Open Letter To Dogs Nsw

[Steve]

Board of Directors

I suggest every person interested in the welfare and future of purebred dogs take this up with their dog clubs and Canine Associations NOW before its too late.

Dogs NSW,

P.O.. Box 632

St Marys

NSW 1790.

Open letter to the Board of Directors Dogs NSW, regarding contributing to the funding for the Sydney University LIDA research program and website.

To whom it May Concern,

I am writing this letter to express my concerns regarding the introduction of the LIDA research program and how that may impact negatively on purebred breeders, unless it is amended, to identify the breeders of those animals entered into the data base.

LIDA was designed to collect, organise and disseminate information on the prevalence of inherited disorders among Australian cats and dogs. Dr Paul McGreevy, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney is the main developer of the site and has stated that one major aim in creating LIDA is to classify the disorders by breed.

The collection of such data is intended to assist potential purchasers to make informed decisions when buying a puppy and kitten, for veterinarians to provide clients with local current data and professional experiences of their colleagues and for breeders to recognise which unwelcome traits are increasing and which are being successfully reduced.

I am sure that all dog lovers would agree that this is a much needed resource and I commend the team at Sydney University for their initiative and their desire to collect such data and Dogs NSW for their show of support to the LIDA team.

However, after several communications with Dr McCreevy it has become obvious that one major issue has not been addressed or considered in the development of this data collection. This, in the opinion of the Master Dog Breeders and Associates, will render this data completely useless and irrelevant for the pedigreed purebred dog and cat community, purebred dog and cat breeders and people seeking to purchase a pedigreed dog or cat.

The reality is that there is no method within that data collection to identify whether any animal is in fact a purebred, bred by a pedigree registered breeder or any other breeder. This would in fact combine statistics and data with dogs which are bred by pedigreed purebred breeders, backyard breeders, puppy mill puppies and potentially dogs which are crossbred or mixed breed which resemble a purebred according to the vet who is entering the data.

The Master Dog Breeders and Associates has discussed this issue with Dr McGreevy and we have made it clear that in our opinion that unless data is able to identify whether an animal was in fact a purebred animal bred by a registered pedigree dog or cat breeder, in difference to any other, the aims of LIDA would not be reached and our members would not be able to use the information collected to help us to breed healthier dogs.

If an animal is entered into the data based on the practicing vets opinion of what breed it is, without identifying whether it is in fact a registered purebred, the potential for purebred breeders to have to answer for what those who do not screen, test or profile the parents and who may keep breeding animals in puppy farm conditions is extremely high and would not give a true glimpse of what a purebred breeder needs to be aware of in making their decisions in their breeding programs with their pedigreed animals.

It would also, in our opinion, make the stated aim of educating puppy and kitten purchasers more difficult to achieve.

This is a most serious concern for MDBA members and registered breeders especially considering the fallout from the Pedigreed Dogs Exposed program and the threat of laws and regulations being introduced based on the perceived health and disease level of pedigreed purebred dogs and cats. We are not happy about the concept of being held answerable for any other dogs than the ones we breed.

Dr McGreevy has publicly acknowledged that this may be an issue and has stated that it is something which will be looked at, however, the MDBA is not convinced that this will be taken as seriously as we see it and that ensuring the data is able to identify pedigreed animals in difference to any other will not be treated as a priority by the LIDA team.

I have asked the LIDA team to understand how important the ability to differentiate any data collected is to us, especially as pedigreed purebred breeders only breed approx 10% of puppies bred each year in Australia. This makes it even more likely that the wider and more successful the data collection is the more chance we have of being washed over by dogs which are not bred by our breeders and our actions and dogs judged accordingly.

The MDBA is encouraging any person or group who is considering donating or contributing funding to this project to contribute only after this fault is amended and there is an ability for accurate data to be collected. I implore Dogs NSW who I believe have already pledged $30,000 funding to this research to ensure this is a requirement before they proceed.

Yours Respectfully

Julie Nelson

Dogs NSW Member

C.E.O.

Master Dog Breeders and Associates

.

