Dog breeding facility planned for Bathurst

[Little Gifts]

Exactly dogbesotted! This is not about anything other than making money. What a joke.

[moosmum]

If the K.Cs and their members,  as 'the'  Authorities on the breeding of domestic Dogs can't recognize Dogs or their breeders who are not breeding exclusively to the standards and protocols as set out in their constitutions there is no other future for domestic dogs. Full Stop.

They might as well sign their own death certificate now.

 

If domestic dogs are not  a community interest and responsibility, they must be a Government responsibility.

To be a community responsibility requires familiarity and interest in all aspects of what you are expected to take responsibility for. What you are expected to respond to.

 

The K.Cs do not recognize a responsible/dog community beyond the K.Cs. They have spent the last 150 or so years disproving one.

Beyond the K.Cs is only backyard breeders.

A term used by Pedigree Breeders since inception of the K.Cs to describe all things wrong with Dog breeding outside of a K.Cs standards and protocols.

 

They have not managed to definitively separate Dogs bred within the  K.Cs and its membership from any of those practices. They never will as long as there is anything to practice because the only real divider between a K.C bred dog or BYBer is the   Pedigree issued by the K.C.   Thats the line. Any other can't ever be definitive.

 

So every time the k.C members chip away at the integrity of that community they undermine their own. There is barely anything left to stand on. Pedigrees were founded on Backyard breeders. Those are the foundations of every pedigree the K.Cs recognize today. People breeding dogs for their own purposes, tried and proven in the specific and diverse  environments they came from. Their own back yards.

 

You. can. not. undermine  that and be left with with anything to stand on. The Pedigree dogs foundations are almost gone because the understanding /familiarity needed for response-ability is refused. The K.Cs don't recognize and won't respond to the needs of the communities they depend on to survive.

 

STOP blaming every one else in their ignorance. Where have the experts been? What have they been doing to demonstrate what dogs need? What have they done to demonstrate the best ways to raise dogs that fit well into the environments people can provide, or to demonstrate how to provide the environments dogs need to do that?

They have not been demonstrating effective responses to dogs, in their diversity, so more of us see they can serve our own.

 

 

They call for regulations mostly, to ensure that environments that don't work for people or dogs,  ever,  don't exist.

Regulations to tell people what dogs need.  Always.

Or regulations  to ban dogs that could end up inappropriate environments.

 

Denying any responsibility.  Demanding standards instead.  Environments that can't and won't change.   So we never have to question our own responses.

 

 Instead of taking responsibility. Creating the environment you want , using what you have.

 

That throws responsibility to government.  Heavily regulated, licensed industry is much easier to regulate than a bunch of scattered small hobbyists. BYBers OR K.C. where 'Standards' must be diverse as the backyards where they take place.

The greyhound industry has had a lesson in how hard it is to police your own, to standards set by communities they don't recognize.

The K.Cs have also had warning. There is a petition circulating now to ban the breeding of Brachycephalic breeds.

 

The community so far still thinks dogs are worth having,  But if BYBers are to be avoided at all costs and pedigree breeders can't meet needs or demands of the communities they hope to supply, we are going to be stuck with livestock, not companions. The community might not find dogs worth it all for much longer.

 

Refusal to recognize what you don't want does not and can not work. All it does is creates a system of elimination that gradualy erodes any other possibility. Growth does not come from elimination. It can only come from recognizing and demonstrating possibility.

 

The K.Cs do not recognize possibility beyond the 'standards'  that represent unchanging and static environments.

The process set in place through that refusal to recognize has been remaking the world in their own image of static, unchanging environment.

Puppy mills it is.

 

Because the community, now mostly  ignorant of how to respond to dogs, still wants them from some where and  the K.Cs insist on enforcable standards with no need of community response. They can't be trusted.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2017 by moosmum

[RuralPug]

I'm not quite sure that I entirely understand your rant @moosmum but you appear to be blaming the historical kennel clubs for all the dog problems you can think of, which ,if true, strikes me as quite unfair to a group dedicated to overseeing a fancy. So let me attempt, in the interest of fair play, defend what you seem to consider indefensible.
 

The kennel clubs have for the past century or so, had the job of overseeing pedigree dogs. These days they are all amalgamated into state bodies joined into the ANKC.

Historically, in this country, pedigreed dogs have fluctuated between 15% and 5% of the dog population over the last seventy plus years.  

The other 85 - 95% of dogs have never been pedigreed. Some of those are certainly purebred,. the vast majority are not and never have been.

