Does Anyone Read Or Care About This Topic?

[melzawelza]

BSL is legislated by the individual states, the Feds the import restrictions.

You might see cross breeds added to the states BSL lists or more "types" of dogs but you aren't going to see any ANKC recognised breeds with ANKC papers targeted. Anyone with an ANKC registered dog with corresponding microchip has nothing to fear from BSL.

Stating " your breed could or will be next" is bullshit and scaremongering.

Don't buy a cross bred or a dog without ANKC papers and you won't have anything to be concerned about.

This is a good example.

Domestic dogs survive in our communities as a single species. You can't divide them. They are interdependent. If you do divide them by artificial lines they can't be antagonistic to each other. If you destroy one half you destroy both. Damage one half and the other suffers equaly.

Domestic dogs and pedigree dogs are a single entity. They share their foundations.

You say get a pedigree and no worries. If you allow this on the basis that it won't affect you, you are wrong.

You just can't predict how.

I suspect people will become even more irresponsible. If we let people think a breed can be inherently dangerous, regardless of how its raised and trained, Why Shouldn't they believe breed is responsible for a lot more.

Any thing that takes handler responsibility. An "Its got nothing to do with me, I'm just the owner" mentality.

You encourage that by your inaction and complacency.

Unless you tell people otherwise, All they see is that every problem comes down to breed. Its the breed.

But you let that pass because it doesn't affect your world.

It does.

You share the same foundations.

You damage your foundations and undermine what you stand on. Not just some mysterious other half. Its all undermined.

Then I suppose we will complain again of how "they", the public should take responsibility and learn more. Start agitating for compulsory dog owners licenses.

And its already starting to get a bit too tedious to be bothered anymore. By By domestic dogs for a lot more people.

Fewer still to Join ANKC.

If you let your base be undermined, theres nothing to grow from.

You won't see an ANKC breed added to BSL, not going to happen. I know it as do countless other owners of ANKC breeds with papers and corresponding chips. The only people that can't see it are those with generic brindle pound mutts, wannabe's without papers that owners refer to as Amstaffs and those who have come under council scrutiny.

For those of us with ANKC registered animals, we have nothing to fear, DogNSW negotiated our freedom a long time ago when we distanced ourselves from the sinking Pitbull ship.

So basically, your belief that an ANKC breed could never be subject to BSL, even though one already is and every other country that has had BSL has included KC-registered breeds, is based on arrogance and your feels.

I hope for the dogs sake that you are right, but I think that you are very foolish. I also think that you are no friend of the dog seeing as you care for nothing but your own (and in fact many of your posts across the forum make me seriously question whether you are a dog lover at all - pedigree or not).

[WreckitWhippet]

Once again, being a pedigree dog owner, I need not be concerned about BSL. It doesn't affect me now and is not going to in the future. The odd owner of an ANKC pedigree dog has come under council scrutiny, however that's been quickly sorted out with the sighting of the papers and corresponding chip.

Dogs NSW smartly and very quickly in the beginning made sure that our pedigree dogs weren't subject to BSL.

ETA: I am yet to see all of the "you'll be next " scaremongering become reality. We are into the 8th or 9th year of BSL in NSW and nothing has changed. No ANKC recognised breeds have been added to the list.

Edited June 5, 2014 by WreckitWhippet

[moosmum]

MM:

Define a pedigree dog. What definitively separates it from a run of the mill domestic dog apart from a partialy recorded history

The possession of a recorded history of ancestry going back at least 5 generations, and usually a hell of a lot more. Not "partially recorded", fully recorded. What sets these dogs apart is a documented histrory of breeding true to a type specified by the breed creators and documented in the breed standard.

I'm sorry MM I just don't get what you're trying to say about dogs and their "envrionment". You either want a dog that's going to be far more predictable in its adult characteristics and far more likely to be within a specified set of characteristics that you want, or you don't. If you don't then there are plenty of dogs around who will fit the bill and plenty of breeders supplying them. Why those who care about pedigrees have to take responsibility for the actions or knowledge of those that don't sure beats me.

