Time To Scrap All Puppy Farms

[juice]

Ok, point taken, perhaps i have just seen too many not doing the right thing , that it has tarnished my view.

And i know there are also many bad rescue's out there too.

My thoughts were just, something does need to be done about puppy farming, but i can see that it would also restrict the good breeders.

Its a hard one, how do you sort the good from the bad?

[Sheridan]

How does shutting down puppyfarms also shut down good breeders?

[KatrinaM]

Why do those who don't support puppy farmed pups in petshops due to impulse buying, unsuitable environments for animals and untrained staff support the sale of rescue dogs under the same circumstance? How does that work?

I live on a property and keep a large number of dogs. They also travel with me, come to work with me and get to live here for the rest of their life as desexed pets unless a a home I deem is suitable comes along. My dogs are working dogs, health screened and temperament tested. I take back anything I breed for any reason ever, guarantee health and temperament, breed cross bred and pures and the most prolific brood bitches are two grey muzzled bitches with two litters each to their name. Am I good breeder because I test my dogs and stand behind them or bad because I keep a lot of dogs and have cross breds? Should I keep less females and breed them more often? Should I euth all my retired dogs? Have all litters sired by a single dog? Would I be more ethical if I only bred pure breds but didn't health test ???

One mans dodgy breeder is another persons ethical ideal. I am frightened that people pushing for these laws know little about actually breeding and are basing their views on animal rights not animal welfare.

[Steve]

How does shutting down puppyfarms also shut down good breeders?

It doesnt as long as we all agree on what a puppy farm is and what it is we want shut down.

[Steve]

Ok, point taken, perhaps i have just seen too many not doing the right thing , that it has tarnished my view.

And i know there are also many bad rescue's out there too.

My thoughts were just, something does need to be done about puppy farming, but i can see that it would also restrict the good breeders.

Its a hard one, how do you sort the good from the bad?

Well I thought we had all systems go.We sat in a room for bloody hours with a whole bunch of people from all different breeder, welfare , vet and pet shop groups and talked it through.We left in the belief we were now able to define what a puppy farm is and what needed to be done to ensure they were stopped.

The RSPCA Australia took the reins and whilst we didnt agree on some of the finer details we could see a fair potential that we could do something to stop people who bred dogs in rotten conditions - regardless of how many or what their motivation was.

Then animal right's come in and use their own definition and all of it goes to hell. Any hope of breeders being prepared to be more open and more transparent ,therefore more accountable,easily seen if they are doing the wrong thing etc is put back by miles. Everything planned to bring in real laws and regs and real solutions are smashed because the method and info given is so easily seen as fanatics and beaten up and just as the pet shop campaign failed because it was generated by emoton, assumption and lack of credibility thats exactly the way this will go.

Breeders who are not motivated by the money and who dont have large amounts invested in infa structure [kennels etc] are asking themselves why they would continue to be involved .. Responsible breeders go underground,or work out its not worth the grief and irresponsible ones are more likely to do all they can to avoid being spotted.

[Steve]

Why do those who don't support puppy farmed pups in petshops due to impulse buying, unsuitable environments for animals and untrained staff support the sale of rescue dogs under the same circumstance? How does that work?

I live on a property and keep a large number of dogs. They also travel with me, come to work with me and get to live here for the rest of their life as desexed pets unless a a home I deem is suitable comes along. My dogs are working dogs, health screened and temperament tested. I take back anything I breed for any reason ever, guarantee health and temperament, breed cross bred and pures and the most prolific brood bitches are two grey muzzled bitches with two litters each to their name. Am I good breeder because I test my dogs and stand behind them or bad because I keep a lot of dogs and have cross breds? Should I keep less females and breed them more often? Should I euth all my retired dogs? Have all litters sired by a single dog? Would I be more ethical if I only bred pure breds but didn't health test ???

One mans dodgy breeder is another persons ethical ideal. I am frightened that people pushing for these laws know little about actually breeding and are basing their views on animal rights not animal welfare.

NODS.

