Vets Report Increase In Disease Amongst Brachycephalic Dogs

[Two Best Dogs!]

Sorry Steve I'm not very good at being able to follow along with podcasts (I get distracted and tune out), is it available in a written format? Of a written summary and I'll try to get to the MP3 sooner rather than later to fill in the gaps

[Steve]

Sorry Steve I'm not very good at being able to follow along with podcasts (I get distracted and tune out), is it available in a written format? Of a written summary and I'll try to get to the MP3 sooner rather than later to fill in the gaps

Thats funny Im a bit like that too .When I find a quiet 20 mins I will re listen but it seemed to be a least a bit contradictory to the article about the head shape.Dont quote me but I think they said no correlation to head size but something to do with the amount of ventricular. Their advice for trying to deal with it didnt include an outcross.

[Jed]

dog-fan

That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow.

I did not say this you quoted the wrong person

Sincere apologies.

[Jed]

Thistle the dog - there is quite a few differing opinions on CM/SM it's cause and whether MRI scans serve any purpose.

Most breeders are sitting on the fence waiting for some definite outcome from 12 years research which doesn't seem to have produced anything concrete or proven.

Hopefully the Griffon outcross will prove valuable.

[Two Best Dogs!]

Sorry Steve I'm not very good at being able to follow along with podcasts (I get distracted and tune out), is it available in a written format? Of a written summary and I'll try to get to the MP3 sooner rather than later to fill in the gaps

Thats funny Im a bit like that too .When I find a quiet 20 mins I will re listen but it seemed to be a least a bit contradictory to the article about the head shape.Dont quote me but I think they said no correlation to head size but something to do with the amount of ventricular. Their advice for trying to deal with it didnt include an outcross.

I'll give it a try on a quiet day or night! I start thinking over one line, then miss the next two lines while thinking about it, then have to rewind a bit, then forget what I heard earlier so have to rewind further. It's also easier, as you say, to mishear (and I like all the photos and diagrams in studies) With videos it is easier, because I have their face and movements to focus on at least

@Jed, oh I am sure there will be lots of opinions either way, but no matter the result of the study it can help knock out or knock in how the size of the skull can affect CM/SM and contribute to other studies around backcrosses in general. Valuable information from the bits I've seen so I'd like to see it written up in its entirety. I think my link was about generation 2, but they're growing out generation 3 now.

Probably a bit to wait for those studies. Grow up faster, puppies!

[Steve]

Sorry Steve I'm not very good at being able to follow along with podcasts (I get distracted and tune out), is it available in a written format? Of a written summary and I'll try to get to the MP3 sooner rather than later to fill in the gaps

Thats funny Im a bit like that too .When I find a quiet 20 mins I will re listen but it seemed to be a least a bit contradictory to the article about the head shape.Dont quote me but I think they said no correlation to head size but something to do with the amount of ventricular. Their advice for trying to deal with it didnt include an outcross.

I'll give it a try on a quiet day or night! I start thinking over one line, then miss the next two lines while thinking about it, then have to rewind a bit, then forget what I heard earlier so have to rewind further. It's also easier, as you say, to mishear (and I like all the photos and diagrams in studies) With videos it is easier, because I have their face and movements to focus on at least

@Jed, oh I am sure there will be lots of opinions either way, but no matter the result of the study it can help knock out or knock in how the size of the skull can affect CM/SM and contribute to other studies around backcrosses in general. Valuable information from the bits I've seen so I'd like to see it written up in its entirety. I think my link was about generation 2, but they're growing out generation 3 now.

Probably a bit to wait for those studies. Grow up faster, puppies!

For me asking me to be able to sit still for that long without phones or people or dogs not needing me to do something is a hard ask but some of that pod cast is discussing the differences between the Cav SM and the GB SM.

You have to also take into account that dogs that don't have brachy heads get SM too. So finding out about SM in one breed isnt necessarily going to give the cures for others.

I wouldn't want breed clubs to jump in too quickly in decisions of outcrossing if in the future it isn't shown to be necessary.The Aussie Terrier was used in this outcross by accident as well so I dont want to see just any breed or dog being infused [ if it did come to that without heavy consideration of what breed and what possible things you may have to deal with in future .Aussie Terriers for example have a fair incidence of seizures and a couple of others so Id want to know the pedigree health data and assess each potential infusion using science rather than pot luck.

