Want Your Blood To Boil?

[asal]

BZZZZT! WRONG!! DO NOT PASS GO!! DO NOT HAVE A CIGAR

The RSPCA is controlled by PETA. The aim is to wipe out ownership of dogs.

That has been the aim for at least 20 years.

They are using exactly the same tactics they used to introduce BSL and anti docking legislation

Vilify via the media

Print any untruth which promotes the point

Reduce the numbers to oppose your viewpoint

Convince the public

Run a major media campaign, preferably with some untrue documentary

Get vets to support your cause

When the public believes the lies, introduce legislation

Purebred dogs are on their way out.

They've been on the way out for at least 10 years. Ingrid stated clearly what she was doing, no one believed her.

People will buy crossbreds. When there are no purebreds to cross back to, the crossbreds will be an endogenous stew of bad health, bad behaviour, and bad attitude.

And then they will use the same tactics to wipe them out too.

The public believed that documentary. Registered breeders came here and told them the truth, and they called us liars.

I've had boxers for longer than a lot of the posters here have been alive, and I've never owned or seen a boxer with epilepsy. Nor have most other boxer breeders. Now, individual boxers may have epilepsy, but it is certainly NOT a hereditary problem.

Whilst the public are jumping up and down about syringomyelia in Cavaliers, hardly ANYONE in Australia has seen it. There is no evidence it is hereditary. The incidence is 2% in Australia, and I suspect it is 2% in England too. They used the figures from Clair Rusbridges studies, which were from dogs suspected of having syringo, which were referred by vets in England. So now no one knows.

Bassets were severely criticised for "furnishings". Winning Bassets in Aust have very few furnishings, and even the owner of the dog shown in the documentary said he was surprised he won!!

Pekinese have managed pretty well for thousands of years without the RSPCA, incidentally.

The ANKC doesn't have the funds to run a full scale media campaign. The time to do it was 20 years ago. It's too late now.

If YOU don't like it, don't complain about the ANKC, do something effective. Do what they did in WA and NZ. Write to your local member, and tell him about it, and that he will lose YOUR vote.

But you wont, of course, it's too hard, and so there will be no dogs.

I don't think PETA controls the RSPCA, they are actually competitors for the public's dollar, their beliefs are the same though. Ingrid is honest enough to spell out her agenda. My experience is the RSPCA tells people what they believe they want to hear, contradicting themselves if it means more money flowing in and doing what they do best, killing dogs. Don't be fooled by the TV stars.

Apart from that I believe you are spot on with your assessment.

I met a member of the RSPCA, she had a letter begging her to sign up as many friends and family as possible for the next election. the reason stated in the letter she had received was that Peta was infiltrating the rspca and if enough rank and file members didnt vote the board was in danger of being taken over by peta representatives.

that was about 5 or 6 years ago. somehow i doubt there would be much change, hey if peta can take it over they have millions at their fingertips why wouldnt they? pretty stupid if the opportunity awaits.

Edited March 20, 2010 by asal

[sandgrubber]

I met a member of the RSPCA, she had a letter begging her to sign up as many friends and family as possible for the next election. the reason stated in the letter she had received was that Peta was infiltrating the rspca and if enough rank and file members didnt vote the board was in danger of being taken over by peta representatives.

that was about 5 or 6 years ago. somehow i doubt there would be much change, hey if peta can take it over they have millions at their fingertips why wouldnt they? pretty stupid if the opportunity awaits.

Extremist infiltration would explain a lot of things. Also suggests that the way to make the RSPCA more reasonable would be to get involved.

Edited March 21, 2010 by sandgrubber

[BJean]

I have a template for a short letter to the Canine Councils

reagrding the RSPCA's campaign against pedigree dogs.

For those that want to write to their CC

but don't won't or can't

send me a PM

and I will send you the template -

all you have to do is add in your name and the name of your State Canine Council.

The letter is in reference to the RSPCA FAQ on Pedigree Dogs in Australia.

cheers

L:)

[justin19801]

I met a member of the RSPCA, she had a letter begging her to sign up as many friends and family as possible for the next election. the reason stated in the letter she had received was that Peta was infiltrating the rspca and if enough rank and file members didnt vote the board was in danger of being taken over by peta representatives.

that was about 5 or 6 years ago. somehow i doubt there would be much change, hey if peta can take it over they have millions at their fingertips why wouldnt they? pretty stupid if the opportunity awaits.

Extremist infiltration would explain a lot of things. Also suggests that the way to make the RSPCA more reasonable would be to get involved.

WADR that would be like joining the Nazi party to save the Jews. IMO these thugs need to be challenged head on for the animal abusers I believe them to be.

