Did Any Of You Know ?

[Steve]

I have no idea what your problem is stonebridge but I have no interest in playing your games. If I dont aswer your atatcks and accusations its because I am ignoring you.

Ignore me all you like Steve, but I DONT play games.

I ask questions and give my opinion.

I may not have the technical jargon at my fingertips like you do. I may have different principles than you do. I may have different beliefs as well. But it doesnt mean I am less of a person than you are.

If you cant or wont answer my questions then so be it.

where the hell are you getting this stuff from.I havent said or implied you are a lesser person than I am.You are the one telling people on this forum about my terrible breeding practices. Ive not made any attacks on you or your ethics or your anything. Almost every post you make is accusing or attacking me personally rather than questioning me about anything and its clear that you have gone way past what is acceptable forum behaviour. I have as many rights on this forum as you do and if I said the things about you that you have said about me publicly I would expect to be banned.

[Bullbreedlover]

I have no idea what your problem is stonebridge but I have no interest in playing your games. If I dont aswer your atatcks and accusations its because I am ignoring you.

Ignore me all you like Steve, but I DONT play games.

I ask questions and give my opinion.

I may not have the technical jargon at my fingertips like you do. I may have different principles than you do. I may have different beliefs as well. But it doesnt mean I am less of a person than you are.

If you cant or wont answer my questions then so be it.

where the hell are you getting this stuff from.I havent said or implied you are a lesser person than I am.You are the one telling people on this forum about my terrible breeding practices. Ive not made any attacks on you or your ethics or your anything. Almost every post you make is accusing or attacking me personally rather than questioning me about anything and its clear that you have gone way past what is acceptable forum behaviour. I have as many rights on this forum as you do and if I said the things about you that you have said about me publicly I would expect to be banned.

Steve

Since my posts were removed the other day I have been very careful not to say anything to attack you. YOU are the one who is telling everyone out there that members of MBDA are superior to others whom are not. YOU are the one telling everyone that this registry is elite and is far superior to the ANKC.

My comments above were general ones not specifically aimed at you so try not to read too much into thinking I am attacking you. I AM NOT. I realise that by doing that it would get me nowhere.

I am trying to ask questions. As I stated I dont have the technical jargon available that you may do.

Where in my posts have I stated untruthful facts or asked misleading questions?

Maybe I should just lie quietly and let you tell everyone how good MBDA is!!!! Will that make you happy?

Fine.

[Steve]

O.K. ONe of your big deals seems to be the fact that we dont have minimum ages in our code of conduct . For the record there wasnt any need for us to have that in our code of conduct as all of our breeder members were ANKC members and all of them already had those requirements on them. All of our breeder members now are required to adhere to minimum ages for their bitches. Now I get that you think this is a necessary rule to write in and if its not in that this is evidence that we dont care about the welfare of our dogs but we think we have that covered in other parts of the code and now we also have a registry and the only people who can register puppies in that register are our members who have had to jump through hoops and we monitor them we dont think we need to do that. As we were making that decision we spoke with among - others Dr Elbaff, Dr Thomas, Dr Bodell, Dr Billinghurst, Dr Dodds specifically on that subject and we researched hundreds of peer reviewed science papers on canine reproduction to bring us to a decision that we would not include it. We felt the possible negative consequences of having that in there were more important than any positives including the fact that we didnt want to make it seem to anyone watching that we thought taking the ability for the breeder to make their own decisions out of their hands was a good thing to do.

Now you dont agree with that and thats hardly much different to me not agreeing to some parts of your code of conduct for your state's CC.

We could ask - is the fact that your code says you can sell your puppies to pet shops or that it allows you to breed cross bred dogs as long as they arent registered having the same effect on your members as you accuse ours of having on ours.

I cant help it that you think this should be in there but its not in there and there really is only so much I can continue to say on that.

We have literally spoken to hundreds of experts in their field for everything which we have had to make decisions on. In just one breed we have so far spoken to and had meetings with 4 people who hold Phds before we start to talk to breeders and judges.

