Victorian Gov To Introduce New Breeding Laws

[witheverythingiam]

Never thought I'd be saying this, but THANK YOU Andrew Bolt!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/andrew-bolt-on-dog-breeding-laws-daniel-andrews-dog-plan-is-selling-us-a-pup/news-story/a6cce3e527102e08db1f0fca318c8e0e

[RuralPug]

Never thought I'd be saying this, but THANK YOU Andrew Bolt!

http://www.heraldsun...b1f0fca318c8e0e

darn it - subscription only. Must I drive 70 km return for a copy of the Herald Sun or will some kind soul copy and paster here for me? Pretty please??

[witheverythingiam]

Post1

[witheverythingiam]

and

[witheverythingiam]

lastly...

[RuralPug]

Thank you! He does have the basic facts right, although his spin could alienate some...

[Steve]

Never thought I'd be saying this, but THANK YOU Andrew Bolt!

http://www.heraldsun...b1f0fca318c8e0e

darn it - subscription only. Must I drive 70 km return for a copy of the Herald Sun or will some kind soul copy and paster here for me? Pretty please??

I actually paid the money so I could see it and have a go

[Kirislin]

I went to a dog show today and was surprised that there was no information from vicdogs anywhere publicising these proposed changes and seeking support. I didn't see or hear a thing about it.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I went to a dog show today and was surprised that there was no information from vicdogs anywhere publicising these proposed changes and seeking support. I didn't see or hear a thing about it.

Kirislin all happening tomorrow at Sunbury.

[Scrappi&Monty]

Im torn. I think they have the right intentions.

Puppy farms need to be shut down (even ones like Banksia Park, that have decent standards it's still mass producing pups, there are already too many. Plus they breed "designer dogs" (mutts for 10x the price))

And I agree pet shops should only sell rescue puppies & dogs. I don't think any good breeder would want to waste the first few essential weeks and socialisation opportunities of their puppies life in a shop window.

BUT if ALL breeders, even responsible, loving, smallscale breeders need to have kennels and a DAB, that is just ridiculous.

If that means I can't have a well socialised puppy (which has to happen young!) then that's rubbish. They really need to just put a bit more consideration into this so it does abolish puppy farms and mass breeding pups, but responsible breeders of pedigree dogs aren't affected. Realistically the only people that will adhere to these laws are good honest breeders. As if accidental litters and BYBs are going to get a DAB license. I've seen pups on gumtree who aren't even microchipped yet at 6mths! People like that aren't going to care.

[The Spotted Devil]

Please vote here to amend the bill: http://purebreddogs.org.au

No-one wants puppy farms but breeders doing the right thing should not be dragged down with them.

[asal]

Please vote here to amend the bill: http://purebreddogs.org.au

No-one wants puppy farms but breeders doing the right thing should not be dragged down with them.

"Realistically the only people that will adhere to these laws are good honest breeders. As if accidental litters and BYBs are going to get a DAB license. I've seen pups on gumtree who aren't even microchipped yet at 6mths! People like that aren't going to care.

And not one seems to understand the ones referred to in the red are NOT puppy farmers and they will still EXIST and churning them out in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands but they are invisable and will always remain so. yet they are where the dogs and most of the breeds will survive after everyone else has been eliminated.

But no one seems to get that yet.

bleat about puppy farms until your lost your voice,,,,,,,,,, the great unknowns are the real source of the huge numbers except they are tens of thousands, nay hundreds of thousands of small and ultra small eg only have one female, producers and impossible to trace, they arent chipped, let alone vaccinated, that is only the ones whose owners care enough to take it to the vet when it becomes ill. many in that culture simply do nothing and get another replacement. It would be impossible to guesstamate how many die quiently in the yard and never taken to a vet, so no vet records will reveal they exist let alone who owns them. many only produce one or two litters and lose interest or the dog. but it is the sheer numbers of them that is a fact and that won't come to light until all the traceables have been eliminated.

north east of me is what the vets here call the greatest concentration of unvaccinated, unregistered dogs in the sydney basin.

when the wind blows from that quarter of this basin they begin to see the arrival of dozens of dogs and puppies, (that figure was daily for some vets) infected with parvo virtually none of them microchippped. Drive through the suburbs and there is just about a dog in every yard, multiple in many, go to the local supermarkets and there are cards printed A4 sheets with puppies for sale by the dozen in some weeks.

