Dogs Queensland Wanting To Restrict The Limit Register

[Mystiqview]

Dogs Queensland in the February issue of Dog World under "President's Message" has printed a bit there that they are going to discuss at a "Board Level" changing the conditions of the Limited Register.

Q. Why do your breeders breed litters

A. For the betterment of the breed and for replacement of show stock etc.

Q. Do we have a Limited Register

A. Yes

Q. Is it true that the amount of puppies put on the Limited Register is increasing dramatically?

A. Yes almost 40% of all Puppies

Q. Does this mean that our Breeders are not breeding better quality dogs and their breeding programmes are not succeeding?

A. No, what it means is that a lot of our members do not fully understand why and what the limited register is to be used for

" That all application for the Limited Register shall be accompanied by a Vet Certificate/ Letter advising the reasons as to why this Dog/Bitch should be placed on the limited register.We are all so aware of the threat to our hobby from outside influences, but sometimes the threat from within can be far more destructive."

Many of us place our pups on the LR to stop unwarranted registered breeding to occur with our lines. In QLD we do not have a "Not for Breeding" box or form unlike many other states. So we place pups on the LR to prevent this. Not always because they have a true breed fault.

Take aside the early desexing argument. It really should be up to the breeder if they want to early desex or not - and that is not the point here. Although if this is adopted - many more breeders will be forced to early desexing to stop the rogue breeders of their breed from gaining access to their lines. (This also plays into the hand that some of the welfare groups wanted us to do back in before the Animal Management Act 2008 came into force - all pups are desexed prior to sale.

Please - QLD members - write in to Dogs Queensland and voice your concern and objection to Dogs Queensland taking away a breeders right on what should or not be bred. I certainly do not want the puppy farmers or colour breeders getting hold of my dogs or lines as a result of such a move. We at least need a "not for breeding" option if we are now to place most of our stock on Main Register.

[dragonwoman]

Dogs Queensland in the February issue of Dog World under "President's Message" has printed a bit there that they are going to discuss at a "Board Level" changing the conditions of the Limited Register.

Q. Why do your breeders breed litters

A. For the betterment of the breed and for replacement of show stock etc.

Q. Do we have a Limited Register

A. Yes

Q. Is it true that the amount of puppies put on the Limited Register is increasing dramatically?

A. Yes almost 40% of all Puppies

Q. Does this mean that our Breeders are not breeding better quality dogs and their breeding programmes are not succeeding?

A. No, what it means is that a lot of our members do not fully understand why and what the limited register is to be used for

" That all application for the Limited Register shall be accompanied by a Vet Certificate/ Letter advising the reasons as to why this Dog/Bitch should be placed on the limited register.We are all so aware of the threat to our hobby from outside influences, but sometimes the threat from within can be far more destructive."

Many of us place our pups on the LR to stop unwarranted registered breeding to occur with our lines. In QLD we do not have a "Not for Breeding" box or form unlike many other states. So we place pups on the LR to prevent this. Not always because they have a true breed fault.

Take aside the early desexing argument. It really should be up to the breeder if they want to early desex or not - and that is not the point here. Although if this is adopted - many more breeders will be forced to early desexing to stop the rogue breeders of their breed from gaining access to their lines. (This also plays into the hand that some of the welfare groups wanted us to do back in before the Animal Management Act 2008 came into force - all pups are desexed prior to sale.

Please - QLD members - write in to Dogs Queensland and voice your concern and objection to Dogs Queensland taking away a breeders right on what should or not be bred. I certainly do not want the puppy farmers or colour breeders getting hold of my dogs or lines as a result of such a move. We at least need a "not for breeding" option if we are now to place most of our stock on Main Register.

DOGS Qld have always been against the limit register, for some screwy reason they think it affects show entries and numbers of puppies bred.....and registration income.............most of us think it encourages responsible breeding and selling of puppies......the option to upgrade is always there if the dog turns out OK. In the old days breeders simply did not register pets but now they have to register all puppies (and that is a good thing), breeders need some other option, like the limited register

The registration form is supposed to be now standard nationally..............and that includes a not for breeding tick box.................

what does current Qld form have?

