C.c.c. Qld's New Breeder Accredited System

[Wags]

I forgot to say in my prior post.

What if every breeder in Queensland becomes accredited ?.

That puts us all back on the same level. Oh well back to square one and a lot more money in Dogs Queensland pockets.

But thats really the whole point - if they felt it was needed why didn't they just make it a change to the COE for everyone?

Why did they set a system up which made it look like they allowed members who were rotten and why did they set a system up which sees puppies being regsitered by some who may not be doing the right thing

Why didnt they just tell them to bugger off , that we were all doing the right thing and if we dont they will chuck us out ?

Why did they play this game? It cant be for more money.

Time will tell but now its done sooner or later breeders will give in and pay the money tick the boxes or be seen to be lesser breeders.Would have been different if no one joined but looks to me like its a run away train.

Its a done deal and accredited breeders are being promoted over any others even though any one who can read can still see they dont have to do anything more than they do now. Whats more they can still sell to pet shops and still breed crossbred dogs and still breed hundreds of puppies each year.

Then they would all need to be transparent and screened regularly - something they seem to be dodging. You see, it's not just the application and it's components, it's the ongoing monitoring and screening which is designed to keep everyone on the straight and narrow. Those not keeping up with standards will be given the opportunity to change, and be more closely screened in the process. Those that refuse will then be dealt with accordingly.

Canine control councils presently only act on (some) complaints. This is an ongoing monitoring and screening independant of personal grudges and breeder jealousy as is sometimes the case in complaints being received by CCC to date.

If you've ever been involved with accreditation in the care industry, you will also know that it is taken very very seriously because passing accreditation means they can continue to operate. I see no reason why breeder accreditation should be treated any less seriously. It may well be feared by those who fully understand the process and who are not confident in maintaining it.

Personally I believe that every registered breeder ought to be under an accreditation scheme. I'm actually hoping that this is a prelude to the need for accreditation, but not until we've got the unregistered breeders monitorable and answerable. Indeed the State register may well be a pathway to more people taking their breeding seriously and becoming accredited. Wouldn't that be wonderful.

I have worked in several animal industries that require äccreditation",and it is a crock of $%#t.Welfare standards are blatantly ignored,covered up or paid off,the ones doing the auditing tend to turn blind eyes to everything.Animal äccreditation"is not the same as human accreditation.

This will be no different-how hard is it to get 2 made up refs and a vet reference?

I know of a reg poodle breeder that is a puppy farmer-she has/had 30 odd bitches,we never saw any of them at the vet clinic,only the pups for vaccinations-she also glowingly told us about all her öodle"orders she had,you can breed 2 unpapered dogs together no problem,but hey you never know,she is prbably now accredited fine to go and buy a crappy puppy off.Her dogs are brought up in a shed like livestock,no socialisation whatsoever,but the shed meets the requirements for the scheme.

None of her dogs are health tested at all either,and the pups get sold to petshops

Bloody glad i got out of it when i did.

Anyone who has difficulty in meeting requirements and regulations would certainly view things from this point of view.

Thanks-you know me and my dogs do you??How dare you.

Accreditation is not the bees knees you make it out to be-i have sat in on several audits-TB'S,pigs and chickens,that is how i know accreditation is a load of bullshit,flagrant flouting of the rules,standards and some cases auditors that didnt even show up-but they passed their accreditation????

I hip/elbow scored 2 generations,and some siblings,and had also arranged to test select siblings as well when old enough,was also going to do cardiac testing(not a requirement in my breed),i showed and man trailed as well .I tried to ensure the right thing by my pups by offering $250 desexing rebates,gave all puppies exhaustive socialisation,spent whole weekends with puppy owners telling them the ins and outs.

I can give you as many references as you wish,by puppy owners,i had people come to me for pups that had one of the first ones i ever bred in 1999 when i didnt have a clue,i have ones that have pups from later litters that have bought another from me.I can also give you refs from police officers,teachers where i did demos at the school and my SES unit,as well as AQUIS supervisors in the active dog section and several judges.

So dont tell me i am afraid because i wouldnt meet the requirements for the breeder scheme.I would have joined the MDBA before any other as at least they have a clue and strict entry requirements .As a breeder,what do YOU offer to your breed that puts you right up in the exalted ranks of accredited breeders far above us shifty low lifes that have always done whats in their bloody scheme anyway.