I dont' see how "environment" influences that.

Before I answer this post and your next H.D.W Id like to make some more personal comments.

I know how controversial I am as a member of this forum and that I can't rely on remaining a member. So I'm going to go native and speak from the heart.

It makes me very happy to see you elected to the position you hold. I think you are a very level headed, inteligent and fair person who it will do the position justice. Regardless of how you deal with me, You have my respect and Its good to know A.C.T Dogs are in very good hands.

I need to repeat, (though I suspect you at least know) that I don't stir the pot here because I want to be controversial. I'm not here to damage the K.Cs or pedigree dogs in any way. I WANT them to succeed and be the best they can.

I have seen changes in the culture of dog owners and the choices they make. Its not getting better. Our communities are getting more and more intolerant of dogs, less knowledgable and increasingly seeing dogs as accessories than for any other purpose. I see this as a community phenomenom and its gaining momentum faster as time passes.

Not a K.C phenomonem or a cross breed one.

I wanted to know why.

To find that out I had to look to the K.Cs simply because the K.Cs are the single biggest influence on dogs and those who keep them and have been since their inception 150 or so years ago.

When the K.Cs were set up to improve and make better what we had,that should only have had a positive influence. So why have we gone backwards?

So here I find myself in a place where I realy believe I have my answer, backed by science. I want to use it to change the future I see ahead. Its scareing crap out of me because if I am right, the situation is far worse than I ever expected. It has repercussions far worse than I dreamed and gains momentum.

I'm not a scientist who can just publish. Theres no one field this fits because it incorporates language, psychology, anthropology, Law ,medicine and many more. In my mind, its all biology and natural law. I have always been comfortable thinking in these terms.

I have no idea how to explain to an organization that shaking a basic tenet of their belief is not an act of malice or ill will. That it will not damage them or their goals but will actualy give to them far more than it takes away and make them a very powerful, active force. Theres clearly no benefit to me personaly. Just the opposite.

So I just want to thank you for listening with an open mind. And now I need to go to do things for me and mine and hope to continue when time allows.

My thanks.

Edited June 5, 2014 by moosmum

[Salukifan]

MM why on earth would being controversial endanger your status here as a member?

You can hold any opinion you like provided you express it within forum rules. What gets people DOLidays more often than not is their inability to argue a point without becoming nasty.

As for my position in real life, I have no power to "deal with you" in any way shape or form unless you breach the Dogs ACT regs and you are a member. Nor, might I add, have I any desire to "deal" with people who express opinions without breaching those rules.

I do want you to know that I cannot grasp the ideas you are trying to get across. What do you mean by "environment" and what do you want of the KCs that they aren't doing now? I still don't know the answers to those. To put it bluntly, I have no idea what you are on about. It's still too vague for me to grasp.

I do know that there is NO BSL in the ACT, no political desire to implement it and no support from the RSPCA, Dogs ACT or the AVA for it. Should that change, I would weigh in on the anti-BSL side without hesitation.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Haredown Whippets

[Amax-1]

You are implying ANKC registration alone guarantees public safety,

No, it implies that breed selection was taken from the ANKC list implying that the breed is eligible for keeping within the community. The breed was chosen because it was ANKC recognised, that is the owners didn't merely purchase a cross breed or an unrecognised breed. If the breed ended up on the BSL list, the owners can argue a compensation case on that basis. If it's an unrecognised breed then it can be argued that undue diligence on the owner's part led to the purchase. You couldn't be more diligent than selecting a recognised breed from the ANKC list and purchasing a papered dog from a registered breeder.

It's the very reason Amstaff's are not on the BSL list determined as Pitbulls. If an ANKC recognised breed was added to the BSL list, Amstaff's will be first with their APBT connection and they are heavily supported with BSL avoidance strategy. As I mentioned earlier, a vets declaration that an unregistered dog is an Amstaff escapes APBT BSL restrictions.