[sandgrubber]

[quote name='sandgrubber'

WADR that would be like joining the Nazi party to save the Jews. IMO these thugs need to be challenged head on for the animal abusers I believe them to be.

Reasoning by analogy has strong emotive, but little rational power.

For people who care about cruelty to animals, it seems to me that the options are to start a new organisation or reform the existing organisation. I'd also say that many of us contributed to the corruption of the RSPCA by apathy in years past. Bashing provides no constructive alternative.

Edited March 22, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Steve]

For people who care about cruelty to animals, it seems to me that the options are to start a new organisation or reform the existing organisation. I'd also say that many of us contributed to the corruption of the RSPCA by apathy in years past. Bashing provides no constructive alternative.

www.mdbapacers.org.au

[Steve]

Pet Plan pet insurance people won the award on Saturday for best Canine Insurance company and I asked the question.

"Are cross bred dogs cheaper to insure than pedigree dogs?" Answer No. "Are the stats that you have showng that cross bred dogs are less sick than purebred dogs?" Answer No.

[sandgrubber]

I honestly thought MDBA Pacers had something to do with racing, and have deliberately ignored posts about it. I don't know if others have done the same, but there may be an image problem arising from the name

good to know it is there.

For people who care about cruelty to animals, it seems to me that the options are to start a new organisation or reform the existing organisation. I'd also say that many of us contributed to the corruption of the RSPCA by apathy in years past. Bashing provides no constructive alternative.

www.mdbapacers.org.au

[mita]

For people who care about cruelty to animals, it seems to me that the options are to start a new organisation or reform the existing organisation. I'd also say that many of us contributed to the corruption of the RSPCA by apathy in years past. Bashing provides no constructive alternative.

Good thoughts, sandgrubber. I'm noticing that the RSPCA is not a monolith. There's major differences in policies & activities in the various states (OK, one reason would be differences in state legislation, but that's not the full story).

It's a bit like the curate's egg.....good in parts.

Like, RSPCA Qld recommended in their February campaigns' report, that people seeking particular dog breeds should go to responsible breeders. Because there's knowledge, in this State, about positive research & positive field conditions re a fair swag of the registered breeders.

However, there's something distinctly 'off-shore' about the national RSPCA's campaign re purebred dog breeding. It's as if it's been written by someone in the UK....& tacked onto the Australian scene. With gobsmacking reasoning that pleads no evidence...so it must be all the same here as in the UK's, 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed'.

As for pedigree dogs costing more to insure, some trawling uncovered that's also more a feature in the UK & Europe...rather than Australia.

I looked up the personnel with the national Australian RSPCA. And noted that their chief scientist here, came from working in the UK RSPCA.

So my answer woud be to locate Australian dog world issues within Australian research (as the U of Q did in looking at early breeding practices....& gave the bouquet to the registered breeders ) & using voices that are experienced in the Australian scene.

Edited March 22, 2010 by mita

[mita]

. A dog may have an excellent conformation, but if the other aspects that make up the breed standard for example temperament which is not desirable, the dog shouldn't be winning shows, which they often do.

I've found a great way to get the best of temperaments, is to adopt a retired showdog. From a good breeder who balances all aspects of the dogs' lives... with knowledge & experience.

All my ex-show dog pets have been judged Aus Chs. In the course of which, they learned to travel in a car, attend a show surrounded by lots of strange people & dogs....& then get man (woman?)-handled while standing still up on a table. Only a dog bred & raised with a good, non-excitable, non-aggressive temperament.....can go thro' these hoops. My present ex-show girl made the long trip from Sweden to finally end up with me. How do I describe her? A temperament like a feisty, biddable angel. And who has no worries walking on the cold wet grass, unlike my Australian dogs (boy, she says, you should've seen the snow back in Sweden )

OK... a piece of paper isn't handed out by the judges which says, 'Great temperament!'. But the fact that the dog made it thro' to a show judge peering at him/her, so many times, without anyone (including the dog) losing an arm or a leg, is the greatest test of temperament. :D

Edited March 22, 2010 by mita

[Jed]

You're correct, of course, Mita. Dogs which have bad temperament, or obvious health problems simplu don't cut it in the ring. People who have never been to a dog show seem to think judges are complete cretins, unable to weed out dogs with dodgy temperaments, or other problems.

Longcoat

A dog may have an excellent conformation, but if the other aspects that make up the breed standard for example temperament which is not desirable, the dog shouldn't be winning shows, which they often do.

Have you actually been to a dog show for longer than 20 seconds and a sandwich? Would you like to give some examples of winning dogs with "temperament which is not desirable"? Not at any of the shows I've been to. If the standard says "bold" a dog which is not bold wont even be called in!!