[SpotTheDog]

NODS.

Steve, do you have any links to anything I can read up on about how this process went? e.g. the date and time of the meeting, who chaired, who decided who would attend, who was due to run with the definitions and so on, and what happened next?

If the RSPCA were holding the reins, did they drop them? Or was it the influence of the media yet again in policymaking, undoing the work you guys did by giving air time to the Animal Welfare Activists because of the potential pull of such an emotive story?

(Government here, I have seen and heard from those within Departments, reacts strongly to the media - anything that has media coverage is on the minister's desk within minutes.)

I ask because I've opened a right can of research worms myself. Prompted by how I feel about Victoria's rushed dangerous dog legislation, I spent a few pretty long nights reading and following links and trawling through archives and calling people from ages past and getting information about why the legislation as it stands on dangerous dogs won't make a difference. But of course, that sort of approach should always be balanced by what will make a difference.

I'm very careful not to take the information and stances on personal web pages as God's own tears and that has involved me trudging through a lot of legislation from other jurisdictions. (The Calgary Model, for instance. I heard about it, I had views on it, I read about it from personal webpages, I had other views on it, and then I printed up the animal bylaws from Calgary and read them in tandem with Calgary's 2010 annual report, and now I have all SORTS of views on it.)

What I am starting to realise is that animal welfare and control in this country cannot be tackled in bites. If we want to create a safe community for our pets and our children, if we want to prevent wilful animal cruelty and if we want to place a higher value on animals and our moral responsibility towards them as a society, we need to look at the whole pie. That pie starts with who breeds dogs and why and that ties in inextricably to how owners manage their pets and what powers our councils and rangers should have to protect our community and the place of our pets in the community.

So that's where I'm coming from, and any info you have - links, PM, whatever would be most welcome.

PS: Did I say I had a headache?

[Steve]

NODS.

Steve, do you have any links to anything I can read up on about how this process went? e.g. the date and time of the meeting, who chaired, who decided who would attend, who was due to run with the definitions and so on, and what happened next?

If the RSPCA were holding the reins, did they drop them? Or was it the influence of the media yet again in policymaking, undoing the work you guys did by giving air time to the Animal Welfare Activists because of the potential pull of such an emotive story?

(Government here, I have seen and heard from those within Departments, reacts strongly to the media - anything that has media coverage is on the minister's desk within minutes.)

I ask because I've opened a right can of research worms myself. Prompted by how I feel about Victoria's rushed dangerous dog legislation, I spent a few pretty long nights reading and following links and trawling through archives and calling people from ages past and getting information about why the legislation as it stands on dangerous dogs won't make a difference. But of course, that sort of approach should always be balanced by what will make a difference.

I'm very careful not to take the information and stances on personal web pages as God's own tears and that has involved me trudging through a lot of legislation from other jurisdictions. (The Calgary Model, for instance. I heard about it, I had views on it, I read about it from personal webpages, I had other views on it, and then I printed up the animal bylaws from Calgary and read them in tandem with Calgary's 2010 annual report, and now I have all SORTS of views on it.)

What I am starting to realise is that animal welfare and control in this country cannot be tackled in bites. If we want to create a safe community for our pets and our children, if we want to prevent wilful animal cruelty and if we want to place a higher value on animals and our moral responsibility towards them as a society, we need to look at the whole pie. That pie starts with who breeds dogs and why and that ties in inextricably to how owners manage their pets and what powers our councils and rangers should have to protect our community and the place of our pets in the community.

So that's where I'm coming from, and any info you have - links, PM, whatever would be most welcome.

PS: Did I say I had a headache?

When the discussion paper went out comments were called for and the RSPCA Australia who chaired the meeting invited those groups which had submitted comments to them to attend.

It was held in Canberra and from memory. Dogs NSW,ANKC, MDBA, AAPDB, PIAA,Young lawyers,Deathrow pets, RSPCA Australia ,RSPCA ACT and RSPCA NSW , AVA and AWL.

If I take a bit of time Id be able to dig out dates but for now Id be guessing.