I do know that there is NO BSL in the ACT

The states don't have to implement BSL, but breed banning can only be breeds subject to import restriction, that is a state or municipal district cannot decide to ban Cocker Spaniels overnight for example.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Amax-1

[moosmum]

MM why on earth would being controversial endanger your status here as a member?

You can hold any opinion you like provided you express it within forum rules. What gets people DOLidays more often than not is their inability to argue a point without becoming nasty.

As for my position in real life, I have no power to "deal with you" in any way shape or form unless you breach the Dogs ACT regs and you are a member. Nor, might I add, have I any desire to "deal" with people who express opinions without breaching those rules.

I do want you to know that I cannot grasp the ideas you are trying to get across. What do you mean by "environment" and what do you want of the KCs that they aren't doing now? I still don't know the answers to those. To put it bluntly, I have no idea what you are on about. It's still too vague for me to grasp.

I do know that there is NO BSL in the ACT, no political desire to implement it and no support from the RSPCA, Dogs ACT or the AVA for it. Should that change, I would weigh in on the anti-BSL side without hesitation.

Re: my staus as a member here, youre right but not every one will see it that way.

You are dealing with me in this conversation.

I know you don't understand. I will keep trying to explain but as I said, its not going to be quick.I'm used to thinking in these terms but its still taken me years to see the mechanics of it demonstrated.

B.S.L comes into it because B.S.L is an indirect result of changes of perception in the community. A misunderstanding of how the divion between breed traits and owner responsibility work together.

This is where language comes into it. The message the community as a whole recieves from the K.Cs has led many to believe the predictability of breeds on its own can account for the behaviour of individuals, diregarding a human element and responsibility.

The questions will have to wait. Hopfully tonight. My p.c hasn't been working. Theres a lot for me to catch up on and its going to take me awhile to work out the best explanations.

Edited June 6, 2014 by moosmum

[WreckitWhippet]

What are you on about?

[WreckitWhippet]

This is where language comes into it. The message the community as a whole recieves from the K.Cs has led many to believe the predictability of breeds on its own can account for the behaviour of individuals, diregarding a human element and responsibility.

It is a fact that pedigree dogs are more predictable in terms of temperament, behaviours, type, structure and soundness, that is the very reason they are what they are, a "breed". They are also predictable when it comes to behaviour despite the "human element", be it aloofness, merriness, boldness, prey drive, aggression, territorial behaviour and the list goes on.

Wether you are a responsible dog owner or not, it plays little part in your Cockers merriness, your Staffords bold fearless temperament, your Sighthounds aloofness, your Terriers prey drive etc, a breed is what it is, as are their temperaments in general.

You can control the behaviours with training but the basic underlying temperament and behaviours associated with the various breeds are always going to be there.

Your average working dog will chase stock, your average Terrier has a level of prey drive that will see it hunt, the Gundogs are invariably "birdie", the Bull breeds will fight, the breeds traditionally used to protect livestock and property invariably do so when they typically pass the puppy stage.

[moosmum]

MM:

Define a pedigree dog. What definitively separates it from a run of the mill domestic dog apart from a partialy recorded history

The possession of a recorded history of ancestry going back at least 5 generations, and usually a hell of a lot more. Not "partially recorded", fully recorded. What sets these dogs apart is a documented histrory of breeding true to a type specified by the breed creators and documented in the breed standard.

-**** That definition is a wholly human created construct. None of that is inherent in the dog itself. It doesn't definitively separate the pedigree from run of the mill domestic dogs, it can be can be recreated and duplicated. The pedigree doesn't have a life of its own, Eligibility to pedigree status is bestowed.

