Dog breeding facility planned for Bathurst

[karen15]

I still don't get what you're saying moosmum. Ruralpug has already said ANKC lets all dogs, regardless of breeding, compete in everything with the exception of breed and confirmation classes. So to me, that says they recognise these dogs do have an intrinsic value. They also permit new breeds to be developed, all be it in a defined process.

 

if there is any resistance to the concept of crossbreds, I think Lhok has succinctly summed up why

10 hours ago, Lhok said:

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.

and that goes back to the initial post and planned mass breeding facility. Mass breeding is never good and I can only see it being driven by profit, not care for the welfare of the animals produced.

[Christina]

The dogs or pups won't be running the 100 hectares so disturbing koalas is irrelevant. They will be in the pens/runs/designated restricted exercise areas, which is better & safer than having them run loose on that lot.

The concern is that the dogs are being factory bred for commercial purposes. Dogs should be family bred not factory bred but I guess as long as they follow government guidelines, pass inspections & pay up for council rates, licences. taxes etc no one cares about the rest, including the stupid public who buy them from the shop like they would a pair of shoes. Sad isn't it.

[moosmum]

On 11/4/2017 at 8:49 PM, Lhok said:

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

@karen15

 

Yes  the context of environment can be very confusing in all of this. I think Mingaling put it best- Every thing that is not the 'self' is environment.

What makes that so confusing tho' is the subject you are referring to changes. What self or identity is being discussed in this instance? The environment of the K.Cs is humanity, but the environment of its members is only the K.C. The environment of dogs is humanity, but pedigrees is their registering body.

 

 

Every thing beyond any identified subject is its environment- and its essential that it can recognize all parts it comes into regular contact with to respond effectively.

The more it can recognize, the better it responds and more environment available to expand. Ie your body is the environment for your cells. They keep your body healthy by recognition of other cells, their states and conditions. So when some thing is wrong with human body/environment they recognize how to respond to correct it, and can attack viruses etc. or repell what doesn't belong. But even that is learned response through recognition. (This thing again!) 

So an Identity, of any type, is also an environment, of all it contains. To every cell or thing that enters your body, it behaves like an environment.It can only accept or reject.

 

Attack, suppression, etc is an identities response to anything that does not belong in the body of its self identity, so even if its powerless to remove it, it  can't thrive there.

The K.Cs share their environment with Domestic dogs. Because thats what they are.  But the only parts of that species the K.Cs can recognize are the pedigree ones.

So a K.C environment tries to reject the conditions that support non Pedigree dogs and it doesn't work because over all pedigrees and other dogs depend on  the same conditions to thrive.

 Like an over active immune system destroying its own body.

 

An identity is an environment for all it contains, held together by common belief of 'self'.

 

i think this is likely where a lot of the confusion comes from. I have always been able to jump from one environmental concept to another with no trouble. Theres a lot of that here.

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by moosmum

[moosmum]

On 11/4/2017 at 8:49 PM, Lhok said:

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

Sorry guys, ran out out of time to answer this bit.

 

Once people see what they think is an easy profit to be made they will try to cash in on it. The more people pay for dogs, the more people will try to cash in to get a slice of the pie.

The trick is to educate people about breeding.

1st, that actually is the part of 'education'  the public is missing to make more informed choices. If you aren't familiar with any of the process or what goes into it to produce a quality product, how are you to understand if you are likely to be getting that from from the seller? If a mass produced puppy comes from a clean, state of the art kennels with lots of staff and conducts education on breeding practices, how is person who has no understanding of what goes into breeding to see anything wrong with that?

 

2nd, Its not so easy as it looks when you don't know, what you don't know.

If people understand up front that breeding quality pups requires careful selection of parents for complementary traits, (And a working knowledge of what those are ) sound temperament, health testing where relevant, 'round the clock care , socialization, vaccinations, preparation for veterinary intervention, Knowledge of breech birth and possible complications .....It doesn't look so attractive.

Fewer try, and fewer still a 2nd time.

Because Its harder to get away with offering any less.

 

So at the moment yes, a lot of people are just cashing in. But the reason they are  able to do that is due to low expectations. 

 

Thats where demonstration comes into it. A demonstration of possibilities has to be given. Experienced, before it can be expected.

Environment needs that. It doesn't recognize value till its been shown. It requires familiarity.

So recognition is essential before its even possible to give value.

Psychology  has shown thats  true of people too, in market research.

 

Thats why I say the breeders environment is not a healthy one. There is too little support for quality breeders because there is too little experience of them, or what quality can be. People aren't familiar with them.

BYBers can't be blamed for that either. If pedigree breeders were doing so much better at meeting demands, there would be higher expectations of them. The numbers of K.Cs members would not be in decline.

ANKC breeders aren't supporting The practices that bring improved results for buyers. They support The K.C  that believes those practices  are inherent in the standards and limitations. They are clearly not. Or we wouldn't talk about ANKCs responsibility to 'police' its members. And what are those members accused of?  Being nothing better than whats out side. Of bringing the 'outside' , in. And how to limit whats outside, so it cant' get in.

Limiting themselves further in the process. Limiting what value  gets out too, with limited pedigrees etc.

 

 

If they were doing much better at meeting expectations, their environment would give them more space.The numbers of Pedigree dogs represented in the population would be much higher.