The RSPCA havent dropped the reins and they have made some good progress so far and a major part of the plan is in having breeders out in the open and not hiding away regardless of how many they own or breed to ensure the dogs in their care are being treated as they should be.

We went and banged a drum and tried to get breeders to see they needed DA's and complied with codes and laws even though we dont agree with some of them but then when they do they are beaten black and blue Now anyone who dares to ask if they can breed dogs on their property know they will probably cop some crap and that lots of stress and grief is to follow. The big guys stick it out and appeal and win or go to another shire. The little guys dont dare ask.

Then comes illegal raids and sensationalism and that makes everyone alienated and frightened especially when you get them "dobbing in a puppy farmer" when puppy farmer is defined by a multitude of things.

There isnt any point in pushing for things to happen which are prevented from happening under federal law - It wastes time and is divisive and if cant be seen to look at it and present it objectively its not going to have the same chance of sucess

I agree with you and think you are on the right track though the Clagary model is a good base line I think it needs a small change to work effectively in Australia. dont underestmate the egos and the politics.

[toy*dog]

NODS.

Steve, do you have any links to anything I can read up on about how this process went? e.g. the date and time of the meeting, who chaired, who decided who would attend, who was due to run with the definitions and so on, and what happened next?

If the RSPCA were holding the reins, did they drop them? Or was it the influence of the media yet again in policymaking, undoing the work you guys did by giving air time to the Animal Welfare Activists because of the potential pull of such an emotive story?

(Government here, I have seen and heard from those within Departments, reacts strongly to the media - anything that has media coverage is on the minister's desk within minutes.)

I ask because I've opened a right can of research worms myself. Prompted by how I feel about Victoria's rushed dangerous dog legislation, I spent a few pretty long nights reading and following links and trawling through archives and calling people from ages past and getting information about why the legislation as it stands on dangerous dogs won't make a difference. But of course, that sort of approach should always be balanced by what will make a difference.

I'm very careful not to take the information and stances on personal web pages as God's own tears and that has involved me trudging through a lot of legislation from other jurisdictions. (The Calgary Model, for instance. I heard about it, I had views on it, I read about it from personal webpages, I had other views on it, and then I printed up the animal bylaws from Calgary and read them in tandem with Calgary's 2010 annual report, and now I have all SORTS of views on it.)

What I am starting to realise is that animal welfare and control in this country cannot be tackled in bites. If we want to create a safe community for our pets and our children, if we want to prevent wilful animal cruelty and if we want to place a higher value on animals and our moral responsibility towards them as a society, we need to look at the whole pie. That pie starts with who breeds dogs and why and that ties in inextricably to how owners manage their pets and what powers our councils and rangers should have to protect our community and the place of our pets in the community.

So that's where I'm coming from, and any info you have - links, PM, whatever would be most welcome.

PS: Did I say I had a headache?

When the discussion paper went out comments were called for and the RSPCA Australia who chaired the meeting invited those groups which had submitted comments to them to attend.

It was held in Canberra and from memory. Dogs NSW,ANKC, MDBA, AAPDB, PIAA,Young lawyers,Deathrow pets, RSPCA Australia ,RSPCA ACT and RSPCA NSW , AVA and AWL.

If I take a bit of time Id be able to dig out dates but for now Id be guessing.

The RSPCA havent dropped the reins and they have made some good progress so far and a major part of the plan is in having breeders out in the open and not hiding away regardless of how many they own or breed to ensure the dogs in their care are being treated as they should be.

We went and banged a drum and tried to get breeders to see they needed DA's and complied with codes and laws even though we dont agree with some of them but then when they do they are beaten black and blue Now anyone who dares to ask if they can breed dogs on their property know they will probably cop some crap and that lots of stress and grief is to follow. The big guys stick it out and appeal and win or go to another shire. The little guys dont dare ask.

Then comes illegal raids and sensationalism and that makes everyone alienated and frightened especially when you get them "dobbing in a puppy farmer" when puppy farmer is defined by a multitude of things.

