Does Anyone Read Or Care About This Topic?

[moosmum]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC/950109/

That one rule change allowing K.C members to breed outside of the registry system could, over time, address all the concerns raised in this paper. By creating a culture receptive to environmental demands. AND more knowledgable, with a broader experience and understanding of breeding practices,goals and possibilities.

Much less intrusive,restrictive, or complicated than choosing to be "victims" of increasingly unsustainable changes.

What has this paper to do to do with breed specific legislation?

Most any other solutions to the problems mentioned will need to be breed specific, weather thats forced on members through legislation or agreed upon within the K.Cs breed club members. Either way, the solutions will be restrictive rather than creative while that rule exsists. It will always place limmits on direction.

Edited March 1, 2015 by moosmum

[ricey]

And the circle game goes on and on; round, round, what goes around, comes around....

The thing is, WIW and all the other sad apologists can continue with their "this will never affect ANKC breeds" mantra, but they are wrong. That they are wrong has been proven time and time again in other jurisdictions, and in Australia. Me, I am sad that their chosen breeds will be affected by BSL, but I am only sad for the dogs. I am not sad about WIW and all the others like him. They will get what they deserve. Its just a pity about their dogs, as the dogs deserved better.

I challenge any of you to show a jurisdiction that implemented BSL for non kennel club recognized breeds that didn't follow it with kennel club breeds. Just like Australia did.

ricey

Edited April 18, 2015 by ricey

[ricey]

And if we really want to get technical, we've already got one ANKC registered breed subject to BSL - Greyhounds.

It's not BSL and you know that.

It is BSL, and if you can't realise that, then I'd quietly suggest that you require help in interpreting the real world.

Because of their breed, they are subject to legislation in most states that requires them to be muzzled at all times in public; could you please tell us why that legislation is not "breed specific"?

ricey

Edited April 18, 2015 by ricey

[GeckoTree]

Prolly because it morphed from being legislation into an accepted tradition over the passage of time

When were the greyhounds first made to be the first dog breed to be muzzled when out in public anyway?

[moosmum]

A ruling on what lies out side of the purpose or constitution as set out by the founding body will have a political effect on what occurs outside of that body.

As long as it exsists to promote its influence. This is social engeneering.

A ruling that affects the environment that body is supported by. The WHOLE community that gave rise to the single species domestic dog by their support and selection.

All now affected by an antagonistic ruling against what occurs outside of that one specialist body.

Not the place of a registry only, so brings an expectation to be more.

The K.Cs are dependent on the whole community (their environment) for new membership ideas and even purpose. With no support you have no purpose unless you will forget sales and just swap among yourselves to fade away in a generation.

Of those who contribute to our understanding of dogs or even own them, a small minority are K.C members.

This ruling that no member will be breed outside of a K.Cs own protocols has an affect on the society that gave rise to the species. It splinters it into specialist factions rather than a cohesive society with common goals and expectation.

A lot of "specialists" with no room for common purpose. Purpose is un-common and increasingly not for common man. Just "specialists" whos field can only become more specialised and marginalized as they distance themselves from the common man.

Organised commercialism is the logical next step. In the end thats the only means of meeting the (erroded) expectations of the common, unafiliated man, if dogs will continue to hold a place in society. Anything else seeks to take them from common man.

Heavily regulated Commercial breeders with stringent and uniform protocols will replace "family" breeders ( and/or back yard breeders ) if breeding dogs is not permitted to be "owned" by the communities in which they live.

Finger pointing to percieved failings does nothing to teach or promote value in any other practice. It leads us straight to it.

Those pointing out failings don't gain value by doing so. Value must be shown, demonstrated and recognised before it can be appreciated and sought. If dogs are to continue holding a place in whole communities, it must be whole community driven. Not driven by factions governed 1st by self interest.

I have no doubts left. Please, show me some.

Edited July 18, 2015 by moosmum

[moosmum]

The welfare situation for domestic dogs is compromised by lack of responsibility. Because that need for greater responsibility is not being met, The environment is reduced- through legislation on additional environmental conditions to be met before dogs are permitted to thrive.

A species that is unable to meet the demands and expectations of its broader environment will, over time, be mostly limmited to the specific environment its tailored and evolved to.

Without responsibility TO the environment, there is no value or purpose for that environment to support. Without responsibility to the environment, the environment is damaged and reduced through lack of "care" and antagonism.