The ANKC only has control over its own members who keep and/or breed pedigree dogs or desexed non-pedigree dogs that compete in various dog sports. It has no control over breeders producing racing greyhounds, or breeders producing dogs via the various working registries. It has no control over commercial breeders that are not members. It has no control over non-commercial breeders that are not members. It has no control over anyone who is not a member. 

Since action has become necessary to regulate dogs in the community, the kennel clubs , along with the greyhound industry and working dog registries, have convinced various governments that their members value their dogs so highly that they do not allow them to become nuisances and thus in most states they have concessions with regard to licenses, registrations etc. These concessions have only ever applied to bona fide members of the above groups. None of these groups have ever claimed to represent anyone but their members.

The vast majority of dog owners in this country are not members. The vast majority of dogs bred are not produced by members.
The only funds available to the ANKC are from its members, who are mostly ordinary Australians enjoying their various forms of dog sports, including conformation showing, obedience trialling, tracking, retrieving, agility etc. etc.

Until very recent times, the animal welfare groups were the ones that governments turned to for advice on pet regulation. In many cases large sums of money have been given by governments to those animal welfare groups with the aim of community education.
If any kennel clubs or the other groups that have gained concessions for their members have managed to snag any grants for community education it would comparatively be minuscule amounts.  
In recent decades, the huge marketing expenditures by Animal Rights organisations who aim to completely eradicate animal/human interactions of any kind, and raise donations (in the name of animal welfare) to decry all breeders have definitely affected public perception.

And yet @moosmum you appear to blame the kennel clubs for the lack of understanding on the part of puppy buyers who purchase from puppy farms or BYBs.  

It's a bit like blaming the cat fancy for all the feral and stray cats in the country. Or blaming AFL or Rugby Union for all the overweight children in the country. If the ANKC can be said to have failed anyone, that would be its own members, not the country as a whole.

I get that you don't like the dog fancy - that comes across very clearly. You are entitled to your opinion (although it is actually a bit odd on a forum which is actually dedicated to and all about the dog fancy LOL).

Had your rant been on a private forum, I would just have ignored it. However, it is on a public forum, and therefore the public deserve a few facts to consider.

[moosmum]

Believe it or not, I have been trying to show The K.Cs how to open a way over come many of the problems besetting them. by pointing out a single flaw and showing how it is affecting much of what is happening.

it has cost me. Its unpopular. But I have kept trying because i happened to believe in the potential of pedigree dogs.

 

I just spent several hours explaining clearly the physics behind this only to have it deleated before completion. It may have made what I have been trying to accomplish  clear, at last. But I give up, as many more sensible have and are doing.

 

I'm afraid the K.Cs realy are on their own. As they insist. Not much purpose in that for anyone but the K.Cs. I can't keep any belief in that.

Edited October 31, 2017 by moosmum

[moosmum]

LOL, One more to quit on a luckier number.

 

@RuralPug

 

I have nothing against the dog fancy. There is good reason to believe in the Pedigree system and the standards it represents.

 

A belief in that is only  misplaced when it is so strong that to follow it requires a declaration that nothing 'less' will be recognized.. That to accept the Pedigree system means rejection of all that surrounds it and all that lead up to it.

Thats where the problems begin. It moves the practice beyond its science to blind faith.

 

I don't give you the problems. I don't bring them up to accuse. I bring them up to show the the results of a flaw that make them predictable.

There is a response available. But it must be invisible to faith because no one seems able to bring it into their focus. All they see is attack and accusation.

 

All thats required is to change the mission statement from one that does not recognize 'cross breed' dogs, to read more like -

" We do not accept into the pedigree system dogs that have have not been bred to our protocols for accepted breed standards, Though we insist that all dogs receive equal recognition of any value to their species and humanity without prejudice or censure."

 

I don't claim all  K.C problems would vanish. Certainly not overnight. But it would remove the barrier preventing the effectiveness of existing solutions, and open new directions to recognizing others.

 

The K.C membership identity is fixed to a set response of rejection to over come environmental  difficulties. But its only set with that declaration, that refuses to recognize diversity and puts all and any  belief into  fixed standards. One environment. With none permitted to leak out to embrace the species.

Even though the standards would remain.

Even though the K.C member identity would remain.

And even though the  purpose would be regained of improvement  to the standard of Dogs- Overall.

