Animal Groups Want All Pet Dogs Desexed

[OSoSwift]

At some stage the blame needs to be put onto the people who dump their dogs.

This, this and this again.

Why is it in this society the person who is the total tool and the person actually casuing the problem doesn't get their backside hauled over the coals?????? The person who is dumping the dog is the problem. I have entire dogs, they don't roam or fight or pump out puppies. I even have entire dogs of the opposite sex and still can keep them from pumping out puppies - funny that is is called being in control of your dogs and their behaviour.

Do something about the people who dump their dogs/puppies and the problem will be fixed. Euthanasia would be the prefered option but for some reason the Human rights mob don't seem to like that.

It also amazes me how the leaders and spoke's people for apparent animals rights groups and the otehr loonies out there want to breed out completely the animals they supposedly care about. Me thinks they are in the wrong job!

[moosmum]

There is nothing inherently wrong about deliberatlely breeding cross breds.Its when its not a well informed decision,with the breeder willing to take responsibility for the results,and for the quality of life they will live that causes problems in any part of the dog world.

Met one of those yet? Don't hold your breath.

*Yep,I'm one.

And as for the good old fashioned pet show? Why on earth would the ANKC want to organise one. They already allow neuters to compete and frankly my guess is they've got enough battles on their hands protecting the interests of PAYING members - and they include owners of crossbred Associate dogs.

*so start an appendix registry,lots of fees,lots of people looking into pure breds and what they mean,lots of chance

to educate people to better ways,incentive for some of the more unethical breeders to lift their game and LOTS more

learning to look at the big picture.

Little old ladies and 15 year old boys can be seen in the ring at ANKC dog shows on any weekend you choose.

*Not the ones you need to reach.Some one has to offer an olive branch,and I don't see any one else in a position to do so.

Yep,I'm one.Trouble is,no one can say that here and no one else who can speak for you can either.

Edited May 26, 2012 by moosmum

[yarracully]

When did it change? When I was showing they had to be entire. Gawd I'm old.

a little while back (maybe 1-2 yrs??) the neuter classes were introduced.

Not all shows have these classes. In fact most shows DO NOT have them.

[Steve]

Moosmum - Whilst it would appear you need a "group" to be able to feel you have a voice you need to see it all as it really is.

Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group.

If this crap does come in here all it means is that if you are in a group its going to cost you money to be in the group and they are asking for exemptions on licence fees.So one group will pay for a licence and the others [with exemptions] will pay their club.

Dogs NSW are effectively saying that if the licence comes in if they give their members an exemption they will police their members and ensure their members are educated on what is required which theoretically means that the government wont need to do that themselves.

Politically they fear that if their members have to pay these licence fees and their membership, prefix and rego fees that they will loose members and of course they have to be seen to be working for their members and want to be sure they still have the kind of fee exemptions they have had. Their members in the main are saying that they already pay enough and if they have to pay an extra several hundred dollars a year before they can breed a puppy they will be out for the count.

No one at welfare level or government level is saying that people who are in these groups are better than any other breeder and any requirements will be the same for you as it is for us and the only real difference is who you pay your money to - assuming of course if a licencing system comes in that we get the fee exemptions. The reality is that the mandatory code for breeding dogs in NSW is more restrictive than Dogs NSW codes anyway and regardless of what group you are in we all still have to comply with the state laws and codes. No one can stop you breeding cross bred dogs if your neighbour can breed purebred dogs as long as you both follow the rules, pay your dues to either council or your club.

Fact is in this political climate with PDE and media crap which is about to get worse via the gardener etc you have more people speaking for you than purebred dog breeders do.

Remember this is just a task force which will make recommendations - its a way way off law YET.

There is much going on in the back ground and at the end of the day its about money and power - not really about whats best for the dogs at all.

[liverchips]

Moosmum - Whilst it would appear you need a "group" to be able to feel you have a voice you need to see it all as it really is.

Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group.

