Next Question

[t-time]

I have said that in previous posts Sandra

I exported 2 pet TTs last year - desexed before they left but I could only keep them registered in my name and send copies of the pedigrees as I had already placed them on the LR. Would've been better for the new owners to have the dogs in their name - no export pedigree could be issued because LR dogs cannot be exported..

[Steve]

No you can still export limited register puppies and dogs but the limited register is for pets so there isnt ny reason for a person to want to have an export certificate. The fact that the export certifiate is only issued to main register is because that iTs supposed to be used for people to be able to tranfer the dog from the aussie registry to the overseas one to be able to breed registered puppies and show the dog in that country.

Sorry Steve but you are wrong. Perhaps it's a different rule for Qld? (AGAIN! )

I have an LR paper in front of me and on the back it says:

"Limited Register Regulations

- A dog shall only be eligible for registration in the limited register if it is:

1) ineligible for exhibition at a conformation show;or

2) for any reason, not to be used for breeding purposes;or

3) not entire or has been desexed;and

4) not eligible for export"

But T time the owner can and does still export it if they want to. The only thing the CC can do is block issue of an export certificate.

[Steve]

But whether the export certificate is issued or not its still on the limited register of its home country or does home mean where it lives rather than where it was born?

It has to be registered in the KC of the county it lives in and is on the team representing. So If I send a limited to the US, it can not be registered there on limited because there is no system between OZ and the US to do that. So that dog could never be treated as a purebred dog, which would include being refused the right to represent the US on their world team as a purebred dog. Yet there will lots of limited registred dogs on the US team, just not OZ limited.

See how it works?

Well thats interesting and if true then that opens a can of worms which I may just need to tickle a bit.

[Steve]

Jed I disagree.

I would rather see stud services limited and breeders importing frozen semen from other clear lines. Especially if A breed is in such bad genetic shape in this country as you describe.

If we had the restriction of stud services, instead of people importing one dog, and studding it out as much as they possibly can (and making a fortune), they might choose to import a shipment of frozen semen containing straws from a few different stud dogs with clear lines (and selling those for a fortune instead).

Why ? You cant ask for this because you cant say what the breeder or breeders would be going after in their breeding program and every breed would have different goals at different times.

Because it prevents individual dogs being abused (by puppy farmers) and it encourages (forces) genetic diversity. Two or three lines are more diverse than one.

Jed I disagree.

I would rather see stud services limited and breeders importing frozen semen from other clear lines. Especially if A breed is in such bad genetic shape in this country as you describe.

If we had the restriction of stud services, instead of people importing one dog, and studding it out as much as they possibly can (and making a fortune), they might choose to import a shipment of frozen semen containing straws from a few different stud dogs with clear lines (and selling those for a fortune instead).

You assume that every breeder will want to use an "import" and that's not the case, not every breeder is blinded by the words " imported xxx " on the paperwork and many tread with caution, assess the whole dog and never go there.

No, I assume that that we are talking about a hypothetical scenario (posed by Jed) where the only other option is to use a dog that carries a genetic illness. I believe it is possible to assess a dog's quality even if it is overseas. I don't care whether the dog is imported from Sweden, or "imported" from Townsville. If the breed is at such a serious bottle neck, It is important to bring in new lines. I would rather see a variety of lines available rather than one dog being overused, and ending up in every single line. Restricting service numbers would encourage this.

I wont use an AI frozen or other wise. I can name you at least three breeds where the dogs rarely have sex as dogs do anymore and cant reproduce without human intervention and there isnt a chance anything here gets to make babies unless the boy can get it up and get it in . Dogs tell you when they shouldn't be mating before any X ray or test does. Crook hips wont hold their weight either.

One breed has been doing nothing but AIs for over 15 years - hip scores are huge, most have to be given progesterone to maintain the litter , really high incidence of C sections and they suck as mothers. then the breeders take a bow because inthe year 2010 the more you interfer with mating and whelping the better the breeder you are. Ais are good if its for a genetic clear you need for one generation but its a last resort for me.

Yes, last resort. Jed posted a horrible scenario about a breed in really bad genetic shape. There is no stud dog in Australia that isn't a carrier, and hard decisions have to be made.