I know you as much as you know breeders you are maligning. How does it feel? Not happy Jan? Then perhaps you should curtail yourself.

[Sandra777]

production of valid and meaningful references from other breeders and clients and also from a vet who has known the breeder for some time and dealt with him/her, which is relevant to breeding principles.

"I hereby state that I have known the above-mentioned breeder for __________

months / years (circle one) and in my opinion this breeder has provided for the

welfare and well-being of all animals I have previously examined."

This is cut and pasted from the Veterinary reference required as published on the CCCQ website. In what way is this statement even faintly relevant to "breeding principles"? Unless you are saying the CCCQ then phones the vet and asks more in depth questions? I doubt they would be allowed to since no where on the form gives permission for anyone to do so. I can't see anywhere that it states there is a minimum time for the vet to have dealt with the breeder, just a place for the vet to fill in how long they have - so what guidelines have been established for this? Same questions have to be asked about the puppy buyers - do they have to be people who have a clue about whether they have been ripped off or not, does the breeder get to choose 2 puppy buyers or does the CCCQ say which two? How does the CCCQ know these two puppy buyers aren't best mates with the ''breeder'' who will later pump some more litters out of these pups to the mutual benefit of everyone's bank balance?

"other breederS" er, no ONE breeder, and again, is there something unwritten somewhere that has been decided how long this other breeder has to have been involved in dogs before they become a valid referee, or does anyone who has a prefix qualify? (Is there any requirement for this other breeder NOT to live on the same property? would be another question)

Do you see why I am having issues Wags - all waffle and good intentions but no substance written anywhere I can access so I can't help but wonder if there is no substance or if it's all just going to be made up as we go along? (And I don't mean improvements, I mean the basics!)

There is also a requirement for an undertaking in regard to continued breeding principles and practices. That is the application and it sounds simple but does take quite a bit of thought and effort.

What takes thought and effort - to say yeah sure, I'll do all that without anything written that says that any of it has actually been done - just lots of "we might require" stuff. There's not even any actual requirement for them to prove upfront that their claims regarding health testing are true which would be one of the easiest things to implement. Perhaps 6 months down the track they will be made to prove it but why not up front? How hard would it be to say - include copies of the certificates for xx number of dogs you state have been tested. If the breed has no health testing commonly associated with it then the breeder can say no they don't health test because there are no health tests associated with their breed and they can be judged on their merits in that way.

The ongoing requirements are spontaneous site visits and inspections (I would imagine with some notice hopefully so we can ensure we're all in order), production of health certification and record keeping etc. It is no different to the desk submission and site inspection for the care industry, if you're familiar with it.

The production of health certificates "might" be required. The spontaneous site visit "may" happen. And to what use? Pretty kennels don't mean someone is even faintly ethical. Yes, it will pick up the disgustingly filthy places but the SPCA don't close some of these places down now - why are we meant to have any faith in the CCCQ will be any more enthusiastic about acting?

OK, to be fair perhaps we should have faith that they will until proven otherwise rather than be doubters and wonder if they will, but based on experiences with them not acting in the face of other complaints I'm not surprised at the scepticism

Edited February 1, 2011 by Sandra777

[Wags]

There is no problem for me I can see what you're saying but if everyone has to already agree to this when they become members and already give the nod to having their site inspected etc what am I missing?

It implies that those who have agreed to be accredited have agreed to something different to or more difficult to comply with than any other registered breeder yet at least in this regard I cant see the difference - I sort of get the feeling there is more to it.

So if they are now policing it more with site inspections which they can pull on any member at any time anyway and surveys why not just leave this one out?

Why have this in there ? Does this mean if you are not accredited you dont have to comply with this? I dont think so because accredited or not you have agreed to comply with it. Does this mean if you are not accredited you are off the hook and wont be inspected?

Hard to see the logic in it .

Yes, the accredited breeders have gone through the same examination requirements and undertakings as a registered breeder, and the more involved submission and requirements attached to accreditation as well, plus have undertaken to be part of the site visits. This effectively formalises 'standards' to be maintained and encompasses inspections to ensure that those standards are in fact maintained.

I've yet to hear of any CCC doing adhoc inspections to date. They may if there's been an ongoing complaint situation and the inspection is part of the investigation.