What we are doing is different - thats why we are doing it. People can look at the differences and be free to decide its not for them but we are trying to impliment things now with the knowledge of what can happen and go wrong and try to put things in place to prevent it which includes our knowledge of some of the things which do go on in the purebred dog world - all be it rarely. Im not saying you or anyone else are lesser people or lesser breeders and I honestly dont know why anyone is threatened by the fact that we have said our breeder members have a different set of things they have to agree to and apply under . I dont understand why its O.K. for the CCs to introduce an accedited breeder program where one member of the same org is made to look dodgier than others of that org where they register both their puppies but they get upset when we promote all of our members as equals. We are certainly not asking anyone to leave their CCs or not register their puppies with them as they always have. Its unreasonable for you to expect that we would promote people who are not our members or that we would not promote our members in case someone who is not our member feels we are promoting our members over them.The ANKC has promoted their members and their members dogs over any other breeder for decades and what we are doing is no different.Just as people had choices on whether to be a registered breeder or not and take the benefits that membership gave them with the ANKC because of that promotion so do they now have other choices. I get that some people will think thats a bad thing - such is life.

We currently have just over 1000 members. Since last Monday when we accepted our first registrations we have 35 puppies registered on our data base. Over a dozen applications for prefixes. Have I answered all of your questions?

Edited December 14, 2010 by Steve

[SwaY]

How close is a 'close relative'?

From the 2010 ANKC Conference paper.

1.16 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.3 - Registration of Progeny of Close

Matings

It was resolved that ANKC Member Bodies will not register the progeny of first degree matings

(father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister) on the Main Register. The only exceptions to this

would be where application was made to the Controlling Body prior to the mating on the basis

of health or genetic reasons to the benefit of the breed.

1.17 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.4 - Close Matings

It was resolved that the ANKC introduce the following regulations pertaining to Close Matings

from 1 July 2011.

“I shall not mate my bitch or dog to a close relative ie mother / son, father / daughter or brother

/ sister and I am fully aware that puppies as a result of these matings will not be registered

without first gaining pre-approval from the Member Body for the mating for scientifically proven

welfare or veterinary reasons.”

[Steve]

How close is a 'close relative'?

From the 2010 ANKC Conference paper.

1.16 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.3 - Registration of Progeny of Close

Matings

It was resolved that ANKC Member Bodies will not register the progeny of first degree matings

(father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister) on the Main Register. The only exceptions to this

would be where application was made to the Controlling Body prior to the mating on the basis

of health or genetic reasons to the benefit of the breed.

1.17 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.4 - Close Matings

It was resolved that the ANKC introduce the following regulations pertaining to Close Matings

from 1 July 2011.

"I shall not mate my bitch or dog to a close relative ie mother / son, father / daughter or brother

/ sister and I am fully aware that puppies as a result of these matings will not be registered

without first gaining pre-approval from the Member Body for the mating for scientifically proven

welfare or veterinary reasons."

So if they are not to be registered does that mean that if breeders have these puppies they can be sold without papers without breaching the code of conduct

is it that they cant be onthe main register or cant be on the limited register?

[SwaY]

You can download the summary here

http://www.ankc.org.au/Conference-Summary-2009.aspx

It says..

1.16 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.3 - Registration of Progeny of Close

Matings

It was resolved that ANKC Member Bodies will not register the progeny of first degree matings

(father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister) on the Main Register. The only exceptions to this

would be where application was made to the Controlling Body prior to the mating on the basis

of health or genetic reasons to the benefit of the breed.

1.17 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.4 - Close Matings

It was resolved that the ANKC introduce the following regulations pertaining to Close Matings

from 1 July 2011.

“I shall not mate my bitch or dog to a close relative ie mother / son, father / daughter or brother

/ sister and I am fully aware that puppies as a result of these matings will not be registered

without first gaining pre-approval from the Member Body for the mating for scientifically proven

welfare or veterinary reasons.”

1.18 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Clause 9.11, Subclause 6 – Deletion

It was resolved that ANKC Regulations Part 6, Clause 9.11, sub clause 6 be deleted in its

entirety:

6. Not withstanding 5 above the progeny of a variety other than its parents cannot be

registered on either the Main or Limited Register if the three [3] previous generations are

the same. (eg If all dogs for three [3] generations are the same variety, but are different

to the progeny then the progeny is illegible to be registered by the ANKC.

[Aziah]

...Sway beat me to it with up to date info.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Aziah

[Steve]

Sorry go slow - doesnt one say no registration on main and the other not at all.What am I missing?