[Mystiqview]

Last I checked. We still don't have a not for breeding tick box.

And yes, I thought we were supposed to have a National Standard. But dogs qld has its head so squarely up its backside it's not funny any more.

They support the puppy farmers by allowing certain members prolific breed against the breed standard. They won't do anything about it as its revenue to them.

[oakway]

Qld. registration paper have changed and the new certificates are now being issued.

Yes, the new certificate has all that has been mentioned, but it will not stop new owners breeding or exporting.

All it means is that puppies will not be accepted for registration from this bitch and an export pedigree will not be issued.

It does not stop people from exporting the dog.

The only way to stop a bitch or dog being bred with is render incapable of being bred with by tubal ligation or de sexing.

We have enough problems with pups being sold for show that the owners get sick of and dispose of to anybody that comes along, usually a puppy farmer that wants something pure to cross with what they already have.

Some of us have been caught badly over the years and now will not let anything that is being sold as a pet go un de sexed. I don't like early de sexing but what else can I do to protect them ?.

Please don't tell me about contracts as the people you have them with change house and disappear along with dog never to be seen again. If you do manage to contact them it usually will cost an arm and a leg to prosecute them and by this time the animal has been disposed of usually to a puppy farmer.

[Mystiqview]

I realise that the LR or the clause "not to be bred" will only stop the registered breeders from breeding registered litters. It won't stop the BYB. D'oh I have been around long enough to know that.

This is not about whether we should early desex or not. Hence my original comment "Take aside the early desexing argument. It really should be up to the breeder if they want to early desex or not - and that is not the point here"

As you know, in QLD we can register pups straight into the new owner's names (Whereas other states have to register it to themselves and then execute a transfer to the new owner) - the tick on the transfer on the back of the pedigree is really only good if we are disposing of a dog after the initial registration and then send in the transfer application ourselves to ensure it gets to Canine.

I know I have heard the complaint from some kennels in my breed that they cannot get access to the the quality dogs. Maybe there is a reason those breeders don't want their lines ending up in such kennels? I have heard the same from new breeders, however many now who are starting out seem to be concentration on colour rather than quality to start with and they want it all now without putting in the effort.

NSW on their litter Registration form allows differing reasons for the Limit Register:

LIMITED REGISTER 6. A dog shall only be eligible for registration in the limited register if it is:

(a) ineligible for exhibition at a conformation show, or

(b) for any reason, not to be used for breeding purposes, or

© not entire or has been desexed, and

(d) not registered in the main register or the supplementary register, and

(e) there is submitted a duly completed application for registration in such form accompanied by such fee as the Board of Directors may from time to time require.

For the purpose of this regulation "conformation show" means a show that is either an all breeds show, a championship show, a general show, an open show, a parade, a sanction show or a specialist show.PLEASE NOTE: Limited Registered dogs that do not comply with the relevant ANKC Breed Standard will NOT be permitted to be transferred to the Main Register.

I have just downloaded the "current" litter registration form from Dogs Queensland website. The only options when registering a litter is to circle "Main Register" or "Limit Register" with the notes that a LR must be accompanied by the applicable form (No Where on either form does it give the reasons/definition for Limit Register) other than below.

LIMITED REGISTER -Please Note: If you are placing a puppy on the Limited Register, this litter application must be accompanied by a letter from the puppy buyer confirming they understand the dog cannot be shown or bred from:Rule 3-Dogs which are Registered in the Limited Register are eligible to participate in Obedience Trials, Agility Trials, Field Trials, Endurance Tests, Earth Dog Tests or Tracking Trials, including Sweepstakes associated with such events, but are not eligible to enter a Conformation Show, or be used in Breeding.

If Dogs Queensland have their way and have their proposal passed at a board meeting then dogs who still fall "correct" as per the breed standard will not be able to be placed onto the Limit Register unless accompanied by a vet certificate/letter. We all have kennels in our breeds that we don't want our dogs or lines ending up into for various reasons (spite aside).