If this crap does come in here all it means is that if you are in a group its going to cost you money to be in the group and they are asking for exemptions on licence fees.So one group will pay for a licence and the others [with exemptions] will pay their club.

Dogs NSW are effectively saying that if the licence comes in if they give their members an exemption they will police their members and ensure their members are educated on what is required which theoretically means that the government wont need to do that themselves.

Politically they fear that if their members have to pay these licence fees and their membership, prefix and rego fees that they will loose members and of course they have to be seen to be working for their members and want to be sure they still have the kind of fee exemptions they have had. Their members in the main are saying that they already pay enough and if they have to pay an extra several hundred dollars a year before they can breed a puppy they will be out for the count.

No one at welfare level or government level is saying that people who are in these groups are better than any other breeder and any requirements will be the same for you as it is for us and the only real difference is who you pay your money to - assuming of course if a licencing system comes in that we get the fee exemptions. The reality is that the mandatory code for breeding dogs in NSW is more restrictive than Dogs NSW codes anyway and regardless of what group you are in we all still have to comply with the state laws and codes. No one can stop you breeding cross bred dogs if your neighbour can breed purebred dogs as long as you both follow the rules, pay your dues to either council or your club.

Fact is in this political climate with PDE and media crap which is about to get worse via the gardener etc you have more people speaking for you than purebred dog breeders do.

Remember this is just a task force which will make recommendations - its a way way off law YET.

There is much going on in the back ground and at the end of the day its about money and power - not really about whats best for the dogs at all.

"Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group."

If you are registered member if the ANKC you don't get any physical inspections by the club to ensure you are actually housing your dogs correctly and that they are in good health or that you are following the mandatory codes and have the right type of "set up". If you are not a member of the ANKC you will be inspected by a council officer and your kennels will have to comply with the code of practice. If you are a member of the ANKC you are exempt from this.

[Steve]

Moosmum - Whilst it would appear you need a "group" to be able to feel you have a voice you need to see it all as it really is.

Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group.

If this crap does come in here all it means is that if you are in a group its going to cost you money to be in the group and they are asking for exemptions on licence fees.So one group will pay for a licence and the others [with exemptions] will pay their club.

Dogs NSW are effectively saying that if the licence comes in if they give their members an exemption they will police their members and ensure their members are educated on what is required which theoretically means that the government wont need to do that themselves.

Politically they fear that if their members have to pay these licence fees and their membership, prefix and rego fees that they will loose members and of course they have to be seen to be working for their members and want to be sure they still have the kind of fee exemptions they have had. Their members in the main are saying that they already pay enough and if they have to pay an extra several hundred dollars a year before they can breed a puppy they will be out for the count.

No one at welfare level or government level is saying that people who are in these groups are better than any other breeder and any requirements will be the same for you as it is for us and the only real difference is who you pay your money to - assuming of course if a licencing system comes in that we get the fee exemptions. The reality is that the mandatory code for breeding dogs in NSW is more restrictive than Dogs NSW codes anyway and regardless of what group you are in we all still have to comply with the state laws and codes. No one can stop you breeding cross bred dogs if your neighbour can breed purebred dogs as long as you both follow the rules, pay your dues to either council or your club.

Fact is in this political climate with PDE and media crap which is about to get worse via the gardener etc you have more people speaking for you than purebred dog breeders do.

Remember this is just a task force which will make recommendations - its a way way off law YET.

There is much going on in the back ground and at the end of the day its about money and power - not really about whats best for the dogs at all.

"Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group."

If you are registered member if the ANKC you don't get any physical inspections by the club to ensure you are actually housing your dogs correctly and that they are in good health or that you are following the mandatory codes and have the right type of "set up". If you are not a member of the ANKC you will be inspected by a council officer and your kennels will have to comply with the code of practice. If you are a member of the ANKC you are exempt from this.

No that's not even on the table at this time and this is NSW. For now the only exemptions we get in NSW is a fee reduction for rego.

The model they are working off is the Gold Coast [ what a joke] but even though QCCC get fee exemptions there they still have to be inspected by council in order to get the licence.

