dog knows what mine say!! I might have to resort to putting Tofranil in the cups of tea!!

And the converse is there are quite a few very successful exhibitors who do not sell show dogs. They sell the pups from their grand champion show dogs as pets. Some do it because they don't want to be beaten, but I know one who thinks people should have nice pets, and they will probably get better homes.

One of my pups won the royal this year. Her litter brother was just as good, he is a pet. The previous litter had 2 boys which were as good as her, they are pets. The others from the litters who are not as good looking are still pretty good looking, and are admired by all.

I tell people the truth, that this is a lovely pup, maybe not quite show quality, because of (a) and (b) but he will grow up to be very good looking. Or maybe he is show quality, I tell them that too.

A vet once told one of my puppy owners that he wouldn't neuter the dog, which was a pet - he was far too good looking. The buyer phoned me up to see what he should do. That made me as proud as any royal win.

And the bottom line for me is that dogs are pets.

And if I can't breed a better, healthier, easier to manage pet than some sucky puppy farm, or some suckier designer mutt producer, I'll slash my wrists with the thinning scissors.

I just love it when one of my owners says "everyone at the dog park thinks he is gorgeous": "my vet said these are two of the nicest, healthiest dogs he's seen": "my pup was so easy to train, he didn't mess in the house after a week": "molly just died of old age, do you have a puppy, we wouldn't buy from anyone else": "she's so wonderful with the baby": "Tammi is second level obedience now": and the biggie "we all really love him".

And I try to keep doing it better. And the occasional little person who was hiding behind the door when the good looks were being handed out still has a lovely temperment, and good health, and because he is such a charmer, and only goes to the vet for his shots, and was housetrained in 2 hours, the owners don't care that he isn't ever going to be a showring star - and most of them don't even notice!!

(Send me the account for the advertising, Troy )

[sandgrubber]

I just love it when one of my owners says "everyone at the dog park thinks he is gorgeous": "my vet said these are two of the nicest, healthiest dogs he's seen": "my pup was so easy to train, he didn't mess in the house after a week": "molly just died of old age, do you have a puppy, we wouldn't buy from anyone else": "she's so wonderful with the baby": "Tammi is second level obedience now": and the biggie "we all really love him".

And I try to keep doing it better. And the occasional little person who was hiding behind the door when the good looks were being handed out still has a lovely temperment, and good health, and because he is such a charmer, and only goes to the vet for his shots, and was housetrained in 2 hours, the owners don't care that he isn't ever going to be a showring star - and most of them don't even notice!!

I think this sort of attitude is the only way that pedigree registrations will begin to rise. I'm an immigrant and one of my strong impressions about Australians is that they hate snobbery and arrogance. Beauty is great, but better beauty running along the beach than on the catwalk. Showing, in my experience, has an unfortunate tendency to create a snobbish, competitive culture that seeks elevation by putting others down, and excludes the pet owner. In other words, pure arrogance. I expect that pedigree registrations will continue to decline without widespread understanding, among breeders, that most people want a good, healthy dog of some breed type or another as a pet, or companion animal, or friend, or whatever. Pedigree breeds are great, form a public perspective, cause they give you a 'menu' of characteristics to choose from. Mix breeds are more like a soup kitchen menu, where you get whatever is served up. DD's are gaining turf cause they are somewhat predictable and aim for the more popular menu choices (eg SWF's). We need to make sure that the pups we sell will be the sort that make people want to come back for a repeat and recommend us to their friends when they want a pup.