While I still believe that stud services should be restricted in general, if breed organisations can show why a temporary exemption should be made, that would sound reasonable to me. Especially after the explanation you gave me. In the same way that it might be reasonable to give a breed permission to open a stud book for a time.

I'm not a genetic expert. However I think that genetic experts need to look at the breed as a whole rather than just the breed in this country. There would also need to be a compulsion for people within that breed to follow that plan set for them. And I think it would be harder to enforce that than it would to enforce just a straight limit of stud services.

Most studs are overused by people for reasons other than the genetic health of the whole breed, so that is the main reason behind my suggestion. Overuse of stud dogs has caused problems. If people are prepared to put even more onerous voluntary restrictions on themselves in the form of breeding laws written by experts, I do believe there is a case for gaining an exemption.

O.K. I mostly agree with you but no matter what if these people are considered to be good enough to be given the tag registered breeders , they do already need to pass a prefix exam - for what thats worth etc then I'm against having regulations which take the ability for the breeder to make decisions based on what is happening in their own back yard away from them.

I have to admit that I do feel a bit resentful at the concept that after Ive put my life into it and studied my heart out and had the success Ive had in breeding great healthy dogs I get a bit miffed at the idea of asking someone who isn't as experienced or in my opinion as knowledgeable as me about my dogs for permission on what I can and cant breed. Now I try really hard to keep my ego out of it and only consider what is truly best for the dogs and I admit that bit is probably a bit about my own ego too - but I do think thats whats best for my dogs.

Ill try and squash down that ego thing but Id be telling lies if I didnt say it is a bit on my mind.

[Greytmate]

Ego is one of the biggest problems Steve.

Everyone says that they want to do the best by their dogs, but from the outside it seems that egos are more important to many. The bad breeders chant the same mantra as the good ones.

I believe you know what you are doing as a breeder Steve, but I also believe there are many breeders that have very limited knowledge, much less than even I do. When you say "I know what I am doing", they all join in, and your voice loses meaning.

If breeders are unwilling to restrict themselves by consulting with experts and come up with a plan for the breed as a whole (as Jed claims some are doing), then I think outside restrictions do have to be enforced.

Because no restriction at all has caused some problems.

I would think the best thing to do is to do as Jed says, collaborations between genetic experts and breed groups. But if nothing like that is happening in a breed, who is to say the problems within that breed are not worsening?

[SpikesPuppy]

I have said that in previous posts Sandra

I exported 2 pet TTs last year - desexed before they left but I could only keep them registered in my name and send copies of the pedigrees as I had already placed them on the LR. Would've been better for the new owners to have the dogs in their name - no export pedigree could be issued because LR dogs cannot be exported..

Which then means you officially own the dogs, which IMO isn't fair on the owner. Why do they not have the right to have their pet (which no doubt has cost a lot of money), in their own name in their country of residence? And as shortstep points out, the dogs cannot be registered even for non-conformation events in the country they reside in.

Also, isn't it against the code of ethics to sell a puppy and not provide the registration papers??

[t-time]

Exactly Spikes Puppy - the new owners OS really just have to take my word for it that the dogs are purebred I discussed it with Dogs Qld at the time and they agreed that was all I could do - but I did supply a copy of the pedigree paper with the microchip number on it.

If I have an OS buyer for a pup which I deem a pet, I may as well not register it at all.........and I'm pretty sure this is not the direction the CCs want to go....

[Steve]

Ego is one of the biggest problems Steve.

Everyone says that they want to do the best by their dogs, but from the outside it seems that egos are more important to many. The bad breeders chant the same mantra as the good ones.

I believe you know what you are doing as a breeder Steve, but I also believe there are many breeders that have very limited knowledge, much less than even I do. When you say "I know what I am doing", they all join in, and your voice loses meaning.

If breeders are unwilling to restrict themselves by consulting with experts and come up with a plan for the breed as a whole (as Jed claims some are doing), then I think outside restrictions do have to be enforced.

Because no restriction at all has caused some problems.

I would think the best thing to do is to do as Jed says, collaborations between genetic experts and breed groups. But if nothing like that is happening in a breed, who is to say the problems within that breed are not worsening?