I initially wondered why they didn't just instigate the accreditation to breeder registration, but they have the current registered breeders who have agreed to the current regulations and conditions, plus they are giving the breeders the opportunity of freely getting on board rather than simply commanding. New breeders apply for normal registration and as I'm not a new breeder I haven't ascertained whether there is a period of for want of a better word,

'traineeship' with a Mentor prior to being able to apply for accreditation. I suspect this might be the case.

[Wags]

production of valid and meaningful references from other breeders and clients and also from a vet who has known the breeder for some time and dealt with him/her, which is relevant to breeding principles.

"I hereby state that I have known the above-mentioned breeder for __________

months / years (circle one) and in my opinion this breeder has provided for the

welfare and well-being of all animals I have previously examined."

This is cut and pasted from the Veterinary reference required as published on the CCCQ website. In what way is this statement even faintly relevant to "breeding principles"? Unless you are saying the CCCQ then phones the vet and asks more in depth questions? I doubt they would be allowed to since no where on the form gives permission for anyone to do so. I can't see anywhere that it states there is a minimum time for the vet to have dealt with the breeder, just a place for the vet to fill in how long they have - so what guidelines have been established for this? Same questions have to be asked about the puppy buyers - do they have to be people who have a clue about whether they have been ripped off or not, does the breeder get to choose 2 puppy buyers or does the CCCQ say which two? How does the CCCQ know these two puppy buyers aren't best mates with the ''breeder'' who will later pump some more litters out of these pups to the mutual benefit of everyone's bank balance?

"other breederS" er, no ONE breeder, and again, is there something unwritten somewhere that has been decided how long this other breeder has to have been involved in dogs before they become a valid referee, or does anyone who has a prefix qualify? (Is there any requirement for this other breeder NOT to live on the same property? would be another question)

Do you see why I am having issues Wags - all waffle and good intentions but no substance written anywhere I can access so I can't help but wonder if there is no substance or if it's all just going to be made up as we go along? (And I don't mean improvements, I mean the basics!)

There is also a requirement for an undertaking in regard to continued breeding principles and practices. That is the application and it sounds simple but does take quite a bit of thought and effort.

What takes thought and effort - to say yeah sure, I'll do all that without anything written that says that any of it has actually been done - just lots of "we might require" stuff. There's not even any actual requirement for them to prove upfront that their claims regarding health testing are true which would be one of the easiest things to implement. Perhaps 6 months down the track they will be made to prove it but why not up front? How hard would it be to say - include copies of the certificates for xx number of dogs you state have been tested. If the breed has no health testing commonly associated with it then the breeder can say no they don't health test because there are no health tests associated with their breed and they can be judged on their merits in that way.

The ongoing requirements are spontaneous site visits and inspections (I would imagine with some notice hopefully so we can ensure we're all in order), production of health certification and record keeping etc. It is no different to the desk submission and site inspection for the care industry, if you're familiar with it.

The production of health certificates "might" be required. The spontaneous site visit "may" happen. And to what use? Pretty kennels don't mean someone is even faintly ethical. Yes, it will pick up the disgustingly filthy places but the SPCA don't close some of these places down now - why are we meant to have any faith in the CCCQ will be any more enthusiastic about acting?

OK, to be fair perhaps we should have faith that they will until proven otherwise rather than be doubters and wonder if they will, but based on experiences with them not acting in the face of other complaints I'm not surprised at the scepticism

You're not silly enough to believe that they won't be looking at doing this - perhaps you should go through your Dog Blogs and get the real picture.

[Wags]

production of valid and meaningful references from other breeders and clients and also from a vet who has known the breeder for some time and dealt with him/her, which is relevant to breeding principles.

"I hereby state that I have known the above-mentioned breeder for __________

months / years (circle one) and in my opinion this breeder has provided for the

welfare and well-being of all animals I have previously examined."

This is cut and pasted from the Veterinary reference required as published on the CCCQ website. In what way is this statement even faintly relevant to "breeding principles"? Unless you are saying the CCCQ then phones the vet and asks more in depth questions? I doubt they would be allowed to since no where on the form gives permission for anyone to do so. I can't see anywhere that it states there is a minimum time for the vet to have dealt with the breeder, just a place for the vet to fill in how long they have - so what guidelines have been established for this? Same questions have to be asked about the puppy buyers - do they have to be people who have a clue about whether they have been ripped off or not, does the breeder get to choose 2 puppy buyers or does the CCCQ say which two? How does the CCCQ know these two puppy buyers aren't best mates with the ''breeder'' who will later pump some more litters out of these pups to the mutual benefit of everyone's bank balance?