These are the places the vast majority of pound inductees come from, even the figures show it, the majority of arrivals ARE NOT MICRO-CHIPPED...... puppy farms microchip, they have too, registered breeders, MICROCHIP, GUESS WHAT? They have to.

but in the meantime oscars law and ar don't care about the unfindables, get rid of those whose noses are traceable first, then they will or wont try to do anything about the invisible's.

Edited November 3, 2016 by asal

[moosmum]

Yep.

But there are not so many of them as people seem to think who still don't 'chip and vaccinate in N.S.W at least.

The advertising sites that are out in the open have very few who don't, compared with even several years ago. Ditto with Vacinations. Of those, many are having trouble moving the pups.

Face book etc may be a different matter.

People don't realize that with laws that are largely unenforced from the get go, there is a delay in the cultural shift in atitudes, but It does still work to make that change, and has been doing so.

Attitudes don't change over night, especialy when people are not close to the subject to begin with.

All this does is to reduce those who understand the subject, their depth of understanding, and create an environment most suited to those who who are happy to put profit 1st and accept no accountability.

Edited November 3, 2016 by moosmum

[The Spotted Devil]

Absolutely! RPSCA are fixated on traceability but, as is constantly pointed out to them, who is going to prosecute the people on Facebook or the FTGH ads where you pay cash or the people who advertise at the corner store???

[Steve]

The RSPCA and Oscars Law have had a push for people who are breeding dogs regardless of how many they breed to be identified. Its not surprising that people who breed dogs see this as a threat. Why do they want to know who they are and where they are if they don't intend to do anything with that knowledge ? They complain that the only way they can detect a breeder who is doing the wrong thing is after a complaint so clearly they intend to do something about watching anyone who breeds a dog and checking on them without a complaint. Many breeders distrust current regulatory bodies and fear they have been infiltrated by radicals and they will be treated unfairly. Traditionally breeders have done everything they can to avoid coming under notice of such regulatory organisations and many believe that even if they do everything by the book that they may be threatened by having to give up their privacy to comply with licensing. Some breeders who comply with all regulations and laws now will stop complying in fear that on inspection a minor thing may cause them to lose their companions. Some will argue if they do it all right they have nothing to worry about but that doesn't convince them. This is endemic in the breeding area and it is a very common belief system with the potential for this to impact on the success of such a plan should not be underestimated. Breeders do all they can to stay under the radar not because they are doing anything wrong but through fear that they can loose their dogs. Whether that is a valid fear or not most breeders spend their lives trying not to be noticed by council and RSPCA because it is their animals, their family members at risk and what have they done to make breeders trust them to be fair ?

Edited November 3, 2016 by Steve

[moosmum]

Im torn. I think they have the right intentions.

Puppy farms need to be shut down (even ones like Banksia Park, that have decent standards it's still mass producing pups, there are already too many. Plus they breed "designer dogs" (mutts for 10x the price))

And I agree pet shops should only sell rescue puppies & dogs. I don't think any good breeder would want to waste the first few essential weeks and socialisation opportunities of their puppies life in a shop window.

BUT if ALL breeders, even responsible, loving, smallscale breeders need to have kennels and a DAB, that is just ridiculous.

If that means I can't have a well socialised puppy (which has to happen young!) then that's rubbish. They really need to just put a bit more consideration into this so it does abolish puppy farms and mass breeding pups, but responsible breeders of pedigree dogs aren't affected. Realistically the only people that will adhere to these laws are good honest breeders. As if accidental litters and BYBs are going to get a DAB license. I've seen pups on gumtree who aren't even microchipped yet at 6mths! People like that aren't going to care.