Yep I hear you. It would be a rare breed these days which doesn't have some kind of collaboration and input from the genetic experts and breed groups already. However sometimes - most times even the experts don't agree and obviously in some cases there are a lot of obstacles to work through and not all issues can be dealt with the same way.

We have a clause in our code of conduct which prohibits the breeding of close relatives without a submission to explain why they want to and what their goal is which is looked over by

people who are breeders who have qualifications in genetics - so far its worked well and if I could rely on it being managed appropriately and if I really thought that some breeders would take a scrap

of notice a similar situation with the ANKC would at least make it look like breeders are thinking through more than just how the dogs look before they proceed with any mating.

But my concern is that I don't think they will .I think some will do as they like and tell lies. In fact Im sure of it .That for me is a much scarier thing than knowing which dogs are inbred because I can look on a pedigree and make choices on what dog I want to use with the belief that the pedigree has integrity and true ancestors are recorded. If lies are told on the registry for me it defeats the whole purpose of breeding registered dogs - to be able to accurately profile the pedigree. The popular sire syndrome has the potential to undo a breed almost over night and in this regard Mum and Dad BYBreeder have less chance of doing bad stuff to the breed than any show breeder does even if the dogs they breed are untested. But you cant avoid the fact that this is what we do. We are purebred breeders - just as any breeder who breeds purebred animals of any species.So lets put it into perspective and consider a stud bull and how many cows he may impregnate in an afternoon. A sheep breeder will have one stud ram impregnate the entire flock. How many humans know their pedigree up to 5 generations - I don't perhaps that's how I married a man who is also a carrier for the same disease I am.

No denying that it needs education but you have to understand the politics and culture as well as the science.

[shortstep]

But whether the export certificate is issued or not its still on the limited register of its home country or does home mean where it lives rather than where it was born?

It has to be registered in the KC of the county it lives in and is on the team representing. So If I send a limited to the US, it can not be registered there on limited because there is no system between OZ and the US to do that. So that dog could never be treated as a purebred dog, which would include being refused the right to represent the US on their world team as a purebred dog. Yet there will lots of limited registred dogs on the US team, just not OZ limited.

See how it works?

Well thats interesting and if true then that opens a can of worms which I may just need to tickle a bit.

I think the missing part is there has not been any agreement between ANKC and other Kennel clubs about this issue. Again it is view coming from a showing and breeding perspective. But folks the world is changing, Kennel club has to be for everybody, things like doing dog sports or being a member of the local breed club are just as important now. An imported limited dog is a purebred and deserves that recognition with in the limits of the limited program.

If you think about it, why shouldn't a limited registered dog not be able to get a certified pedigree and registration. All that is doing is certifying it is correct and true to the new registry. Not all countries will have Limited programs, but these days I think most do. Hawaii was mentioned, I get a number of enquiries for dogs to do activities with from there, these are very nice homes not pet shops. Even though they have no intention to breed, they always think twice when they realize with limited they will not be able to register their dog at all in the AKC.

This would mean that the best they could hope for is called an associate type program. That means they cannot go to breed club trials, they would never be able to try out for any international compitition (that all the other AKC limited dogs could do), and the breeder here in Australia will never get any credit for the dog, as there will be no allowed use of the prefix. BTW the owners also have great pride in their dogs real full KC name and want to use it.

Now if people get up to some sort of bad behaviour with limited pedigrees I am unaware of that. I only see it from the point of view by the buyers of these dogs, who should not be casted off as second class dogs just because they are on limited and were exported.

Edited November 24, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

But whether the export certificate is issued or not its still on the limited register of its home country or does home mean where it lives rather than where it was born?

It has to be registered in the KC of the county it lives in and is on the team representing. So If I send a limited to the US, it can not be registered there on limited because there is no system between OZ and the US to do that. So that dog could never be treated as a purebred dog, which would include being refused the right to represent the US on their world team as a purebred dog. Yet there will lots of limited registred dogs on the US team, just not OZ limited.

See how it works?

Well thats interesting and if true then that opens a can of worms which I may just need to tickle a bit.