[moosmum]

At some stage the blame needs to be put onto the people who dump their dogs.

This, this and this again.

Why is it in this society the person who is the total tool and the person actually casuing the problem doesn't get their backside hauled over the coals?????? The person who is dumping the dog is the problem. I have entire dogs, they don't roam or fight or pump out puppies. I even have entire dogs of the opposite sex and still can keep them from pumping out puppies - funny that is is called being in control of your dogs and their behaviour.

Do something about the people who dump their dogs/puppies and the problem will be fixed. Euthanasia would be the prefered option but for some reason the Human rights mob don't seem to like that.

It also amazes me how the leaders and spoke's people for apparent animals rights groups and the otehr loonies out there want to breed out completely the animals they supposedly care about. Me thinks they are in the wrong job!

Yep,Infuriating isn't it?

I know of one young woman with 2 kids who is responsible for at least 10 of the "dumps" at our local pound in the last 4 years.She gets a cute little pupy for the kids to "play" with (the oldest 3 yo) and dumps it when the poor little mites are ruined for any normal life after being kicked and squashed and terrorised.She dumped a litter with their mum when she had her 1st child.

If point of sale miocrochipping and rego. was enforced,there would be tool for authorities to see whats happening and act. As it is,any complaint investigated can only "get" her on having un chipped dog and no rego.

Euthanasia sounds good to me too.

[Steve]

By the way Victoria is a whole other story - much bubbling there too but not in the same game as this so far.

[liverchips]

By the way Victoria is a whole other story - much bubbling there too but not in the same game as this so far.

Ahhh, fair enough

[Steve]

By the way Victoria is a whole other story - much bubbling there too but not in the same game as this so far.

Ahhh, fair enough

Victoria is hell for small non commercial dog breeders including Vicdogs if those enforced with policing it want to push the ticket - they just don't know it yet .

However, its still the same point in play VIcdogs have these exemptions because they have made a promise to police their members and punish them if they muck it up.Their members get to have a couple more dogs before the outside licence fees come in but they still have to have DA's etc to breed dogs on their property. Lots of juicy politics and stories to tell here.

[moosmum]

Moosmum - Whilst it would appear you need a "group" to be able to feel you have a voice you need to see it all as it really is.

Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group.

If this crap does come in here all it means is that if you are in a group its going to cost you money to be in the group and they are asking for exemptions on licence fees.So one group will pay for a licence and the others [with exemptions] will pay their club.

Dogs NSW are effectively saying that if the licence comes in if they give their members an exemption they will police their members and ensure their members are educated on what is required which theoretically means that the government wont need to do that themselves.

Politically they fear that if their members have to pay these licence fees and their membership, prefix and rego fees that they will loose members and of course they have to be seen to be working for their members and want to be sure they still have the kind of fee exemptions they have had. Their members in the main are saying that they already pay enough and if they have to pay an extra several hundred dollars a year before they can breed a puppy they will be out for the count.

No one at welfare level or government level is saying that people who are in these groups are better than any other breeder and any requirements will be the same for you as it is for us and the only real difference is who you pay your money to - assuming of course if a licencing system comes in that we get the fee exemptions. The reality is that the mandatory code for breeding dogs in NSW is more restrictive than Dogs NSW codes anyway and regardless of what group you are in we all still have to comply with the state laws and codes. No one can stop you breeding cross bred dogs if your neighbour can breed purebred dogs as long as you both follow the rules, pay your dues to either council or your club.

Fact is in this political climate with PDE and media crap which is about to get worse via the gardener etc you have more people speaking for you than purebred dog breeders do.

Remember this is just a task force which will make recommendations - its a way way off law YET.

There is much going on in the back ground and at the end of the day its about money and power - not really about whats best for the dogs at all.

Steve,I understand that,and i am working on my own submission.Those who are supposedly speaking for "my group" are mostly pushing their own agendas ,often comercial ventures and D.Ds.