[labsrule]

Great letter Steve and I do hope that this gets taken seriously by Dogs NSW and would be interested to know if anyone at Dogs NSW was aware of this "failing" to collect data to identify whether the dog was bred by a pedigree registered breeder or any other breeder.

Do you know if the puppy farmer's group has contributed financially to this program

[WreckitWhippet]

How do we write it as well as you or express how we feel. I get stuck on things like this.

But, I;m giving it a go

[Steve]

Its better if it comes from your own words

Everyone needs to take 2mins out and write to their state's CC because this is the only way you can get to the ANKC too.

If you do nothing or delay we run the risk that it will go ahead with no benefit to the people who will be helping to fund it.- Us -unacceptable.

[Steve]

Great letter Steve and I do hope that this gets taken seriously by Dogs NSW and would be interested to know if anyone at Dogs NSW was aware of this "failing" to collect data to identify whether the dog was bred by a pedigree registered breeder or any other breeder.

Do you know if the puppy farmer's group has contributed financially to this program

Very doubtful if the comercial breeders group would have the funds to donate but no as far as Im aware there is no pledge coming from them.

DOGS NSW banner is on the LIDA website and they have pledged 30,000. I hope they have left it open enough to be able to withdraw their offer if it isnt in our best interests for it to proceed without ammendment. If they go ahead and donate as it stands now Im going to be a very unhappy dogs NSW member.

[gundoglover]

Great letter on an important topic. You have outlined the problem clearly and provided an action for Dogs NSW and ANKC to consider.

[Christina]

Bluntly put but

How the bloody hell can they class disorders by breed if they guess the breed ?

Is it to be done by

Well it looks like a Rottie or Doberman because of its colour & markings. Its a chunky build so we will call it a Rottie.

It doesn't shed, looks the right sort of shape, got a bit of a curl in the coat. Ok, we will call it a Poodle.

Have I got that about right ? If so

This is stupid & I can hardly believe they get donations from canine associations for pedigree dogs.

Go away mad world

Great letter. Hope the donation is reconsidered.

[Steve]

One of the many things that fascinate me these days is that I dont think they thought about it.

When I had the opportunity to explain to a couple of people who I would assume were more likely than most to know what a registered breeder considers a purebred they had no clue.

When I first spoke about my concerns about the data and how I felt we would be negated by the method of collection the response which came back from LIDA was [exact words -

"I have been advised that the size of sample should overcome small errors emerging from an occasional lookalike and that LIDA will be recording crossbreds as such (e.g., GSD x)." end quote

An occassional look alike ! Are they Kidding! We only breed about 9% of all puppies bred in this country each year and it's more likely they would see the occassional purebred! Exactly the opposite of what they thought would happen will happen!

But they didnt know ! And Im no where near confident they get it yet because to them if it looks like a purebred it is a purebred.

Im certainly not convinced they will take it on as a matter of high priority unless the funding is reliant on it and unless we make what we are concerned about public. If they do intend to make it a definite then thats good and we will see that happen but I want to cover our bases before we say O.K. here's the money and before the whole country [and others] embrace it as a way of tracking genetic diseases in purebred dogs.

Once thats done we will actively support them and help them with their efforts to raise donations and support but until then - the MDBA is a pain in the neck for them and in my opinion so should the ANKC. Im sure they will understand when they truly see what our definition of purebred is.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Steve

[Bilbo Baggins]

Steve its interesting that so much of various payments we make to our various CC's goes to research but is miss used. :rofl: :D

[Steve]

Steve its interesting that so much of various payments we make to our various CC's goes to research but is miss used. :D

I dont know about that one - I cant think of any other example but this is a big one especially because what we do and breed is under the gun due to pedigreed dogs exposed and co incidentally some of the the worst comments made about how we do things came from the person who is most responsible for putting it togther. It will mean the difference between it being a great resource or good for nothing - for us.

[WreckitWhippet]

Your 9% has given me food for thought

It shall be short and sweet.

[blacklabrador]

Sounds like it was not the only purebred dog study that was done with flaws!