A condition of life, is response. We are all born with an ability to respond. Some have a greater ability than others, and response can be learned. It seems its our response that gives the meaning to " Life ". That its our response to our environment that gives purpose. Our responsibility.

To define "responsibility": Greatest responsibility can be said to be those who respond most effectively and beneficialy to the demands/expectations of of a changing environment.

The K.Cs have ruled against their environment as unacceptable.(anything outside of their own self proscribed domaine of verified pedigree dogs)

The K.Cs, by their nature, have among the greatest of abilities to respond to the challenges of their broader environment in ways that would give maximum benefit TO that environment.

In return, They would achieve among the greatest rates of success in that broader environment.

The K.Cs have among the greatest of response-abilities. The K.Cs claim as much by their ruling that what occurrs outside of their private domain is unacceptable.

But that ruling also ensures that responsibility won't be excersised, that they will take no responsibility for the greater environment that supports their own proscribed boundaries.

For that, they ARE responsible. For choosing to be seen as distinct and aloof from the common man. A group apart from its environment. They bear responsibility for that perception in the common man and any effects of that choice.

The K.Cs HAVE responsibility. Its a choice of their exclusivity not to excersise it.

And to deny it credible exsistence out side of their own boundaries.

Edited to add: Canus Familiaris, Domestic Dogs, are in trouble.

Not just pure breeds, or backyard breed, designer dog or even working dog. The SPECIES.

Its natural habitat is alongside man, but thats being erroded.

If individual groups can't recognise the environment for dogs is in trouble and take their share of the responsibility, instead of passing the blame and just eliminating "other" groups whos failures are the focus, the environment is just whittled away more, along with purpose and value in the community.

Sooner or later, the focus has no where left to turn but to your own failings. Any support you may have had is gone if no one has been taught to value what you do. Its outside of their experience or interest.

They WILL be taught your failings and the cost, because thats what we do now.

With out accepting a responsibility to your environment, you have no purpose IN that environment.

Edited August 24, 2015 by moosmum

[moosmum]

In the over arching biological definitions, exclusivity seems to come to come back to the environment.

The only thing that can be excluded are parts of the environment. In shared environment, that space itself must be constantly re defined to be excluded, yet will always be felt as an antagonist force to struggle against. As long as its excluded.

Proscribed, Cultural exclusion appears to set up a scenario of victimisation in the culture so proscribed, with resulting retaliation and counter attack. An endless battle. Space cant be shared in exclusion. Each MUST infringe on the other, while exclusion is proscribed.

In exclusivity, there will always be an opposition, with no choice for either position. Neither can assume responsibility for the whole while parts refuse to recognise there IS a whole.

Environmental diversity can be accepted and valued by its environment, only if its accepting OF its environment.

An entity or group proscribed as distinct from its peers takes no responsibilty beyond that group. It damages its environment through disregard. Failure to recognise the costs of its own demands to the greater environment.

The greater environmental expectations and demands will be seen as antagonistic to a proscribed group.

Costs imposed ON the greater environment will also be seen as antagonistic, Since no responsibility is taken for the results by such an entity.

In the end, its self destructive. It does not choose to occupy a given space in the environment, but instead reduces the environment to suit only that entity.

Even in the space occupied only by that entity, there must be an environment. That that will be blamed for its unwelcomed influences so that the entity will be ruled by division. Where does the environment end and an entity begin if they are inseparable?

Like the story of a demon called to appear within a pentagram drawn on its navel.

Humanity as a species loose the power of, and responsibility for, our own destiny and the world we live in when its parts choose to recognise a group entity with proscribed and set boundaries in its stead.

Antagonism is written.

This is the world we've been given. Our responses to it are what shapes it and decides our purpose within it.

"Hatred" and rejection of what it is (diversity) can only bring destructive reactions.

Accepting the diversity in our world allows us to respond to it and shape it. To take responsibility for it instead of reacting and destroying it. It gives power to individuals to play a part in the shape and direction of the whole by demonstrating values and expectations shared, not imposed, on the whole of the environment.

Demonstrating TO the environment effective responses to problems rather than promoting thoughtless reaction.

A proscribed entity removes that once it claims "right of way"

Edited September 20, 2015 by moosmum

[moosmum]

The laws governing gene and cell behavior,"learning", reproduction, growth and response ARE repeated, endlessly through even the higher or more complicated organisms and life forms. These are the physics of biology. As much a part of physics as quantum theory.