The real stake holders are those that buy these dogs,whatever their source and most of them are blissfully unaware of all thats going on behind the scenes.

They are the ones who happily sign cleverly worded petitions by Peta and welfare groups with out any understanding of what it all means to their choices and options.

There are few avenues of engaging these people and opening their eyes to the real,broad picture.Their education in these matters is very limitted,though they often sign with the best of intentions.

I am saying there needs to be ways these people can experience a broader view of pet ownership and where their dogs come from.The value of pedigree dogs etc.

BTW a point worth mention is the "hybrid vigour" slogan trotted out by D.D breeders and refuted here lies some where between.Hybrid vigour is proven,but true hybrids are inter species,not with in species and are infertile mostly.Any hybrid vigour within species is nominal,but there only due to closed lines of pedigree animals and valid only in the 1st cross.

At least thats been my understanding.A bit more discourse and less animosity between ALL groups can only benefit,surely.

[Steve]

Well the whole hybrid vigour thing is way off topic - though Id love to chat with you about that .

I happen to think that its time we stopped trying to defend ourselves and just get on with it and strutt our stuff

just the fact that we are here talking about what this fanatic has said gives her free publicity and credence to her bullshit beliefs.

Animal rights have run some good campaigns here and over seas - some say its part of a big plan - stop all breeding - reasonably credible as both PETA and animal Lib have declared that is one of their desired goals .In the big scheme of things identify a problem council has - dogs roaming the streets and coping flack for putting them down and give them a solution - of course a solution for council should move you further toward your goal.

Problem is that the goals are about getting more members, getting less dogs bred ,getting more power , getting more money etc

We are in a time frame where we have the most awesome tools and ability to share info and resources to breed healthier, better temperamented beautiful pets and working dogs than ever before in history. As a breeder we should know about breeding depressions and have strategies in place to ensure that doesn't impact adversely on the health of what we are breeding. If they get off their crap and allow us time and energy to develop and educate those who might breed into the future and concentrate on what we are doing dogs will be the major winners - until then ignore them and give them no free plugs.

[mita]

Buts its very counter productive to keep saying"one group of breeders' stands out as a better example in all these arguments.

I know my research science.....which is why I point out that statistically one group of breeders (registered) stood out (in a scientific study) in how they tend to socialise their dogs and puppies well. Important, because as the same study points out, lack of early socialisation has a link with later aggression.

'Statistically' means there's a greater chance of a certain group of breeders (registered) socialising their animals well. It predicts nothing about individual breeders, tho'. So it does not mean that every breeder in that group socialises their dogs/puppies well.

There will be those who do not.

Also, statistically, breeders in another group (unregistered) were found, in the same study, to be less likely to socialise their dogs/puppies well. Once again, this predicts nothing about individual breeders in that group. So it does not mean that every breeder in this unregistered group does not socialise their dogs/puppies well.

There will be those who do.

What is highlighted is the critical importance of socialisation....whoever does it.

And the information that registered breeders are more likely.....but not invariably so....to do it well.

We have good examples from individuals who do it well. Clearest descriptions I've heard, are from Jed here on DOL & the member of the Rottweiler Club of Victoria on Radio National. As this is a purebred forum that supports purebred dogs, such examples make good models.

Your comment suggesting it's being said that one group...meaning all members of that group... 'stand out as a better example' is not true. That would show lack of knowledge of statistics. Stats show trends within groups...and examples are shown by individuals (whoever they are).

Edited May 27, 2012 by mita

[RiverStar-Aura]

DAMON CRONSHAW

25 May, 2012 06:10 AM

Mr Cornwell said the taskforce had released a discussion paper, which recommended the introduction of a breeder licensing system.

But he said an incentive-based desexing system was recommended, rather than a mandate.

The taskforce’s recommendation involves a rebate for owners who desex their animals within three months of registration.

He believed the move would be ‘‘far more effective’’ than a mandate.

I don't know about others, but my local council does offer a rebate of sorts. I fail to see the difference between a discounted rego fee and a rebate for desexed animals.