I think the missing part is there has not been any agreement between ANKC and other Kennel clubs about this issue. Again it is view coming from a showing and breeding perspective. But folks the world is changing, Kennel club has to be for everybody, things like doing dog sports or being a member of the local breed club are just as important now. An imported limited dog is a purebred and deserves that recognition with in the limits of the limited program.

If you think about it, why shouldn't a limited registered dog not be able to get a certified pedigree and registration. All that is doing is certifying it is correct and true to the new registry. Not all countries will have Limited programs, but these days I think most do. Hawaii was mentioned, I get a number of enquiries for dogs to do activities with from there, these are very nice homes not pet shops. Even though they have no intention to breed, they always think twice when they realize with limited they will not be able to register their dog at all in the AKC.

This would mean that the best they could hope for is called an associate type program. That means they cannot go to breed club trials, they would never be able to try out for any international compitition (that all the other AKC limited dogs could do), and the breeder here in Australia will never get any credit for the dog, as there will be no allowed use of the prefix. BTW the owners also have great pride in their dogs real full KC name and want to use it.

Now if people get up to some sort of bad behaviour with limited pedigrees I am unaware of that. I only see it from the point of view by the buyers of these dogs, who should not be casted off as second class dogs just because they are on limited and were exported.

Yep and lets face it main register isn't hard to get anyway as is evidenced by Mcdougall.

[Greytmate]

Steve, integrity problems could be avoided if a once-off DNA profile was done on each breeding animal. That has become cheap enough to be a reality for domestic dogs as it has been for years in greyhounds.

[Steve]

Steve, integrity problems could be avoided if a once-off DNA profile was done on each breeding animal. That has become cheap enough to be a reality for domestic dogs as it has been for years in greyhounds.

Im not only interested in things which occur for breeding animals. I want to be able to enter info on its relatives including those which are never intended for breeding.

Entering DNA profiles doesnt prove they were the breeding animals used unless the pups are done too.

[Greytmate]

Steve, integrity problems could be avoided if a once-off DNA profile was done on each breeding animal. That has become cheap enough to be a reality for domestic dogs as it has been for years in greyhounds.

Im not only interested in things which occur for breeding animals. I want to be able to enter info on its relatives including those which are never intended for breeding.

Entering DNA profiles doesnt prove they were the breeding animals used unless the pups are done too.

I am only talking about establishing parentage through DNA, not genetic profiling. The certificate would be matched to a microchip or tattoo identifying the dog.

The pups would be done if they were going to be bred from. If they are not going to be bred from, knowing their parentage isn't as important. Having DNA to establish parentage keeps breeders honest by ensuring the dogs in the pedigrees can be identified.

At the moment, it is very easy for people to substitute pups. There is no real way to verify that the pup you buy is the pup on the papers. If you can think of a better or cheaper way to keep dodgy breeders honest, we need to hear about it.

[Steve]

Steve, integrity problems could be avoided if a once-off DNA profile was done on each breeding animal. That has become cheap enough to be a reality for domestic dogs as it has been for years in greyhounds.

Im not only interested in things which occur for breeding animals. I want to be able to enter info on its relatives including those which are never intended for breeding.

Entering DNA profiles doesnt prove they were the breeding animals used unless the pups are done too.

I am only talking about establishing parentage through DNA, not genetic profiling. The certificate would be matched to a microchip or tattoo identifying the dog.

The pups would be done if they were going to be bred from. If they are not going to be bred from, knowing their parentage isn't as important. Having DNA to establish parentage keeps breeders honest by ensuring the dogs in the pedigrees can be identified.

At the moment, it is very easy for people to substitute pups. There is no real way to verify that the pup you buy is the pup on the papers. If you can think of a better or cheaper way to keep dodgy breeders honest, we need to hear about it.

Nothing will keep dodgy dishonest breeders honest. There are a dozen different ways they can operate to avoid detection if thats what they want even with DNA parentage of breeding dogs done especially if they sell all of their puppies as pets to pet shops or export or domestic pet buyers. There isn't any point for me knowing who the parents are if I cant use that info for genetic profiling and knowing who the parents are of every dog is just as important for me as knowing who the parents are of my dog. It is the only reason I breed registered dogs.