 

By encouraging people who cross breed to see to they too have some thing to gain from a pedigree system, and may still contribute to it, you gain diversity of membership and response. The benefits also flow out. An Identity ( even a K.C identity) is not set or fixed, while it has enough diversity to allow recognition of new response when its presented. Acceptance of those is still  choice, but its not open without recognition.

 

So the rest is up to the K.C.s

[RuralPug]

More facts @moosmum plus a bit of opinion from me as well this time.

Anyone with a cross bred or mixed breed dog may register that dog as an Associate or on the Sporting Register with the ANKC bodies and have been doing so for many, many years. Some of the most heavily titled dogs in ANKC performance are non-pedigrees.

Associate dogs can and do compete in every activity except conformation and they are out there every week. Only desexed dogs are permitted to join the Associate Register but there are plenty of them. And their owners are members and are catered for by the ANKC.

There are also established pathways to developing new breeds and having them accepted by the ANKC and other kennel clubs worldwide- look at the Tenterfield Terrier, for one recent example. The White Swiss Shepherd, for another. 
There a number of breeds in development registers with the ANKC currently - some may "make the grade" and be accepted into the pedigree world, others, without a dedicated crew of breeders who agree with each other on the type and standard to be produced, will schism and remain non pedigree.
 

And that is not good enough for you? You want cross breeders to cross breed INSIDE an organisation dedicated to purebreds? An organisation that you ranted has totally ruined dogs? You think it will magically give cross breeders the the pride and sense of belonging so that they will suddenly breed ethically - which you claim the pedigree breeders aren't doing anyway? By joining an organisation that you have just ranted has totally ruined dogs by unethical breeding? (You see the opinions there?)

You can't have it both ways. Either the pedigree system is worthy of being joined or it isn't. If it is worthy of joining then its own standards are worthy of being upheld and not diluted.
You seem to think that if cross breeders are permitted to rub shoulders with pedigree breeder in that fashion they will absorb higher ethics and breed better dogs - but what if the opposite should happen and the ethical pedigree breeders sink to the level of the non-health testing non puppy culture cross breeders?  Consider that.

The fact is that there is absolutely nothing to stop those who wish to crossbreed from breeding ethically NOW - the science is readily available to all. Whether or not the vast majority of cross breeders do so is their own choice. They don't need to join the pedigree world in order to become ethical.
If they want to breed pedigree dogs they are welcome to join. Those who prefer to cross breed or breed unpapered purebreds have a choice of several organisations to join. In my opinion it is the role of those organisations to inculcate ethics in their members.

The ANKC accepts non pedigrees in all of its areas except conformation showing and pedigree breeding for the simple reason that those two areas require standards - but breeding is the area that you want the standards NOT to be in? We will definitely have to agree to disagree on that.


 

[sandgrubber]

With pedigree puppy prices pushing $2000 for a lot of breeds, and respect for 'the pedigree' at a low, there's a big pull for commercial breeding, including cross breeding. No doubt there will be more of the same. Unfortunately.  

I agree with Moosmum, the old fashioned occasional litter in the back yard wasn't such a bad alternative.  I've thought of going back to breeding an occasional litter because it's so hard to find good pups (health tested sire and dam, documented lines) in NZ.  No one will sell you a bitch if you say you may want to breed.

[Scottsmum]

8 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

With pedigree puppy prices pushing $2000 for a lot of breeds, and respect for 'the pedigree' at a low, there's a big pull for commercial breeding, including cross breeding. No doubt there will be more of the same. Unfortunately.  

 

Yeh - but look at some of the prices for designer mutts - just staggering and disgusting.  Seriously - take a quick look on trade me if you want to make your blood boil. 

 

I don't think the price of pedigree is the problem here.  I also see people advertising pups as "almost...xxx"  (todays was "Almost 100% Maltese pups"  Mum is 100% Maltese , dad is 1/4 shih tzu") If people are advertising as "almost 100%"  why not just breed and sell actual "100% pups"

???

[Little Gifts]

My issue is the price people are charging for what are simply cross-bred dogs is not reflective of the quality of the puppy they are selling OR of the quality of care the parents or the puppies have received. We don't need more of these kinds of dogs and we don't need more money to be going into this industry. I know several well respected registered breeders and they all have other jobs to make ends meet. Yet there are puppy farmers and back yard breeders making a pretty coin while their bitches do all the work. It's because they maximise their product and minimise their outgoings to make that product. What other product with no guarantee do consumers happily part thousands of dollars for just because it looks cute? You wouldn't pay $3000 for a Gucci handbag without knowing it was what it professed to be but you will buy a living thing that someone tells you is made up breed name? It's all kinds of stupid. So if puppy farmers and backyard breeders charged a cost that reflected the quality of what they were selling I doubt it would hold as much interest for either side.