This also doesn't take into account the owners of large breed dogs in which a much later desexing is advised due to their extended growth period over say a chihuahua or small terrier.

[moosmum]

Buts its very counter productive to keep saying"one group of breeders' stands out as a better example in all these arguments.

I know my research science.....which is why I point out that statistically one group of breeders (registered) stood out (in a scientific study) in how they tend to socialise their dogs and puppies well. Important, because as the same study points out, lack of early socialisation has a link with later aggression.

'Statistically' means there's a greater chance of a certain group of breeders (registered) socialising their animals well. It predicts nothing about individual breeders, tho'. So it does not mean that every breeder in that group socialises their dogs/puppies well.

There will be those who do not.

Also, statistically, breeders in another group (unregistered) were found, in the same study, to be less likely to socialise their dogs/puppies well. Once again, this predicts nothing about individual breeders in that group. So it does not mean that every breeder in this unregistered group does not socialise their dogs/puppies well.

There will be those who do.

What is highlighted is the critical importance of socialisation....whoever does it.

And the information that registered breeders are more likely.....but not invariably so....to do it well.

We have good examples from individuals who do it well. Clearest descriptions I've heard, are from Jed here on DOL & the member of the Rottweiler Club of Victoria on Radio National. As this is a purebred forum that supports purebred dogs, such examples make good models.

Your comment suggesting it's being said that one group...meaning all members of that group... 'stand out as a better example' is not true. That would show lack of knowledge of statistics. Stats show trends within groups...and examples are shown by individuals (whoever they are).

Exactly.

So it seems Membership statisticaly improves out comes. How do we broaden membership to include all interests?

The example of hybrid vigour was used to show how different sides present only 1 half of the truth to push their arguments,while both could bennefit from a broader knowledge.

Definitely stop being defensive, and strutt your stuff! But involve others where possible,not just the ones already there.You know they are dwindling.There are other contributions to made outside of pedigree dogs,and that needs to be aknowledged.It holds back on credibility.

Allow others to strutt their stuff too.

Edited May 27, 2012 by moosmum

[moosmum]

DAMON CRONSHAW

25 May, 2012 06:10 AM

Mr Cornwell said the taskforce had released a discussion paper, which recommended the introduction of a breeder licensing system.

But he said an incentive-based desexing system was recommended, rather than a mandate.

The taskforce’s recommendation involves a rebate for owners who desex their animals within three months of registration.

He believed the move would be ‘‘far more effective’’ than a mandate.

I don't know about others, but my local council does offer a rebate of sorts. I fail to see the difference between a discounted rego fee and a rebate for desexed animals.

This also doesn't take into account the owners of large breed dogs in which a much later desexing is advised due to their extended growth period over say a chihuahua or small terrier.

Or encourage pups to be chipped with breeders details.

Edited May 27, 2012 by moosmum

[mita]

Exactly.

So it seems Membership statisticaly improves out comes. How do we broaden membership to include all interests?

The example of hybrid vigour was used to show how different sides present only 1 half of the truth to push their arguments,while both could bennefit from a broader knowledge.

Definitely stop being defensive, and strutt your stuff! But involve others where possible,not just the ones already there.

I'd agree it's important to be proactive.

That's why I'd hope that the NSW Task Force would take into account submissions from registered breeders setting out exactly how they, as individuals, breed for temperament and raise for socialisation. And why this is so important for dogs who will always be living up close and personal with humans.

And such registered breeders are not alone, in those aims. Military dogs, bred at Amberley, have similar good work put into them. Their puppies ares socialised from birth and then out living with families in the community from 4 months of age to when their military training begins. Good rescue groups caring for pregnant 'mums' and raising the puppies, equally emphasize socialising both mum and puppies.

This common aim....and how it can best be done....should be central to whatever comes out of that Task Force. But that would depend on the membership, of course, and how open they are to outside submissions. And their willingness to find points in common or simply different ways of achieving aims.