The research into genetic reproduction, using plants, that has determined viable population sizes must be considered equally relevant to all organic life forms unless/until proven otherwise. These rules learned in school are organic physics.

Much easier to work with physics, than attempt to work against them. Doomed to fail.

For acceptance into an environment, value must be given, taught and demonstrated. This is the response-ability of life. This is not possible if the environment is not recognized.

Otherwise, the environment that allows that form must continue to reject (or stress) that form until it can respond appropriately, or face ultimate destruction. Its not viable if its unable to respond appropriately.

An environment is the space you occupy. Its made up of all it contains. The healthiest environment is the one which supports the most diversity. Any part of an environment unable to accept diversity can not help but reduce the environment, or be rejected by it. Reducing diversity either way.

Diversity allows maximum range of response and possibility. A life that does not recognize its environment and thus reduces it, removes response- ability and invites directionless, destructive chaos. This is what we legislate against, and how we reduce our environment.

An ACCEPTANCE of environment and our response- ability to it, instead demonstrates efficient, effective direction that benefits the environment, allowing it to grow and evolve. With out, there is no growth, only stagnation and deterioration. All parts of an environment have an EQUAL response-abilty to accept and respond to the environment that supports it. Not to reject, but to respond, in an effective and beneficial manner.

Space can not be shared in exclusivity.

The K.Cs are an organic construct dictating a set response of rejection to environmental demands. There is no response- ability to the environment supporting this construct.

The ruling against members breeding dogs outside of K.C protocols places the organization, and the pedigrees representing it, before either species it serves. It does not recognize them with out membership.

It does not recognize its environment. It has ruled against it.

Edited February 28, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Theres nothing wrong with an appreciation of predictability. It has a place. But life does not depend on predictable behavior. It depends on responsive behavior. In DEMANDING predictable behavior, you remove options for response.

To demand breeders be recognized as such only through a K.C membership Adhering to CLUB standards with ritualized testing for predictable traits and qualities, demands ritualized responses.

In the dogs and the humans.

It removes available response. Directs you to favor the predictable response that achieves favor within that organization, or breed at this point in time.

Not a considered opinion that allows your own experience, understanding or needs. Its not based on your own ability to respond effectively to your own unique situation/environment.

The K.Cs. that rule against breeding out side their certification must be satisfied first. That is hard wired into the organization.

Breeding for predictability in the breeds while allowing nothing else is achieved through removing available response. This must become evident both in body and mind.

Less repertoire for response.

In predictable situations there will always be a place for predictable response.

The breeds have that role.

But taken as the sole aim of dog breeding it doesn't demand more of the Species. It demands less.

Edited February 28, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Expectations are lowered. The value or esteem we hold for dogs is lowered.

Welfare and personal responsibility are more often compromised with out a value being recognized.

Predictability alone tells us the behavior of the dogs should also conform to the demands of human behavior. Its independent of our own responses and actions. Its not the owners responsibility. To ensure that they minimize the chances of these problems occurring and select dogs according to their individual environment, needs and ability.

This all becomes a breeders responsibility. If the breeders don't recognize the increasing responsibility predictability alone forces on them, expectations won't be met and breeders themselves loose value.

If behavior is predictable, dogs should not bite. A dog that does is faulty.

Dogs should not bark non stop. A dog that does so is faulty.

Dogs should walk calmly on lead. A dog that doesn't is faulty.

Dogs should love children. A dog that doesn't is faulty.

Dogs should not be destructive. A destructive dog is faulty.

Its the breeders fault.

We teach unrealistic expectations. When they can't be met, the 'product and company' is devalued. But it can't be separated from its species, so all lose value.

A faulty dog is less likely to be a valued dog. And its the breeder who will be held accountable while they teach predictability is the only worthy goal. Yes, an ethical breeder takes his or her responsibilities very seriously and promotes that ideal. But there is a coda that only a K.C registered breeder can be responsible and what that responsibility entails is rarely promoted or taught outside the K.Cs membership. The K.Cs message is that "responsible breeder" is dependent on membership. Yet the less people understand of how to respond effectively to the species, whats involved in responsible breeding, the more responsibility falls to the K.Cs to meet unrealistic, uninformed demands.

Yet a non member is expected to understand that membership does not bestow responsibility, to understand what it entails and how to find it.