Id also want to see a concurrent experiment of another group using dogs of that breed cleared of SM or chari like malformation being selected for nothing else than that for 4 generations and compare the results . In other words O.K. by accident you got a group of dogs that you were able to play with and your results say that outcrossing is able to change it - that's nice but can we do the same thing without outcrossing? If we can which one gives us the best quickest results.

I don't want to see shouts for outcrosses and changes made without consideration for all of the variables in every breed. Personally I think if we rely on scientists and studies which are going to take a fortune to finance and will answer a narrow range of questions that this will take us too long and the risk is knee jerk or legislative solutions.

I would like to see breeders who could work to a structured scientific plan in co ordination and provide data just as they would if they were the scientists or part of a study run by a uni and feed their results to the breed clubs and scientists. In other words work with breeders who are prepared to allow us to use their dogs as part of our research and studies and their back yards as our labs. Right now we really dont have a clue there is no mandatory testing and we gather snippets on one breed or another and the way assumptions are made and the way our dogs are lumped in with tens of thousands of dogs outside of the pedigree system is not only detrimental to us and our dogs but it is no solution to helping our dogs. We gather stats and data in dogs already born not knowing how the parents were selected or any other variable.

We grab at study results - an outcross has the ability to prevent chari like malformations in one generation - thats nice and over time we will be told the results over a few generations - but what are the results if we use the same number of dogs without an outcross chosen for nothing else except that they don't have Chari like malformations,which still are good representatives of the breed then what are the results if we use dogs only selected because they have slightly bigger or a slightly different shaped head to the average of the breed and how does that stack up in 4 generations against the dogs which haven't been selected outside they way they are selected within a breed now. then when these results are in what do they look like in 4 generations? So many questions could be answered in this way or at least so many things could be given a kick start for further studies

Edited April 15, 2016 by Steve

[Two Best Dogs!]

No disagreement here from me Steve :) I'm pretty neutral on outcrossing and see it as a tool that is sometime the best option, sometimes just "an" option and sometimes not needed as an option. Would depend on the breeds, COI, pedigrees, gene pool etc involved.

Studies can only help to add to that information pool to decide if it is a tool someone wants to go with, so I am curious to see results as they get further down the generations.

I promise I will listen to your podcast :) It will have to wait as I have family visiting though, but I have a very long work commute on monday XD

[Steve]

The whole studies subject is frustrating. I see loads of studies which cost stacks of money that aren't really needed or conclusive and not subjective in the methodology or approach and they are cited over and over.

I see some things which are legislated against where no studies have ever supported the presumption the legislation is based on.

Seems it works when you want them to but doesn't count when it goes against what the consensus is to the world which doesnt breed dogs.

The way the modern world works they will take this study and cite it to back up what they think we should do about dealing with the situation when it suits them so everyone is bleating "all they need to do is outcross - this proves their argument for opening stud books, inbreeding, selection for the show ring etc. Doesn't matter if it is only about one breed or if another study contradicts it etc .

[Steve]

A couple of years ago there was a pretty big push to belt up the purebred breeders due to inbreeding - just before during and immediately after pedigreed dogs exposed was when it was loudest.

.One professor not qualified in canine genetics was beating a pretty loud drum and he was developing the LIDA program via his university. This program is designed to gather health information about dogs sorted into what breed they are to enable them to be able to tell us what health issues were most problematic in each breed. Anyway I had one on one conversations with this professor and my reason for not supporting it was that there could be no distinction within the data being collected to identify which dogs of a breed group were bred by purebred pedigree breeders, or which were even really a purebred.

I wrote an open letter to DogsNSW back then

My link

So it would have been preferable in my opinion if money being donated could have been put toward doing our own database of health problems in our dogs which wasn't contaminated by any others and able to be used against us but we need to accept we are lacking in this regard for a method defending ourselves and consider what we can do about it.

By the way the money was donated by Dogs NSW and their logo is on the vetcompass /LIDA website.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Steve

[moosmum]

A couple of years ago there was a pretty big push to belt up the purebred breeders due to inbreeding - just before during and immediately after pedigreed dogs exposed was when it was loudest.

.One professor not qualified in canine genetics was beating a pretty loud drum and he was developing the LIDA program via his university. This program is designed to gather health information about dogs sorted into what breed they are to enable them to be able to tell us what health issues were most problematic in each breed. Anyway I had one on one conversations with this professor and my reason for not supporting it was that there could be no distinction within the data being collected to identify which dogs of a breed group were bred by purebred pedigree breeders, or which were even really a purebred.