And you obviously don't want to name your interest, or area of expertise.

A little research shows that the usual suspects are still driving the anti-purebred bus. Check out

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...63a8906d88dd9a6

(hmm, dunno about that, hope it works!!)

You need to pay to get the full pdf. But

The breeding of pedigree dogs: Time for strong leadership

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Andrew Higginsa, and Frank W. Nicholasb,

aEditor-in-Chief, The Veterinary Journal

bFaculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney B19, NSW 2006, Australia

Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part 1: Disorders related to breed standards

Lucy Ashera, Gillian Diesela, Jennifer F. Summersa, Paul D. McGreevyb and Lisa M. Collinsa, ,

aDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Potters Bar, Herts AL9 7TA, UK

Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part 2: Disorders that are not related to breed standards

Jennifer F. Summersa, Gillian Diesela, Lucy Ashera, Paul D. McGreevyb and Lisa M. Collinsa, ,

I smell a rather large rattus rattus. It seems the same people/university is putting the message out world wide. Same thing is on the Canadian Vet Association website.

Hmm. Leads me to wonder whether someone who doesn't understand what standards are, and is publically pushing cross breds, is the person the government, RSPCA etc should be listening to? Never mind DogsNSW giving $30,000 to.

What for, DogsNSW?

[Longcoat]

'Jed' date='22nd Mar 2010 - 08:16 PM' post='4410244'

Longcoat

A dog may have an excellent conformation, but if the other aspects that make up the breed standard for example temperament which is not desirable, the dog shouldn't be winning shows, which they often do.

Have you actually been to a dog show for longer than 20 seconds and a sandwich? Would you like to give some examples of winning dogs with "temperament which is not desirable"? Not at any of the shows I've been to. If the standard says "bold" a dog which is not bold wont even be called in!!

Temperament: The German Shepherd Dog must be even tempered, well balanced (with strong nerves), self assured, totally at ease (except when provoked) and good natured, as well as attentive and easy to train. He must possess courage, combativity and toughness in order to be suitable as a companion, guard, service, herding dog and Schutzhund.

Tell us how GSD's are called in and win shows when the requirements of the standard are neither tested or confirmed Jed???.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Longcoat

[sandgrubber]

Longcoat . . . the Labrador standard says dogs should be agile. The ring will sort out the real clutzes, but isn't a great way to judge agility. (Agility, or agility modified for heavy-bodied dogs would be better). Likewise, a gun shy gundog can do fine in the conformation ring. That's why there is more than one kind of showing, and why many people look for dogs with both working and show credentials.

My biggest gripe about the ring is that evaluations are too frequent and too superficial. Transparent, written evaluation against set criteria, as used in most professional evaluation systems, would be much better than a parade around the ring. Particularly for newbies, it's important to know why a given dog won and another dog didn't. . . . and to know where an objective expert thinks your dog shines and where his/her faults are. The other side of that gripe is time. An average of 5 minutes per dog is barely enough to evaluate physical conformation. How are you going to add serious looks at health, temperament, and working ability without making shows unbearably long.

If I ran the circus, which will never happen, there would be an opportunity to get a dog evaluated every year, or every few years. You'd get a written evaluation and scores on different evaluation criteria. Evaluation would be against the standard, not against the other dogs in the ring in the day. You'd have to pay for it cause it would take a bit of time to do and the person doing it would have to be skilled. That would go into something like a portfolio, which could be made available to prospective puppy buyers or prospective users of stud service. Health could be included in this . . . or, better, tracked via some sort of open health registry system.

Edited March 22, 2010 by sandgrubber

[mita]

? Never mind DogsNSW giving $30,000 to.

What for, DogsNSW?

If I were a Canine Council with $30,000 to spare, I'd be asking an Australian university to research & produce an independent report on the current situation & issues. (Which is what the national RSPCA should have done.)

It's been done in Qld....with great results.

First UQ produced a report on dog management issues for the Dpt of Primary Industries...with solid information from research, which challenged common beliefs about a number of dog-related matters.

The CCAH at UQ also produced, for that Dpt, a report on early desexing of kittens & puppies. And RSPCA Qld commissioned a study from UQ on their pilot program of setting up adoption centres in some petstores.

One guess, which university I'd ask to prepare an independent report on the pedigree dogs issues, so clumsily covered by the national RSPCA.

A search of the literature needs to go far beyond the bandwagon pushers.

For example, there's a great 2008 paper from Scandanavia about breeding healthy dogs.....from someone associated with the Norwegian Kennel Club & the School of Veterinary Sciences.