We don't seek to understand what we haven't experienced, seen or been taught exists. We can't seek what we don't know or recognize. The K.Cs are bodies that promote that understanding within their ranks, and within their ranks only.

Intolerance or rejection of what lies out side the K.Cs stated areas of expertise leads to its rejection and elimination. Undesirable traits and attributes will be eliminated. Undesirable qualities have no place in the K.Cs. and will be eliminated in the pursuit of predictability. They are OTHER and unacceptable. Rejected. Thats environmental and has nothing to do with the K.Cs or their stated goals.

The K.Cs can honorably object to BSL in good faith. But while they teach that dogs should be only be bred for predictability, they send a subtle message that our personal responses matter less. We are not responsible. Breeders are. So a trait that the human/dog partnership has understood for centuries becomes undesirable as we forget our own responsibilities to the species. The importance of our own actions in how dogs respond to US. As we forget our responsibilities to the species, more fault will be found. More traits (and breeders) to be eliminated. Less ability to respond to current demands. Less value to be found. Less room for dogs in the modern environment.

The environment is not OTHER. It can't be eliminated. It is part and parcel of the species and our understanding and partnership with it.Its what gives a place and space to the species, IF a value is demonstrated and response is TAUGHT. Then they can be sought.

Environment is what drives the species direction through what values are sought or favored.

Environment gives favor to demonstrated and learned values.

That is physics.

That fact can't be disregarded without consequence.

It doesn't mean "only the parts the K.Cs recognize", because the K.Cs are just a small part of it all themselves and can't survive with out the environment that supports the whole deal.

Environment is what gives us K.C members and dogs alike. They can't help but be influenced by the environment they come from. Its our responsibility to see that the "health" of our environment gives us the best quality and value from both.

Breed will not be separated from species. K.Cs will not be separated from breeders. It will always be a dog first. It will always be a breeder first.

The greater value of a breed, or K.C member will always depend first on the demands of the environment and whats shown to best meet them. Through demonstrated values and the responsibilities taught to support them.

The K.Cs have the "ability' for success. The 'response' is not open to them while breed is exclusive of their species.

Edited February 28, 2016 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

I just wanted to say thanks moosmum for your postings here. I always very much enjoy your posts.

[dragonwoman]

I just wanted to say thanks moosmum for your postings here. I always very much enjoy your posts.

I find posts very hard to follow..............and I do have tertiary English qualifications!!

[moosmum]

I just wanted to say thanks moosmum for your postings here. I always very much enjoy your posts.

I find posts very hard to follow..............and I do have tertiary English qualifications!!

Biology and physics might be more useful. I don't know how many more ways I can say it.

A ruling against members breeding out side of K.C membership and protocols changed the pedigree system from a tool to breed better dogs to an absolute ideology.

The whole human community IS the natural environment for Domestic dogs. Their values and demands have historicaly shaped the species. And the breeds.

A K.C that has adopted that ruling separates the species according to what environment the dogs come from. Only one supporting that ideology being acceptable. It splits the environment for the species into groups of separate environments. Of supposed 'Other' ideologies.

It doesn't matter what any single breeder was trying to accomplish,( their purpose) or how they respond to the challenges to achieve the best outcomes ( The values they bring and demonstrate.) We aren't promoting values and purpose, we are promoting an ideology. So we lose both.

We aren't judging a good breeder by what he does to give us the kind of dogs we want,and promoting those proven values. Dogs that meet our expectations best. But by what group they belong to. Does it conform to OUR ideology?

If not, we strive to eliminate the opposing 'ideology'. That whole environment.

Instead of promoting those values shown to live up to our expectations and demands. Those that contribute to the health of our environment.

An absolute ideology doesn't support the environment that gave rise to it.(here, People who find value and purpose for dogs.) It demands they support the ideology, and limits any individual response. Replaces personal responsibility with group responsibility.

The purpose the dog was bred for, the values his success promotes or builds to his environment, are irrelevent to the ideology itself.

An absolute ideology creates it own environment. Of adherents.

The absolute ideology represents purpose and values. It takes the place of purpose and values.

It does not judge others by purpose or values, which are environment specific and individual.

It judges others by environment. What group they represent. The perceived ideology assigned to them. Collectively.

Personal responsibility is lost in favor of supposed ideologies.

Just because one is absolute.

Edited February 28, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

A constitution can only and will only do whats it is designed to do. The constitution sets out the goals of the organization. The rules set how thats to be accomplished.