The ones who win there is Dogs Queensland in the hope that more dogs on Main Register will be bred by registered breeders, thus increasing their coffers in associated fees. I know of one breeder who has complained they now have to pay GST as they earn over $70K in puppy sales a year. Average size litter is 4-8 with some bitches producing up to 12-15 pups/litter, multiply that by 2 or so litters per month at between $800 - $1200 / puppy on average.

If this rule came in, then yes, I would be looking at early desexing and I am sure many others would too to prevent our dogs from ending up in those kennels.

However this move also plays into the hand of the BYB's who were behind some of the proposed radical changes to Legislation prior to finally adopting the Animal Management Act 2008 - Rescue groups and other organisations were pushing for ALL puppies and kittens to be desexed prior to sale, a move that would have also decimated the conformation ring. Dogs Qld fought that one and we now have the choice to either early desex or keep entire.

It really should be our decision as breeders to determine what is suitable to be bred from (as in ANKC Registered breeding) and what is not. If most of us then go down the track of early desexing - then where will Dogs QLD be? Neuter show classes are few and far between. You still cannot breed from the animal to keep the gene pool open. So numbers still won't increase. Will they then try to stop us from early desexing as well?

Maybe Dogs Queensland should further investigate WHY numbers are REALLY down at shows across the state and also in other states. I am sure it is not solely to do with the increased number of puppies sold on the Limited Register - especially if the main purpose the pup was sold in the first place is a family pet that will in time be desexed.

[Jed]

they earn over $70K in puppy sales a year

HOW MUCH?

(faints)

IMHO, having bred prior to the LR, it doesn't matter which register you put the pup on, dodgy people will still breed with it.

I put a whole litter last year on MR because I couldn't be bothered explaining to people who had demonstrated to me that they wanted pets, why their pup was on limited register. All are now desexed, and pets.

I think DQ is hoping that by removing, LR, more dogs will be sold for breeding, numbers will increase, and the dog world will improve.

I don't think that will happen.

I think we should have MR with the option of "not for export"

There are also much worse things than breeding which can happen to a dog - being used as a football at 10 weeks by 2 teenage boys, or being kicked down 20 steps each morning spring to mind. Yes, both these things happened.

Really, it is the investigations you (the breeder)do and the amount of time you spend with the buyer which will tell you what their intentions are --- and if they are the puppy farmers from hell, they will convince you they are lovely. I find that Google, and Nearmap (before they began charging for it) are good tools to see where the dogs will be kept. That doesn't stop them putting them in the garage in crates, but I have a contract about that, and I have taken a couple of dogs (males) back under that contract.

Once we didn't need LR, but those days are over. Once buyers were honest. Now, some other breeder has groomed them so they know what to say. My system has failed me once or twice, but not enough to neuter all dogs before they leave home. I have a few strategies which help me, but I am not listing them on a public forum.

And - to ensure we have a hobby in the future, we need to encourage new exhibitors and breeders.

I wish people would tell me if they want to breed - I would sell them the best one and encourage them, but they wont; they lie, and then I hear they have a litter and have to phone them and ask why they didn't tell me, so they could have a good one.

When I was a young person, if you bought a bitch, the breeder would encourage you to come back and breed a litter - select the stud for you- suggest some reading, give you some help, and probably sell the pups as well -- and help you get into the ring. Don't think there is as much of that about now, which is really sad.

I don't know what the answer is, any more

Edited February 22, 2014 by Jed

[oakway]

Mystiqview,

I was not replying to you or any other person really, I just answered a question or two that was asked and the rest is just my thoughts about the matter. :)

As to a vet being qualified to say what is correct in a litter and what is not correct is just laughable. Some vets don't know what some breeds are let alone know the standard. The way Dogs Qld has put the matter it would almost mean every vet would have to have an all breeds judges license. (tongue in cheek)

The simple answer is de sex by either means available and keep on the main register. I think Dogs Qld have forgotten that to be able to show the new owner must want to show and the ones that have purchased from me didn't want to.