-*****I say partial history because it doesn't nessasarily record how long the dog lived, his temperament, health etc. It doesn't record how he lived and its all relevent. I agree though, history and the desire to use it( and knowledgethrough its use)

I'm sorry MM I just don't get what you're trying to say about dogs and their "envrionment". You either want a dog that's going to be far more predictable in its adult characteristics and far more likely to be within a specified set of characteristics that you want, or you don't. If you don't then there are plenty of dogs around who will fit the bill and plenty of breeders supplying them. Why those who care about pedigrees have to take responsibility for the actions or knowledge of those that don't sure beats me.

I dont' see how "environment" influences that.

I'll get there.

-***** Replies above. I don't expect those who care about pedigrees to take responsibility for others. Only to engage with others with out negative bias. Will explain.

Edited June 6, 2014 by moosmum

[moosmum]

I've explained the guide rules for writing a successful constitution re: negative rulings and ruling outside your environment.

It does all sound vague. The theory behind them is based on Biological or natural law. That the biological laws governing microbes, genes and cells are repeated endlessly, governing all natural existence. Hendrick Gommer, a Proffessor of Law, explains in more detail.

To see how they work in practice you need to see all of humanity simply as a population. Say single cells. As the population grows and crowds closer the individual cells become organized. They form groups that specialize to become more efficient in response to environmental demands. Messages are passed and while the organism called humanity grows, cells are constantly splitting off to take on new tasks and specialities.

When humans split off to form specialist sub populations its their constitution that binds them together and gives intent.Their biological blue print. It contains their instructions on how to behave and connect with other cells, or parts of its environment. It allows them to connect with the rest of the organism and allows for information to pass from one part to another.

The whole can only work effectively while mesages are clear and unambiguous with no interference.

As for environment, its not static. Its the medium it takes to grow . There are environments within environments within environments endlessly.

A subject originated in an environment that supports it. A human body is an environment for our cells, microbes and viruses. Environment is simply whatever medium the subject you're looking at grows in.

So you are now looking at the K.Cs as a sub population of these "cells" and the dogs as their specialty. A product for the organism, their environment. The relaying of messages is critical for survival and integration.

We're back to basic cellular biolgy. Looking at human populations through a microscope.

There are parallels where ever you look.

Survival of a culture depends very much on the messages being recieved within, and to and from the environment.Same principles we see at a cellular level. They work. Through human psychology and language.

What you, personaly believe and think is irrelevent because the whole of the culture is shaped over time to reflect the messages being sent and recieved. The culture you create works as a single entity, but its survival depends on its environment continuing to support it, and it continuing to support its environment.

It must remain relevent to whats expected of it and its supposed to be doing. The environment WILL react according to messages sent.

And theres clearly something wrong there.

So I look to the message and the language. In the only organization thats dedicated solely to the procreation of dogs in a sort of symbiotic relationship with man. Is that relationship going to remain relevent to its environment.

Sound too far fetched? I have already given examples of how The K.Cs influence their environment.There are many more.

They DO bear out this theory, even if you have trouble seeing it. Its why some countries are re writing their constitutions and Govts. are working to reduce and simplify legislation. Because the effects are subtle and intent isn't always clear.

My gennys going off and thats a lot to digest already.

Edited June 7, 2014 by moosmum

[moosmum]

This is where language comes into it. The message the community as a whole recieves from the K.Cs has led many to believe the predictability of breeds on its own can account for the behaviour of individuals, diregarding a human element and responsibility.

It is a fact that pedigree dogs are more predictable in terms of temperament, behaviours, type, structure and soundness, that is the very reason they are what they are, a "breed". They are also predictable when it comes to behaviour despite the "human element", be it aloofness, merriness, boldness, prey drive, aggression, territorial behaviour and the list goes on.

Wether you are a responsible dog owner or not, it plays little part in your Cockers merriness, your Staffords bold fearless temperament, your Sighthounds aloofness, your Terriers prey drive etc, a breed is what it is, as are their temperaments in general.

You can control the behaviours with training but the basic underlying temperament and behaviours associated with the various breeds are always going to be there.