[Steve]

Sounds like it was not the only purebred dog study that was done with flaws!

[alpha bet]

Great letter Steve and I do hope that this gets taken seriously by Dogs NSW and would be interested to know if anyone at Dogs NSW was aware of this "failing" to collect data to identify whether the dog was bred by a pedigree registered breeder or any other breeder.

Do you know if the puppy farmer's group has contributed financially to this program

Very doubtful if the comercial breeders group would have the funds to donate but no as far as Im aware there is no pledge coming from them.

DOGS NSW banner is on the LIDA website and they have pledged 30,000. I hope they have left it open enough to be able to withdraw their offer if it isnt in our best interests for it to proceed without ammendment. If they go ahead and donate as it stands now Im going to be a very unhappy dogs NSW member.

What do you mean the puppy group wouldn't have the funds.........Didn't the labradoodle breeder at the conference on wednesday proudly state that she had bred some 3000 puppies over the last 10 years......

Assume that for the first few years or so she was breeding on a low key experimental basis, there is every possibility she has bred somewhere between 350-400 puppies in the last 12 months...... and selling at the $1,000+ price gives her an income of close to $400,000 for the last year.... and that is just one breeder!

If this is the case then surely her association should be pressured to contribute some cash to any research......

hmmmmmm perhaps I should go out and start a puppy farm.....!

[Erny]

...I want to cover our bases before we say O.K. here's the money and before the whole country [and others] embrace it as a way of tracking genetic diseases in purebred dogs.

Your aptitude for understanding and seeing through fogs is excellent, Steve. I've noted that on several occasions on several different points of issue. And when you do point things out it makes it very clear ..... it is so easy to be hood-winked by proposals put forth as, especially people such as myself - where my mainstay interest is training & behaviour rather than breeding - who are likely to absorb only the surface of what others want us to hear and know.

Well done for your letter - very well written.

One question : Would it do to send a copy of our letter to our respective State Dog Body, along with a note that we (as members of the State Body) object to moneys being appropriated by (VicDog; CCCQ; etc) to this fund until the very real concern of bias data collection is resolved?

Edited February 14, 2010 by Erny

[Steve]

Nup they only have a couple of members and I doubt any of their own personal funds would be contributed.

She did say she is now backed commercially by some group because when she tried this out a couple of years ago it bombed.

[Steve]

...I want to cover our bases before we say O.K. here's the money and before the whole country [and others] embrace it as a way of tracking genetic diseases in purebred dogs.

Your aptitude for understanding and seeing through fogs is excellent, Steve. I've noted that on several occasions on several different points of issue. And when you do point things out it makes it very clear ..... it is so easy to be hood-winked by proposals put forth as, especially people such as myself - where my mainstay interest is training & behaviour rather than breeding - who are likely to absorb only the surface of what others want us to hear and know.

Well done for your letter - very well written.

One question : Would it do to send a copy of our letter to our respective State Dog Body, along with a note that we (as members of the State Body) object to moneys being appropriated by (VicDog; CCCQ; etc) to this fund until the very real concern of bias data collection is resolved?

I dont know if we are the only ones who saw it and maybe DogsNSW already have it covered but I dont think so.If they had I wouldnt have expected the response I got when we asked the question and it was why Im glad I got the chance to ask the question again in public and have Dr McGreevy acknowledge our concerns . Later when we discussed it privately he didnt convince me that he was in any hurry to to fix it or that it was even likely so I felt it wasnt in our best interest to just accept it would be covered.

Yes please every CC member of any state needs to be sure they letthem know that they dont want money handed over without conditions.Thats why its an open letter because all state CCs need to know their members dont want them backing it until its in our best interests and the ANKC needs to know too.The only way to get to the ANKC is via the state CCs.

[Kissindra]

might provide some points of interest:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/c...identification/

Edited February 14, 2010 by Kissindra

[~Anne~]

Good job MDBA. You are clearly leading the way and we like it.

[WreckitWhippet]

Mine is done and in the mail today. The next Board meeting is not until the second Wednesday of March.