There isnt any point in pushing for things to happen which are prevented from happening under federal law - It wastes time and is divisive and if cant be seen to look at it and present it objectively its not going to have the same chance of sucess

I agree with you and think you are on the right track though the Clagary model is a good base line I think it needs a small change to work effectively in Australia. dont underestmate the egos and the politics.

the more we get into all this the more it seems to be a big bloody mess im sure glad that we have an organisation like MDBA that obviously act professionally, diplomatically and also brings rationalism to the debate.

As DV said they are working behind the scenes too so 2 organisations for pedigree dogs sticking up for us all and has our backs is all good i think to myself.

[SpotTheDog]

When the discussion paper went out comments were called for and the RSPCA Australia who chaired the meeting invited those groups which had submitted comments to them to attend.

It was held in Canberra and from memory. Dogs NSW,ANKC, MDBA, AAPDB, PIAA,Young lawyers,Deathrow pets, RSPCA Australia ,RSPCA ACT and RSPCA NSW , AVA and AWL.

If I take a bit of time Id be able to dig out dates but for now Id be guessing.

The RSPCA havent dropped the reins and they have made some good progress so far and a major part of the plan is in having breeders out in the open and not hiding away regardless of how many they own or breed to ensure the dogs in their care are being treated as they should be.

We went and banged a drum and tried to get breeders to see they needed DA's and complied with codes and laws even though we dont agree with some of them but then when they do they are beaten black and blue Now anyone who dares to ask if they can breed dogs on their property know they will probably cop some crap and that lots of stress and grief is to follow. The big guys stick it out and appeal and win or go to another shire. The little guys dont dare ask.

Then comes illegal raids and sensationalism and that makes everyone alienated and frightened especially when you get them "dobbing in a puppy farmer" when puppy farmer is defined by a multitude of things.

There isnt any point in pushing for things to happen which are prevented from happening under federal law - It wastes time and is divisive and if cant be seen to look at it and present it objectively its not going to have the same chance of sucess

I agree with you and think you are on the right track though the Clagary model is a good base line I think it needs a small change to work effectively in Australia. dont underestmate the egos and the politics.

Thanks for that info.

So with the definition of a puppy farm - the definition upheld by the RSPCA etc is a useful definition that came out of a working group involving the key stakeholders in the animal care world. I want to be clear on this - the problem then is not the 'official' definition of a puppy farm; you're saying the problem is public opinion and media pressure?

Sorry if I'm not picking it up right - let me go back to the beginning. Has the definition of a puppy farm that came out of that meeting been accepted as a universal definition for use in Australian legislation? If it hasn't, can you tell me where the resistance to upholding the definition comes from (e.g. politics, ego, something else?)

I understand that there are deep complexities around points of view about dog breeding. Some of the most staunchly pro-animal people in the nation will openly savage some of the most ethical and responsible dog breeders in the nation purely because the former believe the latter are "adding to the problem".

With the Calgary model, I've read the bylaws and was very impressed by the clear and rational thinking behind them. However the results in the Calgary 2010 annual report don't uphold what I'd been led to believe about the model being a cure-all for dog attacks - which is how it's presented by many pro-pit factions. (And again in anything I'm trying to learn about and get others interested in, I'm steering away from focusing on pitbull terriers). I've been doing more to figure out why the model hasn't had the effects I've been told it had. Perhaps it did initially, but now there are other problems that need to be investigated and accounted for. (I need to find out if anyone's conducted an evaluation on the Calgary animal bylaws and implementation thereof.) Some problems apparently include that Calgary never dealt with laws around breeding, and by rescinding BSL they've left their region open to abuse from unscrupulous breeders of fighting dogs. The region has also allegedly become a dumping ground for fighting dogs from other regions where BSL is in force. Add a measure of public hearsay to those allegations, and you come up with a dangerous rumour mill about how the Calgary model is full of holes (which I don't believe - I do think it's the most progressive and effective animal control legislation we have to work with). It also lends grist to the pro-BSL mill, who can choose to ignore the really positive outcomes from Calgary and focus on the bad - a tendency that isn't exclusive to critics of that model.