By the way for people whom are not aware the cost to register a pup in Qld is the same for Main or Limited.

[Steve]

Limited register was supposed to be about protecting the breed from bad genes not protecting the breed from breeders who may breed your dogs.

The betterment of the breed is about diversity of genes and people who will select with different criteria and motivations.

Queensland doesn't get a double dip - the breeder puts the rego of the pup into the new owners name and main rego costs more so they wont loose any money but rather gain money if they stick to making all breeders register every pup so they are motivated to take a better look at the impact of limited register than any other state. However - lets not forget that pre limited register we didnt have to give people a registered pedigree original - we could give a copy of the original or we could decide not to register them at all. So pre limited register they didn't really have a clue who was breeding puppies that they didnt register or who was breeding a back to back litter or Mum to son etc and they have determined this is something they need to regulate so the general public see us as a better source of pet puppies.

i agree that introduction of the limited register has not been good for the breeds, not because we breed more puppies we don't want to be used for breeding but because that coupled with numerous other things influenced by animal rights created the culture we now see where in some breeds a core group of breeders dictate what dogs will be bred and who can own them - where it has become so hard for people to purchase a dog they may use for breeding registered puppies that they breed them without papers or have to start with less than ideal dogs not good for the breeds but perceived to protect bloodlines from bad people who might breed them.

Remove limited register and keep the requirement to provide registered pedigree originals to every puppy buyer and that equals more money at point of sale and potentially more members and more people breeding dogs with papers = more numbers and more money money money money.

Simple in other states give them a copy of the pedigree and never an opportunity to be able to transfer the dog into their name on the registry because they wont get the original - queensland cant see you winning there. Money and how it looks to the nutters will win.

[oakway]

Steve my apologies I don’t understand what you mean when you say.......the breeder puts the rego of the pup into the new owners name and main rego costs more so they wont loose any money ........

Queensland actually makes a loss on this method of registration as we don’t have to pay a transfer fee. The cost of registration for main or limited is the same price. :)

Perhaps our problems may lay in fact that every state seems to have its own rules ?. Maybe if we had one governing body throughout Aust. we may do a lot better.

I personally feel that no matter what is introduced there will always be those that will wrought the system and some of our dogs will fall into the wrong hands and have the guts bred out of them.

Cheers.

[Jed]

I think DQ had also forgotten some of the restrictions stud dog owners put on litters. Often, if you use a nice imported dog, his owner does not want his lines to go to someone who will mismanage them, or not health test or whatever. As a small time breeder, I am, and have always been most grateful to these owners for allowing me the use of their top stud dog.

When I sell the resultant pups, I keep one for myself, and I put all the remainder on limited register, and ensure they go to pet homes.

So, what happens if there is no limited register?

What happens is that the dog owners restrict the use of the dogs to themselves only, and quality and diversity goes down the gurgler.

My vet certainly wont lie, nor would I expect him too. Bad hq angulation may stop the dog being a decent show dog, but it wont stop it being a decent pet, so no vet will certify that. Even if they know. Half the vets don't even know that boxers are undershot!! Vets aren't about conformation, they are about health.

And then we arrive at a situation where, if the dog is on MR, and there is no vet cert saying it is not up to par, perhaps the purchaser expect to show it? If it doesn't win, will the breeder, or DQ be sued?

I am vehemently opposed to neo nate desexing - always assuming I could find a vet to do it!!

I hope we have elected a committee who will consider ALL the implications of this move, and indeed, will consider the long term implications as well.

[Jed]

Steve said

Queensland doesn't get a double dip - the breeder puts the rego of the pup into the new owners name and main rego costs more so they wont loose any money but rather gain money if they stick to making all breeders register every pup so they are motivated to take a better look at the impact of limited register than any other state. However - lets not forget that pre limited register we didnt have to give people a registered pedigree original - we could give a copy of the original or we could decide not to register them at all. So pre limited register they didn't really have a clue who was breeding puppies that they didnt register or who was breeding a back to back litter or Mum to son etc and they have determined this is something they need to regulate so the general public see us as a better source of pet puppies.

