Bisart Dobes Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Then counter with that dogs that are imported can still be shown. Locally bred dogs need to comply with local laws. I find it disturbing that people may be deliberately harming puppies just to get a docked tail and frankly if they are doing this, they should be banned from breeding and showing. Really - just because this has been written in the motion / letter does not mean that it is happening. They have supplied NO PROOF that this has occurred - do you really believe that this is happening ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisart Dobes Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 The ANKC doesnt even get their information straight. Let's look at an example of my own breed (perhaps this applies to others as well) The following is from the official ANKC breed standard for Australian Shepherds....... Docked: Docked tail is straight, not to exceed four inches in length. Undocked: Set on following the line of the croup. Of moderate length, not kinked. In overall balance with the rest of the dog. Moderately feathered Bobbed: May be naturally bobbed. Is straight, not to exceed four inches in length. I have queried this with the ANKC and Dogs Vic - neither have responded. They will to bring in rules on docking tails yet they havent sorted out their breed standardes.This is the standard as per the judges and exhibitors view - yet no mention of the fact that a Naturally Bobbed tail may be of ANY length..... it is very common to have aussies born NBT and yet have quarter, half or three quarter tails..... but under their standard if the tail exceed 4 inches it is not acceptable.....? Perhaps the ANKC should clean up their own information first. Bobbed is not even in our standard yet it is present in our breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisart Dobes Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 The suggestion is that dogs are being deliberately harmed to get a docked tail. An entire litter of puppies with broken tails? Sounds dodgy to me. If there is such evidence then it should be presented. yes and that breeder made an example of, but no need to punish the good ones. The good ones who dock tails? the ones outlaying huge amounts of money to import fresh bloodlines, the ones who do actually have to dock a pup/dogs tail due to genuine problems. If there is any real proof that some people are breaking puppies tails just so they can be docked then they need to be punished. Is there actually proof ? If vets actually beleived this to be the case as was written they are obliged by law to report abuse. So therefore there should be proof or it should be withdrawn. It is a disgraceful accusation to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underfoot Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 I do not show or own docked dog but I am more appalled that this motion has been put forward by our supposed governing body WITHOUT consultation with its members. What is the point of paying a membership if the members are not to be consulted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisart Dobes Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The way this whole document is written is so unprofessional its a disgrace - no wonder things like our last CEO's employment contact being made void, redundant and now re-advertised is happening - if this is the standard of the management committee and / or individuals then we are in more trouble than this motion. This is nothing more than personal agenda's. To have accusations like below with no proof to back them up is ridiculous and a legal nightmare for all involved / co-signed. The accusations of harming puppies to have them docked is disgraceful - I do not know anyone who would stoop to this kind of action. The accusations of forging import paperwork !!!!!!!!!! Seriously !!! Forging OS registrations, Forging relevant country export paperwork, Forging foreign country vet clearance, Forging shipping bill, Forging airway bill, Forging Aquis & Customs paperwork & clearance. SERIOUSLY ! If you think this is possible FM ! Do you really think that all of official people involved are going to risk their jobs, professions, lives for someone to have a docked dog ? And then just to prove it is personal agenda - they have included that docked dogs have an unfair advantage and that there should be a level playing field. Level playing field - PFFFFT ! - maybe we should put forward a motion that all judges should not be allowed to exhibit thier own dogs - that would level the playing field a bit more wouldn't it ????????? Stupid motion - well not quite as stupid as the one above. God Save Us !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TessnSean Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The suggestion is that dogs are being deliberately harmed to get a docked tail. An entire litter of puppies with broken tails? Sounds dodgy to me. If there is such evidence then it should be presented. yes and that breeder made an example of, but no need to punish the good ones. The good ones who dock tails? the ones outlaying huge amounts of money to import fresh bloodlines, the ones who do actually have to dock a pup/dogs tail due to genuine problems. If there is any real proof that some people are breaking puppies tails just so they can be docked then they need to be punished. Is there actually proof ? If vets actually beleived this to be the case as was written they are obliged by law to report abuse. So therefore there should be proof or it should be withdrawn. It is a disgraceful accusation to make. Exactly the point I made in my first reply. If the allegations are correct, it is reprehensible not to report it for action. If they are hearsay, then they have no place in the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisart Dobes Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 It is not an ANKC rule, it is the law. The ANKC has to be seen to be law abiding. I am pro tail docking. It's illegal in most instances to dock a dog, but it is not illegal to import a docked dog, therefore those that import docked dogs should have every right to show them It is legal in Australia to dock a dog that has been injured - it is illegal to dock a dog in Australia to prevent such an injury. We have dogs that have full tails, we have full tailed dogs that have been injured and subsequently docked and we have imported docked dogs. My personal issues with this are that if I have a full tailed puppy that is a great example of our breed - is exhibited and does well, later in life injures the tail enough to be docked - then I cannot show, track or trial this dog ? How is this fair when I have abided by the law in this country ? Also with our imported dogs - our breed needs to expand the gene pool desperately. We are looking at future breedings to import a puppy but those breeders can't choose our puppy at day 3 when banding is done - so at this point if the litter/s we are interested in aren't produced prior to this ruling coming in we won't be able to proceed. I really hope that this gets voted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 It was a