"other breederS" er, no ONE breeder, and again, is there something unwritten somewhere that has been decided how long this other breeder has to have been involved in dogs before they become a valid referee, or does anyone who has a prefix qualify? (Is there any requirement for this other breeder NOT to live on the same property? would be another question)

Do you see why I am having issues Wags - all waffle and good intentions but no substance written anywhere I can access so I can't help but wonder if there is no substance or if it's all just going to be made up as we go along? (And I don't mean improvements, I mean the basics!)

There is also a requirement for an undertaking in regard to continued breeding principles and practices. That is the application and it sounds simple but does take quite a bit of thought and effort.

What takes thought and effort - to say yeah sure, I'll do all that without anything written that says that any of it has actually been done - just lots of "we might require" stuff. There's not even any actual requirement for them to prove upfront that their claims regarding health testing are true which would be one of the easiest things to implement. Perhaps 6 months down the track they will be made to prove it but why not up front? How hard would it be to say - include copies of the certificates for xx number of dogs you state have been tested. If the breed has no health testing commonly associated with it then the breeder can say no they don't health test because there are no health tests associated with their breed and they can be judged on their merits in that way.

The ongoing requirements are spontaneous site visits and inspections (I would imagine with some notice hopefully so we can ensure we're all in order), production of health certification and record keeping etc. It is no different to the desk submission and site inspection for the care industry, if you're familiar with it.

The production of health certificates "might" be required. The spontaneous site visit "may" happen. And to what use? Pretty kennels don't mean someone is even faintly ethical. Yes, it will pick up the disgustingly filthy places but the SPCA don't close some of these places down now - why are we meant to have any faith in the CCCQ will be any more enthusiastic about acting?

OK, to be fair perhaps we should have faith that they will until proven otherwise rather than be doubters and wonder if they will, but based on experiences with them not acting in the face of other complaints I'm not surprised at the scepticism

Sandra, I'm sorry to say that I am taking your attitude with a grain of salt and not even bothering to read them. If you have problems with being open and transparent and being subjected to scrutiny - that's your choice - please stop trying to convince me otherwise

[Bullbreedlover]

As I've said before, Dogs Queensland are brave enough to instigate positive change, and it's amazing that with all the accusations, criticism and maligning in the industry, there hasn't been a rush of support.

The instigate of positive change is certainly a more attractive alternative to your cynicism, maligning and negativitgy.

Wags

DogsQld cant even adhere to ANKC regulations, and yes I have proof. How the heck are dogslqd going to police this new accreditation system when they cant even look in their own back yard and do the right thing?

What a joke. And they have the balls to go to bed with the RSPCA.

Yeah I am pissed off. DogsQld members had the opportunity a few years ago to make changes to the way the council were voted in. Sadly I was very new to the country and wasnt up to the play with it.

But unfortunately it was voted to keep the way the system is now.

Clearly now a huge downfall for the pedigree breeders in Qld.

[Steve]

There is no problem for me I can see what you're saying but if everyone has to already agree to this when they become members and already give the nod to having their site inspected etc what am I missing?

It implies that those who have agreed to be accredited have agreed to something different to or more difficult to comply with than any other registered breeder yet at least in this regard I cant see the difference - I sort of get the feeling there is more to it.

So if they are now policing it more with site inspections which they can pull on any member at any time anyway and surveys why not just leave this one out?

Why have this in there ? Does this mean if you are not accredited you dont have to comply with this? I dont think so because accredited or not you have agreed to comply with it. Does this mean if you are not accredited you are off the hook and wont be inspected?

Hard to see the logic in it .

Yes, the accredited breeders have gone through the same examination requirements and undertakings as a registered breeder, and the more involved submission and requirements attached to accreditation as well, plus have undertaken to be part of the site visits. This effectively formalises 'standards' to be maintained and encompasses inspections to ensure that those standards are in fact maintained.

I've yet to hear of any CCC doing adhoc inspections to date. They may if there's been an ongoing complaint situation and the inspection is part of the investigation.

I initially wondered why they didn't just instigate the accreditation to breeder registration, but they have the current registered breeders who have agreed to the current regulations and conditions, plus they are giving the breeders the opportunity of freely getting on board rather than simply commanding. New breeders apply for normal registration and as I'm not a new breeder I haven't ascertained whether there is a period of for want of a better word,

'traineeship' with a Mentor prior to being able to apply for accreditation. I suspect this might be the case.