For those who hammer on about 'hybrid vigour', there's another 'perspective' from those registered breeders who continually seek to widen the gene pool (made much easier by modern technology). I dips my lid to many of the breeders of my breed of interest....who have added dogs from a variety of European, UK and New Zealand bloodlines.

[Steve]

Buts its very counter productive to keep saying"one group of breeders' stands out as a better example in all these arguments.

I know my research science.....which is why I point out that statistically one group of breeders (registered) stood out (in a scientific study) in how they tend to socialise their dogs and puppies well. Important, because as the same study points out, lack of early socialisation has a link with later aggression.

'Statistically' means there's a greater chance of a certain group of breeders (registered) socialising their animals well. It predicts nothing about individual breeders, tho'. So it does not mean that every breeder in that group socialises their dogs/puppies well.

There will be those who do not.

Also, statistically, breeders in another group (unregistered) were found, in the same study, to be less likely to socialise their dogs/puppies well. Once again, this predicts nothing about individual breeders in that group. So it does not mean that every breeder in this unregistered group does not socialise their dogs/puppies well.

There will be those who do.

What is highlighted is the critical importance of socialisation....whoever does it.

And the information that registered breeders are more likely.....but not invariably so....to do it well.

We have good examples from individuals who do it well. Clearest descriptions I've heard, are from Jed here on DOL & the member of the Rottweiler Club of Victoria on Radio National. As this is a purebred forum that supports purebred dogs, such examples make good models.

Your comment suggesting it's being said that one group...meaning all members of that group... 'stand out as a better example' is not true. That would show lack of knowledge of statistics. Stats show trends within groups...and examples are shown by individuals (whoever they are).

Exactly.

So it seems Membership statisticaly improves out comes. How do we broaden membership to include all interests?

The example of hybrid vigour was used to show how different sides present only 1 half of the truth to push their arguments,while both could bennefit from a broader knowledge.

Definitely stop being defensive, and strutt your stuff! But involve others where possible,not just the ones already there.You know they are dwindling.There are other contributions to made outside of pedigree dogs,and that needs to be aknowledged.It holds back on credibility.

Allow others to strutt their stuff too.

Im certainly not preventing you or anyone from any group from strutting their stuff in fact it appears to me that the cross breeder mob have had a pretty fair shot at it and the reality is probably the only people who beat you up a bit are a dwindling number of purebred breeders.In the main that is happening because they have had to defend what they do because the method of promoting designer dogs has incorporated an attack on purebreds and their breeders.

There may be contributions made outside of pedigreed dogs but my focus is only on pedigreed dogs and whilst Im eager to include dog owners regardless of what breed they own and bring in new pedigreed dog breeders,and Im happy for you to do your thing as long as you treat your dogs well - its a bit silly to suggest we would involve you if what you do is based on a different philosophy. Asking us to involve you is like asking the NRL to involve the AFL.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

We should all be responding to the official survey if we live in NSW. I did mine this afternoon.

There is some clear empire building going on by some of the members of the taskforce. I find this rather sobering given that there is no power of review over their actions.

Link to survey off this site, think carefully about whether extra regulation will fix people who will never comply anyway, who sell BYB unregistered dogs off the local shopping mall noticeboard to uninformed ill-prepared people whose only qualification is that they have the cash or just the willingness to take the pup away.

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_generalindex.asp?sectionid=1&areaindex=CATASK&docu

Good on you! I hope lots of NSW folk take up your suggestion.

I don't know the specifics of the NSW 'taskforce'. But such a group should exist not just for individual members to press their their own agenda. It should be a 'round table' affair where members step outside their own agendas to listen to other perspectives. And there would need to be some review process that oversees their work.

Taskforce Members:

Animal Welfare League NSW,

Australian Companion Animal Council,

Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers,

Australian Veterinary Association,

Cat Protection Society of NSW,

Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW,

Dogs NSW,

Pet Industry Association Australia, and

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW.