Having said that this is something which is up to the CCs to consider and they may bring in but considering that many breeders still don't even chip puppies or their breeding dogs in a state where it has been law for a decade and that its not something which was recommended in the Bateson report and so far it has been voted against I cant see the purebred dog hobby going the way of the greyhound racing industry in the near future.

[Greytmate]

Steve, integrity problems could be avoided if a once-off DNA profile was done on each breeding animal. That has become cheap enough to be a reality for domestic dogs as it has been for years in greyhounds.

Im not only interested in things which occur for breeding animals. I want to be able to enter info on its relatives including those which are never intended for breeding.

Entering DNA profiles doesnt prove they were the breeding animals used unless the pups are done too.

I am only talking about establishing parentage through DNA, not genetic profiling. The certificate would be matched to a microchip or tattoo identifying the dog.

The pups would be done if they were going to be bred from. If they are not going to be bred from, knowing their parentage isn't as important. Having DNA to establish parentage keeps breeders honest by ensuring the dogs in the pedigrees can be identified.

At the moment, it is very easy for people to substitute pups. There is no real way to verify that the pup you buy is the pup on the papers. If you can think of a better or cheaper way to keep dodgy breeders honest, we need to hear about it.

Nothing will keep dodgy dishonest breeders honest. There are a dozen different ways they can operate to avoid detection if thats what they want even with DNA parentage of breeding dogs done especially if they sell all of their puppies as pets to pet shops or export or domestic pet buyers. There isn't any point for me knowing who the parents are if I cant use that info for genetic profiling and knowing who the parents are of every dog is just as important for me as knowing who the parents are of my dog. It is the only reason I breed registered dogs.

Having said that this is something which is up to the CCs to consider and they may bring in but considering that many breeders still don't even chip puppies or their breeding dogs in a state where it has been law for a decade and that its not something which was recommended in the Bateson report and so far it has been voted against I cant see the purebred dog hobby going the way of the greyhound racing industry in the near future.

What are people doing with different breeds in other countries?

If there is no integrity, no quality control, nothing in place to catch dodgy breeding practices, then that means that purebreeds as a whole in this country lack integrity and the task of turning around people's negative perceptions will be a lot harder than it needs to be.

You say that there isn't any point in knowing who the parents are if you can't use that info for genetic profiling? Really, so unless every breeding animal has a genetic profile done, there is no point in knowing who its parents are?

Was there a point to it before you had access to genetic technology, or did you then have no point in knowing who your dog's parents were?

Nobody is stopping you asking for genetic profiling to be done on any breeding animal or any other animal you own, if you think you need that information, and are willing to pay to collect it.

If a registry started using DNA parentage testing, so that the registry knew the parentage of every breeding animal, that would have nothing at all to do with how you ran your breeding program, how you selected your breeding animals, and what information you collected about them and any other other animals in the breed. It is a suggestion merely to improve the integrity of the actual register and pedigrees.

It isn't a tool to help breeders make decisions, its just to help keep all of them honest, and especially to prevent any dodgy practices infecting or damaging other breeding lines.

At the very least with DNA parentage, you would know you were collecting the DNA or other information from the line you think you are collecting it from. Collecting any information with no way to positively match that with a dog, means that your info could be as dodgy as the breeder that swapped litter two generations back.

If you have any better ideas to postively identify dogs, let's hear it.

You are the one that came in and told us all how concerned you were about a certain problem, I just gave a suggested solution.

We have a clause in our code of conduct which prohibits the breeding of close relatives without a submission to explain why they want to and what their goal is which is looked over by

people who are breeders who have qualifications in genetics - so far its worked well and if I could rely on it being managed appropriately and if I really thought that some breeders would take a scrap

of notice a similar situation with the ANKC would at least make it look like breeders are thinking through more than just how the dogs look before they proceed with any mating.

But my concern is that I don't think they will .I think some will do as they like and tell lies. In fact Im sure of it .That for me is a much scarier thing than knowing which dogs are inbred because I can look on a pedigree and make choices on what dog I want to use with the belief that the pedigree has integrity and true ancestors are recorded. If lies are told on the registry for me it defeats the whole purpose of breeding registered dogs - to be able to accurately profile the pedigree.

Are you concerned really? Or are you only concerned until somebody offers a possible solution, and then you tell us that "Nothing will keep dodgy dishonest breeders honest."