I know that there have been some inspections in NSW - I cant speak for Queensland but the reality is that the inspections we are discussing for accredited breeders are not adhoc any way so that's not really an arguement.

This is still my question - why didnt they just instigate these things for all members because the reality is I can only see 2 which are not already there.

I can see why those 2 things would be a bit sticky and knowing breeders as I do would really start a public flogging if they did but honestly its hard to follow why the things which are already there are being touted as something over and beyond.

Give it time the usual reaction to anything new is to imagine all kinds of things which are not real and to pick on those who are more open to change.

[Wags]

There is no problem for me I can see what you're saying but if everyone has to already agree to this when they become members and already give the nod to having their site inspected etc what am I missing?

It implies that those who have agreed to be accredited have agreed to something different to or more difficult to comply with than any other registered breeder yet at least in this regard I cant see the difference - I sort of get the feeling there is more to it.

So if they are now policing it more with site inspections which they can pull on any member at any time anyway and surveys why not just leave this one out?

Why have this in there ? Does this mean if you are not accredited you dont have to comply with this? I dont think so because accredited or not you have agreed to comply with it. Does this mean if you are not accredited you are off the hook and wont be inspected?

Hard to see the logic in it .

Yes, the accredited breeders have gone through the same examination requirements and undertakings as a registered breeder, and the more involved submission and requirements attached to accreditation as well, plus have undertaken to be part of the site visits. This effectively formalises 'standards' to be maintained and encompasses inspections to ensure that those standards are in fact maintained.

I've yet to hear of any CCC doing adhoc inspections to date. They may if there's been an ongoing complaint situation and the inspection is part of the investigation.

I initially wondered why they didn't just instigate the accreditation to breeder registration, but they have the current registered breeders who have agreed to the current regulations and conditions, plus they are giving the breeders the opportunity of freely getting on board rather than simply commanding. New breeders apply for normal registration and as I'm not a new breeder I haven't ascertained whether there is a period of for want of a better word,

'traineeship' with a Mentor prior to being able to apply for accreditation. I suspect this might be the case.

I know that there have been some inspections in NSW - I cant speak for Queensland but the reality is that the inspections we are discussing for accredited breeders are not adhoc any way so that's not really an arguement.

This is still my question - why didnt they just instigate these things for all members because the reality is I can only see 2 which are not already there.

I can see why those 2 things would be a bit sticky and knowing breeders as I do would really start a public flogging if they did but honestly its hard to follow why the things which are already there are being touted as something over and beyond.

Give it time the usual reaction to anything new is to imagine all kinds of things which are not real and to pick on those who are more open to change.

Well, if you can't see the difference between simply an open book exam and an undertaking which may or may not be upheld, compared to the additional scrutiny of having to present evidence of principled and ethical breeding initially, then physically monitoring both through new owners and on site inspections instead of doing nothing unless pushed to do so, then I guess I don't know how to explain it to you so that it is understood. I broached my thoughts in regard to just instigating it across the board with registered breeders in a previous post.

As I also noted in a previous post in regard to the remainder of registered breeders, I'm hoping like mad that it will eventually flow over to all registered breeders and there'll be no 'off the hook'. It is because accredited breeders are being noted as accredited that non-accredited breeders are complaining because it indicates that they have achieved more than the registered breeders. They have certainly been prepared to undertake closer scrutiny and to be subject to adhoc inspections and ongoing monitoring - I don't see where registered breeders have (and I'm also a registered breeder). Why shouldn't they get recognition for this?

I for one took on the accreditation seriously for what the accreditation process is and don't see it as a means simply to obtain more income for Dogs Queensland or a flippant process.

It's such a pity, in my eyes anyway, that so many breeders can't embrace it openly and I must admit I do wonder what their problem is and what they must be afraid of. I still say that Dogs Queensland are actually 'doing' something about improving the standards through their accreditation process and that is brave and proactive. I did say to my partner that this will certainly sort out a few unethical and irresponsible breeders. Frankly if I were Dogs Queensland I would have a tendency to be reading the reaction as one which might well indicate the need for a mandatory accreditation scheme for all registered breeders.