A ruling stating that a breeder must not not breed outside that system is designed to divide and reduce. That is all it can do. That is all it has done. That is all it will continue to do until there is nothing left. That is the sole purpose of that rule. Divide to achieve perfection.

Its working admirably!

Edited February 24, 2016 by moosmum

[BlaznHotAussies]

Moosmum, what are the main points you'd like to make in a condensed, easy to read form? I am not seeing how understanding biology or physics is going to help me understand your posts.

[moosmum]

Moosmum, what are the main points you'd like to make in a condensed, easy to read form? I am not seeing how understanding biology or physics is going to help me understand your posts.

Edited, 'may' be done. About as 'condensed' as it can be.

I may have to sell it as fiction :)

How well do you understand evolution? This might take awhile. There is no short version. Its all one way and I can't see where any ones getting hung up.

1) Domestic Dogs ARE: a single species developed through their partnerships with man. That has been the driving force behind their development. The many purposes humanity finds for dogs in their lives. The benefits to Mans existence in all the different ways found. Companions, herders, protection,hunting, tracking,rescue, fishing,security,sport retrieving, guide dogs and Show...you name it. The list is as long as we choose to make it.

2) The environment for the species IS: in a partnership with man. Almost symbiotic. Their development has historicaly come through that partnership, and environmental expectation.

3) Expectation and demands of environment:

Collectively, MAN gets value from a partnership with dogs. He expects it. Experience has taught its there. That experience directs man to seek it out. Because it brings rewards. Because dogs bring rewards to man, the dogs environment favors them.

More specificaly, It SHOULD favor those dogs who bring MOST value. It doesn't always happen, usualy because the messages sent from species to environment are faulty. Never from environment to species. Environment is the space you occupy. Space has no response-ability for what it contains. Its shaped by what it contains. It can only "demand and expect", based on values shown.

'Laying the blame' on environment is to disregard responsibility for the shape its in, leading to destructive behavior.

Each Man will have his own individual expectations, Based on his own conditions, experience, purpose, and values hes found to support the reward he gets.

Its the COLLECTIVE of mans experience, expectations and demands that give environmental expectation and demand. That drives the evolution of the species in what ever direction that takes it.

In how we respond to those expectations and demands from the WHOLE environment, individualy.

In WHAT collective man is seeking and how he achieves it.

The direction the species dog takes in its evolution is based on what we humans collectively Expect and Demand of it, As the natural environment for the species dog. EXPERIENCE demonstrates possibilities and practices, with least negative consequence.

Experience demonstrates what CAN be expected, or should.

Expectations change, and the species will change to reflect that. According to what values we DEMONSTRATE as worthy to emulate. There is no value with out purpose. Purpose gives value. A stick is just a stick until purpose or value is shown. There is no expectation of a stick being anything else until we SEE it can serve a purpose, and recognize that has value.

The environmental expectations for dogs depend on what purposes and supporting values we can individualy DEMONSTRATE to bring rewards. Demonstration leads what we expect.

These demonstrations of value, and demands to emulate them, are the messages that pass from species to environment. Environment to species and decide evolutionary direction.

4) Response: Ability to respond, or responsibility: Nothing more or less than our ability to respond. To the species, to the demands of the world we live in, to the people around us etc. To respond in ways that bring maximum benefits and cause least harm is in our ability. That is responsibility, if we recognize we have it.

Fixed traits of set or automatic response are reaction. Responsibility requires the overall most beneficial response. Using reason.

Its response ability that gives purpose.

5) Values: Come with purpose. They support that purpose, and/or make it more effective.

We gain benefit from purpose. The benefits promote values shown to best support the purpose. So you in turn support those values. For how they enhance your purpose. The values are meaningless without the purpose they support.

If your stick is going to be used to spear an animal, it has purpose and value to you. You might enhance that value by choosing a straight stick, peeling the bark and hardening it in fire, because you have seen, had demonstrated it will be more efficient. You don't value putting sticks in fire, peeling the bark and hardening them. You value a well made arrow and those things simply contribute to a well made arrow.

Values aren't automatic. Biology tells us that live structures must demonstrate or teach values to their environment. By responding to your environment in ways that enhance your purpose, you increase its value, and ability to support your purpose.

Psychology has confirmed the same holds true of human beings.

"quality" or value is taught, through the benefits they provide to purpose. As a repeated natural 'law' I believe that falls under the heading of organic physics.

