Registered Breeders

[Steve]

I'm saying if there is to be an elite breeder program (or whatever you wish to call it) it should be done by the existing governing body.

And awarded as a high honor based on morals, ethics, knowledge and commitment

ANKC and It's members decide, not just pay a fee and you get it.

This is what I don't understand.

Here comes along an organisation that seeks to fill the voids that exists within another organisation (who is not dumb to what's going on; the grumblings; etc).

Breeders have a choice. Refuse to join the second organisation and work with what they've got and what they've had for ....... how long? Ummmm ..... 60 years now? ... ok, that's a choice, although people have tried to communicate; have voiced their concerns; have voiced their opinions; etc. etc. And it is how far a long to being better?

They can, if they wish, join another newer organisation. One which expresses its acknowledgement of problems that need addressing; that have needed addressing for a long long time but which (not for the want of nudging/trying) aren't being addressed satisfactorily and without detriment to the very breeders that are the 'other' organisation's members (this is as I understand things).

It will cost a fee. Certainly. I'd even expect that. But if that organisation was no threat to what I did as a breeder (if I was one) and indeed if that organisation could provide me with some benefit, be that by way of support/attestation to what I do and/or by support in working for better laws (or helping prevent or at least working against laws that are degenerative and in opposition to my very [ethical] aims and goals), then I can't see what the problem would be. I would happily pay that fee.

Btw .... What fee are we talking about, for breeders, Steve?

$55

[Erny]

$55

For a whole year, I presume?

[Steve]

$55

For a whole year, I presume?

yep or 77 if they are partnered.

[SwaY]

I'm saying if there is to be an elite breeder program (or whatever you wish to call it) it should be done by the existing governing body.

And awarded as a high honor based on morals, ethics, knowledge and commitment

ANKC and It's members decide, not just pay a fee and you get it.

This is what I don't understand.

Here comes along an organisation that seeks to fill the voids that exists within another organisation (who is not dumb to what's going on; the grumblings; etc).

Breeders have a choice. Refuse to join the second organisation and work with what they've got and what they've had for ....... how long? Ummmm ..... 60 years now? ... ok, that's a choice, although people have tried to communicate; have voiced their concerns; have voiced their opinions; etc. etc. And it is how far a long to being better?

They can, if they wish, join another newer organisation. One which expresses its acknowledgement of problems that need addressing; that have needed addressing for a long long time but which (not for the want of nudging/trying) aren't being addressed satisfactorily and without detriment to the very breeders that are the 'other' organisation's members (this is as I understand things).

It will cost a fee. Certainly. I'd even expect that. But if that organisation was no threat to what I did as a breeder (if I was one) and indeed if that organisation could provide me with some benefit, be that by way of support/attestation to what I do and/or by support in working for better laws (or helping prevent or at least working against laws that are degenerative and in opposition to my very [ethical] aims and goals), then I can't see what the problem would be. I would happily pay that fee.

Btw .... What fee are we talking about, for breeders, Steve?

It may fill some of the voids, but it can not do what the ANKC does in the terms of pure breed puppy registrations/showing/accepted world wide by governing bodies etc. I'm sure many would not be an ANKC member if they did not have to be - Fee aside.

To me it's like Bunnings being compared to Coles, both offer a different service.

[SwaY]

Yes that would be great except they still have the same restrictions and when some who have life memberships actually export puppies to pet shops it sort of puts a damper on it all anyway.

The accredited breeder programs are up and running now that's managed by the governing body do you think that's preferrable ? Tick the boxes and pay the fee and bobs your uncle.

QLD is the only one who has that program at present as far as im aware, and no I don't agree with the tick the boxes and pay you get it.

As I have previously said..

I'm saying if there is to be an elite breeder program (or whatever you wish to call it) it should be done by the existing governing body.

And awarded as a high honor based on morals, ethics, knowledge and commitment

ANKC and It's members decide, not just pay a fee and you get it.

No fee, an award.

Sounds interesting - how do you see that managed? We hand one out at every awards evening with the Diane Gunn Scarcella memorial award.

Its the only one we dont take nominations for from the public.