The breeder can register into the new owners name : but main register and limisted register cost the same.

In Q it has always (including pre- LR) been a requirement that ALL pups from every litter be registered with DQ.

No, because ALL pups were registered, DQ always knew what dogs were used and how often they were mated. There were no regulations (as it should be) about first generation matings, or time between matings.

So these changes are not being considered

so the general public see us as a better source of pet puppies.

The general public could always see that in Qld. Yeah, sure, you could sell pups without papers, but you were then in breach of the COE. There is some other reason for this mooted change.

[Steve]

Steve my apologies I don't understand what you mean when you say.......the breeder puts the rego of the pup into the new owners name and main rego costs more so they wont loose any money ........

Queensland actually makes a loss on this method of registration as we don't have to pay a transfer fee. The cost of registration for main or limited is the same price. :)

Perhaps our problems may lay in fact that every state seems to have its own rules ?. Maybe if we had one governing body throughout Aust. we may do a lot better.

I personally feel that no matter what is introduced there will always be those that will wrought the system and some of our dogs will fall into the wrong hands and have the guts bred out of them.

Cheers.

Sorry Oakway I wasn't clear I meant that they allow breeders to register a pup straight into the new owners name - in NSW its not possible for the breeder to do this and I didn't realise the limited register was the same price as the main one in queensland - there is a difference in NSW.

[oakway]

Steve my apologies I don't understand what you mean when you say.......the breeder puts the rego of the pup into the new owners name and main rego costs more so they wont loose any money ........

Queensland actually makes a loss on this method of registration as we don't have to pay a transfer fee. The cost of registration for main or limited is the same price. :)

Perhaps our problems may lay in fact that every state seems to have its own rules ?. Maybe if we had one governing body throughout Aust. we may do a lot better.

I personally feel that no matter what is introduced there will always be those that will wrought the system and some of our dogs will fall into the wrong hands and have the guts bred out of them.

Cheers.

Sorry Oakway I wasn't clear I meant that they allow breeders to register a pup straight into the new owners name - in NSW its not possible for the breeder to do this and I didn't realise the limited register was the same price as the main one in queensland - there is a difference in NSW.

No problems, as I said with most states on a different agenda it amazes me how we all manage with one another's state rules.

[Mystiqview]

I had it told to me by a Dogs Qld staff member that another popular breed sells most of their pups on MR. So why don't we?

I have heard the complaints from high producing volume breeders and colour breeders that " they cannot access top dogs". We all have those breeders in our breed whom the majority consider below satisfactory or maybe even unethical. We all know which ones they are within our breeds. There is a good reason why people don't want their dogs ending up there.

And Jed, I am in fully agreement with you on the research of the breeder on potential buyers. Good screening is essential. However even with the best screening, and all the tools available now. We can still be caught out. The dealers and agents are getting smarter too. I have heard where others have been caught out to find their dog or a dog sired by their stud has been exported.

I have been duped once by a young 20 year old male. I did all the right things. I inspected the property, asked all the questions etc. How was I to know that after he passed the cute puppy period, he was to be left in the back yard tied to the clothesline? Fed on scraps and given no basic manners or obedience training. I eventually got this dog back at 12 months of age, after going through four other homes in as many weeks unbeknown to me, he was in such a mess, physically, health and mentally that I had to make the hard decision to put him to sleep. I was there at his birth. I was there at his death. Not something any breeder wants to see of one of their puppies. Better he take his last breath with me, than on an unknown steel slab in a pound.

I have heard it said from many breeders of the popular breeders that many of the newbies are only interested in breeding especially catering to breed fads. Not interested in showing or trialling.