For those who like to think this sort of legislation is driven by A.R- Is this an A.R response?

I don't think many here would claim it is. I think most here would agree its a response typicaly encouraged by the C.Cs in general, and its what is driving this sort of legislation.

Well intentioned people who believe Pedigree Dogs are the responsible choice above all else, and are either uninformed or have limited experience in the diverse practices aimed at breeding and raising happy, healthy puppies to supply their pets.

People who who want to be sure the dogs they buy are being bred responsibly, and are very well informed about failures attributed to certain environments, rather than the successes of individuals, and what makes them successful.

So whats wrong with the arguments used here FOR the legislation?

I am in no way defending Banksia Park here, because a) I don't know enough about them. and b) Any mass production of puppies could not supply the type of dog I am after unless its a pure accident.

But thats me, my experience, and my choice as a person who IS familiar with some of the intricacies of breeding Dogs. More would likely find the same, If they were also more informed and familiar. So there would not BE the support of buyers who keep this commercial industry viable. On the other hand, If Banksia Park can meet all reasonable standards set for breeding dogs and meeting welfare and socialization needs, and have a customer support base thrilled with their dogs, on what grounds do we decide they are unacceptable? When breeders of pedigree dogs larger scale or smaller will still be failing on those same grounds?

The other arguments, that they are producing "Designer Dogs, Mutts for 10X the price" . Should a persons choice of dog the be limited? If so, on what grounds? Pedigree? Health? Prey drive? profits? ( largely driven by demand, don't forget) And who gets to decide?

Shouldn't we be encouraging people to be responsible for their own choices?! To understand how breeding choice, raising and training all affect the choices they make ?

I Believe its been established there are NOT too many puppies being produced, just too many irresponsible owners making poor choices and not filling their own responsibilities, so too many failures and dogs ending up unclaimed or unwanted in the pound system.

Pet shops should only sell rescue puppies and dogs. A good breeder wouldn't want to waste the 1st few essential weeks of socialization opportunities of their puppies in a shop window.

But its O.K for rescue puppies? Or adults? Maybe because they are mostly 'Mutts' anyway? Don't ALL dogs deserves the same standards of care and welfare?

Where in all of this is a promotion of the practices that DO contribute to better choices in dog ownership and breeding?

I have been in a pet shop where the owner took puppies from registered and non registered breeders alike. By prior arrangement to ensure facilities would be available. They were penned in a 10 foot enclosure in the center of a large premises with enrichment toys and shelter from prying hands, food and water,clean fresh bedding. Brought in each morning by their breeders and returned home each after noon.

Not some thing I would want for my own pups ( because I wouldn't be able to supervise interactions myself, and for hygene/quaranteen reasons) but it looked to me like a great socialization opportunity. Trips to and from in the car, lots of interaction with all sorts of people and visiting dogs from behind a screen.

People either take responsibility to do some thing well, or they don't.

Either buyers take responsibility for their own choices in buying and raising their dog, or they don't.

How many do or don't as a community, will depend largely on the information available and promoted to assist in those choices, and a persons ability to recognize their own personal responsibilities to them. But it helps if the information is all around them, not preserved in a single standard for dog breeders and owners.

Because there can never be a single standard that meets all needs. Only one that must keep defining what those standards must be, in attempting to meet all needs.

Unless this realy IS about pedigrees, vs any thing 'Less'.

because if it is, its only going to cause the elimination of dogs in our lives unless there is RECOGNITION by the K.Cs that 'Dogs' are a species, not just a standard.

The dogs we can appreciate and value for their place in our lives will be governed by our responsibility to the species, not responsibility to a standard.

Edited November 4, 2016 by moosmum

[asal]

Im torn. I think they have the right intentions.