How do you pick your winner then, It comes from within the organisation same as I Imagine it.

[SwaY]

So this latter "body" is the body that you like/prefer. You (and I'm speaking broadly here) now have an opportunity to do something about all of these things with an organisation that is publicly stating and showing its willingness to try to fix the wrongs that have been occurring over years and years (and this by an already WELL ESTABLISHED - not yelling - body, not one who has been up and coming and in the making) and now you're all knocking it on the head???

Just commenting on this, when the MDBA started up I don't think its' goal was to start it's own registry, it had other agenda's.

This discussion is about the registry, not the MDBA. I would be saying the same thing if XXX wanted to do the same thing.

[Steve]

Yes that would be great except they still have the same restrictions and when some who have life memberships actually export puppies to pet shops it sort of puts a damper on it all anyway.

The accredited breeder programs are up and running now that's managed by the governing body do you think that's preferrable ? Tick the boxes and pay the fee and bobs your uncle.

QLD is the only one who has that program at present as far as im aware, and no I don't agree with the tick the boxes and pay you get it.

As I have previously said..

I'm saying if there is to be an elite breeder program (or whatever you wish to call it) it should be done by the existing governing body.

And awarded as a high honor based on morals, ethics, knowledge and commitment

ANKC and It's members decide, not just pay a fee and you get it.

No fee, an award.

Sounds interesting - how do you see that managed? We hand one out at every awards evening with the Diane Gunn Scarcella memorial award.

Its the only one we dont take nominations for from the public.

How do you pick your winner then, It comes from within the organisation same as I Imagine it.

Yes it does but its hard to do and its one stand out per year for something way out of the ordinary - how would they choose which breeders to elevate to some level over any other and what criteria would be used. How would you come to their attention over any other? How would you prove your worthiness and how many , and how often should this award be handed out?

[Erny]

It may fill some of the voids, but it can not do what the ANKC does in the terms of pure breed puppy registrations/showing/accepted world wide by governing bodies etc. I'm sure many would not be an ANKC member if they did not have to be - Fee aside.

To me it's like Bunnings being compared to Coles, both offer a different service.

But it's not a case of one or the other, is it? I thought I read earlier that it is about dual membership. Which basically means that for a whole $55 per year you have another organisation filling voids that the other one (which you still need to belong to for the reasons you mention) can't, won't or doesn't.

When I was in the legal industry, I paid a fee to two organisations. One membership ensured that I was legally able to sign as witness to certain legal documents. The other membership provided me with educational opportunities; status (ie competence assurity to the public). I didn't begrudge either. They each provided me with a service.

In this instance we have an organisation that provides you with certain services; world wide recognition/acceptance etc. on the one hand but is lacking in another area (eg. support and leadership against laws which are non-productive and unfair to the world of ethical breeders etc.)

Then we have an organisation (MDBA) which is offering an additional option to work in and around these issues. There's a fee (the person has to live, after all and the organisation needs to be able to pay its overheads and incidental expenses), but it is only $55 for a year. Take it or leave it.

But of course if you leave it then it will be a matter of accept and be satisfied with what you have if you can't change it yourself when others before you have made the contribution to try. If too many of you (meaning 'breeders') don't embrace the opportunity and if you don't get to change, fix, improve what needs to be changed, fixed and improved so that matters such as puppy farms; pet shop puppy sales; etc can be sorted out and ethical breeders be more easily identifiable to the public than is at present, then you risk missing out on that opportunity.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Erny

[Erny]

So this latter "body" is the body that you like/prefer. You (and I'm speaking broadly here) now have an opportunity to do something about all of these things with an organisation that is publicly stating and showing its willingness to try to fix the wrongs that have been occurring over years and years (and this by an already WELL ESTABLISHED - not yelling - body, not one who has been up and coming and in the making) and now you're all knocking it on the head???

Just commenting on this, when the MDBA started up I don't think its' goal was to start it's own registry, it had other agenda's.

This discussion is about the registry, not the MDBA. I would be saying the same thing if XXX wanted to do the same thing.

I realise this, SwaY. But didn't things have to change when it was met with opposition and resistance? I don't want to be speaking out of turn here and I may well have my understanding all wrong, so please feel free to step in Steve to correct me.

