New Problem To Address

[Steve]

Sick of me yet ?

This one is a bit more difficult.

As we all know PDE really knocked us around,so did the gardener and a couple of others.

We are looking down the barrel of more laws being introduced with many pushing for us to do what was recommended and is now happening in the UK in line wit the recommendations from the Bateman report.

The big push is happening behind the scenes and will come where we are backed against the wall with an independent body telling us what we can and cannot breed and how and how not we are able to do it.

What can we do?

Edited November 19, 2010 by Steve

[pebbles]

Sorry, absolutely no ideas. Ok so I'm old and cynical but it may be too late for anything to be done. I remember going to the KCC President and Secretary' regional annual meetings over 40 years ago and hearing problems being raised with no support coming from the KCC. A number of us old timers have been trying to get the State bods to have our presence acknowledged with advertising, etc. to no avail. I have been to the Vic offices many times over the years and done some desk thumping, some of which has had results, the majority went no where (but relieved a bit of stress at the time lol). At the moment I have utter disgust with Vic Dogs and the ANKC. Just who are they representing? Certainly not the Members So I'm in the gloom and doom mode but the more I see and hear, the more I'm glad I'm coming to the end of my doggy days. The brick walls are getting too thick!

[shortstep]

This is just my opinion.

I do not see anything that leads me to believe that the demand for change coming from the animal welfare and animal rights/liberation groups, nor from the Unis, is going to change or stop.

I have not seen many KC breeders stateing there is anything to be gained by changing and I see no desired to make the changes (such as open stud books, decreasing and regulating COI, removing structural extremes from standards and so on).

So unless one group drastically changes their position, there is not going to be any resolution where both sides come out improved. Purebred breeders are already in decline and will likely keep declining as even more pressure to change is demanded without the support or belief systems needed to make those changes.

It may well be the Kennel Club model (not just here but around the world) has outlived it's usefulness and is not going to be able to adjust nor support their breeders in today's world of changing values.

However there are some breed clubs that are doing very well right now. Not only in membership levels and in forming international relationships with other breed registers, but also in managing and living with the changing attitudes on dog breeding. So I do not think that there will be the end to all purebreds. It just might be that the breeds function independently, perhaps under international standards and with possible adjustments to their goals for their breeds future.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

well i think some breeders dont help the bad PR situation. used to be getting a puppy from a registered breeder was enough but now some registered breeders are woeful.

maybe we need to start being honest about the issues with certain breeds and breeders need to be seen to address the issues.

[Natsu chan]

Steve this is the big one and you know what I don't think there is an answer. The powers that be will have their way, the kennel clubs are too frightened of being seen as not being PC to fight back and we are all being dragged down together. Breeders, showies, triallers, pet owners a like it's just that right now no one can see it.

I think more noise needs to be made about how much breeders and breed clubs have done for research into canine health, that the hip/elbow etc schemes need to be promoted more. Think how long those have been going yet most people don't even know they exist! The kennel clubs need to stop hiding the good stuff under a bushel for fear of being attacked but I really can't see it changing fast enough to save us.

You're doing a fantastic job Steve, thank you so much.

[MalteseLuna]

This is a very hard issue to solve. There are alot of public people with strong opinions on breeders often fueled by that horrible tv show. Ive had friends tell me that they deliberately bought a dog which is 'purebred' from a non- registered breeder to avoid unreputable breeders (what a joke)!

I think purebred dogs need some publicity on the positives, the good things breeders do and an expose on puppy mills and pet shops.

We need more events with purebred dog open to the public where people can meet the dogs and people. Also there needs to be more encouragement of newbies in the hobby.

All of this is hard to do but i think we need to do it.

Mdba is doing a good job so far but i think you guys need some more publicity so that people (not in the dog world) learn about you etc

[Steve]

Steve this is the big one and you know what I don't think there is an answer. The powers that be will have their way, the kennel clubs are too frightened of being seen as not being PC to fight back and we are all being dragged down together. Breeders, showies, triallers, pet owners a like it's just that right now no one can see it.