If you live in NSW this is serious folks, do the survey and follow up with your local member.

[moosmum]

Buts its very counter productive to keep saying"one group of breeders' stands out as a better example in all these arguments.

I know my research science.....which is why I point out that statistically one group of breeders (registered) stood out (in a scientific study) in how they tend to socialise their dogs and puppies well. Important, because as the same study points out, lack of early socialisation has a link with later aggression.

'Statistically' means there's a greater chance of a certain group of breeders (registered) socialising their animals well. It predicts nothing about individual breeders, tho'. So it does not mean that every breeder in that group socialises their dogs/puppies well.

There will be those who do not.

Also, statistically, breeders in another group (unregistered) were found, in the same study, to be less likely to socialise their dogs/puppies well. Once again, this predicts nothing about individual breeders in that group. So it does not mean that every breeder in this unregistered group does not socialise their dogs/puppies well.

There will be those who do.

What is highlighted is the critical importance of socialisation....whoever does it.

And the information that registered breeders are more likely.....but not invariably so....to do it well.

We have good examples from individuals who do it well. Clearest descriptions I've heard, are from Jed here on DOL & the member of the Rottweiler Club of Victoria on Radio National. As this is a purebred forum that supports purebred dogs, such examples make good models.

Your comment suggesting it's being said that one group...meaning all members of that group... 'stand out as a better example' is not true. That would show lack of knowledge of statistics. Stats show trends within groups...and examples are shown by individuals (whoever they are).

Exactly.

So it seems Membership statisticaly improves out comes. How do we broaden membership to include all interests?

The example of hybrid vigour was used to show how different sides present only 1 half of the truth to push their arguments,while both could bennefit from a broader knowledge.

Definitely stop being defensive, and strutt your stuff! But involve others where possible,not just the ones already there.You know they are dwindling.There are other contributions to made outside of pedigree dogs,and that needs to be aknowledged.It holds back on credibility.

Allow others to strutt their stuff too.

Im certainly not preventing you or anyone from any group from strutting their stuff in fact it appears to me that the cross breeder mob have had a pretty fair shot at it and the reality is probably the only people who beat you up a bit are a dwindling number of purebred breeders.In the main that is happening because they have had to defend what they do because the method of promoting designer dogs has incorporated an attack on purebreds and their breeders.

There may be contributions made outside of pedigreed dogs but my focus is only on pedigreed dogs and whilst Im eager to include dog owners regardless of what breed they own and bring in new pedigreed dog breeders,and Im happy for you to do your thing as long as you treat your dogs well - its a bit silly to suggest we would involve you if what you do is based on a different philosophy. Asking us to involve you is like asking the NRL to involve the AFL.

Not a different philosphy at all,just different conclusions as how best to acheive them.My breed was bred for a task they can no longer be relied on to perform.If I could get the original,working pedigree dogs reliably,as I could 30 years ago? I would be rapt!

One of the problems is that they have been "strutting their stuff" only with in their own circles and breeds for so long no one remembers what the breed was once capable of.A task in demand for all times,and they excelled.

Now,they are measured only against their own,bred to a standard that allows no adaptation for the times and no focus on a purpose thats still relevant. To me,thats not development,thats stagnation of a once great gene pool.Theres no competition to remind us of whats realy relevent to that breeds success.

My dogs live their purpose 24/7. I need a model that works. Most other breeds are in far better shape,I agree.There are too many that aren't tho'.No ones fault.Just a system thats not moved with changed circumstances and times.

The generations of a dogs life are just long enough to forget what we had,but too quick to bring it back or find it again once lost.

Moderm breeding practices as they stand,IMO,seem more intent on Illustrating a physical ideal,not demonstrating it.

I am NOT against your philosphies,I applaud them.I just want them to succeed better and not lead to more dead ends.

I also think that all parties need to be more open minded to each other and that tradition is not always worth preserving.

This is too far off topic.I just wanted to show its doesn't have to be "us Vs them all the time.The sooner we can stop that,the better progress can made.