[SwaY]

1.16 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.3 - Registration of Progeny of Close

Matings

It was resolved that ANKC Member Bodies will not register the progeny of first degree matings

(father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister) on the Main Register. The only exceptions to this

would be where application was made to the Controlling Body prior to the mating on the basis

of health or genetic reasons to the benefit of the breed.

1.17 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Section 8, Clause 8.4 - Close Matings

It was resolved that the ANKC introduce the following regulations pertaining to Close Matings

from 1 July 2011.

“I shall not mate my bitch or dog to a close relative ie mother / son, father / daughter or brother

/ sister and I am fully aware that puppies as a result of these matings will not be registered

without first gaining pre-approval from the Member Body for the mating for scientifically proven

welfare or veterinary reasons.”

Sorry go slow - doesnt one say no registration on main and the other not at all.What am I missing?

Below is a deletion.

1.18 ANKC Regulations Part 6, Clause 9.11, Subclause 6 – Deletion

It was resolved that ANKC Regulations Part 6, Clause 9.11, sub clause 6 be deleted in its

entirety:

6. Not withstanding 5 above the progeny of a variety other than its parents cannot be

registered on either the Main or Limited Register if the three [3] previous generations are

the same. (eg If all dogs for three [3] generations are the same variety, but are different

to the progeny then the progeny is illegible to be registered by the ANKC.

[SwaY]

I read it that any (father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister) will not be registered on Main - Why can't they just say will only be registered on Limited?

With that said you can still do the matings, just registered on limited. - Many BYB's won't care.

[Steve]

So 1.16 and 1.17 still stand but they deleted the bit about

6. Not withstanding 5 above the progeny of a variety other than its parents cannot be

registered on either the Main or Limited Register if the three [3] previous generations are

the same. (eg If all dogs for three [3] generations are the same variety, but are different

to the progeny then the progeny is illegible to be registered by the ANKC.

Is that right?

- what does that mean? Does this mean a variety other than their parents can now be registered? What is a variety ?

[SwaY]

So 1.16 and 1.17 still stand but they deleted the bit about

6. Not withstanding 5 above the progeny of a variety other than its parents cannot be

registered on either the Main or Limited Register if the three [3] previous generations are

the same. (eg If all dogs for three [3] generations are the same variety, but are different

to the progeny then the progeny is illegible to be registered by the ANKC.

Is that right?

- what does that mean? Does this mean a variety other than their parents can now be registered? What is a variety ?

I don't know, it's been deleted so it doesn't mater.

[Jed]

Honestly how many of us that have been around a while truly believe that miraculously everyone is waiting until they are told the bitch is old enough to mate. How many of us honestly believe that people miraculously stop mating their bitches when they are told they are too old or when a certain number of litters is reached. how many of us believe that people are not having back to back to back to back litters? How many of us dont know why mandatory DNA for parentage would be the last thing some breders would want to see ? How many of us truly believe that everyone will miraculously stop breeding close relatives.

I've been a member for decades, and surprise, surprise, I do believe that miraculously most people are waiting until they are told the bitch is old enough to mate. And I honestly believe that breeders stop mating their bitches when they are told they are too old.

Many of us do believe that breeders are not having back to back litters.

Perhaps you know different breeders from me? I know of several members who have been expelled for any or all of the above items. They weren't personal friends, but I knew of them. I know quite a few members, and if any of these are doing any of the above things, they obviously have another 50 dogs kennelled in secret out the back of Oodnagalarvy.

Since this one regulation has been put into place to take effect in July how many of us didnt know you can purchase papers for dogs which dont now or never did exist to cover if you use a related dog? Papers on the black market in Queensland since the regs came in are going for $500 each.

Well I certainly didn't.

Im not saying these things happen all the time or that most of us arent doing the right thing - even though the right thing is open to debate - but all of these regs dont stop those who were prepared to do these things without concerns for the dogs and it increases the risk of false info being entered on the registry

I personally believe that instead of covertly accusing ANKC members of blatant disregard for the regulations, as well as forging pedigrees, if you have evidence of any of the above, you should either name the people involved, OR, report them to their state CC.