Puppy farms need to be shut down (even ones like Banksia Park, that have decent standards it's still mass producing pups, there are already too many. Plus they breed "designer dogs" (mutts for 10x the price))

And I agree pet shops should only sell rescue puppies & dogs. I don't think any good breeder would want to waste the first few essential weeks and socialisation opportunities of their puppies life in a shop window.

BUT if ALL breeders, even responsible, loving, smallscale breeders need to have kennels and a DAB, that is just ridiculous.

If that means I can't have a well socialised puppy (which has to happen young!) then that's rubbish. They really need to just put a bit more consideration into this so it does abolish puppy farms and mass breeding pups, but responsible breeders of pedigree dogs aren't affected. Realistically the only people that will adhere to these laws are good honest breeders. As if accidental litters and BYBs are going to get a DAB license. I've seen pups on gumtree who aren't even microchipped yet at 6mths! People like that aren't going to care.

For those who like to think this sort of legislation is driven by A.R- Is this an A.R response?

I don't think many here would claim it is. I think most here would agree its a response typicaly encouraged by the C.Cs in general, and its what is driving this sort of legislation.

Well intentioned people who believe Pedigree Dogs are the responsible choice above all else, and are either uninformed or have limited experience in the diverse practices aimed at breeding and raising happy, healthy puppies to supply their pets.

People who who want to be sure the dogs they buy are being bred responsibly, and are very well informed about failures attributed to certain environments, rather than the successes of individuals, and what makes them successful.

So whats wrong with the arguments used here FOR the legislation?

I am in no way defending Banksia Park here, because a) I don't know enough about them. and b) Any mass production of puppies could not supply the type of dog I am after unless its a pure accident.

But thats me, my experience, and my choice as a person who IS familiar with some of the intricacies of breeding Dogs. More would likely find the same, If they were also more informed and familiar. So there would not BE the support of buyers who keep this commercial industry viable. On the other hand, If Banksia Park can meet all reasonable standards set for breeding dogs and meeting welfare and socialization needs, and have a customer support base thrilled with their dogs, on what grounds do we decide they are unacceptable? When breeders of pedigree dogs larger scale or smaller will still be failing on those same grounds?

The other arguments, that they are producing "Designer Dogs, Mutts for 10X the price" . Should a persons choice of dog the be limited? If so, on what grounds? Pedigree? Health? Prey drive? profits? ( largely driven by demand, don't forget) And who gets to decide?

Shouldn't we be encouraging people to be responsible for their own choices?! To understand how breeding choice, raising and training all affect the choices they make ?

I Believe its been established there are NOT too many puppies being produced, just too many irresponsible owners making poor choices and not filling their own responsibilities, so too many failures and dogs ending up unclaimed or unwanted in the pound system.

Pet shops should only sell rescue puppies and dogs. A good breeder wouldn't want to waste the 1st few essential weeks of socialization opportunities of their puppies in a shop window.

But its O.K for rescue puppies? Or adults? Maybe because they are mostly 'Mutts' anyway? Don't ALL dogs deserves the same standards of care and welfare?

Where in all of this is a promotion of the practices that DO contribute to better choices in dog ownership and breeding?

I have been in a pet shop where the owner took puppies from registered and non registered breeders alike. By prior arrangement to ensure facilities would be available. They were penned in a 10 foot enclosure in the center of a large premises with enrichment toys and shelter from prying hands, food and water,clean fresh bedding. Brought in each morning by their breeders and returned home each after noon.

Not some thing I would want for my own pups ( because I wouldn't be able to supervise interactions myself, and for hygene/quaranteen reasons) but it looked to me like a great socialization opportunity. Trips to and from in the car, lots of interaction with all sorts of people and visiting dogs from behind a screen.

People either take responsibility to do some thing well, or they don't.

Either buyers take responsibility for their own choices in buying and raising their dog, or they don't.

How many do or don't as a community, will depend largely on the information available and promoted to assist in those choices, and a persons ability to recognize their own personal responsibilities to them. But it helps if the information is all around them, not preserved in a single standard for dog breeders and owners.

