We Have Been Betrayed

[Salukifan]

I am quite disappointed with the ANKC but since I am only a member of Dogs NSW then apparently my opinion isnt worth much. It would be really nice if this could all be based on proof and scientific evidence rather than emotion and politics. But considering I want to compete in Rally O, Obedience and Herding I guess I just have to accept that I am likely to get shafted by my own organisation some time in the future.

As a member of Dogs NSW your opinion is worth twice as much as the smaller states' members. NSW gets two votes on any ANKC motion.

Why would you "get shafted" by an organisation that is democratically elected by its members including you?

[Jumabaar]

I am quite disappointed with the ANKC but since I am only a member of Dogs NSW then apparently my opinion isnt worth much. It would be really nice if this could all be based on proof and scientific evidence rather than emotion and politics. But considering I want to compete in Rally O, Obedience and Herding I guess I just have to accept that I am likely to get shafted by my own organisation some time in the future.

As a member of Dogs NSW your opinion is worth twice as much as the smaller states' members. NSW gets two votes on any ANKC motion.

Why would you "get shafted" by an organisation that is democratically elected by its members including you?

Because of the way the ANKC is set up- there have been decisions made by the ANKC that I didn't even have an opportunity to voice my opinion about until after they have already been made. My point is that I am a member of DogsNSW not the ANKC but it is the ANKC that makes decisions and from what I have seen they are not always scientific, logical. I genuinely feel powerless to make myself heard Nationally or have any great impact on National policy within the pedigree sphere.

I personally don't have time to stand for election within DogsNSW so I guess until I win lotto or retire in another 50 odd years I accept the decisions made. I will admit that it is not just this issue that has cause my disillusion but its another example of quite large issues being decided by a very few people with very little evidence on the table.

I feel sorry for people who own legally docked dogs and who have to rely on others to voice their opinion for them Nationally.

ETA- I should have included moving to a different country in my second paragraph. Which is not something totally out of the realms of possibility :laugh:

Edited February 4, 2013 by Jumabaar

[Salukifan]

I am quite disappointed with the ANKC but since I am only a member of Dogs NSW then apparently my opinion isnt worth much. It would be really nice if this could all be based on proof and scientific evidence rather than emotion and politics. But considering I want to compete in Rally O, Obedience and Herding I guess I just have to accept that I am likely to get shafted by my own organisation some time in the future.

As a member of Dogs NSW your opinion is worth twice as much as the smaller states' members. NSW gets two votes on any ANKC motion.

Why would you "get shafted" by an organisation that is democratically elected by its members including you?

Because of the way the ANKC is set up- there have been decisions made by the ANKC that I didn't even have an opportunity to voice my opinion about until after they have already been made. My point is that I am a member of DogsNSW not the ANKC but it is the ANKC that makes decisions and from what I have seen they are not always scientific, logical. I genuinely feel powerless to make myself heard Nationally or have any great impact on National policy within the pedigree sphere.

I personally don't have time to stand for election within DogsNSW so I guess until I win lotto or retire in another 50 odd years I accept the decisions made. I will admit that it is not just this issue that has cause my disillusion but its another example of quite large issues being decided by a very few people with very little evidence on the table.

I feel sorry for people who own legally docked dogs and who have to rely on others to voice their opinion for them Nationally.

ETA- I should have included moving to a different country in my second paragraph. Which is not something totally out of the realms of possibility :laugh:

It's unfeasible for every ANKC decision to be put out for member comment IMO. They would drown in the volume of responses. However there are a raft of Breed, Sport and other Committees who are consulted about decisions. Each of those Committees has a member from each state. You can have input via those Committees if you choose to serve.

I think you'll find people who have lawfully docked dogs now and in the future will have quite a few voices speaking for them - even voices not personally affected by the motion. :)

[Salukifan]

guilty of animal cruelty the onus is on them to investigate and do what animal welfare inspectors would do if the member is likely to be guilty.

There is no point in them bringing in any regs which puts all members under suspicion and admits that they know some members are guilty but they do nothing about it. Anything else is inviting animal welfare to look closer and consider all exhibitors or docked breeds potentially guilty - it also has the ability to impact on many more issues if it is considered impossible or unlikely for the ANKC to police their own members.It has the potential to have exemptions for registered breeders removed and for all to be under greater suspicion and targeted.

So how, in the absence of a specific prohibition on the exhibition of unlawfully docked dogs, does the ANKC ensure that it's not encouraging its members to flout the legislation?

[WreckitWhippet]

I don't mind if they include the word "unlawfuly" in any motion they put forward. If you cannot exhibit and "unlawfully" docked dog, then so be it. Those that have imported or have lawfully docked and can produce a vet cert should still be able to exhibit and compete.

[yarracully]

guilty of animal cruelty the onus is on them to investigate and do what animal welfare inspectors would do if the member is likely to be guilty.