I wrote an open letter to DogsNSW back then

My link

So it would have been preferable in my opinion if money being donated could have been put toward doing our own database of health problems in our dogs which wasn't contaminated by any others and able to be used against us but we need to accept we are lacking in this regard for a method defending ourselves and consider what we can do about it.

By the way the money was donated by Dogs NSW and their logo is on the vetcompass /LIDA website.

I think we learn more, and open more doors we didn't even know were there, when don't try to restrict

what we can learn from.

And when.

And who.

And who says its O.K?

It should be encouraged to learn from what you are willing to take responsibility for.

[moosmum]

O.K.

I think I am going to need to explain this by doing it as formal research.

I did find rules which pretty much stated the same as your example of recent additions in my original search. That was done before 2013. Maybe not a clearly stated.

As for the guide to writing an effective constitution, I did not just assume the whole theory was correct and make assumptions from there.

I wanted to see how that worked in practice. In a body set up for the breeding of dogs, that should in practice be easier to see in action, since you have not only the culture set by the constitution and rules, but a biological product of that culture with an even shorter generational life span.

The environment acts on both the culture and its product.

To my own satisfaction at least, I confirmed the theory behind those rules of a constitution by watching for the mechanics in action. I have tried to explain the mechanics of that in the B.S.L thread. (appologies to Ricie, for hijacking his thread, though tacit approval was given)

Looks like the more formal research publication people have urged me to on this is the only option, and with luck I will continue to learn enough to do that.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs.

As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark.

I disagree and believe it will be shown to be otherwise.

I believe those with greatest power to influence the culture are there because the constitution and rules favor them to be there.

And all it takes is removal of one rule out of a couple of Australian state's code of ethics which does not exist in any constitution ?

If it has ever existed in the parent bodies constitution before the split into affiliate bodies, I believe so.

I guess that is some thing I will need to confirm.

O.K. To some extent regarding the environment of the traditional system I agree with you but your language confuses me and your insistence on constitutions being in the mix just doesnt fit for me .

If you leave out the word constitutions and get a bit closer to the real environmental impacts of purebred dog world we a bit of a push we might even be on the same page.

If you want to look at the agreements made between the FCI and all other countries, taking into account that the FCI will only recognise one affiliate per country and a whole heap more that may take you further in your argument than constantly speaking of a constitution.

The entire world of the FCI affiliated registered purebred is based on their management and rules.This creates problems for the purebred dog but its not because that rule exists in any constitution because only a couple of small sub groups have that rule and all the above reasons .

Its based around the agreements and the rules of the FCI. this is true but thats only a part of it all. Constantly referring to that rule and how you believe things would change if it were removed just isnt sitting logically with me.

Regardless, All indications are that a breeder org. whos members sign up to that philosophy of closing a culture to out side influences and ideas, even with an already closed registry, will lead to exactly the problems we are seeing.

Physics operating on biological principles.

[Steve]

O.K.

I think I am going to need to explain this by doing it as formal research.

I did find rules which pretty much stated the same as your example of recent additions in my original search. That was done before 2013. Maybe not a clearly stated.

As for the guide to writing an effective constitution, I did not just assume the whole theory was correct and make assumptions from there.

I wanted to see how that worked in practice. In a body set up for the breeding of dogs, that should in practice be easier to see in action, since you have not only the culture set by the constitution and rules, but a biological product of that culture with an even shorter generational life span.

The environment acts on both the culture and its product.

To my own satisfaction at least, I confirmed the theory behind those rules of a constitution by watching for the mechanics in action. I have tried to explain the mechanics of that in the B.S.L thread. (appologies to Ricie, for hijacking his thread, though tacit approval was given)

Looks like the more formal research publication people have urged me to on this is the only option, and with luck I will continue to learn enough to do that.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs.

As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark.

I disagree and believe it will be shown to be otherwise.

I believe those with greatest power to influence the culture are there because the constitution and rules favor them to be there.

And all it takes is removal of one rule out of a couple of Australian state's code of ethics which does not exist in any constitution ?

If it has ever existed in the parent bodies constitution before the split into affiliate bodies, I believe so.

I guess that is some thing I will need to confirm.