Why does the popularity of a breed increase after a movie or book depicting it favorably? People have seen a demonstration of a value they can recognize and seek to emulate.

SO -We have environment.(or space)

-Life responds.

-With purpose.

-That promotes values to enhance what ever purpose we are focused on.

The correct response is one that allows the environment (or space) to grow and expand. To achieve successful evolution. By a demonstration of the value we bring to our purpose.

Environmental expectations are not static, but depend on the make up of the environment and what values are being demonstrated. ( what is favored to take/make space in the environment)

All interdependent and hinging on environment and response, with a natural balance between the two that gives a purpose the environment is invested in supporting..

We can agree on the value of a well made arrow, the practices that bring us well made arrows and learn to recognize one. But if we said animals may not be killed unless we use an arrow utilizing those practices, we have forgotten the purpose of the arrow and would never have progressed to other more effective methods. We might starve when those methods are unavailable or not the most efficient for circumstance.

We can agree the methods have value, and even be united under that understanding. But the moment you try to say that value is so great it should be the only accepted way to hunt, you put all the value in the method and not the purpose, or goal. The making of exquisite arrows becomes the purpose.

Purpose is forgotten. The expectation changes. We EXPECT LESS from the hunter. Simply because purpose and results aren't the focus. The ritual of making the arrow won't always bring the best results. There are better ways to 'hunt' fish, or elephants, or finches. The arts of hunting those species is lost. Parts of your purpose. Less value over all to be had from a hunt.So we expect results less often. Become more tolerant of less. So long as those arrows are beautifully made examples of symetry, their effectiveness to hunt is secondary.

Better results of a hunt, maybe using dogs instead, would likely be scorned or ignored and the hunter shunned for his lack of values. Not his results. An opportunity to learn an alternative response is lost.

We loose value, purpose and response-ability.

Natural selection of that tribe is altered from favoring the genes of the best providers - to artificialy favoring a good arrow maker 1st, before a good provider CAN be favored. Because his tribe will tolerate no other priority.

The "Values" of the hunter become the focus. Not the end goal. Not the reasoning or purpose behind the values.

If those values were to become THE accepted norm by all hunters, they would no longer be able to respond effectively to the widest variety of environmental conditions. They would survive only by the success of their 'fixed trait' of arrow making. The environments and conditions where that arrow making trait is of value would be less. Not because its ineffective, But only because its value has replaced the purpose for it. The fixed trait of a species that reduces its ability to respond. And reduced responsibility to the hunt itself.

That tribe of humanity would shrink its environment. To members/tribes willing to subscribe to their values 1st, and to places/species where hunting with arrows is the most likely method to succeed.

The tribe looses responsibility. Teaching how to hunt well and efficiently could not be done unless the person taught has accepted that he will be hunting with arrows. The tribes diet is limited. And the 'science' of hunting is limited to archery and the game that can be hunted effectively with arrows. Its only a small part of the science being recognized as valid. Response to the demand for food is limited. There is conflict of interests and needs.

So here we have a shared purpose. Dogs.

The K.Cs had a great idea of using a record of ancestry to make it easier to understand the genetics of the dogs. To promote the value of understanding a dogs background and what its likely to bring to a mating. A means to increase value. Values that could be promoted and shared. Bringing e more value to those who choose to keep dogs, so that more people choose to do that. Growing the environment for dogs. AND increase environmental expectations that dogs DEMONSTRATE the value of good practices.

Dogs shown to have that ability to respond. We have accepted OUR responsibility to see that they can do so as effectively as possible.

But instead the founders tried to split the species. Along lines of values. It can't be done. The value is in the dogs and is only as good as that demonstrated. The breeders can not efficiently respond to the expectations and demands of their environment, so its seen as hostile. Just like a arrow maker in an ocean, or trying to demonstrate his values to a group of rifle owners who need meat now.

There is a division of the environment. There is division in the messages being passed from the species to the environment. One group says their practices give value, and no other practices can. But they don't demonstrate that value until a person accepts they will hunt for it with an arrow.

The other side of the divide is demonized for lack of values REGARDLESS of results or practices. So they also become ineffective at demonstrating values or practices that work.

If values and practices aren't demonstrated, they fade away and the original purpose is redundant, if its not essential for survival.The messages from species to environment have been interrupted.

Another perspective: Single species split along value lines- For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.