There is no point in them bringing in any regs which puts all members under suspicion and admits that they know some members are guilty but they do nothing about it. Anything else is inviting animal welfare to look closer and consider all exhibitors or docked breeds potentially guilty - it also has the ability to impact on many more issues if it is considered impossible or unlikely for the ANKC to police their own members.It has the potential to have exemptions for registered breeders removed and for all to be under greater suspicion and targeted.

So how, in the absence of a specific prohibition on the exhibition of unlawfully docked dogs, does the ANKC ensure that it's not encouraging its members to flout the legislation?

Surely since the tail docking ban is a government law its not ANKC's responsibility to enforce this law. Its up to the various state governments. So if an ANKC member has flouted the law then they deserve to be punished according to the state laws. The ban on docking of tails has nothing to do with the ANKC.

[Jumabaar]

It's unfeasible for every ANKC decision to be put out for member comment IMO. They would drown in the volume of responses. However there are a raft of Breed, Sport and other Committees who are consulted about decisions. Each of those Committees has a member from each state. You can have input via those Committees if you choose to serve.

I think you'll find people who have lawfully docked dogs now and in the future will have quite a few voices speaking for them - even voices not personally affected by the motion. :)

I will be putting in my two cents on this issue, there have been some very well thought logical points in this thread up that I will be stealing. I do believe that this could be damaging to breeds when we already have quite a geographical disadvantage when it comes to genetics.

Its interesting though you thinking that they would get too much feedback when I have been working in a National organisation who choses to sort through the feedback and do it because they have found it to be very valuable so worth the bother. It should certainly be possible to gather this feedback at a state level but from what people are saying they haven't been given a fair chance to even voice their opinion at that level either- particularly I assume those that are not on DOL, Ozshow etc. And that is I guess that may be where I have the problem- that quite often even after reading my gazette I find myself out of the loop and behind the times and once a decision has been made it is so much harder to reverse it.

[Steve]

guilty of animal cruelty the onus is on them to investigate and do what animal welfare inspectors would do if the member is likely to be guilty.

There is no point in them bringing in any regs which puts all members under suspicion and admits that they know some members are guilty but they do nothing about it. Anything else is inviting animal welfare to look closer and consider all exhibitors or docked breeds potentially guilty - it also has the ability to impact on many more issues if it is considered impossible or unlikely for the ANKC to police their own members.It has the potential to have exemptions for registered breeders removed and for all to be under greater suspicion and targeted.

So how, in the absence of a specific prohibition on the exhibition of unlawfully docked dogs, does the ANKC ensure that it's not encouraging its members to flout the legislation?

Point taken - however how very sad that they have to agree that some ANKC members will do the wrong thing and so require more than the law to discourage them.

[Salukifan]

guilty of animal cruelty the onus is on them to investigate and do what animal welfare inspectors would do if the member is likely to be guilty.

There is no point in them bringing in any regs which puts all members under suspicion and admits that they know some members are guilty but they do nothing about it. Anything else is inviting animal welfare to look closer and consider all exhibitors or docked breeds potentially guilty - it also has the ability to impact on many more issues if it is considered impossible or unlikely for the ANKC to police their own members.It has the potential to have exemptions for registered breeders removed and for all to be under greater suspicion and targeted.

So how, in the absence of a specific prohibition on the exhibition of unlawfully docked dogs, does the ANKC ensure that it's not encouraging its members to flout the legislation?

Point taken - however how very sad that they have to agree that some ANKC members will do the wrong thing and so require more than the law to discourage them.

If some ANKC members didn't do the wrong thing, we wouldn't need half the regulations we've got. However when all registered breeders and members are judged by the worst of our number, those regulations and rules start to look damn good.

[espinay2]

It's unfeasible for every ANKC decision to be put out for member comment IMO. They would drown in the volume of responses. However there are a raft of Breed, Sport and other Committees who are consulted about decisions. Each of those Committees has a member from each state. You can have input via those Committees if you choose to serve.

I think you'll find people who have lawfully docked dogs now and in the future will have quite a few voices speaking for them - even voices not personally affected by the motion. :)

I will be putting in my two cents on this issue, there have been some very well thought logical points in this thread up that I will be stealing. I do believe that this could be damaging to breeds when we already have quite a geographical disadvantage when it comes to genetics.

Its interesting though you thinking that they would get too much feedback when I have been working in a National organisation who choses to sort through the feedback and do it because they have found it to be very valuable so worth the bother. It should certainly be possible to gather this feedback at a state level but from what people are saying they haven't been given a fair chance to even voice their opinion at that level either- particularly I assume those that are not on DOL, Ozshow etc. And that is I guess that may be where I have the problem- that quite often even after reading my gazette I find myself out of the loop and behind the times and once a decision has been made it is so much harder to reverse it.