Because there can never be a single standard that meets all needs. Only one that must keep defining what those must be, in attempting to meet all needs.

Unless this realy IS about pedigrees, vs any thing 'Less'.

because if it is, its only going to cause the elimination of dogs in our lives unless there is RECOGNITION by the K.Cs that 'Dogs' are a species, not just a standard.

The dogs we can appreciate and value for their place in our lives will governed by our responsibility to the species, not responsibility to a standard.

spot on.

you raised so many valid points there.

yes its a bit odd its bad to buy a breeders puppy from a pet shop but fine if its a rescue in the window? if its bad for one then its bad for both. but what is the truth?

especially the pet shop scenario, the old pet shops like the one you described are wonderful socalising opportunities. 30 years ago there was a pet shop in kingswood near penrith like you describe, except the puppies were kept a pen seperate for each litter and that is exactly what was done, the breeder would bring them in the morning and take them home that aftrnoon, the staff would spoil them rotten and the puppies had a wonderful day interecting with new people every day. many of the people who brought their puppies in like that worked so could advertise them, and refer the caller to go see them at the shop. the shop took a percentage of the sale price . They did it for all breeds, pure and cross.

again so right about the ankc's and their members, in the rush to eliminate anyone they do not see as being as themselves they will destroy themselves as well, but sadly so few can seem to grasp the fact, or that the ankc's came second to the people who created and maintained the breeds for hundreds of years and decades before the ankcs try to gather and claim themselves the sole representatives of good dogs. They are everywhere with or without a piece of paper to prove it.

always have been, all we can pray for is this mess is resolved before all are destroyed by this shortsightedness.

how many remember the fact the pedigree stumpy tailed cattledog was bred into a genetic dead end when only one registered breeder was left and made sure it stayed that way by refusing to sell any on main register? it was the massive gene pool of much loved and preserved families out there in backyard land that supplied the appendix register to include in the ankc seach for new blood.

ANKC'S ARE NOT THE BE ALL for good dogs, surely that example alone should make them do a serious rethink?

Edited November 4, 2016 by asal

[moosmum]

"Responsibility" describes how we respond to the limitations of our environment, to reduce those limitations, making the environment more favorable to us.

Our ABILITY to respond to our environment, and increase.

Making MORE of the environment favorable to our support.

The K.Cs that insist they are a registry ONLY are not and can not be responsible. They simply provide an environment to work in for the benefit of specific TYPES of dog recorded by the pedigree systems they keep. The membership are responsible for how they respond to that environment.

Their ABILITY to respond is compromised by the statement that the organization does not recognize the product of mixed breeds. That each breed standard is an environment to be kept issolated into itself, not changed. That an individual identity within that environment must only respond by restricting itself to the standard as its set in time.

When you set standards, rules and regulations, even legislation, you are setting environmental conditions. Conditions that must be met to be recognized as a legitimate part of that environment, and not some thing foreign to be repelled or fought as an antagonist. Not a danger to the conditions that allow legitimate environmental identities to survive and thrive. Not some thing to be punished or repelled for the good of the environment..

A Pug is a condition of its environment. Its standards are the conditions set out to be recognized as a 'type' of Dog recognized by the Registering body. The Breeds, as set by the K.Cs standards.

Being a Pug is a 'canine condition' for a type of Dog.

If C.C members can't recognize dogs NOT included in their 'Standard conditions' as types of Dog, they are bound to those conditions alone. Their response is limited to those conditions as they are, not responding to them. Not altering them. There can be no recognition of values that could expand the environmental conditions of a Pug.

Not responding to conditions, but reacting to a 'fixed' or 'set' response. Like a genetic trait.

The most it can ever be is what it is today, if nothing else holds value.

Over use of popular sires are one result. The show ring is the only legitimate measure of a dogs 'Success' in fulfilling the Canine conditions of a Pug. Its adherence to the standards as set.