Again I advise that Dogs Queensland GM has made a great effort to convey to Queensland breeders that the inspections will occur so those that are disputing them should get their facts straight. Interesting that so much focus is on the inspections, isn't it.

I've done my best and if you guys all want to drown yourselves in fear, cynicism and negativity go right ahead and do so. I'll revert back to simply quietly and confidently maintaining my own beliefs and hope you guys don't wreck something positive in the meantime.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Wags

[Crisovar]

There is no problem for me I can see what you're saying but if everyone has to already agree to this when they become members and already give the nod to having their site inspected etc what am I missing?

It implies that those who have agreed to be accredited have agreed to something different to or more difficult to comply with than any other registered breeder yet at least in this regard I cant see the difference - I sort of get the feeling there is more to it.

So if they are now policing it more with site inspections which they can pull on any member at any time anyway and surveys why not just leave this one out?

Why have this in there ? Does this mean if you are not accredited you dont have to comply with this? I dont think so because accredited or not you have agreed to comply with it. Does this mean if you are not accredited you are off the hook and wont be inspected?

Hard to see the logic in it .

Yes, the accredited breeders have gone through the same examination requirements and undertakings as a registered breeder, and the more involved submission and requirements attached to accreditation as well, plus have undertaken to be part of the site visits. This effectively formalises 'standards' to be maintained and encompasses inspections to ensure that those standards are in fact maintained.

I've yet to hear of any CCC doing adhoc inspections to date. They may if there's been an ongoing complaint situation and the inspection is part of the investigation.

I initially wondered why they didn't just instigate the accreditation to breeder registration, but they have the current registered breeders who have agreed to the current regulations and conditions, plus they are giving the breeders the opportunity of freely getting on board rather than simply commanding. New breeders apply for normal registration and as I'm not a new breeder I haven't ascertained whether there is a period of for want of a better word,

'traineeship' with a Mentor prior to being able to apply for accreditation. I suspect this might be the case.

I know that there have been some inspections in NSW - I cant speak for Queensland but the reality is that the inspections we are discussing for accredited breeders are not adhoc any way so that's not really an arguement.

This is still my question - why didnt they just instigate these things for all members because the reality is I can only see 2 which are not already there.

I can see why those 2 things would be a bit sticky and knowing breeders as I do would really start a public flogging if they did but honestly its hard to follow why the things which are already there are being touted as something over and beyond.

Give it time the usual reaction to anything new is to imagine all kinds of things which are not real and to pick on those who are more open to change.

Well, if you can't see the difference between simply an open book exam and an undertaking which may or may not be upheld, compared to physically monitoring offering evidence of principled and ethical breeding initially, then both through new owners and on site inspections instead of doing nothing unless pushed to do so, then I guess I don't know how to explain it to you so that it is understood. I broached my thoughts in regard to just instigating it across the board with registered breeders in a previous post.

I for one took on the accreditation for what accreditation is and don't see it as a means simply to obtain more income for Dogs Queensland.

It's such a pity, in my eyes anyway, that so many breeders can't embrace it openly and I must admit I do wonder what their problem is and what they must be afraid of. I still say that Dogs Queensland are actually 'doing' something about improving the standards through their accreditation process and that is brave and proactive.

I've done my best and if you guys all want to drown yourselves in cynicism and negativity go right ahead and do so. I'll revert back to simply quietly and confidently maintaining my own beliefs and hope you guys don't wreck something positive in the meantime.

Why do those pushing something always bleat that those against it are afraid of it.

There are already dodgy unethical breeders who wear the accredited badge, so what really does it mean?

[Wags]

As I've said before, Dogs Queensland are brave enough to instigate positive change, and it's amazing that with all the accusations, criticism and maligning in the industry, there hasn't been a rush of support.

The instigate of positive change is certainly a more attractive alternative to your cynicism, maligning and negativitgy.

Wags

DogsQld cant even adhere to ANKC regulations, and yes I have proof. How the heck are dogslqd going to police this new accreditation system when they cant even look in their own back yard and do the right thing?

What a joke. And they have the balls to go to bed with the RSPCA.

Yeah I am pissed off. DogsQld members had the opportunity a few years ago to make changes to the way the council were voted in. Sadly I was very new to the country and wasnt up to the play with it.

But unfortunately it was voted to keep the way the system is now.

Clearly now a huge downfall for the pedigree breeders in Qld.