A few pages ago I posted that the dogsNSW vote is Wednesday and contact info for directors. Certainly it didn't take more than 10 minutes for me to write a message stating my views AND get a reply. My suggestion is people actually DO start being proactive and speak to the board members if they want their view heard. People DO have the chance to be heard. But to do it they need to talk to the people they want to listen!

[dog_fan]

If I was a member of a club where an official, without giving any proof, accused members (including me) of behaving not only illegally but cruelly I would be furious.

That is what this official has done. He has smeared the reputation of ALL breeders who are his members and whose interests he is supposed to be looking after.

What a joke the kennel clubs have become.

[yarracully]

It's unfeasible for every ANKC decision to be put out for member comment IMO. They would drown in the volume of responses. However there are a raft of Breed, Sport and other Committees who are consulted about decisions. Each of those Committees has a member from each state. You can have input via those Committees if you choose to serve.

I think you'll find people who have lawfully docked dogs now and in the future will have quite a few voices speaking for them - even voices not personally affected by the motion. :)

I will be putting in my two cents on this issue, there have been some very well thought logical points in this thread up that I will be stealing. I do believe that this could be damaging to breeds when we already have quite a geographical disadvantage when it comes to genetics.

Its interesting though you thinking that they would get too much feedback when I have been working in a National organisation who choses to sort through the feedback and do it because they have found it to be very valuable so worth the bother. It should certainly be possible to gather this feedback at a state level but from what people are saying they haven't been given a fair chance to even voice their opinion at that level either- particularly I assume those that are not on DOL, Ozshow etc. And that is I guess that may be where I have the problem- that quite often even after reading my gazette I find myself out of the loop and behind the times and once a decision has been made it is so much harder to reverse it.

A few pages ago I posted that the dogsNSW vote is Wednesday and contact info for directors. Certainly it didn't take more than 10 minutes for me to write a message stating my views AND get a reply. My suggestion is people actually DO start being proactive and speak to the board members if they want their view heard. People DO have the chance to be heard. But to do it they need to talk to the people they want to listen!

True it does not take long to provide your view. However what needs to be remembered is that the only reason we have this chance is because of this motion being made public. It seems to me that this was not the intention and this matter could have been voted on etc. without any of us knowing anything about it.

Personally I feel this is a very low act. Creating rules to impose on members without members knowing anything about it until afterwards. Its no wonder many have a distrust in the governing bodies. You cannot have genuine accountability in an organisation if you also have secrecy within.

[lils mum]

A few pages ago I posted that the dogsNSW vote is Wednesday and contact info for directors. Certainly it didn't take more than 10 minutes for me to write a message stating my views AND get a reply. My suggestion is people actually DO start being proactive and speak to the board members if they want their view heard. People DO have the chance to be heard. But to do it they need to talk to the people they want to listen!

I did the same but certainly have only received a response from a few of those DogsNSW representatives, and a curt response from one when I asked again for their stance rather than a politically correct and totally non-informative response....

I remain concerned that there is no requirement/obligation for individual delegates to represent their board's decision at the ANKC meeting

Edited February 4, 2013 by lils mum

[Salukifan]

I remain concerned that there is no requirement/obligation for individual delegates to represent their board's decision at the ANKC meeting

As the motion is an electronic one, there won't be a meeting to decide its outcome.

[cruzzi]

Yarracully:

Have you actually read the motion proposed. You will find it has been proposed by a delegate from DogsVic. A person who is supposed to support and promote dogs not destroy the whole dog fraternity. This not a government regulation but a rule being devised and introduced by an elected member of the Victorian Canine council and attepted to be pushed through without the members of that state or any other state being aware or consulted.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was.

Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections.

damn right.

Talk about the doomsday mob.

Who would import a dog they knew or even suspected they may not be able breed from?....no one with half a brain.

All the checks & balances would be in place before the dog even left its kennel.

Rabbiting on about can't pick the puppy you want because....because why?

How many puppies are purchased sight unseen every year. It would be in the tens of thousands at least. The breeding attracts the buyers.

Rights?....just what rights are being impinged?

When you sign up you agree to abide by the rules & by-laws of the organisation.

You have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice from your particular area.

If you have a concern you can then exercise your rights.

You can write a letter of protest to the board, you can vote, you can even stand for election or you exercise the ultimate protest & walk away.

Until you decide on any of the above, honour the terms you agreed to when you joined up.

Hey it's just like living in society, you exercise your right to vote & when it rolls around you exercise your right to vote again.

If you candidate isn't elected?

Thems the breaks.

if they introduce a carbon tax, they will pay.

That's the way it is.

I woud not take a puppy with undefended testicles, I wouldn't take a puppy with a crappy bite or missing teeth. I wouldn't take a puppy that was east west in the front or had cowhocks.