 

I think it is at the detriment of all dogs to encourage or further legitimise this kind of 'industry'.  If it smells like dog shit, it's dog shit.

 

 

[Scottsmum]

Well said LG.

[sandgrubber]

It's not just commercial breeders who are after the money.  And it's hard to support the argument that the KCs are seriously concerned about welfare.

If I count the numbers of puppy listings on DOL, I find disproportionate representation of the brachy breeds, especially Frenchies, with Brit bulldogs and pugs not far behind.  Now I'm sure SOME of those breeders are breeding away from the health problems associated with their breeds' conformations, but it looks to me like the rapid growth of those registries has something to do with the $3000+ those pups command. 

True, high prices, in part, reflect the cost of obligate Cesarian sections.  But the KCs do nothing to encourage natural whelping and little to discourage un-natural respiration.

If someone wanted to breed dogs suited to the dominant climates of Australia, eg, to breed away from heavy double coats in Sibes, Newfies, Labs, etc.  they would catch all kinds of abuse from the people enforcing 'breed standards'. 

I see pedigrees and health standards as good things.  Genetics is VERY important in breeding.  I wish there were something in the way of temperament standard to discourage breeding of dogs with unstable and undesirable temperaments.  Conformation, except where it relates to health and function, is well down my list.

I don't think my values are far off those of the average dog loving person.  The KCs aren't doing a great job meeting market needs... hence commercial breeding expands.  Sadly, commercial breeding tends not to pay much attention to health and genetics, and in many cases, the bitches and dogs involved don't have much of a life.

To me all this makes the old, informal, back yard selection process look relatively good, and the option of buying a rescue or non-commercial cross breed, relatively attractive.

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by sandgrubber
Typo

[Scrappi&Monty]

On the topic of unethical breeders/greeders....

saw an ad on gumtree recently, a registered frenchie breeder.

They were selling a blue bitch for $12,000 (!!!) on mains, and $10,000 for a family pet on a desexing contract!!! 

Then proceeded to list all the “pretty and rare colours you can breed from her”... 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Scrappi&Monty

[Scrappi&Monty]

   .

Edited November 2, 2017 by Scrappi&Monty

[moosmum]

On 11/1/2017 at 1:13 AM, RuralPug said:

More facts @moosmum plus a bit of opinion from me as well this time.

Anyone with a cross bred or mixed breed dog may register that dog as an Associate or on the Sporting Register with the ANKC bodies and have been doing so for many, many years. Some of the most heavily titled dogs in ANKC performance are non-pedigrees.

Associate dogs can and do compete in every activity except conformation and they are out there every week. Only desexed dogs are permitted to join the Associate Register but there are plenty of them. And their owners are members and are catered for by the ANKC.

There are also established pathways to developing new breeds and having them accepted by the ANKC and other kennel clubs worldwide- look at the Tenterfield Terrier, for one recent example. The White Swiss Shepherd, for another. 
There a number of breeds in development registers with the ANKC currently - some may "make the grade" and be accepted into the pedigree world, others, without a dedicated crew of breeders who agree with each other on the type and standard to be produced, will schism and remain non pedigree.

 

 I think you should re-read my last post in the other thread, 'Well, finally happening' with view to understanding what that might mean.

I don't dispute any of these facts. But none of them show a recognition of the value a Domestic Dog might bring to its species beyond  a recognized standard accepted and promoted by the K.Cs. I have addressed all of these points in previous threads over the years here.
 

And that is not good enough for you? You want cross breeders to cross breed INSIDE an organisation dedicated to purebreds? An organisation that you ranted has totally ruined dogs? You think it will magically give cross breeders the the pride and sense of belonging so that they will suddenly breed ethically - which you claim the pedigree breeders aren't doing anyway? By joining an organisation that you have just ranted has totally ruined dogs by unethical breeding? (You see the opinions there?)

 

1st, None of those dogs bred would end up  INSIDE the organization. The organization contains only pedigrees. Thats its only purpose and would remain its only purpose.

The purpose is not to give cross breeders a sense of pride or belonging.

Its to give pedigree breeders a connection to an environment they  won't  recognize, thats essential to  any purpose they could  have to the environment.