If one tribal camp or environment alone stands for values, practices and ethics what must the other become? If all who believe in the above belong in the 1st camp, who can achieve recognition for those values, or teach them else where? There is a taught assumption. They can't realy stand for those things, or they would belong to the 1st camp. There is no incentive to promote values( or even science) if they WILL NOT be recognized. If they are not valid.

Within the 1st camp itself, the message is to divide based on values. So we see division of breeds. Division of healthy from non healthy, division of purpose. Since the values are inseparable from purpose, The only way division can be accomplished is to reduce the environment in which values can be found. the K.Cs survive so far on a message of reduction.

So values become a dividing line between environments. Purpose, not being demonstrated, is lost. Values that could add to purpose are lost. Environment able and willing to support that purpose is lost. The environment shrinks.

Not only are messages of values and purpose being lost, we go the other way to prove 'opposing' values are failing and are a burden to environment. Urging the environment on to reject the species and its purpose bit by bit. The grey hound industry. P.D.E. pet shops, B.S.L. puppy mills. Instead of demonstrating how to achieve the MOST VALUE from a COMMON purpose, We show the cost of individual purpose. The environment acts on the costs instead.

The messages from the environment to the species and Vs/Vs is interrupted and replaced with the messages from the K.C environment . That ruling sends its own message to the K.Cs. Divide the value, and decrease the environment in which it can be found. Every time you divide, its to get rid of some thing. That has no place in the K.Cs.

A physical impossibility as direction for a viable species. You can't absolutely divide values, with out reducing where they are to be found simultaneously.

Edited March 17, 2016 by moosmum

[BlaznHotAussies]

Are you trying to say that crossbreeding should be allowed ?

Because the whole point of having breeds is predictability. I don't want people to be breeding registered crossbreeds and then trying to show them against my registered purebreds? Then who's going to support crossbred shows? Maybe make a different register and system for crossbreeds as they're being bred toward a predictable "breed" but don't muddy it up into actual breeds.

If that's not what you're meaning then I give up.

[moosmum]

Are you trying to say that crossbreeding should be allowed ?

Because the whole point of having breeds is predictability. I don't want people to be breeding registered crossbreeds and then trying to show them against my registered purebreds? Then who's going to support crossbred shows? Maybe make a different register and system for crossbreeds as they're being bred toward a predictable "breed" but don't muddy it up into actual breeds.

If that's not what you're meaning then I give up.

Thank you.

No, thats not what I mean.

They should be permitted to be bred, BUT:

Cross breeds should NOT be registered - Until and unless they become a recognizable type in demand, With enough following to support a breed club. They don't have to be predictable, As long as there is a purpose. If that purpose leads to a distinct type, with clear value to the purpose, that is how your breeds were formed.

The ability to do that is the foundation on which the K.Cs stand. To not recognize that, is to undermine your own foundations.

Pedigree breeders must have the option to breed dogs that WON'T be eligible for registration. Or showing. Just like every one else who hasn't signed up the the K.Cs constitution. For Biophysical reasons, they can't survive long term with out that.

The SPECIES needs that change to survive. Pedigree dogs are interdependent with breeders who DON'T work under a pedigree system.

When pedigree breeders suffer a blow, so do those who aren't. And It works the other way too. All BECAUSE of that rule.

There needs to be recognition we are serving the same values. That is NOT the pedigree. Its the dogs, for the purpose we find in them.

The pedigree has value as a tool. For its purpose. But it isn't THE purpose. Or else you are serving the pedigree, not the dogs. Any values we have for dogs and how we should be responding to them as a species is dependent on the purpose we as individuals get from the dogs. The pedigree is one way to access and possibly increase the value. Nothing more.

It does not, in reality, divide the species into a value system Vs none, because any value is in the Dogs.

That rule irrevocably divides the environment into two incompatible halves. It sends a message to divide what CAN'T be divided, so the only option is to divide again. And again. And again. Decreasing each time because the only way to put all the value into one environment is to decrease the environment able to hold those values.

We lose our ability to respond to the species in the ONLY way that can see it evolve effectively AS a species.

Under that rule. Take it away, and pedigree breeders AND those not in a breed registry, can BOTH become much more responsible and effective, with pedigree breeders representing the breeds much more effectively and EARNING a favored role in direction. The quality of membership would rise with the quality of the environment they come from.

Edited February 25, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Its a rule that demands the K.Cs be the only refuge of values and purpose for dogs.