Don't you believe its possible to improve integrity of the registry? Or do things suit you better left just how they are now?

[Steve]

Steve, integrity problems could be avoided if a once-off DNA profile was done on each breeding animal. That has become cheap enough to be a reality for domestic dogs as it has been for years in greyhounds.

Im not only interested in things which occur for breeding animals. I want to be able to enter info on its relatives including those which are never intended for breeding.

Entering DNA profiles doesnt prove they were the breeding animals used unless the pups are done too.

I am only talking about establishing parentage through DNA, not genetic profiling. The certificate would be matched to a microchip or tattoo identifying the dog.

The pups would be done if they were going to be bred from. If they are not going to be bred from, knowing their parentage isn't as important. Having DNA to establish parentage keeps breeders honest by ensuring the dogs in the pedigrees can be identified.

At the moment, it is very easy for people to substitute pups. There is no real way to verify that the pup you buy is the pup on the papers. If you can think of a better or cheaper way to keep dodgy breeders honest, we need to hear about it.

Nothing will keep dodgy dishonest breeders honest. There are a dozen different ways they can operate to avoid detection if thats what they want even with DNA parentage of breeding dogs done especially if they sell all of their puppies as pets to pet shops or export or domestic pet buyers. There isn't any point for me knowing who the parents are if I cant use that info for genetic profiling and knowing who the parents are of every dog is just as important for me as knowing who the parents are of my dog. It is the only reason I breed registered dogs.

Having said that this is something which is up to the CCs to consider and they may bring in but considering that many breeders still don't even chip puppies or their breeding dogs in a state where it has been law for a decade and that its not something which was recommended in the Bateson report and so far it has been voted against I cant see the purebred dog hobby going the way of the greyhound racing industry in the near future.

What are people doing with different breeds in other countries?

If there is no integrity, no quality control, nothing in place to catch dodgy breeding practices, then that means that purebreeds as a whole in this country lack integrity and the task of turning around people's negative perceptions will be a lot harder than it needs to be.

You say that there isn't any point in knowing who the parents are if you can't use that info for genetic profiling? Really, so unless every breeding animal has a genetic profile done, there is no point in knowing who its parents are?

Was there a point to it before you had access to genetic technology, or did you then have no point in knowing who your dog's parents were?

Nobody is stopping you asking for genetic profiling to be done on any breeding animal or any other animal you own, if you think you need that information, and are willing to pay to collect it.

If a registry started using DNA parentage testing, so that the registry knew the parentage of every breeding animal, that would have nothing at all to do with how you ran your breeding program, how you selected your breeding animals, and what information you collected about them and any other other animals in the breed. It is a suggestion merely to improve the integrity of the actual register and pedigrees.

It isn't a tool to help breeders make decisions, its just to help keep all of them honest, and especially to prevent any dodgy practices infecting or damaging other breeding lines.

At the very least with DNA parentage, you would know you were collecting the DNA or other information from the line you think you are collecting it from. Collecting any information with no way to positively match that with a dog, means that your info could be as dodgy as the breeder that swapped litter two generations back.

If you have any better ideas to postively identify dogs, let's hear it.

You are the one that came in and told us all how concerned you were about a certain problem, I just gave a suggested solution.

We have a clause in our code of conduct which prohibits the breeding of close relatives without a submission to explain why they want to and what their goal is which is looked over by

people who are breeders who have qualifications in genetics - so far its worked well and if I could rely on it being managed appropriately and if I really thought that some breeders would take a scrap

of notice a similar situation with the ANKC would at least make it look like breeders are thinking through more than just how the dogs look before they proceed with any mating.

But my concern is that I don't think they will .I think some will do as they like and tell lies. In fact Im sure of it .That for me is a much scarier thing than knowing which dogs are inbred because I can look on a pedigree and make choices on what dog I want to use with the belief that the pedigree has integrity and true ancestors are recorded. If lies are told on the registry for me it defeats the whole purpose of breeding registered dogs - to be able to accurately profile the pedigree.

Are you concerned really? Or are you only concerned until somebody offers a possible solution, and then you tell us that "Nothing will keep dodgy dishonest breeders honest."