ETA: But I will also add that I too would be saying what I'm saying if "XXX" wanted to do the same thing and was being met with such resistance and negativity. I've been hanging out for an organisation to step up to the plate to help work through the bureaucratic red tape; to help try to make sense of some of the gooply gock nonsense talk that so often prevents us from understanding what we read (ie government laws and how they REALLY affect us); to help try to identify different ways of making headway rather than banging on about more and more laws when we know that more and more laws is the rotten path to nowhere that we all seem to be going (and that counts for anyone in the dog breeding/training/rescue industry). I wouldn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth (and at $55 per year for one person or $77 per year for two people, that's almost a steal) if someone presented an organisation to me that was willing and academically able to take on the lead position for such a job.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Erny

[SwaY]

How do you pick your winner then, It comes from within the organisation same as I Imagine it.

Yes it does but its hard to do and its one stand out per year for something way out of the ordinary - how would they choose which breeders to elevate to some level over any other and what criteria would be used. How would you come to their attention over any other? How would you prove your worthiness and how many , and how often should this award be handed out?

I'm sure the ANKC would work it out (if they were to implement it), just like the MDBA did when they started to offer the award.

[yarracully]

Here is my solution to the problem.

SCRAP all the dog bodies, councils etc, and make one body (or one that has the same ethics in every state)You could call it REGISTERED BREEDERS - NOT PUPPY FARMERS OR BYB SCUM.

One of the ETHICS/CODE OF CONDUCT or whatever you want to call it is

1 LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DOGS (NONE OF THESE BIG 100 PLUS establishments)

2 PURE BREDS ONLY

3 MAKE A WEBSITE FOR ALL PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE THE TERMS AND A CONDITION OF JOINING IS THAT YOU ARE PUBLICALLY PUT ON THE WEBSITE

That would be very easy for the average pup buyer to understand.

So it would be simple. REGISTERED REPUTABLE breeders vs Puppy Farm scum

So you are with one or the other.

The problem as I see it is that some "so called" reputable breeders end up being puppy farmers.

The governing councils need to get serious and put DOGS first

Problem then becomes that a group decide they dont like some part and then they form their own registry. Opps thats what has already happened.

Trouble is that certain groups making new registries all the time simply compound the issue. If we only had the one registry (ANKC) then there would be no need for this discussion. But the forming of various different groups and their registries simply makes the situation where members of the public are confused. And a new registry just started by a certain body only adds fuel to the fire.

Our registry was started as a service to our members to enable them to track genetic , health and temperament issues and to ensure that any dogs being placed on that registry had the necessary proofs in place to ensure the genetic data was being collected and recorded. We do not have one breeder member who is not also an ANKC member - our registry isnt an instead of but rather an as well as and there is nothing fuelling any fire except people who want to make it into something it isnt by accusing us of doing the most ridiculous things. A handful of people decided it was one thing and the crap that is spread is taken as what it is. For over 6 years the MDBA has worked to encourage people to join the ANKC and to promote purebred dogs but now because we introduced something which is a tool our members can use which helps to see things in a pedgree which to date hasnt been available we have to be treated like we have committed some crime.

The only thing we have done which is any different than hundreds of others have done is that we have done it for all breeds rather than just one. Pick a breed and most of them have a separate registry and they have had for years which records genetic test results and makes them available to their members.

If Annie had been talking to someone who was registered with the MDBA then she wouldnt have had a problem because the expectation is what is expected for an ANKC member.

The problem has nothing to do with us providing extra data on a pedigree it occurred because she bumped someone who was registered as a breeder with a commercial cross bred registry using the same language she expected only purebred regsitered breeders would use.

As far as any registry such as the pet breeders registry is concerned the government is responsible for that because they have given exemptions to the ANKC and the only way any other group could get the same exemptions for their members is to register their dogs. If Annie or anyone else bumps into someone saying they are registered with less requirements on them than an ANKC breeder that has nothing whatever to do with us.

Accredited breeder schemes via the ANKC elevate one registered breeder over another and put more requirements on what a breeder has to do to register their puppies and that is seen as O.K. but because we have made it much harder than they have for our members and to be able to register their puppies it's frowned upon.