In demanding that, It creates a hostile environment for the species.

If you still don't understand, start at the beginning and THINK about the mechanics. I've shown as many ways they manifest as I can, in as many different contexts. And so far any arguments have only supported this.

Hendric Gomers Thesis says the K.Cs have ruled against their environment> The end result will be its destruction or The K.Cs, with much damage in the meantime.

I believe I have shown some of the many ways that IS happening, tried to illustrate the mechanics in action, and confirmed his thesies to be in effect on the K.Cs and the environment supporting domestic dogs.

I have no doubt many other organizations are affected by similar rulings that are very damaging to society and our abilities to adapt.

Certainly we are becoming a much more intolerant society, disguised in righteousness.

Edited March 2, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

Are you trying to say that crossbreeding should be allowed ?

Because the whole point of having breeds is predictability. I don't want people to be breeding registered crossbreeds and then trying to show them against my registered purebreds? Then who's going to support crossbred shows? Maybe make a different register and system for crossbreeds as they're being bred toward a predictable "breed" but don't muddy it up into actual breeds.

If that's not what you're meaning then I give up.

Thank you.

No, thats not what I mean.

They should be permitted to be bred, BUT:

Cross breeds should NOT be registered - Until and unless they become a recognizable type in demand, With enough following to support a breed club. They don't have to be predictable, As long as there is a purpose. If that purpose leads to a distinct type, with clear value to the purpose, that is how your breeds were formed.

The ability to do that is the foundation on which the K.Cs stand. To not recognize that, is to undermine your own foundations.

Pedigree breeders must have the option to breed dogs that WON'T be eligible for registration. Or showing. Just like every one else who hasn't signed up the the K.Cs constitution. For Biophysical reasons, they can't survive long term with out that.

The SPECIES needs that change to survive. Pedigree dogs are interdependent with breeders who DON'T work under a pedigree system.

When pedigree breeders suffer a blow, so do those who aren't. And It works the other way too. All BECAUSE of that rule.

There needs to be recognition we are serving the same values. That is NOT the pedigree. Its the dogs, for the purpose we find in them.

The pedigree has value as a tool. For its purpose. But it isn't THE purpose. Or else you are serving the pedigree, not the dogs. Any values we have for dogs and how we should be responding to them as a species is dependent on the purpose we as individuals get from the dogs. The pedigree is one way to access and possibly increase the value. Nothing more.

It does not, in reality, divide the species into a value system Vs none, because any value is in the Dogs.

That rule irrevocably divides the environment into two incompatible halves. It sends a message to divide what CAN'T be divided, so the only option is to divide again. And again. And again. Decreasing each time because the only way to put all the value into one environment is to decrease the environment able to hold those values.

We lose our ability to respond to the species in the ONLY way that can see it evolve effectively AS a species.

Under that rule. Take it away, and pedigree breeders AND those not in a breed registry, can BOTH become much more responsible and effective, with pedigree breeders representing the breeds much more effectively and EARNING a favored role in direction. The quality of membership would rise with the quality of the environment they come from.

Against my better judgement I will say this again. I believe that you do not understand the value of the pedigree . Any body breeding any dogs whether they be cross bred, purebred or otherwise can make better breeding decisions if they know the ancestry of the dogs they are breeding .Every single time you use a dog for breeding which you dont know whats in its pedigree there is a greater risk that you will bring puppies into the world which will break someone's heart .Not much point in a dog being a great worker if it develops Degenerative Myelopathy at 6 years and by then it has spread its genetic material to a couple of generations.

There is no such thing as a KC which does not have provision for allowing the stud books to be opened and for dogs to be entered which are not already registered with them. Right now in the UK every single breed's stud book is open.

Yes there is a requirement for anyone to wants to use outside dogs to go through a process for permission and show cause as to why a particular dog which is not registered would benefit the breed but this serves the purpose and protects the breed.

A KC may have as part of its rules that you cant breed other dogs if you are one of their members but they cannot restrict what a breeder does with dogs which are not registered as long as they don't breed them to dogs which are registered. In other words a purebred breeder in Australia is able to breed purebred dogs and cross bred dogs as long as they are not inter bred without approval . A KC has no ability to do anything about someone who is doing something different with dogs that they don't have any control or say over.

Registered breeders of Working dogs have an even greater ability to have working dogs included in their breeding program if they are not already registered .