O.K. To some extent regarding the environment of the traditional system I agree with you but your language confuses me and your insistence on constitutions being in the mix just doesnt fit for me .

If you leave out the word constitutions and get a bit closer to the real environmental impacts of purebred dog world we a bit of a push we might even be on the same page.

If you want to look at the agreements made between the FCI and all other countries, taking into account that the FCI will only recognise one affiliate per country and a whole heap more that may take you further in your argument than constantly speaking of a constitution.

The entire world of the FCI affiliated registered purebred is based on their management and rules.This creates problems for the purebred dog but its not because that rule exists in any constitution because only a couple of small sub groups have that rule and all the above reasons .

Its based around the agreements and the rules of the FCI. this is true but thats only a part of it all. Constantly referring to that rule and how you believe things would change if it were removed just isnt sitting logically with me.

Regardless, All indications are that a breeder org. whos members sign up to that philosophy of closing a culture to out side influences and ideas, even with an already closed registry, will lead to exactly the problems we are seeing.

Physics operating on biological principles.

Democratic elections of those who will represent a breed or anything for that matter without the ability for those decisions being able to be over ridden "for the greater good" for me is the factor. The ANKC cant just say"right thats it - you have had your chance and we have considered the science and consequences and we are taking this out of your hands"

Doesn't matter what area of life you are speaking of humans resist change and that is even harder when there is a monopoly and international deals in order to ensure another registry can never participate.

What I'm saying is this is a world wide issue and asking for one rule to be removed in a couple of states of Australia to enable members to allow their dogs to breed with dogs which are not registered is not going to have an impact on the current situation.

I agree with you that we can carry on about what leads to what and it will make a great research paper but around about 15 years ago I worked out that the system was not able to be changed from the inside - they will fight to the death. So some of us went in a different direction and now there is an alternative and we have the bruises to show for it.

[moosmum]

Oh yeah, I can see thats a huge problem too, and likely more obvious to most. I don't know of another registry system that does not allow the membership to have much greater say in matters that are indvidual to their needs and direction.

But I 'm not thinking change in a few small 'sub' groups at local levels. More along the lines of a revolt on international level for universal change on the grounds of the damage this does to DOGS. Not just the pedigree registered ones.

It could be argued on the grounds of fair trade and possibly a few other avenues.The bruises demonstrate that.

It would be much harder to achieve such monopoly, or retain it if the people who value dogs full stop are all able to drive direction to achieve human goals for dogs, not just pedigrees.

I think It has broader implications for any culture that puts membership to that culture before the service it should bring.

Edited April 18, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

Oh yeah, I can see thats a huge problem too, and likely more obvious to most. I don't know of another registry system that does not allow the membership to have much greater say in matters that are indvidual to their needs and direction.

But I 'm not thinking change in a few small 'sub' groups at local levels. More along the lines of a revolt on international level for universal change on the grounds of the damage this does to DOGS. Not just the pedigree registered ones.

It could be argued on the grounds of fair trade and possibly a few other avenues.The bruises demonstrate that.

Clearly the revolt is happening and removal of the international agreements for other registries excluded from the FCI means that dogs can be accepted from all registries and theoretically one registry can register dogs from any country if it is not an FCI affiliate or member. This is why such agreements were cut in the first place - it has the ability to restrcit one country registering dogs not born in their own country and not enabling any diviation form a common breed standard or interpretation. . The United Kennel Club in the states and the MDBA are two examples of registries which do not have these kind of restrictions and the ability to move sideways but there is a long way to go before the FCI world wide monopoly is shaken. Even in cases such as the ANKC which is not a full member of the FCI but only an affiliate the culture rules like an iron grasp and restricts and adversely influences some definitions of ethics and what is best for the dogs under the guise of what is best for the breeds even when they are falling into states of poor health due to these restrictions.

This is why I maintain it is the breeders who ultimately have the power to change things because the revolt will not come from the top - too much money and politics to fight.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

Here is an example. We received an application from a member to have permission to include a dog of a particular breed which has a registered pedigree from South Africa but it isn't a registry which is an FCi member or that the ANKC will recognise.

The reasons for this request were that in this particular breed there is a genetic health issue among the registered purebred gene pool world wide which carry a recessive gene which causes health problems. The breeder has located this dog and is keen to bring it into the gene pool because it has a registered pedigree, it does not carry this gene [proven via DNA ] and because its a good representative of the breed standard.