scary letter and I don't think people realise the ramifications. They want legally docked dogs banned so it's far more than just enforcing existing laws. I am starting to think the ANKC has been infiltrated by PETA because when those higher up take steps to destroy the show world they are doing exactly what the animal rights people want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisart Dobes Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Yes - the animal rights people are just sitting back laughing at all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janba Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) It was a scary letter and I don't think people realise the ramifications. They want legally docked dogs banned so it's far more than just enforcing existing laws. I am starting to think the ANKC has been infiltrated by PETA because when those higher up take steps to destroy the show world they are doing exactly what the animal rights people want. State bodies need to be lobbied to vote against the motion & Dogs Vic needs to be lobbied to withdraw the motion if that is your desire. Motions can be voted against and not accepted as happened with the motion was tabled that the ANKC request the FCI to accept the Australian border collie standard as Australia was the "country of development". ANKC members need to actively try to participate not just complain. Edited February 3, 2013 by Janba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I think I only heard about this on Friday and I think some of the states have already voted. How can you lobby to your state organisation when you are given no time to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janba Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I think I only heard about this on Friday and I think some of the states have already voted. How can you lobby to your state organisation when you are given no time to do so? The letter was dated 23/1/2013 and I know that Dogs NSW hasn't had a board meeting yet this year so can't have bought the matter up yet - not sure about other states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airedaler Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) I too believe there has been voting carried out and one unsubstantiated rumour says the motion cannot be approved due to the votes already placed. It is a bit hard to lobby the State bodies when we don't know anything about the matter until voting has already taken place. This is what the issue is about but as usual people are not seeing the the wood for the trees. As I understand an Electronic motion is somewhat different to a motion put at a meeting. I'm assuming, and would be happy for someone to confirm or dispell my assumption, that an electronic motion is one sent to individuals entitled to vote outside a convened meeting. Pre this technology matters to be voted on at the ANKC were submitted by/through the relevant State Canine Authority and taken to the annual (or was it biannual) ANKC meeting. If my assumption is correct does this mean there are no convened meetings of the ANKC these days? I do hope that the members of Dogs Vic will make the effort required to vote (and perhaps campaign) in the Management Committee elections coming up and remember who put this motion up. The number of voters who routinely vote is pathetic. Edited February 3, 2013 by Airedaler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I too believe there has been voting carried out and one unsubstantiated rumour says the motion cannot be approved due to the votes already placed. It is a bit hard to lobby the State bodies when we don't know anything about the matter until voting has already taken place. This is what the issue is about but as usual people are not seeing the the wood for the trees. As I understand an Electronic motion is somewhat different to a motion put at a meeting. I'm assuming, and would be happy for someone to confirm or dispell my assumption, that an electronic motion is one sent to individuals entitled to vote outside a convened meeting. Pre this technology matters to be voted on at the ANKC were submitted by/through the relevant State Canine Authority and taken to the annual (or was it biannual) ANKC meeting. If my assumption is correct does this mean there are no convened meetings of the ANKC these days? I do hope that the members of Dogs Vic will make the effort required to vote (and perhaps campaign) in the Management Committee elections coming up and remember who put this motion up. The number of voters who routinely vote is pathetic. This was on OzShow, something about there were already 4 votes against it so it couldn't be voted in? I will certainly remember who put the motion up and will not be voting for that person! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted February 3, 2013 Author Share Posted February 3, 2013 It was a scary letter and I don't think people realise the ramifications. They want legally docked dogs banned so it's far more than just enforcing existing laws. I am starting to think the ANKC has been infiltrated by PETA because when those higher up take steps to destroy the show world they are doing exactly what the animal rights people want. Thank you, I have been saying this for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruzzi Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 It seems some are mistakenly assuming the entire pure breed/show dog fraternity are pro tail docking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 This isn't about being pro or anti docking at all. It's about an official trying to get a motion through without consultation with members and also about restricting the use of dogs in Australia that are legally docked. There are no laws here that say a person can't own or import a legally docked dog so why the ANKC push to rule against them? It will essentially kill the import of some breeds and if they go that step further and try to stop breeding with legally docked dogs shrinking gene pools will be even smaller. No wonder people are giving up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RallyValley Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The latest is that NSW might be in support... :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Is he for real! Anyone deliberately breaking puppies tails are breaking the law - its extreme cruelty and he is saying his members are doing this - why the hell aren't they throwing them out then instead of making person who owns a legally docked dog pay for it ? What on earth has he gained by telling the whole world that some ANKC breeders are animal abusers? I would like to know the evidence on this and how he justifies putting every ANKC breeder in a position where they are seen to be potential criminals. Why not just stand in the street and throw them all under a bus use a mega phone to tell the world ANKC breeders need more laws and more monitoring to ensure they dont abuse their animals. What a bloody disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Votes or not whether he wins or not look what he has just done to his members ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now