You can't have it both ways. Either the pedigree system is worthy of being joined or it isn't. If it is worthy of joining then its own standards are worthy of being upheld and not diluted.
You seem to think that if cross breeders are permitted to rub shoulders with pedigree breeder in that fashion they will absorb higher ethics and breed better dogs - but what if the opposite should happen and the ethical pedigree breeders sink to the level of the non-health testing non puppy culture cross breeders?  Consider that.

 

Its not an either /or situation here. Only the contentious statement implies other wise.

Certainly not backed by the science or fact.

You miss the point that this is a single species. Its not divided into sub groups in reality. They are domestic Dogs. Their  environment is Humanity.

if you get rid of BYBers, you are left with domestic dogs. if you get rid of Pedigrees, you are still left with Domestic dogs.

But you are talking about practices. Or responses to Dogs  Inaccurately defined practices at that. Not defined by whats done, but by where its done.

 

If the condition of humanity is not supportive of the species, you can only respond effectively by improving conditions. 

By giving support to the conditions you want.

An environment can't be responsible for its condition. Its a space. What it contains and it  responds to the space its given decides its condition.

You can't separate the condition of the space from the space itself. Not without reducing how much is space available.

 

.Thats physics. Not opinion.

 

You can not separate the condition from the environment. They are one and the same.

You can only increase the space available to Pedigree dogs by adding value. Improving  the conditions of the space that support them.

 

All these spaces you want to eliminate,  BYBers, puppy farms, pet shops etc...None of those spaces exclude pedigree dogs and pedigree dogs can't exclude them. They are the conditions  that currently support the  species domestic dog. Poor as they are. If you want to raise the standard of that support,  you can only do that by taking responsibility for adding value. You can't do that by reducing whats available to work with. Only by demonstrating the value and results of better  responses.

Supporting them  and encouraging support for them wherever they are found.

Its not ANKCs job and never will be. Its a breeders job.

Not humanities. They are just the environment and it only responds  to value, that increases its space - Or cost, that decreases space, available to the subject.

Its a Breeders job to support.

 

 

 

The fact is that there is absolutely nothing to stop those who wish to crossbreed from breeding ethically NOW - the science is readily available to all.

Except a lack of support from their environment to do so.

 

Quote

 

 Whether or not the vast majority of cross breeders do so is their own choice.

They don't need to join the pedigree world in order to become ethical.

No. They don't. But if they want to succeed, and add value, they must find a way to prevent  it  being discredited by the part of their environment that does that.

 

Quote

If they want to breed pedigree dogs they are welcome to join. Those who prefer to cross breed or breed unpapered purebreds have a choice of several organisations to join. In my opinion it is the role of those organisations to inculcate ethics in their members.

 

 I have to disagree there. The organizations role is to serve and support its members through whatever purpose was behind its inception. If thats the keeping of Pedigrees,  thats what they  should do. Any value that brings to the environment  depends on what value that provides to the environment,  'Ethics' are values. The organization does not get to  decide what those are. The environment does.They are the things that  increase support from the environment, and the space available for the species. If Pedigree dogs thrive above all others, it won't be because they decide ethics. It will be because they deliver greater value.

The environment supports value by increase in its available space.

The ANKC accepts non pedigrees in all of its areas except conformation showing and pedigree breeding for the simple reason that those two areas require standards - but breeding is the area that you want the standards NOT to be in? We will definitely have to agree to disagree on that.

 

Quite to opposite. I think ANKC needs to accept that standards are universal to all domestic dogs. All they  are the conditions of the species. Weather they are good conditions or bad conditions depends entirely on the value the environment finds in them to support. Its ANKC in its present identity that can not allow support for standards beyond its 'self'.


 

You say the K.Cs have had the job over seeing Pedigree dogs. I fully support that goal.

 But I am sorry. I can't support ANKC in that role as it stands in its present identity.. Its  'genetic blueprint'  makes that task  a physical impossibility while its programed to eliminate environment so that no value is recognized  beyond its 'self'.

 

 

 

You can call that an opinion if you like. But you risk a lot to assume it is when all evidence I have found supports that and you have not been able to provide any evidence to disprove it. I get that you don't like  the evidence. That doesn't mean I do anymore.

But your whole argument depends on a false belief that any value is in the environment. Its not. Thats a space you Occupy. It just IS.

 

Any value is subjective. The environment or space only holds value to the subject by the potential it can realize there,  through its own ability to respond to  prevailing conditions. The K.Cs created conditions that Breeders could take advantage of to improve their responses to dogs and better support them.That created greater potential.  

The addition of the statement of non recognition removed it.