I think more noise needs to be made about how much breeders and breed clubs have done for research into canine health, that the hip/elbow etc schemes need to be promoted more. Think how long those have been going yet most people don't even know they exist! The kennel clubs need to stop hiding the good stuff under a bushel for fear of being attacked but I really can't see it changing fast enough to save us.

You're doing a fantastic job Steve, thank you so much.

There is an answer - several - we just have to sort out a place to start and work out what will and what Will not work for us.

Rather than just giving up lets have a go at this.

We may go under anyway but why chuck it in before we have had a bit of a shot of it all ?

Traditionally - though granted I cant think of many examples involving animals - when ever there is a whole lot of hype going on about an industy the industry rushes in and begs them to back off and allow them to set up their own advisory boards and administer the rules and the regulatory needs themselves.

So if we joined together with interested parties, such as the Canine Councils,the MDBA ,Commercial breeders ,PIAA , Animals Australia,chuck in a couple of PHD's in animal science and vets and got in first to set up our own advisory board - would this work? It might but I dont think it would stop one single dog from suffering and I have to admit that Im a bit nauseated by the idea that people that run groups for pet shops ,vets trained by animal rights professors and cross bred breeders will have any say in how I should breed my dogs, what I should breed and when I can breed them etc. No matter what people you choose to sit on this advisory board the big push is on for us to be the minority and so therefore potentially overruled on what we as purebred breeders know will produce healthier more predictible dogs over several generations.

The questions of course are how long before the advisory board directives become law and no matter who sets the board up who will police them.

Its sad that Dogs NSW and Dogs Queensland have already jumped in with breeder accreditaions and its is very very clear to everyone watching that its not going to make a single bit of difference. When they try to say - let us handle this ourselves they are a laughing stock - it wont fly.

The other big isue is - do purebred breeders need to be policed to stop them from breeding dogs they really shouldnt - and who will decide what they shouldnt?

[Steve]

This is a very hard issue to solve. There are alot of public people with strong opinions on breeders often fueled by that horrible tv show. Ive had friends tell me that they deliberately bought a dog which is 'purebred' from a non- registered breeder to avoid unreputable breeders (what a joke)!

I think purebred dogs need some publicity on the positives, the good things breeders do and an expose on puppy mills and pet shops.

We need more events with purebred dog open to the public where people can meet the dogs and people. Also there needs to be more encouragement of newbies in the hobby.

All of this is hard to do but i think we need to do it.

Mdba is doing a good job so far but i think you guys need some more publicity so that people (not in the dog world) learn about you etc

We need more members - members equal votes.

[raz]

This is a very hard issue to solve. There are alot of public people with strong opinions on breeders often fueled by that horrible tv show.

I think it's actually fueled by this idea that breeders are elitist snobs. I dont actually know any - every breeder I've dealt with has been great - but members of the public have this idea. Maybe work on that first, and that has to come from the breeders themselves. No need to police it.

As for the state canine councils...I hate to say it but forget about them. They dont seem to give a rats about purebreed dogs in Australia. I actually dont know what they think about these days apart from registration fees. Very disappointing.

[Steve]

This is a very hard issue to solve. There are alot of public people with strong opinions on breeders often fueled by that horrible tv show.

I think it's actually fueled by this idea that breeders are elitist snobs. I dont actually know any - every breeder I've dealt with has been great - but members of the public have this idea. Maybe work on that first, and that has to come from the breeders themselves. No need to police it.

As for the state canine councils...I hate to say it but forget about them. They dont seem to give a rats about purebreed dogs in Australia. I actually dont know what they think about these days apart from registration fees. Very disappointing.

almost 7 years ago I came into this forum and said if we were going to stand back and hand over the task to the state canine councils we didnt stand a chance and Im more convinced every single day that this is the case .Our only hope is to acknowledge this and go to work with out them.

[shortstep]

Well I do not know how long others have been active with purebred dogs, but in my lifetime I see purebred dogs bred as carefully today and if you think test results all over the pedigree is the indicator of better breeding, then much more carefully today than 20 - 30 - 40 years ago.