Dogs NSW and Dogs queensland can say that some of their members are better than other members who they still register and who they still register puppies for but when we say our members are better than some other breeders all hell breaks. Some of the breeders who have been given accredited breeder status wouldnt get into the MDBA and their puppies would not be able to be registered on our registry.

Across the board everyone has seen what we have done as something great with the exception of a handful of purebred breeders who made a snap decision based on assumption and feed it up to be something it isnt.

Councils have been registering breeders and their dogs, issuing permits and the like and so have the the AAPDB for years . Breeders have been saying they are registered

when they are not ANKC registered and trying to pin the situation on us as fuelling the fire by introducing ours makes little sense.

Firstly Julie I am not going to get into any discussion of what the MDBA does or why. Thats between you and your membership.

The fact still remains that if you have a single registry there wouldn't be the confusion but when you have a registry as maintained by the ANKC then another maintained by the Working Dog group and another maintained by the Pet industry and yet another maintained by the MDBA for whatever reason that is where members of the public get confused. They don't understand the reason for these different registries. As such members of the public think they are all the same thing when they are not. That is why there is so much confusion about the term "registered breeder".

When a member of the public buys their dog and gets some piece of paper from the AAPDB or whoever they assume it means the same as the papers issude by other organisations. There are even some that conjour up their own registry name and create their own "papers" to go with the dogs they sell. And to Joe Public this means the same as papers issued by ANKC, FCI, MDBA or any other register.

The public don't know the difference unless they find out at some point afterwards and then its too late. They then discover that the papers they got for their precious pup don't mean what they thought they did.

As for the health matters to which you refer I am quite happy to leave that for my ANKC affiliated breed council to deal with it. And Yes I do realise that not all breeds are so represented.

As for the accusations and problems you mentioned I don't know what they are nor do I care, so I cant see the relevance in including that statement when replying to my post.

As to the accredited breeder scheme I don't agree with it. The reason I don't agree with it is because who are they to say breeder X is better than I. They have no idea the measures I take with my dogs. They don't know the health testing and profiling I do. It strikes me as simply a money grabbing exercise.

Further I didn't try and pin the situation on your body. I simply pointed out that having different registries issuing different papers etc only serves to confuse the public who have no idea of the difference.

In regard to councils issuing permits etc. this is usually because they need the money. No amount of different registries or breeder bodies is going to solve that problem

ETA: I have even seen some people promote themselves as registered breeders simply based on the fact their dogs were registered with the local council. They simply dont realise the difference

Edited January 9, 2011 by yarracully

[Steve]

So this latter "body" is the body that you like/prefer. You (and I'm speaking broadly here) now have an opportunity to do something about all of these things with an organisation that is publicly stating and showing its willingness to try to fix the wrongs that have been occurring over years and years (and this by an already WELL ESTABLISHED - not yelling - body, not one who has been up and coming and in the making) and now you're all knocking it on the head???

Just commenting on this, when the MDBA started up I don't think its' goal was to start it's own registry, it had other agenda's.

This discussion is about the registry, not the MDBA. I would be saying the same thing if XXX wanted to do the same thing.

That's right we had no intention what ever of getting anywhere near a registry and this thread was about how people could find a reputable breeder not the registry.

The code of conduct which has been under the microscope is about members not pedigrees. Being able to offer the ability to breeders to better profile a pedigree is not some big sin. No one has expected that any of them will leave the ANKC or do anything different via registrations than they have always done. If someone wants to use the service we offer to do a better job of breeding healthier puppies and provide that data to other breeders and puppy buyers where is the harm in this? If we want to say you cant register your puppies with us unless you do certain mandatory tests which the ANKC dont have as mandatory - how does this hurt anyone ?

If I want to DNA my parent dogs and enter that , if I want to test my parents and enter that and if I want to be able to access that sort of info from other breeders over generations how does this cause a problem? If I want to give my puppy buyers an extra piece of paper to let them know the parents had to be profiled and tested and what the results are of them and their ancestors why is this something I have to defend?