Interesting to look at their guidelines set out for breeding healthy dogs. Checking off the items, I'd guess that the experienced, knowledgeable, responsible Australian breeders would score a lot of ticks.

http://www.actavetscand.com/content/50/S1/S6

Good stuff being done in the northern European countries (& Denmark, too) re pedigree dogs. Without the need for a TV program pitched only at an extreme level in problems, but suggesting they are widespread.

By contrast, the Norwegian paper has a cool-headed summary:

Knowledge, education, honesty and cooperation are keys in succeeding in breeding healthy dogs. Breeding regulations and restrictions should be based on scientific and practical knowledge as well as common sense. Strict breeding regulations do not necessarily result in healthy dogs, but may in fact have the opposite effect....

The conscientious breeders want to cooperate with scientists to the benefit of the dogs – and to the benefit of science. Don't eliminate these breeders by making impossible demands!

Edited March 22, 2010 by mita

[mita]

From the Norwegian paper:

Basic rules and recommendations for breeding healthy dogs

1. Only functionally, clinically healthy dogs should be used for breeding; dogs with chronic diseases should never be bred unless we know for sure that heritability plays no role in causing the disease. If a dog suffers clinically from a disease that is suspected, but not proven, to be inherited, the dog should not be bred. If close relatives of such a dog are used for breeding, they should be mated to dogs from bloodlines with low or no occurrence of the same disease.

2. The breeding program should not exclude more than 50% of the breed; the breeding stock should be selected from the best half of the population.

3. Avoid matador breeding. A basic recommendation should be that no dog should have more offspring than equivalent to 5% of the number of puppies registered in the breed population during a five-year period.

4. A bitch that is unable to give birth normally, due to anatomy or inherited inertia, should be excluded from further breeding – irrespective of the breed.

5. A bitch that is unable to take care of the newborn puppies, due to its mentality or inherited agalactia, should be excluded from further breeding.

6. Dogs with a mentality atypical for the breed, and aggressive dogs, should be excluded from breeding.

7. Screening results for polygenetic diseases should be used for preparation of an individual breeding value, based on both national and international screening results. The average breeding value for the combination should be better than the average for the breed. Screening should only be recommended for diseases and breeds where the disease has a major impact on the dogs' functional health.

8. Results from DNA tests should be used to avoid breeding diseased dogs, not necessarily to eradicate the disease.

9. Breed specific health issues that cannot be diagnosed by DNA-tests or screening programs must still be included in a breeding program.

10. The raising of puppies, with correct feeding, environmental exposure, stimulation by their mother, breeder and others to develop social sense and response, must be basic in all breeding.

If these simple basic recommendations were implied in a breeding program, we would attain a considerable improvement in the dogs' functional health.

[sandgrubber]

Thanks, Mita, for posting the Norwegian guidelines. I think most of them are great . . . though because I work with a very common breed with no shortage of genetic diversity (Labradors), and quite a few obviously 'pet' quality pups coming through, I can't see any reason to include 50% of dogs in the breeding population. The p.s. about honest, cooperation, inclusion of science, etc. is especially valuable. Rules can only go so far, and often backfire. Right-headedness is a much better way to go.

Edited March 22, 2010 by sandgrubber

[mita]

SG, I now realise why some of the top Australian tibbie breeders import Scandanavian dogs. And, tellingly, why Australian tibbies have been exported there.

My adopted Swedish tibbie girl had a dad who gained his Championships in Norway, Sweden & Finland....& there were a couple of Australian tibs in his background.

Most of all, I appreciated the cool-headedness in the Norwegian paper. Issues covered without any witch-hunting ideology.

Great meeting of science with practical experience & commonsense. But that's what I've encountered with the good Australian breeders.

[Jed]

'Jed' date='22nd Mar 2010 - 08:16 PM' post='4410244'

Longcoat

A dog may have an excellent conformation, but if the other aspects that make up the breed standard for example temperament which is not desirable, the dog shouldn't be winning shows, which they often do.

Have you actually been to a dog show for longer than 20 seconds and a sandwich? Would you like to give some examples of winning dogs with "temperament which is not desirable"? Not at any of the shows I've been to. If the standard says "bold" a dog which is not bold wont even be called in!!

Temperament: The German Shepherd Dog must be even tempered, well balanced (with strong nerves), self assured, totally at ease (except when provoked) and good natured, as well as attentive and easy to train. He must possess courage, combativity and toughness in order to be suitable as a companion, guard, service, herding dog and Schutzhund.

Tell us how GSD's are called in and win shows when the requirements of the standard are neither tested or confirmed Jed???.

Well, I haven't noticed any cringing or running away which are called in, and they look all of those things outside the ring.