For example in my breed, no one did hips 20 years ago, now almost all do hips. No one did DNA for several diseases (as there were no tests) 10 years ago, now almost everyone does these DNA tests. All these DNA tests were found using funding from the breeders. I can go on and on. Right now in my breed most breeders to at least 5 tests and some do up to 9.

Now some would say that 40 years ago the dogs were just more healthy. Some would also say that they were not more healthy they did not test so did not know how sick they were. Some will also say that today you can health test for every disease know to dog and still breed sick dogs. I will let others decide.

In the past I have defended the rights of breeders, especially breeders of other breeds, to control their own own breeds and make their own decisions. But no longer, I have been won over and will now support having dog breeding regulated and controlled by outside forces including the government or their interested representatives.

I can see and understand the point, and it is a point that will always be there for those who want to raise it. There will always be some breeders who will not live up to everyone else's expectations. The only real way to solve this problem will be to regulate all of the breeders in each breed to the same standards. Done by an outside committee who will make a mandatory breeding standard for that breed. Then when anyone is unhappy they can go to the committee who controls the breeding standard to request changes are made to the particular breed. It will not be up to the breeders to decide what they should do or not do.

I am all for mandating and even adding more health tests, EBV, limits on COI, Vet/Uni microchip health data collection, pedigree health database kept by the uni on every ANKC dog and make it a public record that anyone can look up. All controlled by the breed committees groups made up of experts in animal welfare, animal ethics, vets and genetics experts and so forth.

As far as I am personally concerned I am lucky as there is nothing they want done that I already do not do with the exception of the uni making EBV on each litter and supplying lifetime genetic disease insurance on each pup. Other breeders wil not adjust so easily and for them I truly feel sorry and in my heart believe they should have the independence to make their own choices, but those days seem to be gone. I know we will oose lots of breeds. I just hope dog ownership survives. So bring it on. If you can do it first before the governement does then good, but I think getting all parties to agree would be impossiable. BTW this will in the end make the stud book job ANKC does not needed, the uni would become the keeper of the pedigrees.

Edited November 20, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

Well I do not know how long others have been active with purebred dogs, but in my lifetime I see purebred dogs bred as carefully today and if you think test results all over the pedigree is the indicator of better breeding, then much more carefully today than 20 - 30 - 40 years ago.

For example in my breed, no one did hips 20 years ago, now almost all do hips. No one did DNA for several diseases (as there were no tests) 10 years ago, now almost everyone does these DNA tests. All these DNA tests were found using funding from the breeders. I can go on and on. Right now in my breed most breeders to at least 5 tests and some do up to 9.

Now some would say that 40 years ago the dogs were just more healthy. Some would also say that they were not more healthy they did not test so did not know how sick they were. Some will also say that today you can health test for every disease know to dog and still breed sick dogs. I will let others decide.

In the past I have defended the rights of breeders, especially breeders of other breeds, to control their own own breeds and make their own decisions. But no longer, I have been won over and will now support having dog breeding regulated and controlled by outside forces including the government or their interested representatives.

I can see and understand the point, and it is a point that will always be there for those who want to raise it. There will always be some breeders who will not live up to everyone else's expectations. The only real way to solve this problem will be to regulate all of the breeders in each breed to the same standards. Done by an outside committee who will make a mandatory breeding standard for that breed. Then when anyone is unhappy they can go to the committee who controls the breeding standard to request changes are made to the particular breed. It will not be up to the breeders to decide what they should do or not do.

I am all for mandating and even adding more health tests, EBV, limits on COI, Vet/Uni microchip health data collection, pedigree health database kept by the uni on every ANKC dog and make it a public record that anyone can look up. All controlled by the breed committees groups made up of experts in animal welfare, animal ethics, vets and genetics experts and so forth.