In my breed there ar so many dogs who don not comply with the breed standard based in colour. In health terms they would qualify to be on the MR. Nearly five years ago, my pick bitch was ian incorrect colour so I had no choice to register her on the LR and have her desexed. Because of her colour, she could never have been shown. If I bred her today, I would do the same again as that is the breed standard. A vet would clear her as healthy. So do we need to take the breed standard along to the vet and say, this dog needs to be registered as LR because of the colour? And do we need to take a copy of the breed standard and even the extended standard for when we get our vet certificate?

Dogs qld answer to this: " Register it to the closest colour" so we are having all these unrecognised colours to our breed standard being registered incorrectly on the main register so they can be bred with. Queensland also has a high percentage of breeders and new breeding coming in breeding for colour as they can get up to $800 more per puppy compared to the standard black and white.

So with the above, for those breeding against the standard, would a vet support the limit register for all those colour breed pups because while they may be vet healthy they do not conform to the standard? (Because according to our standard, they should be LR anyway).

Dogs qld need to encourage better and more responsible breeding, not just in my breed, but all the other fad breeds. However it would seem they want more breeders and more memberships without considering the whole.

There has to be a range of reasons why memberships and entries are falling. I don't think it is just because of the LR. we have so many more new breeders coming into my bred alone, so litter registrations is up, however how many are still not going on to even sporting fields? These dogs may not make good show dogs, but still should do well in the increased options for sporting pursuits, which does not seem to be happening.

It has only been in the last 10 years or less that QLD introduced the associate register for non pedigree dogs. NSW and other states had it for much longer. If numbers are increasing here, that could indicate why they want to push more registered breeding as these dogs come from BYB or rescue.

[angelsun]

I'm not in QLD but can a vet clearly have enough knowledge of MY breed to indicate that any of my pups are not suitable for future reproduction? short answer...nope. Most don't even know what my breed is!

[Steve]

When a breeder decides a dog should or shouldnt be used for breeding there are a multitude of reasons which go into determining that - things a vet could have no possible idea of .To suggest the answer to their concerns is all on main unless a vet says they are no good for breeding is crazy.

Seems to me every time you turn around there is some new rule or law which makes vets richer and not much else.

[Angeluca]

Is there some way we can contest this?

I breed a common breed, and there is plenty of genetic diversity. Out of my 17 pups 4 have been kept on main. Those still could better is some areas but show great potential they were kept on main.

No pup showed any serious conform fault but things like, bit short in length, angles not quite up to scratch (could be my stacking but was confirmed by someone with experience), not enough chest (as that is what my lines lack a bit of so was looking for good chests). Not one of these little things a vet would pick up on as they all had great temp and passed the rigorous hip manipulation, heart check and hernia check.

But I do not think it would better the breed if all these little things were widely available to those not knowledgeable enough to breed to strengthen weakness within the line. We will end up with serious faults which may lead the health issues in the long run.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Angeluca

[Christina]

Perhaps our problems may lay in fact that every state seems to have its own rules ?. Maybe if we had one governing body throughout Aust. we may do a lot better.

Cheers.

No thank you.

I don't want other states stupid rules re dogs by governing bodies, councils or anything else. Its just fine coping with the crap your own state has

[Angeluca]

Perhaps our problems may lay in fact that every state seems to have its own rules ?. Maybe if we had one governing body throughout Aust. we may do a lot better.

Cheers.

No thank you.

I don't want other states stupid rules re dogs by governing bodies, councils or anything else. Its just fine coping with the crap your own state has

true we'd end up with all the ridiculous rules such as the one discuss here destroying all pedigree dogs.

[Mystiqview]

Angeluca,

Write into dogs qld. I certainly did as soon as I read it with the points I have brought up here.

Unfortunately dog world sat on my desk for a week or two before I even got around to opening it.

This is not something that should only be decided at a Dogs Qld board level. Members should have a say and be given the opportunity to object and put forward their points - both good and bad. Vets should not be the governing body to decide what should be on main register or not. They do not know our breed standards. They also do not know all the breed specific health testing and/or issues.

I would rather see them promoting and enforcing compulsory breed health testing across all breeds.