Your average working dog will chase stock, your average Terrier has a level of prey drive that will see it hunt, the Gundogs are invariably "birdie", the Bull breeds will fight, the breeds traditionally used to protect livestock and property invariably do so when they typically pass the puppy stage.

But is it clear to people who comprize those dogs environment how to respond, maximize and make use use of those traits? Or their own role in doing so? What is expected of them in return? Do they understand their own role in keeping the partnership a successful, biologicaly sustainable one? Their responsibilities?

Doesn't look like it to me. The problems get worse rather than better. So maybe we should just continue to legislate dogs away through more restriction? Reject the idea theres any environment for dogs outside of K.Cs membership?

Just let them go because they have no relevence to US only to the K.Cs?

Maybe it really is nothing to do with the environment and dogs are only a K.C concern.

Edited June 7, 2014 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Human organization mimics cellular organization. Success or failure of an organization depends on an understanding of basic, biological laws.

If you allow the possibility that this theory is correct, and have a even a basic understanding of biological law,you can see how the K.C constitution and charter can not possiblely work in a sustainable way.

The blue print for the K.Cs is faulty and its end result is to take dogs out of the community. They should be left to the K.Cs.

And the K.Cs are not part of the community. They are issolated by their ruling against their environment.

They are left to define themselves by what they are not. Defined AGAINST the community. And that list will keep growing endlessly while there are dogs being kept outside of the K.C charter.

I have confirmed to my satisfaction that this is exactly whats happening through psychology and cultural change brought about by the K.Cs constitution and rules. Their charter. Much of this can be demonstrated.

A pedigree is a piece of paper. It verifies a recording of knowledge and history. Its a certificate that says the dog has been bred to protocols and a framework set up by the K.Cs to maximize the use of history and knowledge. It does not define the dog or its breeder in any way apart from its undiluted continuity but represents its available history or knowledge for those who will use it. It doesn't guarantee it will be used, or used correctly, or bring best results.

Certification doesn't bestow any qualities on the dog. The dog came 1st. Through practices, not through certification. Certification doesn't guarantee progress , only that its recorded.

Best practices lead to pedigrees, not the other way around.If you want best practices, thats what you promote, not pedigrees.

The message of responsibility is missing from the whole and will remain so until the fault is repaired.

Allowing members to breed mixed breeds would have no effect on the protocols in place for pure breeds. It won't dilute what is not mixed.

It won't cost any extra. A member who breeds only mixed breeds adds nothing to the workload through any mixed breeding they undertake.

They will still pay any dues in membership and mixed dogs will still lie outside of the K.Cs charter and responsibility, except where those members are now bound by any protocols that don't relate soley to the pedigree itself. They will not recieve a pedigree ever, unless the K.Cs themselves decide thats in their own best interests.

It has no effect on pure lines.

All it does is allow an interface of communication and SHARED responsibility to domestic dogs instead of attempting to divide responsibilty along undefined, imaginary lines.

It DOES increase interest and involvement in pure breeds. They now have relevence out side . A pedigree becomes a symbol and verification for a membership that stand for history, knowledge and best practice. Not just proof of an undiluted continuity (or purity, since thats how it is most often interpreted)

Allowing members to breed mixed breeds does no harm to pure breeds or the pedigree system. People who cross breed will not flock to the K.Cs and over run the organization. They will not be there if they have no interest in pedigree dogs and what that system has to offer. There will be nothing in the K.Cs to bring them but an involvement with PURE breeds.

They will alow an environmental influence, keeping the K.Cs connected to whats happening outside and the demands that must be met from the environment to stay relevant. Breeding and owner ship of dogs becomes an art promoted by the K.Cs.simply because they are no longer defined solely by an adherence to closed line breeding or purity.

H.D.W.... Yes, I know its that word again, but theres no alternative to its use when I'm talking about how the K.Cs are defined. You and I know better, but undiluted by outside influence = purity to most interpretation.

It removes the elitist label and separation of goals.