[sandgrubber]

Here's a link to the document Steve was talking about . . . posted by toy*dog on the parallel thread on puppy farms etc. (Posted 22 September 2011 - 08:13 AM)

hey guys is this it?

puppy farming the way forward

[KatrinaM]

Spot the dog, I think as well as an amended Calgary model there needs to be some very careful attention paid to breeding, breeders and the keeping of entire animals.

Behaviors associated or intensified by reproductive hormones are a leading factor in dog bites. I am not pro mandatory desex, but I think there needs to be some huge incentives for people to get their pets desexed. Cheap and readily available, registration incentives increased, etc. I think breeders should be licensed, much like gun owners and if you own an entire dog you will have completed a basic course in dog breeding. The inclusion of a licence number could be policed by those who accept the adds.

Just as what defines a puppy farmer was hashed out what defines an acceptable breeder needs to be done the same. Them we need to arm them with the resources to become better breeeders.

[toy*dog]

My dogs are working dogs, health screened and temperament tested. I take back anything I breed for any reason ever, guarantee health and temperament, breed cross bred and pures and the most prolific brood bitches are two grey muzzled bitches with two litters each to their name. Am I good breeder because I test my dogs and stand behind them or bad because I keep a lot of dogs and have cross breds? Should I keep less females and breed them more often? Should I euth all my retired dogs? Have all litters sired by a single dog? Would I be more ethical if I only bred pure breds but didn't health test ???

One mans dodgy breeder is another persons ethical ideal. I am frightened that people pushing for these laws know little about actually breeding and are basing their views on animal rights not animal welfare.

i don't mean to be rude or anything but i am genuinely interested in what you are saying here in the above statement, you breed cross breed dogs, i understand that working dogs if you have all working dogs can be crosses sometimes and good workers. my family have been farmers for years although we didn't have a working farm ourselves we just lived on a working farm in one part of the property. my aunt and uncle managed a 2000 hectare sheep farm for many generations. they've had many working dogs over the years.

i am just interested in how that works out, breeding crosses to work, not being able to know the bloodlines because they are crossed and nothing recorded down so you can't cross check. its hard enough for us to breed the pedigrees and keep track of genetic problems and try to minimise them and everything is down on paper so we can cross check a name of a dog say, generations back and see where the recessives are coming back through from.

so how do you test successfully crosses? sorry to everyone this is i know

Edited September 22, 2011 by toy*dog

[Steve]

When the discussion paper went out comments were called for and the RSPCA Australia who chaired the meeting invited those groups which had submitted comments to them to attend.

It was held in Canberra and from memory. Dogs NSW,ANKC, MDBA, AAPDB, PIAA,Young lawyers,Deathrow pets, RSPCA Australia ,RSPCA ACT and RSPCA NSW , AVA and AWL.

If I take a bit of time Id be able to dig out dates but for now Id be guessing.

The RSPCA havent dropped the reins and they have made some good progress so far and a major part of the plan is in having breeders out in the open and not hiding away regardless of how many they own or breed to ensure the dogs in their care are being treated as they should be.

We went and banged a drum and tried to get breeders to see they needed DA's and complied with codes and laws even though we dont agree with some of them but then when they do they are beaten black and blue Now anyone who dares to ask if they can breed dogs on their property know they will probably cop some crap and that lots of stress and grief is to follow. The big guys stick it out and appeal and win or go to another shire. The little guys dont dare ask.

Then comes illegal raids and sensationalism and that makes everyone alienated and frightened especially when you get them "dobbing in a puppy farmer" when puppy farmer is defined by a multitude of things.

There isnt any point in pushing for things to happen which are prevented from happening under federal law - It wastes time and is divisive and if cant be seen to look at it and present it objectively its not going to have the same chance of sucess

I agree with you and think you are on the right track though the Clagary model is a good base line I think it needs a small change to work effectively in Australia. dont underestmate the egos and the politics.

Thanks for that info.