By defining its response and conditions as an independent identity. Turning it inward towards a single space. No longer a response, its an environment, incapable of independent response and defined by what it holds.

As a now self  identified space, its only power to define its 'self'  lies with what it will not hold. It can not hold 'other' conditions or spaces and still be self defining. Its only option is rejection of what it won't hold.

 

Spaces or environments do not respond. They only accept or reject based on value offered. By giving space or refusing it.

Edited November 4, 2017 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

Hey moosmum I know I’ve told you before but I for one appreciate the effort you go to to try to break through and explain this. 

 

I guess if if I could say it in a short post in layman’s terms, I’d say that history tells us what happens to institutions who don’t adapt to contemporary conditions and embrace change, and that in my opinion, the kennel clubs have nothing to lose by embracing these dogs from the fringes, but a lot to lose if they don’t.

 

[karen15]

Why would purebred associations want to accept crossbreds? Crossbreds can credit a large portion of their current popularity, and associated hefty prices, to very clever marketing including terms such as designer and boutique breeds. They are neither, they are expensive mutts.

 

I'm obviously not concentrating much as I can't get the point you're making about environment? Crossbreds have been around for ever, but the whole point of a pure bred is confidence that the dog will possess certain characteristics - those characteristics are in the breed standards. What characteristics can consistently be applied to crosses? 

[Pjrt]

What I mean is in the instance of a few of these oodle types, there is a push from within their circle to work towards becoming recognised breeds. The Kennel Club would not be accepting cross breeds, they would be accepting a breed in development with all the scrutiny and stringent guidelines that brings, and after quite a lengthy and well established process, out comes a standardised recognised breed at the other end, with all the benefits that brings in adhering to the kennel clubs codes of pracrice, and ensure buyers are best informed and receive a health tested animal bred with the best of intentions. 

Sadly the kennel clubs, or perhaps moreover, their members,  seem to shun these people wanting to step up to the breeds in development program

An example of this is the type that was once  widely  known as ‘toy fox terrier’, went through the breeds in development process, and out the other end came the fully recognised breed Tenterfield Terrier. 

Think about oother Australian Breeds. They were developed since Australia was born, and are relatively modern breeds, that we developed and then recognised. I don’t see what the issue is developing more. 

These oodle types are wildly popular with the public and I think the kennel club is just dumb to turn their back on this potential for new interest in the pedigree dog arena. 

 

Eta..... so we have a situation where the oodle can be pushed through as breed in development and held to the same breeding ethics and standards as other pedigree dogs, or we can alienate their breeders to the fringes where the dogs will be mass produced in puppy factories industry style. I know which route would be infinitely better option for people and dogs.

Edited November 4, 2017 by mingaling

[Lhok]

But do the majority of breeders who breed the oodle type dog actually want it to be a breed or is it a cash in on the popularity of it? From most of the posts I see in the local buy swap sells it is the cashing in on the popularity of it. I sit there and I try to talk about health testing and why it is beneficial to do early stimulation/senstisation of pups I ask them if they would be willing to take back pups they bred and all the hallmarks of an ethicial breeder. Are they interested in anything like that? No, they tell me if I am not interested in buying a pup to take my opinions and shove them elsewhere.

--Lhok

[Pjrt]

Oh I agree there are so many types of oodly mutts and I’d guess the majority of breeders don’t even think about themselves as ever being ‘like those show dogs’ , but there are a few pockets of breeders in there amongst them that are making sounds about standardisation and pedigree registry. If the KC looked at helping those that want it, maybe just maybe, with time, others would come on board too. I see more benfit especially for animal welfare, but also for the buyer, in having the willing ones come and join the pedigree fold.

[moosmum]

4 hours ago, karen15 said:

Why would purebred associations want to accept crossbreds? Crossbreds can credit a large portion of their current popularity, and associated hefty prices, to very clever marketing including terms such as designer and boutique breeds. They are neither, they are expensive mutts.

 

I'm obviously not concentrating much as I can't get the point you're making about environment? Crossbreds have been around for ever, but the whole point of a pure bred is confidence that the dog will possess certain characteristics - those characteristics are in the breed standards. What characteristics can consistently be applied to crosses? 

They would not be accepting cross breds. Only recognizing them as dogs that may or may not have some thing to offer a breeder, or a person .Based on its own merits or lack of them, not by where it came from.

 

As to what characteristics can be consistently  applied to crossbreds- What ever characteristics a breeder has made the effort  to find and develop.