I would suggest that you update your cynicism. We have a new GM and he has instigated more initiatives than just the accreditation scheme, and these have far outmode the rules regulations and principles of the other states. These include breeding principles in regard to line breeding as well as other things.

I'm beginning to wonder whether interstate breeders are beginning to feel very threatened that their canine controls might just follow suit which would be no bad thing in my eyes.

[Lowenhart]

It's such a pity, in my eyes anyway, that so many breeders can't embrace it openly and I must admit I do wonder what their problem is and what they must be afraid of.

Wags I can see that you have totally ignored the views of experienced breeders expressed here.

Of course you know better, know more than anyone else. Especially those old, stupid breeders who know nothing.

Good luck to you.

[Steve]

Wags said = Well, if you can't see the difference between simply an open book exam and an undertaking which may or may not be upheld, compared to the additional scrutiny of having to present evidence of principled and ethical breeding initially, then physically monitoring both through new owners and on site inspections instead of doing nothing unless pushed to do so, then I guess I don't know how to explain it to you so that it is understood. I broached my thoughts in regard to just instigating it across the board with registered breeders in a previous post.

Of course I can see the difference in that - but isnt that saying more about how they manage their current members? Again I ask given that these things with the exception of two of them are already things every person agrees to already as registered breeders how will these members who do not go after accreditation for what ever reason - be that because they cant or because they wont on principal - be managed? Surely its the members who dont sign up and jump through the hoops who should be monitored more because they havent presented evidence as the others have ?????????

[WreckitWhippet]

As I've said before, Dogs Queensland are brave enough to instigate positive change, and it's amazing that with all the accusations, criticism and maligning in the industry, there hasn't been a rush of support.

The instigate of positive change is certainly a more attractive alternative to your cynicism, maligning and negativitgy.

Wags

DogsQld cant even adhere to ANKC regulations, and yes I have proof. How the heck are dogslqd going to police this new accreditation system when they cant even look in their own back yard and do the right thing?

What a joke. And they have the balls to go to bed with the RSPCA.

Yeah I am pissed off. DogsQld members had the opportunity a few years ago to make changes to the way the council were voted in. Sadly I was very new to the country and wasnt up to the play with it.

But unfortunately it was voted to keep the way the system is now.

Clearly now a huge downfall for the pedigree breeders in Qld.

I would suggest that you update your cynicism. We have a new GM and he has instigated more initiatives than just the accreditation scheme, and these have far outmode the rules regulations and principles of the other states. These include breeding principles in regard to line breeding as well as other things.

I'm beginning to wonder whether interstate breeders are beginning to feel very threatened that their canine controls might just follow suit which would be no bad thing in my eyes.

if only it were funny

what you mean is they are pushing the RSPCA and PETA wheelbarrow.

Lets' not forget that QLD paved the way for BSL and were they not the first to cave when it came to tail docking ?

QLD , the state that will not recognise the "neuter title " , at a time when the majority of the other states are actively trying to encourage those with neuters to get out in the ring.

[WreckitWhippet]

It's such a pity, in my eyes anyway, that so many breeders can't embrace it openly and I must admit I do wonder what their problem is and what they must be afraid of.

Wags I can see that you have totally ignored the views of experienced breeders expressed here.

Of course you know better, know more than anyone else. Especially those old, stupid breeders who know nothing.

Good luck to you.

Not just "experienced" Lowenhart, but four of them who have made comments in this thread, I absolutely admire and consider they set the benchmark when it comes to breeding practices , welfare and producing quality dogs.

[Wags]

Well so far i have not herd any real good reasons why not to back the system except for COSTS or not having FAITH in the system because it has already been infiltrated by less than honest breeders which somehow seems to be stretching things with unproven statements about their practises. Doesn't Accreditation in fact PROVE the breeder is preferred by the CCC its self.....? Surely the CCC wouldnt support bad breeders known to them from the old system.

BigW...the CCCQ or DogsQld cant even abide by the rules of ANKC in some cases. How are they going to set a precedence to breeders when they cant even do that?

And I never said anything about unproven statements. I have all the proof in the world. CCCQ didnt want to know about it when questioned of their actions. ANKC couldnt go against the decision of CCCQ

In another matter DogsQld stuffed up majorly concerning the registration of puppies in another breed and then had to back track big time when said puppies parentage needed DNA testing.