If I am spending 10k to get a pup I want the lines and the quality in the pup itself and even with Australian puppies when I put in an order I say that I only want the pup if its a good quality specimen. So my puppies are not picked before 8 weeks of age and I may be looking for specific lines but a crap dog is a crap dog and I dont want crappy puppies with good grandparents. There are things I am happy to overlook but there are plenty of deal breakers that I would refuse to have in my lines and I trust the person to make sure my pup doesnt have any of them but how could they know at 2 days of age?

I am quite disappointed with the ANKC but since I am only a member of Dogs NSW then apparently my opinion isnt worth much. It would be really nice if this could all be based on proof and scientific evidence rather than emotion and politics. But considering I want to compete in Rally O, Obedience and Herding I guess I just have to accept that I am likely to get shafted by my own organisation some time in the future.

It would seem you don't "take" puppies at all.

Everything you mentioned is not obvious in a puppy.

Espectially undefended testicles (sic)

[Jed]

I haven't read all this thread, but not only will this rule prevent docked dogs being shown, it also will prevent imported dogs who are legally docked being shown; and it will stop bob tail boxers being shown.

No matter what anyone thinks about bobtail boxers, they were sanctioned in the UK, and allowed and registered by the ANKC; and allowed in other countries.

People who have put a lot into bobtail boxers (not me) will be up the creek without a paddle.

There is a fairly big and apparent difference between importing a dog, and importing semen. If the dog is docked, this rule would prevent it being promoted to its full potential, and perhaps stop important and beneficial lines being disseminated Australia wide.

A very retrograde and backward motion imho.

[cruzzi]

According to every rule of animal husbandry as soon as one pure breed is crossed with a another pure breed of a different breed the result is a cross breed.

Bob tail boxers should never, ever have been allowed onto a pure breed register.

Thank goodness the ANKC vetoed the application for an Australian breeder to do the same "trick" with dobermanns.

Edited February 5, 2013 by cruzzi

[oakway]

I have been asked by Mark Shepherd to pass on the following message from

Dogs Qld

We have been asked by Dogs Queensland General Manager - Rob Harrison to

share the following message. Due to the severe weather conditions in SE

Qld the late january 2013 meeting of Directors was rescheduled for last

night. At that meeting the board decided to address the question of the

Dogs Victoria Tail Docking immediately rather let the question wait until

the normal meeting schedules for 25th february. On the question of

whether DQ would second the Dogs Vic motion the response was a very clear

NO. On the further question of whether (if the Dogs Vic motion did secure

a seconder state and the motion was to be placed on the ANKC Conference

agenda) DQ would vote in favour or against the motion the response was

again a very clear NO. Rob has requested that members "please, please"

stop sending petitons, emails etc so that the office staff can get back

to their usual administrative duties. Congratulations to all those who

expressed their thoughts and opinions so clearly to the newly formed

Board of Directors - the board have taken your opinions seriously and

have voted accordingly.

Regards

Ian Rasmussen

Permission to cross post given.

[Steve]

According to every rule of animal husbandry as soon as one pure breed is crossed with a another pure breed of a different type the result is a cross breed.

Bob tail boxers should never, ever have been allowed onto a pure breed register.

Thank goodness the ANKC vetoed the application for an Australian breeder to do the same "trick" with dobermanns.

Every rule of animal husbandry says when you cross em back to their own breed its a purebred again in 4 generations - how do you equate what you think with whats going on in the UK with open stud books? .Because of our agreements with the UK every breed could have a cross bred litter in it and still be registered as a purebred. Bob tailed boxers are on a purebred registry and they are up to around 20 generations past that one only cross. For anyone not to consider what we have today with bob tailed boxers as purebred is nothing more than ridiculous

http://www.thekennel...tem/3672/23/5/3

Pilot scheme for registering dogs of unverified parentage

A pilot scheme which could enhance genetic diversity has been announced by the Kennel Club. It will allow purebred unregistered dogs to be registered on the Breed Register on a case by case basis. This is a return to the position which existed forty years ago when similar rules were in force.

Enhancing genetic diversity

The move, approved by the Kennel Club General Committee last year, will if used, enhance genetic diversity by widening breed gene pools and allowing new bloodlines to be introduced within breeds.

Under the new pilot scheme, every successful application will be admitted to the register with three asterisks next to its name. Asterisks will be applied for three further generations, in order to identify the fact that there is unknown or unregistered ancestry behind a dog.

[lils mum]

I remain concerned that there is no requirement/obligation for individual delegates to represent their board's decision at the ANKC meeting

As the motion is an electronic one, there won't be a meeting to decide its outcome.

And this in itself is a significant problem! My comment above does not refer only to this motion, but to any motion whereby delegates may elect to lodge personal votes rather opinions representative of the body they are meant to be representing.