Ankc 2009 Breeders And Litters

[WreckitWhippet]

I reckon it would number in the thousands Jed.

I've not seen the figures printed for that certain person in the last three months journals. Actually I think it's been a while since the CC's did.

I wonder if that had anything to do with the uproar on here and on Ozshow about what was going on.

Naturally if you stop printing the figures, the mass exports cease to happen.

[Steve]

The RSPCA got the figures of exported dogs form AQIS for the round table conference and they only showed about 11,000 and that includes all of those going out without papers and cross breds etc . I thought it would have been way over that and I know several years ago it was much higher. I challenged the figures but thats what AQIS gave them. Perhaps its not as big an issue as well feel like it is ??? Stil dont believe em.

[asal]

If we do not want the government to regulate us, then we better start ( and not a second to waist) doing it ourselves.

Really, why is it that so very few breeds have any mandatory health tests. I have been doing hips for 20 years, eye exams for 20 years, then it changed to DNA tests, then add 2 more DNA test and a couple of other minor tests I do randomly just to keep an eye out. Would it kill us to make a few rules about this stuff and then enforce it. I am not super breeder, all the breeders I know do the same and if others out there are not they should be. So lets just get it done.

Why don't we have a policy about puppy farming. Why haven't we at least looked at the benefits of opening some stud books to outside purebred dogs, Kelpies being a perfect example. Can't we address any of the issues that have been raised against us?

I am done trying to defend what is no longer defendable. We need to get our sh*t together and we need to do it now and stop making excuses. We should look to northern Europe and get to work. Their programs are good, they are not restrictive (at least they would not change anything I am doing).

Just wanted to add, we need to stop worrying about what other dog breeders are doing. We have no control over them. What we need to be worried about is what our breeders do, and we need to hold ourselves to the highest standards in the world. Only then can we stare them down and win this.

I think your ideas are good ones.

and yes, barking and howling that "other" dog breeders need to be "controlled" is what is driving the machine that will roll over all instead, although by that i mean all tracable registered breeders. i so wish you well that it may happen as you suggest.

when my fellow members began the "get rid of puppy farmers" so long ago, i cant understand how or why they simply couldnt GET that joe or jane public or politicion would see them in exactly the same light.

it would have been nice to find i was the mistaken one, but looking at the present day, Judy Guard and to many to mention others that are the resulting collateral damage, my misgivings and foreboding that witchhunts are like spraying a locust spray, ever thing there gets sprayed too.

although maybe thats the wrong anology, the people so dispised are not a swarm, although looking at that pie graph, maybe it is????

but they are so dispersed and untracable only the ones that are registered breeders are in the spotlight for erradication

Edited November 23, 2010 by asal

[Souff]

The RSPCA got the figures of exported dogs form AQIS for the round table conference and they only showed about 11,000 and that includes all of those going out without papers and cross breds etc . I thought it would have been way over that and I know several years ago it was much higher. I challenged the figures but thats what AQIS gave them. Perhaps its not as big an issue as well feel like it is ??? Stil dont believe em.

I cant see that either AQIS or RSPCA would have any reason to reduce the figures. If they were going to do a fiddle, then I rather think they would have INFLATED the stats.

In any case many of the pups that go in bulk to Hawaii are already ANKC registered so they are already included in that very tiny ANKC slice of the pie. They are not all ANKC reg'd dogs in the shipments because (last time I looked) the crossbred white fluffies were still holding their very high market value for him.

Souff

[Souff]

Quality Purebred

Registered Puppies

With every Pet’s Central Puppy purchase, we want to make sure your addition to your new family is healthy and comfortable in your home. Only the healthiest puppies are hand selected from reputable breeders in Australia , from breeders we know and trust. Each puppy is examined by a licensed veterinarian in Australia, again upon arrival at Pet's Central, and a third time after purchase! We also have a veterinarian technician on staff to monitor each puppy on a daily basis, seeing to all their needs, and ensuring a safe and healthy environment is maintained at all times.

Here you go, up to date information, straight from his website.

"hand selected from reputable breeders in Australia" .... and amongst those breeders are ANKC registered breeders who don't give a rats about keeping good genes in Australia. The $ is more important than the gene pool.

Well, whilever this continues that little slice of the pie will continue to get smaller.

And people are wondering why ANKC is fast disappearing.

Souff

[Steve]

The RSPCA got the figures of exported dogs form AQIS for the round table conference and they only showed about 11,000 and that includes all of those going out without papers and cross breds etc . I thought it would have been way over that and I know several years ago it was much higher. I challenged the figures but thats what AQIS gave them. Perhaps its not as big an issue as well feel like it is ??? Stil dont believe em.