As far as I am personally concerned I am lucky as there is nothing they want done that I already do not do with the exception of the uni making EBV on each litter and supplying lifetime genetic disease insurance on each pup. Other breeders wil not adjust so easily and for them I truly feel sorry and in my heart believe they should have the independence to make their own choices, but those days seem to be gone. I know we will oose lots of breeds. I just hope dog ownership survives. So bring it on. If you can do it first before the governement does then good, but I think getting all parties to agree would be impossiable. BTW this will in the end make the stud book job ANKC does not needed, the uni would become the keeper of the pedigrees.

What has bought you to this shortstep I thought you would one of the last to chuck it in.

[Steve]

well i think some breeders dont help the bad PR situation. used to be getting a puppy from a registered breeder was enough but now some registered breeders are woeful.

maybe we need to start being honest about the issues with certain breeds and breeders need to be seen to address the issues.

Yes I agree with this

[Greytmate]

You counteract it by addressing people's concerns.

I think Shortstep made some very valid points, and it isn't about chucking anything in.

It is about compromise.

Nobody has been thrown in jail lately for breeding a dog with hip displasia, so the fighting attitude seems a little over the top.

I do not think the answer is to allow a committee of stakeholders to set the rules. There needs to be a governing body of independent and expert people setting guidelines.

Steve you set up the MDBA in that way too. Its a way to stop politics overruling best practice.

As a group you have a lot more potential to counteract bad publicity for your dogs than any of the canine associations or clubs do. But you need to be seen as addressing community concerns and not dismissing them.

[Steve]

Well I do not know how long others have been active with purebred dogs, but in my lifetime I see purebred dogs bred as carefully today and if you think test results all over the pedigree is the indicator of better breeding, then much more carefully today than 20 - 30 - 40 years ago.

Ive been active with purebred dogs about that long and I agree with you - the science we have to utilise , the access to information and resources and the outside push has definitely made us much more able to do it all better than we did where our biggest dilemma was getting them to live with no vaccinations etc.

This is something we should be shouting about at every opportunity - instead of bleating on about how much money we put into research - no good if we dont say where that has taken us and what we do now to ensure our dogs are healthy.

We certainly shouldn't be giving excuses publicly as to why we wont use the science and resources at our disposal.

[sllebasi]

Its not an issue that I have honestly thought a lot about. I have only had the privalege (sp??) of ever owning one dog who I saved from being pts from a friend.

However, my brother is now in a business which is dependant on purebred dogs, and I am very interested in companion work with labradors to do delta work, hearing assistance dogs and guide dogs due to my personal situation, so these issues could quite possibly affect me in the future. Will watch this conversation with interest, I am not sure how I can personally contribute to this discussion but will try.

[Steve]

You counteract it by addressing people's concerns.

I think Shortstep made some very valid points, and it isn't about chucking anything in.

It is about compromise.

Nobody has been thrown in jail lately for breeding a dog with hip displasia, so the fighting attitude seems a little over the top.

I do not think the answer is to allow a committee of stakeholders to set the rules. There needs to be a governing body of independent and expert people setting guidelines.

Steve you set up the MDBA in that way too. Its a way to stop politics overruling best practice.

As a group you have a lot more potential to counteract bad publicity for your dogs than any of the canine associations or clubs do. But you need to be seen as addressing community concerns and not dismissing them.

Its unlikey that anyone is going to ever be thrown in jail for breeding a dog with hip displasia this is a polygenic disorder - however it is most definitely possible that breeders could be thrown in jail in Victoria for breeding a dog affected by PRA.

And I can understand why someone who doesnt breed purebred dogs would think that wanting to fight having a governing body setting guidelines - because if thats all they are - guidelines no one will follow them anyway if they dont want to. My concerns are who will determine who is an expert and independent person to particpate in this and when the guidlines turn into laws and not guidelines .So far we have seen people considered to be independent and expert set up mandatory codes which leave gaping holes in what is best for the species and every breeder knows that .

I dont think the MDBA has ever dismissed community concerns. I'm happy to be corrected and I have seen some breeders who have not only dismissed community concerns but in my opinion aggrevated them.

Im not worried about publicity for our members or our dogs because they all do what the experts would have them do and then some anyway. My concern is for the future of the breeds when people who are not breeders start telling breeders how to breed dogs.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

You counteract it by addressing people's concerns.