Your remarks above are very derogatory to ALL registered breeders. You may know dishonest breeders. I certainly don't. If I did, I would have reported them long ago, for the good of the hobby. Maybe as a CC member, you should consider doing the same rather than making generalised and unprovable assertations?

In support of my remarks, "older" breeders and others would not be walking away from their CCs, or ceasing to breed, if they were lying about pedigrees, and/or using bitches in a way that flaunted the ANKC coe. They would have no need.

As far as the deleted rule #6 (discussed earlier in this thread), variety = breed. This rule forbids cross breeding - crossbreeds cannot be registered, nor can their progeny

Edited December 17, 2010 by Jed

[Miranda]

Honestly how many of us that have been around a while truly believe that miraculously everyone is waiting until they are told the bitch is old enough to mate. How many of us honestly believe that people miraculously stop mating their bitches when they are told they are too old or when a certain number of litters is reached. how many of us believe that people are not having back to back to back to back litters? How many of us dont know why mandatory DNA for parentage would be the last thing some breders would want to see ? How many of us truly believe that everyone will miraculously stop breeding close relatives.

I've been a member for decades, and surprise, surprise, I do believe that miraculously most people are waiting until they are told the bitch is old enough to mate. And I honestly believe that breeders stop mating their bitches when they are told they are too old.

Many of us do believe that breeders are not having back to back litters.

Perhaps you know different breeders from me? I know of several members who have been expelled for any or all of the above items. They weren't personal friends, but I knew of them. I know quite a few members, and if any of these are doing any of the above things, they obviously have another 50 dogs kennelled in secret out the back of Oodnagalarvy.

Since this one regulation has been put into place to take effect in July how many of us didnt know you can purchase papers for dogs which dont now or never did exist to cover if you use a related dog? Papers on the black market in Queensland since the regs came in are going for $500 each.

Well I certainly didn't.

Im not saying these things happen all the time or that most of us arent doing the right thing - even though the right thing is open to debate - but all of these regs dont stop those who were prepared to do these things without concerns for the dogs and it increases the risk of false info being entered on the registry

I personally believe that instead of covertly accusing ANKC members of blatant disregard for the regulations, as well as forging pedigrees, if you have evidence of any of the above, you should either name the people involved, OR, report them to their state CC.

Your remarks above are very derogatory to ALL registered breeders. You may know dishonest breeders. I certainly don't. If I did, I would have reported them long ago, for the good of the hobby. Maybe as a CC member, you should consider doing the same rather than making generalised and unprovable assertations?

In support of my remarks, "older" breeders and others would not be walking away from their CCs, or ceasing to breed, if they were lying about pedigrees, and/or using bitches in a way that flaunted the ANKC coe. They would have no need.

As far as the deleted rule #6 (discussed earlier in this thread), variety = breed. This rule forbids cross breeding - crossbreeds cannot be registered, nor can their progeny

Jed ;) ;) This is the best post I've read in this topic and I couldn't agree with you more You've said everything that I've been thinking, but unlike me you took the trouble to post your thoughts. I've been showing and breeding for decades too and I know nothing about fake papers. As for blatantly dishonest breeders you may get the odd dodgy one here or there as you do in all walks of life, but nothing to the extent that is being implied. Three cheers Jed, I salute you

[Bullbreedlover]

So 1.16 and 1.17 still stand but they deleted the bit about

6. Not withstanding 5 above the progeny of a variety other than its parents cannot be

registered on either the Main or Limited Register if the three [3] previous generations are

the same. (eg If all dogs for three [3] generations are the same variety, but are different

to the progeny then the progeny is illegible to be registered by the ANKC.

Is that right?

- what does that mean? Does this mean a variety other than their parents can now be registered? What is a variety ?

Are you serious?

Do you really have no idea what a variety is?

Or is that just your idea of a joke?

Good post Jed

[Steve]

Yes I agree that it isnt happening very often - how ever for the record the reason we hear more of this is because the MDBA gets calls into both offices and emails regarding these things with people asking advice and reporting to us what they see or things which have happened to them. Sometimes we get calls from legal people asking us what is the norm and expected in order for them to make claims for compensation etc too. Of course when we hear these things we then advise them on how to go about making complaints to the various state registering bodies and as far as I know they do. The person who offered me personally papers without dogs did so 15 years ago and she was reported.