What is it exactly that people are so against us having a register of our members dogs?

[SwaY]

It may fill some of the voids, but it can not do what the ANKC does in the terms of pure breed puppy registrations/showing/accepted world wide by governing bodies etc. I'm sure many would not be an ANKC member if they did not have to be - Fee aside.

To me it's like Bunnings being compared to Coles, both offer a different service.

But it's not a case of one or the other, is it? I thought I read earlier that it is about dual membership. Which basically means that for a whole $55 per year you have another organisation filling voids that the other one (which you still need to belong to for the reasons you mention) can't, won't or doesn't.

The dual membership/fee doesn't bother me, it might bother some others.

The voids the MDBA might fill do not fix any of the ANKC problems there might be, instead it takes it away from them and doesn't make them stand up and fix the problems. If you were to say we are starting a business/organisation to tackle the ANKC problems, I would be the first to put my money where my mouth is.

Two registries, how is that helping out the purebred registered dog world?

You would have one registry that can register puppies/show/FCI/World Wide etc and another who might have a better COE but won't be recognised by the rest of the world in regards to puppies/show/FCI etc

So yes it is a case of one or the other for many Breeders/Showies/Obedience etc

World Wide recognised puppies and Titles, vs Recognised in Australia Only.

[Steve]

Here is my solution to the problem.

SCRAP all the dog bodies, councils etc, and make one body (or one that has the same ethics in every state)You could call it REGISTERED BREEDERS - NOT PUPPY FARMERS OR BYB SCUM.

One of the ETHICS/CODE OF CONDUCT or whatever you want to call it is

1 LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DOGS (NONE OF THESE BIG 100 PLUS establishments)

2 PURE BREDS ONLY

3 MAKE A WEBSITE FOR ALL PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE THE TERMS AND A CONDITION OF JOINING IS THAT YOU ARE PUBLICALLY PUT ON THE WEBSITE

That would be very easy for the average pup buyer to understand.

So it would be simple. REGISTERED REPUTABLE breeders vs Puppy Farm scum

So you are with one or the other.

The problem as I see it is that some "so called" reputable breeders end up being puppy farmers.

The governing councils need to get serious and put DOGS first

Problem then becomes that a group decide they dont like some part and then they form their own registry. Opps thats what has already happened.

Trouble is that certain groups making new registries all the time simply compound the issue. If we only had the one registry (ANKC) then there would be no need for this discussion. But the forming of various different groups and their registries simply makes the situation where members of the public are confused. And a new registry just started by a certain body only adds fuel to the fire.

Our registry was started as a service to our members to enable them to track genetic , health and temperament issues and to ensure that any dogs being placed on that registry had the necessary proofs in place to ensure the genetic data was being collected and recorded. We do not have one breeder member who is not also an ANKC member - our registry isnt an instead of but rather an as well as and there is nothing fuelling any fire except people who want to make it into something it isnt by accusing us of doing the most ridiculous things. A handful of people decided it was one thing and the crap that is spread is taken as what it is. For over 6 years the MDBA has worked to encourage people to join the ANKC and to promote purebred dogs but now because we introduced something which is a tool our members can use which helps to see things in a pedgree which to date hasnt been available we have to be treated like we have committed some crime.

The only thing we have done which is any different than hundreds of others have done is that we have done it for all breeds rather than just one. Pick a breed and most of them have a separate registry and they have had for years which records genetic test results and makes them available to their members.

If Annie had been talking to someone who was registered with the MDBA then she wouldnt have had a problem because the expectation is what is expected for an ANKC member.

The problem has nothing to do with us providing extra data on a pedigree it occurred because she bumped someone who was registered as a breeder with a commercial cross bred registry using the same language she expected only purebred regsitered breeders would use.

As far as any registry such as the pet breeders registry is concerned the government is responsible for that because they have given exemptions to the ANKC and the only way any other group could get the same exemptions for their members is to register their dogs. If Annie or anyone else bumps into someone saying they are registered with less requirements on them than an ANKC breeder that has nothing whatever to do with us.