I think Shortstep made some very valid points, and it isn't about chucking anything in.

It is about compromise.

Nobody has been thrown in jail lately for breeding a dog with hip displasia, so the fighting attitude seems a little over the top.

I do not think the answer is to allow a committee of stakeholders to set the rules. There needs to be a governing body of independent and expert people setting guidelines.

Steve you set up the MDBA in that way too. Its a way to stop politics overruling best practice.

As a group you have a lot more potential to counteract bad publicity for your dogs than any of the canine associations or clubs do. But you need to be seen as addressing community concerns and not dismissing them.

Its unlikey that anyone is going to ever be thrown in jail for breeding a dog with hip displasia this is a polygenic disorder - however it is most definitely possible that breeders could be thrown in jail in Victoria for breeding a dog affected by PRA.

And I can understand why someone who doesnt breed purebred dogs would think that wanting to fight having a governing body setting guidelines - because if thats all they are - guidelines no one will follow them anyway if they dont want to. My concerns are who will determine who is an expert and independent person to particpate in this and when the guidlines turn into laws and not guidelines .So far we have seen people considered to be independent and expert set up mandatory codes which leave gaping holes in what is best for the species and every breeder knows that .

I dont think the MDBA has ever dismissed community concerns. I'm happy to be corrected and I have seen some breeders who have not only dismissed community concerns but in my opinion aggrevated them.

Im not worried about publicity for our members or our dogs because they all do what the experts would have them do and then some anyway. My concern is for the future of the breeds when people who are not breeders start telling breeders how to breed dogs.

totally agree with this. i was appalled at some of the breeders answers in the SM cav thread and that thread can be viewed by anyone who is on the net

[shortstep]

well i think some breeders dont help the bad PR situation. used to be getting a puppy from a registered breeder was enough but now some registered breeders are woeful.

maybe we need to start being honest about the issues with certain breeds and breeders need to be seen to address the issues.

Yes I agree with this

I can remember some years ago having a conversation with the owner of a med/small breed about HD. I was doing a lot of work in this area in my dogs. The affected rate in my breed was about 1 in 8-10. I am proud to day that my rate is currently 1 in 40 in 4 generations.

Anyway they were suggesting that that I only breed 0-0 dogs and a few other things which were not things I was doing. It then came to light that this persons breed had a higher affected rate than my breed however they did not do any screening. I never made a point about it. Not my breed not my dogs. This was their choice and I am sure that this person who felt it was not needed knew what was important in their breed. This was truly their ground not mine and I support their decision both privately and publically to decide what health tests to do on their dogs. I would hope for the same from others, but this no longer happens.

As I said above, there will always be some breeders, maybe even most of the breeders in a breed, that do not do what you think they should be doing. So now what? Do we decide for them? I think the answer has already been made by the 'us', the 'public', even if it is not our breed, and even if we are not experts in genetics and even if we are in different country and even if we have respected the breeders for many years.

It is no longer their decision, the decisions now belongs to the world. The best I can see happening is the decisions gets taken away from the world of public opinion and given to some experts. I do not think that the experts will decide that differently from what the breeders are doing in most cases. We shall see.

However I hope that people do understand what they are asking for. There will not be any more pug faced breeds, no breeds with curly tails, no breeds that are dwarfs, the list goes on. As the old saying goes, 'Be vary careful what you wish for, you just might get it'. These things will be changed, they have made this very clear.

So what brought about the change, I am tired of trying to prevent wishes from coming true.

Edited November 20, 2010 by shortstep

[Greytmate]

And I can understand why someone who doesnt breed purebred dogs would think that wanting to fight having a governing body setting guidelines - because if thats all they are - guidelines no one will follow them anyway if they dont want to. My concerns are who will determine who is an expert and independent person to particpate in this and when the guidlines turn into laws and not guidelines .

As soon as you say that because I don't breed dogs that I would think a certain way about your 'fight', you are dismissing my concerns.

When I say guidelines, I am talking about standards or parameters that can be built into legislation.