I cant see that either AQIS or RSPCA would have any reason to reduce the figures. If they were going to do a fiddle, then I rather think they would have INFLATED the stats.

In any case many of the pups that go in bulk to Hawaii are already ANKC registered so they are already included in that very tiny ANKC slice of the pie. They are not all ANKC reg'd dogs in the shipments because (last time I looked) the crossbred white fluffies were still holding their very high market value for him.

Souff

I wasnt trying to imply the RSPCA had deliberately reduced the figures - but its hard to believe what they were given thats all.

[Souff]

The RSPCA got the figures of exported dogs form AQIS for the round table conference and they only showed about 11,000 and that includes all of those going out without papers and cross breds etc . I thought it would have been way over that and I know several years ago it was much higher. I challenged the figures but thats what AQIS gave them. Perhaps its not as big an issue as well feel like it is ??? Stil dont believe em.

I cant see that either AQIS or RSPCA would have any reason to reduce the figures. If they were going to do a fiddle, then I rather think they would have INFLATED the stats.

In any case many of the pups that go in bulk to Hawaii are already ANKC registered so they are already included in that very tiny ANKC slice of the pie. They are not all ANKC reg'd dogs in the shipments because (last time I looked) the crossbred white fluffies were still holding their very high market value for him.

Souff

I wasnt trying to imply the RSPCA had deliberately reduced the figures - but its hard to believe what they were given thats all.

I know

Steve, with all the legislation that is working against dog breeders these days, the number of ANKC breeders who were solely breeding for the exporter would also now be reduced.

It is an overall downward trend that is not going to be reversed. PETA and our resident animal libbers had it as their aim and it is a reality.

Souff

[Souff]

The ship is listing.

- Good purebred pups of popular breeds are flown out of the country, never to return.

- The Australian public are being constantly offered badly bred mutts dressed up as cute pups (for top prices) and they are taking up that offer.

- Those who do buy purebred dogs are encouraged by every veterinarian in Australia to de-sex their pup as "responsible owners".

There are almost no vets out there who encourage people who own a purebred dog to become involved in "responsible breeding of dogs" , i.e. to ensure the future of good, well bred, dogs.

Vets of all people SHOULD be interested in maintaining a future for dogs.

But of course if there are a lot of health problems in dogs in the future, then vets have an assured income too.

Pardon my cynicism.

Souff

[deerhound owner]

- Those who do buy purebred dogs are encouraged by every veterinarian in Australia to de-sex their pup as "responsible owners".

There are almost no vets out there who encourage people who own a purebred dog to become involved in "responsible breeding of dogs" , i.e. to ensure the future of good, well bred, dogs.

Vets of all people SHOULD be interested in maintaining a future for dogs.

Souff

There aren't a lot of breeders out there who encourage people not to desex their pup and to get involved in breeding if some of the responses on DOL are anything to go by. I understand why some of the breeders are like this but even if every vet started encouraging "responsible breeding" how many people could get their hands on a good example of a main register dog/bitch that wasn't desexed before it left the breeders?

[Sheridan]

There aren't a lot of breeders out there who encourage people not to desex their pup and to get involved in breeding if some of the responses on DOL are anything to go by. I understand why some of the breeders are like this but even if every vet started encouraging "responsible breeding" how many people could get their hands on a good example of a main register dog/bitch that wasn't desexed before it left the breeders?

Yes, there are breeders on DOL who clearly state that they will desex a pup before it goes to a 'pet' home in case the owner turns out to be a puppyfarmer or BYB. And yes, we know it happens - Leo being the obvious case in point.

[Souff]

Too true (on both posts).

I am not saying that every owner should be breeding from their dogs, far from it.

However if some group - presumably vets or breeders - does not encourage people to become involved in breeding good quality dogs with registered pedigrees .....

WHO WILL?

Souff

[SpikesPuppy]

Too true (on both posts).

I am not saying that every owner should be breeding from their dogs, far from it.

However if some group - presumably vets or breeders - does not encourage people to become involved in breeding good quality dogs with registered pedigrees .....

WHO WILL?

Souff

I am INCREDIBLY grateful to my chosen breeder for entrusting me- but I did start the slow way with a dog rather than a bitch. However was rewarded with my bitch who in turn gave me a wonderful litter. All but mine desexed pets but I would not hesitate to consider a request for a show puppy in the future. Yes it is a huge risk and each to their own but at the same time..... What happens when all the breeders get old and die with no one to take over??

Not only that but people with fresh eyes can be of benefit as they do not have a preconception of what's the perfect specimen or have not been blinded by type etc.

[mita]

The ANKC (& the associated state kennel associations) should do PR to differentiate their contribution to dog breeding... from that vast number from other sources.

Yes, the registered breeders produce a fairly modest number of puppies, but the evidence is that they tend to produce quality in certain respects.

(Like socialisation of puppies to be better companion dogs & more control over their litter numbers with far less accidental ones).

Also the system of registration allows for better health & temperament controls.

It has to be got into the public consciousness that 'breeder' is not synonymous with 'registered breeder'. And that being a registered breeder requires other efforts than just pumping out puppies for sale.

Registered breeders follow an established Code of Ethics as part of membership in a professional (not a commercial) organisation. Where standards rule! For example, the ethical guidelines squirreled away within Dogs Qld information are blooming brilliant. If all dog breeding from all sources had....& followed...guidelines like that, a heck of a lot of issues relating to dogs would decrease.

Edited November 24, 2010 by mita

[Souff]

It is ironic that there are currently many thousands of people in Australia and across the world researching their family tree ..... while at the same time the importance of the pedigree of a well bred animal is something that is not only UN-PROMOTED but only a very small number of people are interested in.

The pedigrees of dogs are still seen as unimportant by most people.

Perhaps there needs to be a promotional website set up to assist people who want to research the family tree of their pet. In doing so, some of those people might come to realise that there is a very LIMITED future for most purebred dogs.

Education is needed. Media promotion and internet access. Two of the tools that give an effective ways to reach people these days so that you can educate them.

Promotion, then education.

Souff

[KumaAkita]

Firstlly, I'm not a breeder and have nothing to do with breeding and would never consider breeding, so my question/thought could be well and truely off the mark. Please don't flame me.

The pharmaceutical industry - the largest export industry in Australia is self-regulated, whereby pharmaceutical companies elect to join an organisation and in doing so agree to a stringent set of rules. It is a very tough code, which governs how member companies can ethically promote their prescription products. The main aim of the Code is having ethical relationships and transparancy (no more drug company sponsored holidays for doctors...). This Code has a complaints mechanism, which is arbitrated by an independent Committe. The fines are HUGE (then again, so is the company income). These complaints can come from other pharmaceutical companies, health professionals and members of the general public. Companies who get fined take a big hit to their public image, which does more finanical damage. This Code also has a monitoring arm, which reviews sections of the business on a monthly basis to ensure compliance.

I wonder if there is something like this would work for animal breeders? Or is there something like this now and it's a toothless tiger?

Government regulation would not work - too costly and time consuming for them to even bother about. However, a proven system would keep them at bay. Surely people like PETA would value that there is an ethical system that prevents (or at best limits) dodgy behaviour?

Just a thought. *returns to lurking where she doesn't belong*

[Sheridan]

Firstlly, I'm not a breeder and have nothing to do with breeding and would never consider breeding, so my question/thought could be well and truely off the mark. Please don't flame me.

The pharmaceutical industry - the largest export industry in Australia is self-regulated, whereby pharmaceutical companies elect to join an organisation and in doing so agree to a stringent set of rules. It is a very tough code, which governs how member companies can ethically promote their prescription products. The main aim of the Code is having ethical relationships and transparancy (no more drug company sponsored holidays for doctors...). This Code has a complaints mechanism, which is arbitrated by an independent Committe. The fines are HUGE (then again, so is the company income). These complaints can come from other pharmaceutical companies, health professionals and members of the general public. Companies who get fined take a big hit to their public image, which does more finanical damage. This Code also has a monitoring arm, which reviews sections of the business on a monthly basis to ensure compliance.

I wonder if there is something like this would work for animal breeders? Or is there something like this now and it's a toothless tiger?

Government regulation would not work - too costly and time consuming for them to even bother about. However, a proven system would keep them at bay. Surely people like PETA would value that there is an ethical system that prevents (or at best limits) dodgy behaviour?

Just a thought. *returns to lurking where she doesn't belong*

Interesting idea, although PETA have no interest in animals other than to ensure that humans don't have anything to do with them. They seem to have a dislike of dogs, in particular. A dead dog is a good dog seems to be the message.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Sheridan

[SpikesPuppy]

Firstlly, I'm not a breeder and have nothing to do with breeding and would never consider breeding, so my question/thought could be well and truely off the mark. Please don't flame me.