I think this is the best I can do to explain, unless there are questions to show where I have failed.

Edited June 8, 2014 by moosmum

[WreckitWhippet]

uumm yep, whatever you say.

Perhaps you might like to try and condense the dribble into a few lines of comprehendible English and I'll have another go at trying to understand you.

Kennels clubs exist for the purpose of providing and maintaining the registry and in some cases the sports associated with pedigree dogs and their associates, not the twaddle that you have attempted to describe it as.

[moosmum]

Human organization mimics cellular organization. Success or failure of an organization depends on an understanding of basic, biological laws.

If you allow the possibility that this theory is correct, and have a even a basic understanding of biological law,you can see how the K.C constitution and charter can not possiblely work in a sustainable way.

[moosmum]

Pedigree dogs don't need non pedigree dogs to survive. There could be no cross breeds or dogs of unknown origin left in this country and we could still continue to breed pedigrees. Some of the primitive and Sighthound breeds accept the use of native stock or desert dogs when breeding and occasionally stud books are opened from time to time but when they are it's controlled and doesn't encompass a random mating with muttly nextdoor.

You won't see an ANKC breed added to BSL, not going to happen. I know it as do countless other owners of ANKC breeds with papers and corresponding chips. The only people that can't see it are those with generic brindle pound mutts, wannabe's without papers that owners refer to as Amstaffs and those who have come under council scrutiny.

For those of us with ANKC registered animals, we have nothing to fear, DogNSW negotiated our freedom a long time ago when we distanced ourselves from the sinking Pitbull ship.

And so you demonstrate a closed environment, distancing itself from all out side and becoming more "typical" with time as you influence each other. You are using the pedigree as a symbol to set yourself apart.

Instead of responsible, good breeding or ownership.

Edited June 9, 2014 by moosmum

[Amax-1]

You won't see an ANKC breed added to BSL, not going to happen. I know it as do countless other owners of ANKC breeds with papers and corresponding chips. The only people that can't see it are those with generic brindle pound mutts, wannabe's without papers that owners refer to as Amstaffs and those who have come under council scrutiny.

We need to be concerned about BSL for survival of the BYB cross breed industry and the illegal breeding of APBT's for what reason? The people breeding these dogs that are not APBT related but fit the looks criteria need to take more responsibility for what they are breeding and selling IMHO. No one needs to breed Amstaff X Labradors selling them to naïve people who become attached to their pets for the council to seize them is gross irresponsibility on the breeders part.

[moosmum]

You won't see an ANKC breed added to BSL, not going to happen. I know it as do countless other owners of ANKC breeds with papers and corresponding chips. The only people that can't see it are those with generic brindle pound mutts, wannabe's without papers that owners refer to as Amstaffs and those who have come under council scrutiny.

We need to be concerned about BSL for survival of the BYB cross breed industry and the illegal breeding of APBT's for what reason? The people breeding these dogs that are not APBT related but fit the looks criteria need to take more responsibility for what they are breeding and selling IMHO. No one needs to breed Amstaff X Labradors selling them to naïve people who become attached to their pets for the council to seize them is gross irresponsibility on the breeders part.

Better to ask why they see the need to do it in the 1st place. Why do they feel their needs can't be met through the K.Cs?

Edited June 9, 2014 by moosmum

[Steve]

Give it a rest - stop beating up on the KC and fight your own fight if you feel passionate about it.

[Steve]

And so you demonstrate a closed environment, distancing itself from all out side and becoming more "typical" with time as you influence each other. You are using the pedigree as a symbol to set yourself apart.

Instead of responsible, good breeding or ownership.

What a load of rubbish - of course we use the pedigree to set ourselves apart because it is intrinsically what makes us different . In case you havent noticed our goal is to breed predictable pedigreed purebred dogs generation after generation and you cant do that with out a pedigree system.

[WreckitWhippet]

Give it a rest - stop beating up on the KC and fight your own fight if you feel passionate about it.

:clap: