Puppy Farms

[moosmum]

You'll NEVER get a single body to speak for all, the views are just too divergent.

One of the biggest problems is that organisations such as the Kennel Clubs (or Canine Associations, or whatever they're called this week) their feeder associations, and the "breeders" they represent, see themselves as the bastions of all that is good and correct in the dog world. When in reality they represent an increasingly small minority. It's the age old problem of the Aristocracy trying to rule the Proletariat because they believe they know better.

The vast majority of dog owners have no interest in dog shows, and most of the dogs wouldn't be eligible even if they did. They don't buy their dogs from registered breeders, they buy them from pet stores or from Gumtree.

I don't know if pet stores, puppy farms, or large commercial breeders have their own representative body, but given that politicians are all about "engagement" and "dialogue," they would be more likely to talk to them, than the ANKC.

Then of course you have the well-funded (and strangely well-respected) organisations who seem to be interested in animal welfare, but actually harbour the view that ANY domestication of animals is evil.

All those reasons. And thats why I believe allowing K.C members to breed dogs that will be in-eligible for registration would would work.

An all encompassing Org. Would not be needed. The general public would have a K.C influence, and a stake in understanding the realities and responsibilities of breeding.

An understanding that joe average could support.

And the minute you do that everyone who is now a member because they only want to be seen to be associated with purebred dogs leave.

Purebred registered breeders have been promoted as superior , their dogs have been promoted as superior - the management, the group the membership dont want to educate or support those who they believe are not doing the right thing. Hell they dont even like some of the breeders who do breed registered purebred dogs and would like to see them chucked out.

Sounds a bit like the members of Islam who believe the old texts proclaiming that Muslims are distinct from humanity and all else is unworthy. It doesn't seem a sound philosophy, trying to separate yourself from your environment.The environment is Erroded, not least because internaly, there will always be doubt about where the environment starts and the separate body begins, so there is internal strife as well as outer. What is a true Muslim? What is a true A.N.K.C member? Its too easy to forget the values that bind the group together when members are preoccupied by what sets them apart.

The values are lost or diminished.

What positive benefits does the ruling against breeding a dog in-eligible for registration bring to these resistries?

None. It can only restrict and does so in ways that aren't easy to see, unless you look. The rule, from a biological perspective says environmental influence on the breeds will not be tolerated. You speak of science, yet this ruling has no scientific merit, exactly the oposite. It can easily be shown to cause great harm to the environment, the species and the organisation.We are seeing the results.

It degrades the environment.

If humanity is the environment for domestic dogs, then the " market" is the environment for breeders. Any breeder has a responsibility to his market. A strong and healthy market is able to recognise quality when they find it, and promotes it as value.

Edited December 23, 2014 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Anyone can breed dogs and most can give some justification as why they do what they do but being able to breed predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs capable of breeding predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs generation after generation takes a philosophy and belief system which takes on the job of doing so as an honour, a life's work almost like a religion as well as skills, knowledge experience and education. These breeders use the registry and the pedigree system to profile their pedigrees, gain knowledge of other dogs and the health and temperament in their ancestry they put everything they have into selecting and managing their dogs for optimum health for generations to come. When this is the general aim of purebred dog registries/KCs why on earth would they say its O.K. for their members to be doing exactly the opposite and breed dogs which are ineligible for registration?

To be free to promote worthy values instead of trying to eliminate an ever growing list of what is not worthy. Elimination will not work, it breeds enmity.

[moosmum]

Has anyone been watching Stephen Hawkings series (SBS? ABC?)

There are predictable results of physics, in biology that shows humanity are are at the mercy of their environment in ways that cause them to doubt we have freedom of self determination at all. This rule of the K.Cs against not breeding an animal ineligible for rego. is an example. Its entirely predictable that it will damage the environment.

It also shows, to those willing to learn, that we can have self determination by understanding the laws of physics (and biology) and using them to maximise success. There is a choice here. To be victims of your environment, or to take responsibility and maximise the chance of success.

[Steve]

To be free to promote worthy values instead of trying to eliminate an ever growing list of what is not worthy. Elimination will not work, it breeds enmity.

No one is trying to eliminate anything - its just not what they do.

[Steve]

Has anyone been watching Stephen Hawkings series (SBS? ABC?)

There are predictable results of physics, in biology that shows humanity are are at the mercy of their environment in ways that cause them to doubt we have freedom of self determination at all. This rule of the K.Cs against not breeding an animal ineligible for rego. is an example. Its entirely predictable that it will damage the environment.

It also shows, to those willing to learn, that we can have self determination by understanding the laws of physics (and biology) and using them to maximise success. There is a choice here. To be victims of your environment, or to take responsibility and maximise the chance of success.

That statement assumes we all have the same vision of what is success. There is now and always has been the potential for anyone to breed an animal which is not normally eligible for registration with the KC if you can justify why you think it would benefit a breed and have the board agree it would do no harm.

[moosmum]

To be free to promote worthy values instead of trying to eliminate an ever growing list of what is not worthy. Elimination will not work, it breeds enmity.

No one is trying to eliminate anything - its just not what they do.

They don't have to try. Physics of biology ensures the result just the same. The rule against your environment set it in motion a hundred and fifty years or so ago and its been working steadily at the job ever since. Its gaining momentum. The jobs nearly done.

Edited December 25, 2014 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Has anyone been watching Stephen Hawkings series (SBS? ABC?)

There are predictable results of physics, in biology that shows humanity are are at the mercy of their environment in ways that cause them to doubt we have freedom of self determination at all. This rule of the K.Cs against not breeding an animal ineligible for rego. is an example. Its entirely predictable that it will damage the environment.

It also shows, to those willing to learn, that we can have self determination by understanding the laws of physics (and biology) and using them to maximise success. There is a choice here. To be victims of your environment, or to take responsibility and maximise the chance of success.

That statement assumes we all have the same vision of what is success. There is now and always has been the potential for anyone to breed an animal which is not normally eligible for registration with the KC if you can justify why you think it would benefit a breed and have the board agree it would do no harm.

Sorry, double post.

Edited December 25, 2014 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Has anyone been watching Stephen Hawkings series (SBS? ABC?)

There are predictable results of physics, in biology that shows humanity are are at the mercy of their environment in ways that cause them to doubt we have freedom of self determination at all. This rule of the K.Cs against not breeding an animal ineligible for rego. is an example. Its entirely predictable that it will damage the environment.

It also shows, to those willing to learn, that we can have self determination by understanding the laws of physics (and biology) and using them to maximise success. There is a choice here. To be victims of your environment, or to take responsibility and maximise the chance of success.

That statement assumes we all have the same vision of what is success. There is now and always has been the potential for anyone to breed an animal which is not normally eligible for registration with the KC if you can justify why you think it would benefit a breed and have the board agree it would do no harm.

My definition of a species success would be that it thrives, in balanced give and take with its environment for minimal stresses between them.

Edited December 25, 2014 by moosmum

[moosmum]

You'll NEVER get a single body to speak for all, the views are just too divergent.

One of the biggest problems is that organisations such as the Kennel Clubs (or Canine Associations, or whatever they're called this week) their feeder associations, and the "breeders" they represent, see themselves as the bastions of all that is good and correct in the dog world. When in reality they represent an increasingly small minority. It's the age old problem of the Aristocracy trying to rule the Proletariat because they believe they know better.

The vast majority of dog owners have no interest in dog shows, and most of the dogs wouldn't be eligible even if they did. They don't buy their dogs from registered breeders, they buy them from pet stores or from Gumtree.

I don't know if pet stores, puppy farms, or large commercial breeders have their own representative body, but given that politicians are all about "engagement" and "dialogue," they would be more likely to talk to them, than the ANKC.

Then of course you have the well-funded (and strangely well-respected) organisations who seem to be interested in animal welfare, but actually harbour the view that ANY domestication of animals is evil.

Anyone can breed dogs and most can give some justification as why they do what they do but being able to breed predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs capable of breeding predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs generation after generation takes a philosophy and belief system which takes on the job of doing so as an honour, a life's work almost like a religion as well as skills, knowledge experience and education. These breeders use the registry and the pedigree system to profile their pedigrees, gain knowledge of other dogs and the health and temperament in their ancestry they put everything they have into selecting and managing their dogs for optimum health for generations to come. When this is the general aim of purebred dog registries/KCs why on earth would they say its O.K. for their members to be doing exactly the opposite and breed dogs which are ineligible for registration?

Because it doesn't have to be exactly the oposite.

There is no reason people can't embrace better practices.

They have made it clear they expect better practices.

And better practices are not defined by the pedigree. Better practices lead to a pedigree, after being shaped by market/environmental demands..

They don't do better, because registered pedigree breeders don't bother to teach the value of what they do. They ignore their market and say" if they don't know how to deal with the product,they aren't the sort of people we want to deal with any way." If you claim to be producing a top of the market product, isn't it normal that people need to under stand what goes into it instead of just taking your word for it? What MAKES it special? Why is that important? What good is it and how is it relevent to me? What are my responsibilities to ensure I get the most from it? How do I operate this?

As producers of such an exclusive product you can't take for granted the support of your market, you have to give value.

Not what you tell it is value. What the environment/market itself can recognise as value.

Its your responsibility to teach the market/environment how to recognise it, before it can respond,( or show responsibility )

Demononising the competition isn't the same, Every one comes out smelling off and you are left with negative value.

Edited December 25, 2014 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Has anyone been watching Stephen Hawkings series (SBS? ABC?)

There are predictable results of physics, in biology that shows humanity are are at the mercy of their environment in ways that cause them to doubt we have freedom of self determination at all. This rule of the K.Cs against not breeding an animal ineligible for rego. is an example. Its entirely predictable that it will damage the environment.

It also shows, to those willing to learn, that we can have self determination by understanding the laws of physics (and biology) and using them to maximise success. There is a choice here. To be victims of your environment, or to take responsibility and maximise the chance of success.

There is now and always has been the potential for anyone to breed an animal which is not normally eligible for registration with the KC if you can justify why you think it would benefit a breed and have the board agree it would do no harm.

That is not allowing for your environments needs- that is deciding the environments needs.

Because you have ruled against your environment, you are tied into a process of elimination to achieve success.

With out responsibility to your environment,it can only react in kind.

[Steve]

O.K. Whatever. Better start your own group

[moosmum]

O.K. Whatever. Better start your own group

:laugh: Hope you had a Happy Christmas Steve, and that you have great new year.

[melzawelza]

You'll NEVER get a single body to speak for all, the views are just too divergent.

One of the biggest problems is that organisations such as the Kennel Clubs (or Canine Associations, or whatever they're called this week) their feeder associations, and the "breeders" they represent, see themselves as the bastions of all that is good and correct in the dog world. When in reality they represent an increasingly small minority. It's the age old problem of the Aristocracy trying to rule the Proletariat because they believe they know better.

The vast majority of dog owners have no interest in dog shows, and most of the dogs wouldn't be eligible even if they did. They don't buy their dogs from registered breeders, they buy them from pet stores or from Gumtree.

I don't know if pet stores, puppy farms, or large commercial breeders have their own representative body, but given that politicians are all about "engagement" and "dialogue," they would be more likely to talk to them, than the ANKC.

Then of course you have the well-funded (and strangely well-respected) organisations who seem to be interested in animal welfare, but actually harbour the view that ANY domestication of animals is evil.

I agree. I can't see any way the ANKC or kennel clubs could ever represent 'all dogs' when Dogs NSW are actively involved with and take profit from BSL in NSW. They provide 'breed assessors' designated to either 'pass' or 'fail' dogs based on visual ID (arbitrary and inaccurate) assessment, and remove assessors from their list that don't 'fail' enough dogs. They take half the fee for all breed assessments.

They also run a course that is supposed to 'build skills on visually ID-ing different dog breeds' but focuses most of its time on the Bull and Terrier breeds (including the APBT even though they don't recognise them as a breed) and is marketed almost exclusively to councils. Council officers from Victoria are traveling up to do this course and then using it in court to justify their declaration that a dog is restricted (and therefore should be destroyed).

I can't ever see them being a representative for all dogs/owners/breeders and to be honest there are plenty who wouldn't want to be represented by them given the above.

Edited December 29, 2014 by melzawelza

[moosmum]

You'll NEVER get a single body to speak for all, the views are just too divergent.

One of the biggest problems is that organisations such as the Kennel Clubs (or Canine Associations, or whatever they're called this week) their feeder associations, and the "breeders" they represent, see themselves as the bastions of all that is good and correct in the dog world. When in reality they represent an increasingly small minority. It's the age old problem of the Aristocracy trying to rule the Proletariat because they believe they know better.

The vast majority of dog owners have no interest in dog shows, and most of the dogs wouldn't be eligible even if they did. They don't buy their dogs from registered breeders, they buy them from pet stores or from Gumtree.

I don't know if pet stores, puppy farms, or large commercial breeders have their own representative body, but given that politicians are all about "engagement" and "dialogue," they would be more likely to talk to them, than the ANKC.

Then of course you have the well-funded (and strangely well-respected) organisations who seem to be interested in animal welfare, but actually harbour the view that ANY domestication of animals is evil.

I agree. I can't see any way the ANKC or kennel clubs could ever represent 'all dogs' when Dogs NSW are actively involved with and take profit from BSL in NSW. They provide 'breed assessors' designated to either 'pass' or 'fail' dogs based on visual ID (arbitrary and inaccurate) assessment, and remove assessors from their list that don't 'fail' enough dogs. They take half the fee for all breed assessments.

They also run a course that is supposed to 'build skills on visually ID-ing different dog breeds' but focuses most of its time on the Bull and Terrier breeds (including the APBT even though they don't recognise them as a breed) and is marketed almost exclusively to councils. Council officers from Victoria are traveling up to do this course and then using it in court to justify their declaration that a dog is restricted (and therefore should be destroyed).

I can't ever see them being a representative for all dogs/owners/breeders and to be honest there are plenty who wouldn't want to be represented by them given the above.

You're likey right, but I can hope the traditional K.Cs genuinely want sustainability to the extent they are willing to look into this. To take responsibility for their own future rather than embrace victim status.It looks very much to me like its their only option for viability of the established breeds.

If that ruling against breeding outside of the K.Cs can create a culture where members are unable to recognise their own environment when it comes knocking, so can't accept responsibility to it, ( as has so effectively been demonstrated here) A reversal of that ruling should bring changes in the culture that cause it to BECOME an acceptable represention of needs. Slower than starting from scratch maybe, but at least with a possibility of saving the established breeds.

A completely alternative registry based on purpose may not be able to do that. It would need to be an understanding of membership that "betterment" for dogs starts with actively promoting a better understanding of the species 1st, as a responsibility of any dog owner. Not promoting the poorest practice and assigning blame, but taking responsibility to change poor practice to better practice.

For the rest of us, we have the same choice- accept victim status in all of this mess, or take responsibility, in which case an alternative registry may be the only option we are left with for biological sustainability of the species.

If no one steps up, that leaves us with commercial breeding as the only biologically sustainable alternative, and the final commodification of dogs.

Edited December 30, 2014 by moosmum

[Steve]

MOOSMUM Ive sent you a PM

[WreckitWhippet]

You'll NEVER get a single body to speak for all, the views are just too divergent.

One of the biggest problems is that organisations such as the Kennel Clubs (or Canine Associations, or whatever they're called this week) their feeder associations, and the "breeders" they represent, see themselves as the bastions of all that is good and correct in the dog world. When in reality they represent an increasingly small minority. It's the age old problem of the Aristocracy trying to rule the Proletariat because they believe they know better.

The vast majority of dog owners have no interest in dog shows, and most of the dogs wouldn't be eligible even if they did. They don't buy their dogs from registered breeders, they buy them from pet stores or from Gumtree.

I don't know if pet stores, puppy farms, or large commercial breeders have their own representative body, but given that politicians are all about "engagement" and "dialogue," they would be more likely to talk to them, than the ANKC.

Then of course you have the well-funded (and strangely well-respected) organisations who seem to be interested in animal welfare, but actually harbour the view that ANY domestication of animals is evil.

All those reasons. And thats why I believe allowing K.C members to breed dogs that will be in-eligible for registration would would work.

An all encompassing Org. Would not be needed. The general public would have a K.C influence, and a stake in understanding the realities and responsibilities of breeding.

An understanding that joe average could support.

And the minute you do that everyone who is now a member because they only want to be seen to be associated with purebred dogs leave.

Purebred registered breeders have been promoted as superior , their dogs have been promoted as superior - the management, the group the membership dont want to educate or support those who they believe are not doing the right thing. Hell they dont even like some of the breeders who do breed registered purebred dogs and would like to see them chucked out.

Anyone can breed dogs and most can give some justification as why they do what they do but being able to breed predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs capable of breeding predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs generation after generation takes a philosophy and belief system which takes on the job of doing so as an honour, a life's work almost like a religion as well as skills, knowledge experience and education. These breeders use the registry and the pedigree system to profile their pedigrees, gain knowledge of other dogs and the health and temperament in their ancestry they put everything they have into selecting and managing their dogs for optimum health for generations to come. When this is the general aim of purebred dog registries/KCs why on earth would they say its O.K. for their members to be doing exactly the opposite and breed dogs which are ineligible for registration?

why on earth indeed

why undermine the very essence of what breeding should be about.

[moosmum]

You'll NEVER get a single body to speak for all, the views are just too divergent.

One of the biggest problems is that organisations such as the Kennel Clubs (or Canine Associations, or whatever they're called this week) their feeder associations, and the "breeders" they represent, see themselves as the bastions of all that is good and correct in the dog world. When in reality they represent an increasingly small minority. It's the age old problem of the Aristocracy trying to rule the Proletariat because they believe they know better.

The vast majority of dog owners have no interest in dog shows, and most of the dogs wouldn't be eligible even if they did. They don't buy their dogs from registered breeders, they buy them from pet stores or from Gumtree.

I don't know if pet stores, puppy farms, or large commercial breeders have their own representative body, but given that politicians are all about "engagement" and "dialogue," they would be more likely to talk to them, than the ANKC.

Then of course you have the well-funded (and strangely well-respected) organisations who seem to be interested in animal welfare, but actually harbour the view that ANY domestication of animals is evil.

All those reasons. And thats why I believe allowing K.C members to breed dogs that will be in-eligible for registration would would work.

An all encompassing Org. Would not be needed. The general public would have a K.C influence, and a stake in understanding the realities and responsibilities of breeding.

An understanding that joe average could support.

And the minute you do that everyone who is now a member because they only want to be seen to be associated with purebred dogs leave.

Purebred registered breeders have been promoted as superior , their dogs have been promoted as superior - the management, the group the membership dont want to educate or support those who they believe are not doing the right thing. Hell they dont even like some of the breeders who do breed registered purebred dogs and would like to see them chucked out.

Anyone can breed dogs and most can give some justification as why they do what they do but being able to breed predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs capable of breeding predictable, healthy well temperamented dogs generation after generation takes a philosophy and belief system which takes on the job of doing so as an honour, a life's work almost like a religion as well as skills, knowledge experience and education. These breeders use the registry and the pedigree system to profile their pedigrees, gain knowledge of other dogs and the health and temperament in their ancestry they put everything they have into selecting and managing their dogs for optimum health for generations to come. When this is the general aim of purebred dog registries/KCs why on earth would they say its O.K. for their members to be doing exactly the opposite and breed dogs which are ineligible for registration?

why on earth indeed

why undermine the very essence of what breeding should be about.

Oh! You mean thats NOT already happening? Whoo hoo!

Edited January 1, 2015 by moosmum

[YOLO]

Even if the breeders of pedigreed dogs (and their representative bodies) relaxed their stance dramatically (and why should they) it's not going to go far enough to encompass all "breeders."

Whilst I feel they should become more adapted to what the majority of dog owners want, I get the feeling that is NOT what they want.

They represent the best interests of a particularly group of people (their members,) and why should anybody tell them to do otherwise?

[moosmum]

Even if the breeders of pedigreed dogs (and their representative bodies) relaxed their stance dramatically (and why should they) it's not going to go far enough to encompass all "breeders."

Whilst I feel they should become more adapted to what the majority of dog owners want, I get the feeling that is NOT what they want.

They represent the best interests of a particularly group of people (their members,) and why should anybody tell them to do otherwise?

No one is asking them to represent any but those signatory to their own charter.The pedigree breeders who follow their protocols. They CAN'T represent any one else.

So no, it would not encompass all breeders. They are quite entitled to represent their members as they fit. Removal of that rule would not change that.

For dogs sake, there is no US and THEM!!

There is only a community and its expectations. Any division of those expectations is the K.Cs own device.

That rule is a political statement beyond the bounds of what they do. Its not their business to make rulings there unless they DO accept responsibility. By re-inforcing that they don't do it, with a negative ruling, its not JUST that don't do it, its that they are OPPOSED to it.

Anything that does not occurr within the registry. So the communities expectation is now divided and all placed on this one organization to provide for all needs.

We should expect nothing from out side the K.Cs right? So they carry the expectations of us all. Its an un-realistic expectation. So when its not met, another org . starts up in opposition. I say opposition because thats the only position open to any whos needs aren't able to be met within the K.Cs.

Of course they can't meet the expectations of the whole.

Opposition is written into the charter. Its not a real division. Its written words that can be unwritten.

They oppose by choice. They chose their antagonist and named their fight.Its all who are not with them, so we are all drawn into it. They would not need to meet the expectations of us all if they did not oppose those who might meet other needs.

With out that rule, with out that division, there is just a community. Some keep dogs, some don't. Some are pedigrees, some aren't.Some breeders register with a body to promote their own specific goals and interests, some don't. But each of those people carries then their OWN responsibilities to meet the expectations of their community.The expectations are the same for any breeder or owner... that they excersize due care and take responsibility for their own choices.

Its not opposition to the K.Cs that cause the problems, but its opposition that they recognise.Its what they see and what they react to because its what they named it, this outside influence.There is no US and THEM. There is only expectation.

An all encompassing organization is only needed if the antagonism can't be removed otherwise.

Edited January 1, 2015 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

Even if the breeders of pedigreed dogs (and their representative bodies) relaxed their stance dramatically (and why should they) it's not going to go far enough to encompass all "breeders."

Whilst I feel they should become more adapted to what the majority of dog owners want, I get the feeling that is NOT what they want.

They represent the best interests of a particularly group of people (their members,) and why should anybody tell them to do otherwise?

No one is asking them to represent any but those signatory to their own charter.The pedigree breeders who follow their protocols. They CAN'T represent any one else.

So no, it would not encompass all breeders. They are quite entitled to represent their members as they fit. Removal of that rule would not change that.

For dogs sake, there is no US and THEM!!

There is only a community and its expectations. Any division of those expectations is the K.Cs own device.

That rule is a political statement beyond the bounds of what they do. Its not their business to make rulings there unless they DO accept responsibility. By re-inforcing that they don't do it, with a negative ruling, its not JUST that don't do it, its that they are OPPOSED to it.

Anything that does not occurr within the registry. So the communities expectation is now divided and all placed on this one organization to provide for all needs.

We should expect nothing from out side the K.Cs right? So they carry the expectations of us all. Its an un-realistic expectation. So when its not met, another org . starts up in opposition. I say opposition because thats the only position open to any whos needs aren't able to be met within the K.Cs.

Of course they can't meet the expectations of the whole.

Opposition is written into the charter. Its not a real division. Its written words that can be unwritten.

They oppose by choice. They chose their antagonist and named their fight.Its all who are not with them, so we are all drawn into it. They would not need to meet the expectations of us all if they did not oppose those who might meet other needs.

With out that rule, with out that division, there is just a community. Some keep dogs, some don't. Some are pedigrees, some aren't.Some breeders register with a body to promote their own specific goals and interests, some don't. But each of those people carries then their OWN responsibilities to meet the expectations of their community.The expectations are the same for any breeder or owner... that they excersize due care and take responsibility for their own choices.

Its not opposition to the K.Cs that cause the problems, but its opposition that they recognise.Its what they see and what they react to because its what they named it, this outside influence.There is no US and THEM. There is only expectation.

An all encompassing organization is only needed if the antagonism can't be removed otherwise.

Hi Moosmum.

I just wanted to drop in to let you know I completely get what you write, most especially this particular post. Please keep posting even when you feel like your shovelling shit up a hill. I get it! I love reading your posts :D