The pharmaceutical industry - the largest export industry in Australia is self-regulated, whereby pharmaceutical companies elect to join an organisation and in doing so agree to a stringent set of rules. It is a very tough code, which governs how member companies can ethically promote their prescription products. The main aim of the Code is having ethical relationships and transparancy (no more drug company sponsored holidays for doctors...). This Code has a complaints mechanism, which is arbitrated by an independent Committe. The fines are HUGE (then again, so is the company income). These complaints can come from other pharmaceutical companies, health professionals and members of the general public. Companies who get fined take a big hit to their public image, which does more finanical damage. This Code also has a monitoring arm, which reviews sections of the business on a monthly basis to ensure compliance.

I wonder if there is something like this would work for animal breeders? Or is there something like this now and it's a toothless tiger?

Government regulation would not work - too costly and time consuming for them to even bother about. However, a proven system would keep them at bay. Surely people like PETA would value that there is an ethical system that prevents (or at best limits) dodgy behaviour?

Just a thought. *returns to lurking where she doesn't belong*

Unfortunately, it's very much a 'toothless tiger' situation at present. If you break a rule, you get punished. It can be a warning, fine, suspension of membership or a combination of these things. This is for Vic at least. Every month you see familiar names come up in the gazette as being disciplined over some action or another, but nothing more serious is ever done. In some cases a single person or kennel can have multiple 'charges' however they get a mere slap on the wrist.

[shortstep]

Surely people like PETA would value that there is an ethical system that prevents (or at best limits) dodgy behaviour?

We all need to have a good understanding of the core belief system of PETA and the Animal Liberations groups.

They want no human interaction with animals, they do not want any domestic animals, they do not approve of any dog breeding no matter how well done, they do not approve of the concept of pets and think the world will be a better place if humans can not have pets.

The only way you will please PETA and the like, is to ban dog ownership, and we are even hearing these words about removing property rights over dogs thrown around now. There are many concerned pet owners who are being mislead and ready to push this idea through. I do not think for one moment they realize what they are setting up to happen. It is a very slippery slope with these animal rights groups and in my opinion nothing should be done to please them.

However, there are animal welfare groups (note I did not say animal rights groups) that do have valid concerns, society in general have some valid concerns, and science has some valid concerns, all of which should be addressed willingly by the ANKC and their member breeders.

Edited November 24, 2010 by shortstep

[Souff]

Firstlly, I'm not a breeder and have nothing to do with breeding and would never consider breeding, so my question/thought could be well and truely off the mark. Please don't flame me.

The pharmaceutical industry - the largest export industry in Australia is self-regulated, whereby pharmaceutical companies elect to join an organisation and in doing so agree to a stringent set of rules. It is a very tough code, which governs how member companies can ethically promote their prescription products. The main aim of the Code is having ethical relationships and transparancy (no more drug company sponsored holidays for doctors...). This Code has a complaints mechanism, which is arbitrated by an independent Committe. The fines are HUGE (then again, so is the company income). These complaints can come from other pharmaceutical companies, health professionals and members of the general public. Companies who get fined take a big hit to their public image, which does more finanical damage. This Code also has a monitoring arm, which reviews sections of the business on a monthly basis to ensure compliance.

I wonder if there is something like this would work for animal breeders? Or is there something like this now and it's a toothless tiger?

Government regulation would not work - too costly and time consuming for them to even bother about. However, a proven system would keep them at bay. Surely people like PETA would value that there is an ethical system that prevents (or at best limits) dodgy behaviour?

Just a thought. *returns to lurking where she doesn't belong*

In an industry there is a lot at stake so self-regulation with a firm governing code will work.

In the dog breeding world the stakes are not as high.

Self regulation has been the model used to date and the results speak for themselves.

If the ANKC is to survive then at some stage it will have to reinvent itself. Its structure is totally different to what most people assume - it is not your usual corporate structure and probably should be, imho.

Souff

[Souff]

Surely people like PETA would value that there is an ethical system that prevents (or at best limits) dodgy behaviour?

Radical activist organisations (of any name) do not have the long term best interests of animals at heart.

Egos are their biggest problem. Internal politics are their next biggest problem. They LOVE the media but as to what might happen to purebred dogs in the future?

Well lets just say that they see the breeding of specified breeds of dogs as human intervention and they would rather that they just all run free.

Don't believe me? Do a search for some of the stuff said by Ingrid Newkirk as far back as the 1990s.

Ms Newkook hasn't changed her loony tunes but mercifully we dont hear too much of her bleating these days ... probably trod on some toes in the media!

Souff