So with the definition of a puppy farm - the definition upheld by the RSPCA etc is a useful definition that came out of a working group involving the key stakeholders in the animal care world. I want to be clear on this - the problem then is not the 'official' definition of a puppy farm; you're saying the problem is public opinion and media pressure?

Sorry if I'm not picking it up right - let me go back to the beginning. Has the definition of a puppy farm that came out of that meeting been accepted as a universal definition for use in Australian legislation? If it hasn't, can you tell me where the resistance to upholding the definition comes from (e.g. politics, ego, something else?)

I understand that there are deep complexities around points of view about dog breeding. Some of the most staunchly pro-animal people in the nation will openly savage some of the most ethical and responsible dog breeders in the nation purely because the former believe the latter are "adding to the problem".

With the Calgary model, I've read the bylaws and was very impressed by the clear and rational thinking behind them. However the results in the Calgary 2010 annual report don't uphold what I'd been led to believe about the model being a cure-all for dog attacks - which is how it's presented by many pro-pit factions. (And again in anything I'm trying to learn about and get others interested in, I'm steering away from focusing on pitbull terriers). I've been doing more to figure out why the model hasn't had the effects I've been told it had. Perhaps it did initially, but now there are other problems that need to be investigated and accounted for. (I need to find out if anyone's conducted an evaluation on the Calgary animal bylaws and implementation thereof.) Some problems apparently include that Calgary never dealt with laws around breeding, and by rescinding BSL they've left their region open to abuse from unscrupulous breeders of fighting dogs. The region has also allegedly become a dumping ground for fighting dogs from other regions where BSL is in force. Add a measure of public hearsay to those allegations, and you come up with a dangerous rumour mill about how the Calgary model is full of holes (which I don't believe - I do think it's the most progressive and effective animal control legislation we have to work with). It also lends grist to the pro-BSL mill, who can choose to ignore the really positive outcomes from Calgary and focus on the bad - a tendency that isn't exclusive to critics of that model.

Yes one problem is that Oscars Law and RSPCA Victoria among others have decided upon their own definition and those who are calling for puppy farms to be banned are actually calling for all manner of things to be banned.

If I support oscars law based on what I think the definition is I find that in fact Im supporting something else altogether. The word puppy farmer is different depending on who you talk to so how on earth can anyone take any of it and use it as a show against puppy farms .When they see a rally and hear its against puppy farms who's definition do they think they are rallying against?

The other problem is that the methodology being used - that is bullying, raids, sensationalism, illegal activities,presenting false information , calling for laws which will never fly is counter productive to the best out come.

[Steve]

Spot the dog, I think as well as an amended Calgary model there needs to be some very careful attention paid to breeding, breeders and the keeping of entire animals.

Behaviors associated or intensified by reproductive hormones are a leading factor in dog bites. I am not pro mandatory desex, but I think there needs to be some huge incentives for people to get their pets desexed. Cheap and readily available, registration incentives increased, etc. I think breeders should be licensed, much like gun owners and if you own an entire dog you will have completed a basic course in dog breeding. The inclusion of a licence number could be policed by those who accept the adds.

Just as what defines a puppy farmer was hashed out what defines an acceptable breeder needs to be done the same. Them we need to arm them with the resources to become better breeeders.

I am against any introduction of a licence system. When you issue a licence it makes that activity illegal without one and it is a methid for them to come onto your property and take your transient property without due process. It means they can withdraw the licence on any whim.

[Steve]

My dogs are working dogs, health screened and temperament tested. I take back anything I breed for any reason ever, guarantee health and temperament, breed cross bred and pures and the most prolific brood bitches are two grey muzzled bitches with two litters each to their name. Am I good breeder because I test my dogs and stand behind them or bad because I keep a lot of dogs and have cross breds? Should I keep less females and breed them more often? Should I euth all my retired dogs? Have all litters sired by a single dog? Would I be more ethical if I only bred pure breds but didn't health test ???