Accredited breeder schemes via the ANKC elevate one registered breeder over another and put more requirements on what a breeder has to do to register their puppies and that is seen as O.K. but because we have made it much harder than they have for our members and to be able to register their puppies it's frowned upon.

Dogs NSW and Dogs queensland can say that some of their members are better than other members who they still register and who they still register puppies for but when we say our members are better than some other breeders all hell breaks. Some of the breeders who have been given accredited breeder status wouldnt get into the MDBA and their puppies would not be able to be registered on our registry.

Across the board everyone has seen what we have done as something great with the exception of a handful of purebred breeders who made a snap decision based on assumption and feed it up to be something it isnt.

Councils have been registering breeders and their dogs, issuing permits and the like and so have the the AAPDB for years . Breeders have been saying they are registered

when they are not ANKC registered and trying to pin the situation on us as fuelling the fire by introducing ours makes little sense.

Firstly Julie I am not going to get into any discussion of what the MDBA does or why. Thats between you and your membership.

The fact still remains that if you have a single registry there wouldn't be the confusion but when you have a registry as maintained by the ANKC then another maintained by the Working Dog group and another maintained by the Pet industry and yet another maintained by the MDBA for whatever reason that is where members of the public get confused. They don't understand the reason for these different registries. As such members of the public think they are all the same thing when they are not. That is why there is so much confusion about the term "registered breeder".

When a member of the public buys their dog and gets some piece of paper from the AAPDB or whoever they assume it means the same as the papers issude by other organisations. There are even some that conjour up their own registry name and create their own "papers" to go with the dogs they sell. And to Joe Public this means the same as papers issued by ANKC, FCI, MDBA or any other register.

The public don't know the difference unless they find out at some point afterwards and then its too late. They then discover that the papers they got for their precious pup don't mean what they thought they did.

As for the health matters to which you refer I am quite happy to leave that for my ANKC affiliated breed council to deal with it. And Yes I do realise that not all breeds are so represented.

As for the accusations and problems you mentioned I don't know what they are nor do I care, so I cant see the relevance in including that statement when replying to my post.

As to the accredited breeder scheme I don't agree with it. The reason I don't agree with it is because who are they to say breeder X is better than I. They have no idea the measures I take with my dogs. They don't know the health testing and profiling I do. It strikes me as simply a money grabbing exercise.

Further I didn't try and pin the situation on your body. I simply pointed out that having different registries issuing different papers etc only serves to confuse the public who have no idea of the difference.

In regard to councils issuing permits etc. this is usually because they need the money. No amount of different registries or breeder bodies is going to solve that problem

Yes I agree.

[Steve]

It may fill some of the voids, but it can not do what the ANKC does in the terms of pure breed puppy registrations/showing/accepted world wide by governing bodies etc. I'm sure many would not be an ANKC member if they did not have to be - Fee aside.

To me it's like Bunnings being compared to Coles, both offer a different service.

But it's not a case of one or the other, is it? I thought I read earlier that it is about dual membership. Which basically means that for a whole $55 per year you have another organisation filling voids that the other one (which you still need to belong to for the reasons you mention) can't, won't or doesn't.

The dual membership/fee doesn't bother me, it might bother some others.

The voids the MDBA might fill do not fix any of the ANKC problems there might be, instead it takes it away from them and doesn't make them stand up and fix the problems. If you were to say we are starting a business/organisation to tackle the ANKC problems, I would be the first to put my money where my mouth is.

Two registries, how is that helping out the purebred registered dog world?

You would have one registry that can register puppies/show/FCI/World Wide etc and another who might have a better COE but won't be recognised by the rest of the world in regards to puppies/show/FCI etc

So yes it is a case of one or the other for many Breeders/Showies/Obedience etc

World Wide recognised puppies and Titles, vs Recognised in Australia Only.

I dont see its a case of one or the other at all, Its certainly not for me and it isnt for anyone else who has registered their puppies with us so far.

Our registry is helping out the purebred dog world in a way the ANKC doesnt and there are a hell of a lot more than 2 registries

Given that all of our breeder members are ANKC members and the code of conduct says they have to register every live pup on the ANKC registry then every pup that goes on our registry is also on the ANKC registry. How is this a problem or doing the purebred dog world any harm?