There is NO OTHER complete measure of the SUCCESS of those standards, as set. A rule of biology is the most successful should be favored in reproduction. For the values it contributes to its environment and the success of its species IN that environment. The only Values recognized are the Standards of its environment, the C.Cs.

It desperately needs to be recognized that breed standards included in the records of any C.C or K.C do not and can not define the types and standards of the canine species.

The records they keep can't do that.

Only the response-ability of their membership COULD come to do that, with freedom to respond as individuals to the standards, not entities bound to uphold that condition as it stands.

The Breed standards of a Pug, are the conditions that allow a Pug to be recognized as a distinct type of dog.

Same for a Labrador, a Rottweiler or a whippet. There is nothing at all wrong with standards for types of dogs, and there will always be need for pedigrees to verify that a dog has been bred to a set of standards as a distinct type of dog. But not the only types of dog we should recognize as dogs.

But it MUST be recognized that these conditions don't define the species Dog.

If they are going to be a viable system of support for DOGS.

They are not the ONLY types of dog that should be recognized as such. They are RECORDED as types of Dogs with a standard to define that type, but the standard must be open to response. The condition of a pug didn't make him that, the expectations of the breeders did.

We shouldn't recognize a Pug as a Pug by inflexible standards or conditions.

The conditions aren't as important as the expectations of the breeders. What they hope to find there.

How THEY value a pug gives its purpose for BEING a Pug in the 1st place. They define a Pug, not his conditions. Define the purpose of a pug and thats your standard. In general terms.

Surely its arrogance and bigotry to conclude that there is no improving on the standards you yourself adhere to, so you won't recognize value in any other standard that presents itself?

Edited November 6, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

spot on.

you raised so many valid points there.

yes its a bit odd its bad to buy a breeders puppy from a pet shop but fine if its a rescue in the window? if its bad for one then its bad for both. but what is the truth?

especially the pet shop scenario, the old pet shops like the one you described are wonderful socalising opportunities. 30 years ago there was a pet shop in kingswood near penrith like you describe, except the puppies were kept a pen seperate for each litter and that is exactly what was done, the breeder would bring them in the morning and take them home that aftrnoon, the staff would spoil them rotten and the puppies had a wonderful day interecting with new people every day. many of the people who brought their puppies in like that worked so could advertise them, and refer the caller to go see them at the shop. the shop took a percentage of the sale price . They did it for all breeds, pure and cross.

again so right about the ankc's and their members, in the rush to eliminate anyone they do not see as being as themselves they will destroy themselves as well, but sadly so few can seem to grasp the fact, or that the ankc's came second to the people who created and maintained the breeds for hundreds of years and decades before the ankcs try to gather and claim themselves the sole representatives of good dogs. They are everywhere with or without a piece of paper to prove it.

always have been, all we can pray for is this mess is resolved before all are destroyed by this shortsightedness.

how many remember the fact the pedigree stumpy tailed cattledog was bred into a genetic dead end when only one registered breeder was left and made sure it stayed that way by refusing to sell any on main register? it was the massive gene pool of much loved and preserved families out there in backyard land that supplied the appendix register to include in the ankc seach for new blood.

ANKC'S ARE NOT THE BE ALL for good dogs, surely that example alone should make them do a serious rethink?

Asal, Yes, this pet shop also kept litters separated.

I dreamed last night I was swimming in fast flowing flood waters alone in twilight, pushing my granddaughter in front of me and my dog helping.

There were only the tops of power lines and signs visible. I saw the tops of a set of Iron gates and pushed them open. As I swam thru' with my granddaughter my dog was swept away past.

I saw the top mattress of a set of double bunks that was also an island with grass and roots and dirt. I lifted my granddaughter into the center but it started filling with water, so I had to keep moving her closer and closer to the edge. The 'Island" was floating and had nothing to support it. The roots attached to nothing but the Island itself.

A good analogy for the K.Cs I think.

There is nothing to support your floating Island of standards to be some thing more solid or allow it to grow if its parts can't recognize any value in whats not already part of its being.