[Steve]

I honestly thought MDBA Pacers had something to do with racing, and have deliberately ignored posts about it. I don't know if others have done the same, but there may be an image problem arising from the name

good to know it is there.

For people who care about cruelty to animals, it seems to me that the options are to start a new organisation or reform the existing organisation. I'd also say that many of us contributed to the corruption of the RSPCA by apathy in years past. Bashing provides no constructive alternative.

www.mdbapacers.org.au

Pacers stands for Preventing Animal Cruelty in Emergency Response Situations - Its a registered charity in the same charity category as the RSPCA we help people who are domestic animal owners to ensure their animals arent suffering if their owners hit hard times or cant cope. Donations over $2 are tax deductible and we now have approvals to fundraise in several states.

We are getting about 6 to 10 calls for help each week and we have been able to help many people and their animals.

The Buddy system is taking off and that will build to be a great safety net for all of us.

We have just put in a National Marketing Manager and a National Foster Care co ordinator so you will see the ante raised over the next few months.

If anyone is interested in taking a book of raffle tickets to sell for us in our holiday Raffle please give a yell and Ill get them out to you.

[Jed]

From the Norwegian paper:

Basic rules and recommendations for breeding healthy dogs

1. Only functionally, clinically healthy dogs should be used for breeding; dogs with chronic diseases should never be bred unless we know for sure that heritability plays no role in causing the disease. If a dog suffers clinically from a disease that is suspected, but not proven, to be inherited, the dog should not be bred. If close relatives of such a dog are used for breeding, they should be mated to dogs from bloodlines with low or no occurrence of the same disease.

2. The breeding program should not exclude more than 50% of the breed; the breeding stock should be selected from the best half of the population.

3. Avoid matador breeding. A basic recommendation should be that no dog should have more offspring than equivalent to 5% of the number of puppies registered in the breed population during a five-year period.

4. A bitch that is unable to give birth normally, due to anatomy or inherited inertia, should be excluded from further breeding – irrespective of the breed.

5. A bitch that is unable to take care of the newborn puppies, due to its mentality or inherited agalactia, should be excluded from further breeding.

6. Dogs with a mentality atypical for the breed, and aggressive dogs, should be excluded from breeding.

7. Screening results for polygenetic diseases should be used for preparation of an individual breeding value, based on both national and international screening results. The average breeding value for the combination should be better than the average for the breed. Screening should only be recommended for diseases and breeds where the disease has a major impact on the dogs' functional health.

8. Results from DNA tests should be used to avoid breeding diseased dogs, not necessarily to eradicate the disease.

9. Breed specific health issues that cannot be diagnosed by DNA-tests or screening programs must still be included in a breeding program.

10. The raising of puppies, with correct feeding, environmental exposure, stimulation by their mother, breeder and others to develop social sense and response, must be basic in all breeding.

If these simple basic recommendations were implied in a breeding program, we would attain a considerable improvement in the dogs' functional health.

That sounds quite reasonable to me. Most of those points are items which the majority of breeders are aware of, and do anyhow.

No one wants to breeds diseased dogs, dogs which can't whelp, or care for pups.

I dislike that the assumption of PDE, and spin offs that registered breeders are all dishonest, lying idiots, who know nothing, and have no regard for the dogs, which is far from the case. I dislike all breeders being demonised by people who have nfi about the ethos of purebred dogs ... which is exactly the same as the ethos of purebred anything.

We need to remember that it is breeders who brought the dogs to where they are. Breeders make mistakes, new breeders may need to learn more.

Most breeders will choose the best stud dog, and that may or may not be the dog with the most points. Health, conformation, temperament and suitabilitity for the bitch are more important to most breeders than show wins, although show wins are important too.

eg, breeder I know has a Gr Ch and imp ch in the kennel. Last litter was by an unshown dog, "because he was the best for THAT bitch". And that is how most breeders think. Shows give people an opportunity to see the dogs, and get an idea about them, but that is not the only criteria breeders choose for using a dog at stud.

I think breeders themselves are the ones to decide whether to linebreed or outcross, because they are the ones who know the dogs and the lines.

Genetic diversity - I would actually like some definitive proof that there is a problem before we throw our aprons over our heads and scream and wail. There is no definitive proof - saying "things will get worse" doesn't cut it with me. Where is the proof?

We are importing dogs from o/s with different lines and using them and it occurs to me that I have a dog which is, as far as I know, unrelated to any other dog in the state. Line bred dogs as a rule have no problems - if you have a good line, it makes perfect sense to go back into that line to continue to produce good dogs.

Norwegian regulations would be fine with me.