She has been given approval to do this, by the MDBA the dog has been entered into our registry and her puppies due in a few weeks will be provided with a registered pedigree notarised stating that he is clear of this genetic disease. Puppies will not be eligible for ANKC registration and will not be able to be shown in an ANKC affiliated show,she will not be able to sell puppies or semen to anyone in any other country who want to breed FCI recognised dogs or show them in FCI recognised shows but DNA testing will identify carriers and affected.

She is breaching her code of ethics as a state CC member and there is no doubt that sooner or later she will be flogged for her decision and made to resign. Up until now she has been a state CC member for 35 years and has numerous champs under her belt .

So in my opinion its THAT rule that gives absolute power to the breed clubs without provision to over ride them if its shown to be detrimental.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Steve

[moosmum]

Oh yeah, I can see thats a huge problem too, and likely more obvious to most. I don't know of another registry system that does not allow the membership to have much greater say in matters that are indvidual to their needs and direction.

But I 'm not thinking change in a few small 'sub' groups at local levels. More along the lines of a revolt on international level for universal change on the grounds of the damage this does to DOGS. Not just the pedigree registered ones.

It could be argued on the grounds of fair trade and possibly a few other avenues.The bruises demonstrate that.

Clearly the revolt is happening and removal of the international agreements for other registries excluded from the FCI means that dogs can be accepted from all registries and theoretically one registry can register dogs from any country if it is not an FCI affiliate or member. This is why such agreements were cut in the first place - it has the ability to restrcit one country registering dogs not born in their own country and not enabling any diviation form a common breed standard or interpretation. . The United Kennel Club in the states and the MDBA are two examples of registries which do not have these kind of restrictions and the ability to move sideways but there is a long way to go before the FCI world wide monopoly is shaken. Even in cases such as the ANKC which is not a full member of the FCI but only an affiliate the culture rules like an iron grasp and restricts and adversely influences some definitions of ethics and what is best for the dogs under the guise of what is best for the breeds even when they are falling into states of poor health due to these restrictions.

This is why I maintain it is the breeders who ultimately have the power to change things because the revolt will not come from the top - too much money and politics to fight.

Yep. I agree with that too. But here is more reason to fight for it. Pretty hard to argue with physics. Any sort of monopoly in breeding direction is certainly contrary to viability.

Edited April 18, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

Here is an example. We received an application from a member to have permission to include a dog of a particular breed which has a registered pedigree from South Africa but it isn't a registry which is an FCi member or that the ANKC will recognise.

The reasons for this request were that in this particular breed there is a genetic health issue among the registered purebred gene pool world wide which carry a recessive gene which causes health problems. The breeder has located this dog and is keen to bring it into the gene pool because it has a registered pedigree, it does not carry this gene [proven via DNA ] and because its a good representative of the breed standard.

She has been given approval to do this, by the MDBA the dog has been entered into our registry and her puppies due in a few weeks will be provided with a registered pedigree notarised stating that he is clear of this genetic disease. Puppies will not be eligible for ANKC registration and will not be able to be shown in an ANKC affiliated show,she will not be able to sell puppies or semen to anyone in any other country who want to breed FCI recognised dogs or show them in FCI recognised shows but DNA testing will identify carriers and affected.

She is breaching her code of ethics as a state CC member and there is no doubt that sooner or later she will be flogged for her decision and made to resign. Up until now she has been a state CC member for 35 years and has numerous champs under her belt .

So in my opinion its THAT rule that gives absolute power to the breed clubs without provision to over ride them if its shown to be detrimental.

Oh and by the way - Im so very proud to know her and have her as an MDBA member .This took lots of courage and will make her a target for nastiness all over the place.

It should also be noted she tried to do it via the breed club and the ANKC but no go.The only factor was that it was blocked was it was from an outside registry.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Steve

[moosmum]

I can see where you are coming from. I do think it comes down a very basic problem though, that CAN be corrected (over time) by accepting that any domesticated species is IN its natural environment even with selective breeding.

It serves a purpose to man and is selected on the basis of that. What serves best for each man and his own needs.

A man who values the purpose of a species will select the best stock he can for his environment. From demonstrated value of traits found.

That gives us breeds over time. Reliable to specific environments where those traits have demonstrated value.