If its parts believe the island only has integrity because the 'condition' of its being NOW are what allows it to be.

Some of those pieces of sh*t and weeds floating past might be made into soil and grass, If the Island can recognize them as other conditions of earth and life it can respond to and alter for its own growth.

The Island is responsible for making them some thing it can use.

If it can't recognize its responsibility to interact with and shape its environment, it serves no purpose to any thing around it.

There are many canine 'conditions'. Recognizing only some of them does not improve those conditions, it reduces them.

Recognition does not equal acceptance. You DON'T accept what you can't or won't be a part of, because you can't bear responsibility for it otherwise.

But you can't improve on what you won't recognize as a condition of your environment and what you have to work with, and you can't build on what you have WITH OUT some thing to work with.

We have humanity to work with, and we have the canine species to work with. No one has to 'accept' the conditions they can't be part of. We CAN recognize them all as human or canine conditions tho', and improve them so they are more acceptable to more of us.

Thats not done by eliminating conditions of either species because you can't accept them.

Its done by taking a PERSONAL responsibility to be acceptable to more of them, no matter what conditions you prefer. Making your OWN standards more agreeable to a HUMAN consensus. That is responsibility.

Not forcing others into your own mould. Thats NOT taking responsibility for your own identity or any other.

If C.C conditions are unfavorable to C.Cs, its likely because they are not agreeable to those they wish would support them. Your 'Standards' don't offer enough to the diversity of your species.

You are responsible for that. By putting a personal identity or standard above a species identity or standard.

You want dog breeders to have more favor from their environment, you have to offer support to dog breeders, so they are better able to offer some thing that of value to the human condition. Meet expectations.

Pedigrees are good. They offer value to specific 'types' of DOGS. But they can't meet expectations alone, whats left of them. DOGS are the purpose and pedigrees don't make dogs, breeders do.

A pedigree Standard has limits. To type. Dogs don't.

You limit Identity to type by identifying as a 'type'. Over a breeder. Or a 'type' of Human, over a human. Because then you have to stay true to that Type, and define it by its limitations and not its potential.

A type has limits to potential that can never meet every ones needs or expectations.

Edited November 5, 2016 by moosmum

[asal]

copied from a facebook page.

FEEL FREE TO SHARE - How do you feel about this part of the Bill??...Breeders who are DABs automatically fall under the mandatory Code of Practice for the Operation of Breeding and Rearing Businesses (2014)

the last point of this code is:

•Recommends that dogs which are no longer in breeding programs are either re-homed or, if not suitable for rehoming, euthanized.

It sickens me to think that this is a recommendation I will be expected to follow - that one of my dogs- a dog I have shared my life with, a dog that I will hold until her final breath - I am expected to rehome or euthanise when I can no longer breed from her. - well Arya, how do I explain this to you when I retire you from my breeding program? - my final word to these fools- no one could ever love her like I do - a point you obviously fail to understand......animal welfare anyone #amendthebill

D..... Breeders don't fall to the low depths of RSPCA and PETA, {that have obviously had a big hand in writing the stupid bill) and kill our animals that have been loyal to us after they have stopped breeding.

A ... exactly and that along with the concrete yards and facilities they say we must have and must do constitute what? A PUPPY FARMER. when all this began to be pushed for in the 1990's I was inspected by a CC delegate on the grounds that as I did not show my dogs I must be a puppy farmer and membership cancelled. I remember the inspectors first words as he spotted my greybeards with the run of the place. "well, they wouldnt be here if you were a puppy farmer." then as he inspected my breeding dogs remarked, "why aren't you showing these? most of them are Champion quality". Even then I wasnt allowed to to do my own thing with my dogs, I was expected to follow the drum of the ribbon chasers or subject to suspicion. Now even the ribbon chasers if they have to follow these heartless rules will qualify as puppy farmers anyway. If you breed your dog's now, if this becomes law, you are not allowed to keep your retiree's..........disgusting

think this below might be on the mark after all

Edited November 5, 2016 by asal