Don't you believe its possible to improve integrity of the registry? Or do things suit you better left just how they are now?

Greytmate . I have been genetic profiling the dogs I use for breeding for longer than DNA was ever discovered and even though DNA is now available I would hope that breeders use a hell of a lot more info than DNA tests to know what they are working with.I usually was very confident about who my dogs parents were because I bred them.

Of course I'm concerned - why would I pretend to be if I'm not? Offering the possible solution you have offered isn't something that I have any control over any more than most possible solutions which have been discussed so far in this thread. I can see the pros but I can also see the cons and whether one outweighs the other is going to have to be tossed over by the membership and the various CCs. In my opinion its worth looking at but this isn't the greyhound industry and there will be resistance. I don't see how I can arrange a working party to go to work on the things we can do to solve the issues and include in it mandatory DNA profiling for parentage any more than I can see how we can change any regs or laws for where a breeder can sell a puppy or how many they can have etc.

I think the whole entire show is now way over regulated and Im sure as hell not going to give a tick which may be introduced into legislation while ever we have the system we have of policing them.

[Steve]

I just received this from Lambplan for my Dorper Sheep breeding value estimate - what a difference a species makes - perhaps you know who should have a look at in breeding here !

Linkage

One of the strengths of LAMBPLAN is that it enables direct comparison of animals across studs, which are often run under vastly different management, climatic and nutritional regimes. To do this the LAMBPLAN evaluation must be able to calculate an Australian Sheep Breeding Value (ASBV) that is free of non‐genetic (environmental) effects on the animal’s performance. Genetic linkage is one of the tools that enable this to occur.

If there is no genetic linkage, ASBVs will not be calculated, instead, breeders will receive Flock Breeding Values (FBVs). FBVs allow comparison of animals within flock only.

In addition to comparing across flocks, genetic linkage is required for comparison across management groups and years within a flock. To effectively achieve linkage it is important not to change all sires from one year to the next. Small studs, in particular, need to be wary of this.

How to create genetic linkage:

There are a number of ways to create, or improve, genetic linkage in your flock. These include:

use common sires in a number of different flocks

use common (link) sires across years within a flock

the use of paternal half sib sires (ie, sons of one ram) across years within a flock

use of paternal half sib rams in different flocks (commonly through natural mating)

purchase new sires (or semen) from other flocks using LAMBPLAN evaluation

increase the number of progeny by common sires and/or dams in your flock.

As a rough guide, 30 measured progeny are required from link sires. Other alternatives are:

15 progeny from each of 2 link sires

10 progeny from each of 3 link sires

90 progeny from sons of link sires

[Greytmate]

I don't see how I can arrange a working party to go to work on the things we can do to solve the issues and include in it mandatory DNA profiling for parentage any more than I can see how we can change any regs or laws for where a breeder can sell a puppy or how many they can have etc.

I see it as all part of the same project. No point having any regulations at all if we cannot even identify which dog we are talking about because dogs can be so easily substituted.

I think the whole entire show is now way over regulated and Im sure as hell not going to give a tick which may be introduced into legislation while ever we have the system we have of policing them.

Maybe it is over-regulated in some ways. But in other ways it is an entire free-for-all where the dishonest may never be able to be stopped.

I'm not interested in regulation for regulation's sake. Red tape sux. I am only interested in seeing the sort of quality control type regulation which would make it possible for these purebreed dogs to be promoted as being something better than what random cross-breeders are producing.

[Steve]

Yes I understand what you are saying but Im after things the MDBA may be able to do to find solutions unless we had our own registry its hardly something we could have much impact on.

[Steve]

The fact that it has become over regulated is what has caused part of the problem.

Before we had a limit on how often we could breed a bitch , how old she had to be and now close relative issues people had no reason to lie.

The registry was reliable because there was no point in anyone not giving the true details. They took our pedigrees and Clare wade has said hardly any of us ever breed close relatives anyway so

what on earth do we have to gain by introducing regs or worse laws to restrict us doing close breedings? The people who shouldn't do it will still do it anyway and we wouldn't even have to be talking about a possible need for DNA profile for parents if we were simply left to do what purebred breeders of all species do including taking note of the specific reproductive needs of the species they are working with.