[D & D]

I dont see its a case of one or the other at all, Its certainly not for me and it isnt for anyone else who has registered their puppies with us so far.

Our registry is helping out the purebred dog world in a way the ANKC doesnt and there are a hell of a lot more than 2 registries

Given that all of our breeder members are ANKC members and the code of conduct says they have to register every live pup on the ANKC registry then every pup that goes on our registry is also on the ANKC registry. How is this a problem or doing the purebred dog world any harm?

What details of the dogs registered on your registry are used? (Kennel name, registration number, microchip number, etc.)

My pedigree certificates state that "This certificate remains the property of the issuing body............" Would that not make all the information on the certificate their property, too?

[Steve]

The certificate [piece of paper] is always the property of the issuing registry but the information is in the public domain and able to be used just as they have been used all over the net in hundreds of situations and data bases. There are also several precedents where this has happened where ANKC pedigrees have been used by another registry any way.

We enter all of the usual stuff which the owners provide and then add in DNA and test results - other titles and in some cases job descriptions and anything else which may interest someone who is looking at the pedigree to work out what is the best dog to use.

We dont take the pup's pedigree certificate which has been generated by the ANKC and copy it we dont need to see it we add the data from the information and various certificates for health and screening microchipping etc given to us by the breeder and the certificates we produce remain the property of the owner of the dog.

[SwaY]

That's right we had no intention what ever of getting anywhere near a registry and this thread was about how people could find a reputable breeder not the registry.

The code of conduct which has been under the microscope is about members not pedigrees. Being able to offer the ability to breeders to better profile a pedigree is not some big sin. No one has expected that any of them will leave the ANKC or do anything different via registrations than they have always done. If someone wants to use the service we offer to do a better job of breeding healthier puppies and provide that data to other breeders and puppy buyers where is the harm in this? If we want to say you cant register your puppies with us unless you do certain mandatory tests which the ANKC dont have as mandatory - how does this hurt anyone ?

If I want to DNA my parent dogs and enter that , if I want to test my parents and enter that and if I want to be able to access that sort of info from other breeders over generations how does this cause a problem? If I want to give my puppy buyers an extra piece of paper to let them know the parents had to be profiled and tested and what the results are of them and their ancestors why is this something I have to defend?

What is it exactly that people are so against us having a register of our members dogs?

So if this registry is just about health, why the shows, change breed standards etc?

We have no mandatory health testing in my breed, I have been pushing for it via the Vic Club.

We tried to get a National Body again so we could take it to the ANKC, the some of the other clubs would not agree.

I will still test for my sake and my puppy buyers sake regardless.

If you check my site you will see I am one of only a handful in my breed who hip and elbow score, and yet I go further by doing ECG and Thyroid - I think there is 2-3 who do this, including myself - My results are public.

Unless the ANKC brings in mandatory health testing it will do people no good.

As only those who want to be open and honest will be, the others will keep it to themselves like they do now.

An example, on my results site which gets over 5000 hits a week world wide there is a Hip and Elbow score page. Breeders/owners can submit there results for all to see OR submit the results as Anonymous ( to try and encourage people to submit results) I care more about the breed average score then the dog who the results belong to - Sure if I plan to use a dog/buy a puppy etc I want to know, but if it's just dog XXXX it does not concern me. The breed average is what concerns me. In 2 years we have 24 dogs listed, 80% are pet owners. 2yr old page. The site has been widely promoted by various methods and people, yet people still don't want to test nor advise others of there results.

As only those who want to be open and honest will be, the others will keep it to themselves like they do now.

ETA The words - change breed standards etc?

Edited January 9, 2011 by SwaY

[SwaY]

The certificate [piece of paper] is always the property of the issuing registry but the information is in the public domain and able to be used just as they have been used all over the net in hundreds of situations and data bases.

A bit like Glen's database Meg.

[raz]

Most criminals are not that clever, mostly from lower socio-economic groups and also poorly educated. Not too many clever ones.

Oh sorry this thread is so over the place now I had to pick up on this.

Getting back to the OP - how does someone pick a good breeder? Word of mouth. It goes a longggggg way.