I don't know about other pedigree small animals like cats and rabbits, but Pedigree dogs are the only species I'm aware of-

Where the absolute best dog ever encountered for a purpose, scarce and in demand, might not be considered as worthy to contribute to the values people find in the species.

Not even based on any value in that dog does or doesn't have to a purpose.

Only on where it comes from.

Where selection is no longer driven by what value and purpose people find, but where it comes from.

When an animal with demonstrated value might not be able to contribute to its species effectively because best choice is denied, based on where it came from and who might benefit.

That amounts to an interruption of messages from the environment to the species, and the species ability to respond.

The FCI sounds to me like an extension of that ideology, and a further progression to taking dogs out of the community.

Another way of again, restricting the environment. The physics indicate that cultures closed in this way can only continue to constrict, and constrict the environments they exist IN.

Either until there is no environment left, or the environment rejects that culture.

Dogs aren't being bred for Man if Mans choices and values are restricted.

Sorry for the language if its hard to follow, but I don't see any other to use.

Edited April 20, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

So in other words what you are advocating is for members to be able to breed their registered pedigreed dogs to dogs which are not registered and if the progeny meets certain criteria you want them to be able to be admitted into the pedigree system. Is that right?

No.

I would advocate removal of that rule so that Pedigree breeders are not ruling against some thing outside of their jurisdiction, which is PEDIGREE dogs.

A dog ineligible for a pedigree is outside a pedigree breeders jurisdiction.

Against just about every thing NOT in a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against the environment the registry system itself needs to remain viable.

The pedigree dog used might be jurisdiction of the registry, but surely its not bred FOR the registry alone, but for a human and a purpose. The purpose surely is dogs, not the registry itself. The registry alone can not meet the needs and expectations of Man. Dogs can.

A 'Registry only' making a political statement can not be a 'registry only'. They invite an expectation and the pressure they will be more.

IF breeders are free to meet the needs of Man 1st, I believe the culture will change to reflect those needs better. If that turns out to mean admitting other values/dogs into the pedigree system, it should be easier to accomplish with a culture willing to see values in other directions but inwards.

When you are a member of a state CC which has this ruling you agree that the state CC has jurisdiction over dogs you own which are registered with them. If you as a dog owner want to mate your dog with any other dog the CC has no jurisdiction over you or your dog but it does have jurisdiction over a members purebred dogs. They don't want to have any say over what a dog not their business is able to do.

Breeders are already free to meet the needs of man first and herein for me lies the answer.

I disagree. If a breeder is not free to choose a mating based purely on the value it offers, even if that dog will be ineligible for registration, then they are breeding to meet needs of the pedigree system 1st.

[moosmum]

So in other words what you are advocating is for members to be able to breed their registered pedigreed dogs to dogs which are not registered and if the progeny meets certain criteria you want them to be able to be admitted into the pedigree system. Is that right?

No.

I would advocate removal of that rule so that Pedigree breeders are not ruling against some thing outside of their jurisdiction, which is PEDIGREE dogs.

A dog ineligible for a pedigree is outside a pedigree breeders jurisdiction.

Against just about every thing NOT in a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against the environment the registry system itself needs to remain viable.

The pedigree dog used might be jurisdiction of the registry, but surely its not bred FOR the registry alone, but for a human and a purpose. The purpose surely is dogs, not the registry itself. The registry alone can not meet the needs and expectations of Man. Dogs can.

A 'Registry only' making a political statement can not be a 'registry only'. They invite an expectation and the pressure they will be more.

IF breeders are free to meet the needs of Man 1st, I believe the culture will change to reflect those needs better. If that turns out to mean admitting other values/dogs into the pedigree system, it should be easier to accomplish with a culture willing to see values in other directions but inwards.

I believe I have a similar situation with my kids. I couldn't care less what someone else's kid does or what some other parent allows their kids to do but I do what I can to control my kids . I couldn't careless if someone else's kid has sex with someone else kid but I sure as hell care if my kid has sex with someone else's kid that doesn't fit my criteria. That's not because I have or want jurisdiction over someone else kid but because I have jurisdiction over my own .

Breeders are already free to meet the needs of man first and herein for me lies the answer.

That criteria surely doesn't include the kid slept with must come from the same family or cultural doctrines for any value they bring to the family to be recognized.

Surely a persons value as a human being is recognized before cultural doctrine or identity?

Edited April 24, 2016 by moosmum