So when the registry themselves cant abide by rules it doesnt hold much hope for the Accreditation system does it?

So if you do want some good reasons, you dont have to dig deep to find them. I am sure every breed will have bad breeders. I am sure others will know of lots of dodgy practices

Yet these people may portray themsleves as being totally trustworthy.

The mentor system is definetly needed, but there in lies another problem. Each indiviual breeder has their own interpretation of the Standard and of breeding practices. Who is to say their opinion is correct. I have shown pedigree dogs for 35 years. My mentors were my parents. I have had the good judgement and the foresight to truly appreciate why each of my breeds exist, the standards as they should be applied in my breeding programmes, and the ability to recognise a wonderful specimen. I am not kennel blind either. But just because people put their names down to be a mentor doesn't necessarily mean that they have the qualities as a person to fullfil the task. Many mentoring situations happen by word of mouth not by payment of money.

There is no point in trying to discuss anything in a group where the uninformed, negative, cynical, non-proactive and destructive approach RULES. All that does is promote those things. You guys don't want improvement. No wonder there is so much negativity in regard to registered breeders and show fraternity. You are your own worst enemies. Bitch on - I have better things to do.

[WreckitWhippet]

What , you're packing your bat and ball already and going off in a huff, as the some breeders won't swallow the pill as intended

[Wags]

What , you're packing your bat and ball already and going off in a huff, as the some breeders won't swallow the pill as intended

NOPE, I've just accepted that those too frightened of being subjected to scrutiny will condemn anyone who has the courage to stand up and be counted. All I see written here is a reaction to fear of discovery. Belittle, discount, condemn and take all steps to destroy something which is threatening to you. I'm a much more positive person than to choose to become part of that. And yes, I'M AN ACCREDITED BREEDER !!!!!! AND PROUD OF IT. Can you say that No I didin't think so.

[Bullbreedlover]

What , you're packing your bat and ball already and going off in a huff, as the some breeders won't swallow the pill as intended

NOPE, I've just accepted that those too frightened of being subjected to scrutiny will condemn anyone who has the courage to stand up and be counted. All I see written here is a reaction to fear of discovery. Belittle, discount, condemn and take all steps to destroy something which is threatening to you. I'm a much more positive person than to choose to become part of that. And yes, I'M AN ACCREDITED BREEDER !!!!!! AND PROUD OF IT. Can you say that No I didin't think so.

To frightened of being subjected to scrutiny

You are an accredited breeder. Well done. Do you want a medal for your trouble?

eta

If you knew what I know then you might change your tune about ethical accredited breeders.

Edited February 1, 2011 by stonebridge

[mita]

I have no problem with the fact that something extra is needed, from a consumer point of view. Given that the canine associations are essentially registeries, with ethical guidelines that are a matter of faith, not policing.

Good to have an accreditation system that formalises key quality aspects. like mentoring & some monitoring of actual sites. And I like the fact that the system remains in the hands of registered breeders themselves, not an outside agency. This is how I'm used to professional organisations operating. But I also know that still a lot of the professional development takes place outside the formal system. Like, friends talking on the phone...or just chatting/visiting off their own bat.

Of course, any such system doesn't mean there'll be those not so good, who'll slip thro'. It just makes it a bit harder to do.

And it doesn't take away the need for 'consumers' to use their own judgment, too. Just the same way that while all doctors are registered, it's still necessary for patients to be discriminating. And use your own nose to find the most genuine.

I'd only wonder why the whole shaboozle of accreditation isn't included with basic registration as a breeder anyway. And why it's presently, the extra mile for those who are willing. Maybe they didn't want to drag anyone kicking & screaming into a system they're not keen on.

Edited February 1, 2011 by mita

[Wags]

What , you're packing your bat and ball already and going off in a huff, as the some breeders won't swallow the pill as intended

NOPE, I've just accepted that those too frightened of being subjected to scrutiny will condemn anyone who has the courage to stand up and be counted. All I see written here is a reaction to fear of discovery. Belittle, discount, condemn and take all steps to destroy something which is threatening to you. I'm a much more positive person than to choose to become part of that. And yes, I'M AN ACCREDITED BREEDER !!!!!! AND PROUD OF IT. Can you say that No I didin't think so.

Forgot to say that this would no doubt bring some yelling and screaming, justifications and more of the above - seems I wasn't wrong. Enjoy yourselves as I said before, you are your own worst enemies.