One mans dodgy breeder is another persons ethical ideal. I am frightened that people pushing for these laws know little about actually breeding and are basing their views on animal rights not animal welfare.

i don't mean to be rude or anything but i am genuinely interested in what you are saying here in the above statement, you breed cross breed dogs, i understand that working dogs if you have all working dogs can be crosses sometimes and good workers. my family have been farmers for years although we didn't have a working farm ourselves we just lived on a working farm in one part of the property. my aunt and uncle managed a 2000 hectare sheep farm for many generations. they've had many working dogs over the years.

i am just interested in how that works out, breeding crosses to work, not being able to know the bloodlines because they are crossed and nothing recorded down so you can't cross check. its hard enough for us to breed the pedigrees and keep track of genetic problems and try to minimise them and everything is down on paper so we can cross check a name of a dog say, generations back and see where the recessives are coming back through from.

so how do you test successfully crosses? sorry to everyone this is i know

You can still know the blood lines if you cross breed them you just cant register the pups with the ANKC .You can still test the parents for the same thing any one else breeding that breed can and there are some you dont need to test for as they are recessive and not common to both breeds.

Its about what you are selecting for.

If Im selecting dogs destined to be used for further breeding I have to take into account things which will impact on future litters. If Im breeding for only one litter then I have to select differently. Some peopel select for working ability and others for the way a dog conforms for the show ring . Each can keep their dogs well and each can justify what they do.

What makes purebred breeders unique is that we do have to consider what comes next so we select differently. We dont have to agree with it and we can lecture them on predictibility etc but just because its not what we think should be done doesnt mean they are breeding sick ,untested dogs or keeping them in rotten conditions.

Time we sorted out that we are a minority and there are only 4 and a half thousand of us Australia wide and stop trying to beat those up who do things differently or select for other things - we need friends not enemies.

[KatrinaM]

I never thought of it like that Steve, it makes sense, will put the think cap back on. Thank you for that, that's why people need to throw ideas off rack other rather than hand grenades.

I think you are confusing unknown pedigree with crossbred. Crossbred working dogs most often have know pedigrees, although they aren't always recorded the same way. There are heaps of ways to test health, a lot depends on diseases already identified in component breeds for things like pra and arvc DNA tests work on crossbreds, thyroid tests, I own a holter monitor I make use off, hip, elbow and spine X-rays, rather than focus on breed scores the focus is on evidence of deformity or abnormalities. Not perfect but it's a work in progress.

Sorry to talk about my crossbred dogs on dol, I try very hard to avoid it. Can answer anything else by pm if that's cool toydogs.

[KatrinaM]

Thanks Steve, you summed it up very well. I was talking about the licence idea above, I was too slow posting and you beat me too it!

[KatrinaM]

Sorry can't edit my posts as am on my phone but just wanted to say I don't breed terminal crosses like poodle x another breed crosses so I need to know where the recessives are so I don't double up on them in coming generations. I think health testing where it is simply one pure breed cross another pure breed would be much easier!

[sandgrubber]

Behaviors associated or intensified by reproductive hormones are a leading factor in dog bites. I am not pro mandatory desex, but I think there needs to be some huge incentives for people to get their pets desexed. Cheap and readily available, registration incentives increased, etc. I think breeders should be licensed, much like gun owners and if you own an entire dog you will have completed a basic course in dog breeding. The inclusion of a licence number could be policed by those who accept the adds.

Hard to do well. I live in the first county in California to implement a system where breeders need licensing, all dogs must be registered, and if you aren't licensed as a breeder, you are required to desex. Sounded like a good idea on paper. But living here, I find that the main effect is that no one registers their dogs . . . it's mountainous here, and if you don't live in town and have half decent fences, the effective law is do whatever you want, just don't irritate the neighbours. They do offer some heavily subsidized desexing services, and this does help keep down the number of unwanted pups.

As for spey/neuter. . . . with some breeds, entire dogs and bitches are more likely to be broody than aggressive. Making everyone neuter because testosterone is a problem in some dogs doesn't seem efficient, especially when the supposed health benefits of neutering are questionable.