 

As for them wanting it to be a breed or not... doesn't matter. Breeds came about because people recognized some thing, some traits, they wanted to work on as a breed, after the fact. The dogs were there, being bred for some purpose that people valued. They proved themselves to have value 1st. With recognition and familiarity as something worth a space dedicated to it. They served a purpose in their environment.

 

If the only purpose being recognized is as accessories, thats the fault of breeders for not demonstrating other purpose.

Edited November 10, 2017 by moosmum

[sandgrubber]

The sad side of this story is how difficult things have gotten for the small, hobby breeder who aims for quality.  The two dog rule hits hard in much of Oz... you need to be able to run pups on to do a good job breeding.  The limited register mentality makes it very hard for newbies to get started.  The animal rights mentality demonizes people who might want to give breeding a try...and you must have beginners if you are to end up with experienced breeders.

So numbers of quality breeders dwindle.  That creates a niche for commercial breeding...and that niche is getting filled. 

Larger scale breeding need not be bad breeding, nor need it be cruel.  In time past, some of the big name kennels on old country estates... at least in some breeds, kept 100+ dogs.  Dogs are social animals, and in some circumstances, a big mob of dogs hanging out together can be very happy dogs.  Happier by far than the lone dog who gets at best an hour or two of human company a day and very little contact with other dogs.

Edited November 5, 2017 by sandgrubber
Small tweak in wording

[moosmum]

Breeders need to support other breeders. No environment is bad for dogs by itself. Its how we respond to the challenges that make the difference between good and bad.

There will be times and conditions when a certain environment is the only practical option for a specific purpose or situation.

But if all  breeders become commercial enterprise, and we are collectively driving it in that direction, then we  have let them become no more than accessories.

They are loosing purpose, and value with it.

 

Just as any biological identity does when it refuses to recognize  the environment and its demands. Environments in them selves aren't good or bad.

Its about how we respond to their challenges. Breeder support is needed.

 

The demonization isn't just from A.R. And if commercial breeders can weather it, so can small scale breeders.  But only if they can recognize and support each other and thats not happening. In or out of the K.Cs. Because everyone is more concerned with not supporting  environments.

Edited November 6, 2017 by moosmum

[moosmum]

On 11/5/2017 at 7:08 AM, karen15 said:

I still don't get what you're saying moosmum. Ruralpug has already said ANKC lets all dogs, regardless of breeding, compete in everything with the exception of breed and confirmation classes. So to me, that says they recognise these dogs do have an intrinsic value. They also permit new breeds to be developed, all be it in a defined process.

 

if there is any resistance to the concept of crossbreds, I think Lhok has succinctly summed up why

and that goes back to the initial post and planned mass breeding facility. Mass breeding is never good and I can only see it being driven by profit, not care for the welfare of the animals produced.

But its the breeder support and knowledge that is missing.

I don't see your example shows recognition of cross breeds intrinsic value at all. Not when its a requirement that those values won't be bred on, unless its within an ANKC recognized standard. All the value is in placed in ANKC. Not in the Dog.

 

If the science is confusing, the language should be easier. The constitution sets up an identity. Its pretty much accepted that a constitution can and does only what its designed to do. So the wording and language used must be very carefully worked out. Every word in the constitution, its mission statement and the rules and regs. forms part of the instruction for for the orgs. membership. It acts like the genetic blue print for the organizational identity. Not the members so much. They're diverse in perspectives and opinions but their action are bound by it all the same.

Forget conscious choice. Its a drive to behave and respond according to the genetics of the parent body.

 

 

So We have an organization set up to keep records of pedigrees and their standards. The rules, regs. mission statement etc. all good.  Its all about the Org. The things that set it apart and give it an identity. Its identity is set by what happens within. Not by what happens beyond that.

 

There are rules written to guide the successful writing of that document and one says - 'Avoid  ruling on what is beyond that identity' , Because thats the environment and doing so can have unintended consequence.

 

Another is to avoid negative rulings or statements because they can only have negative consequence, again often unintended. because they don't give direction, they can only block direction in ways you can't foresee.

 

ANKC,  by  that statement of what is not recognized has done both. So the language-

ANKC  does not recognize what is beyond its own remit. Its environment.

 To define what ANKC does recognize, what does it hold?

BREED Standards. For BREEDERS.( forget pedigrees for the moment, they are how the standards are verified and explained)

Standards are Conditions.  Conditions are  limitations. They are only good or bad depending on how well we have or can respond to them.

 

ANKC will only recognize the limitations of a Breed or Breeder. Its members can only recognize  limitations of a breed or breeder as a valid part of that identity.

The only response left open to members is to limit conditions of breeds and breeders. With the idea  they can be limited to optimal conditions or standards?

Thats impossible! Because its our response that makes those standards either good or bad, and we are limiting standards and conditions to do it!

 

The identity of the K.Cs stays the same with removal of that statement. It doesn't change how the pedigree system manages pedigree standards or include cross breeds. All it does is to recognize the value of response  to Standards, conditions and limitation..

 

 

Or will we keep trying to reduce breeds and breeders to perfection?

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by moosmum

[karen15]

so what you're saying moosmum is pedigrees be damned, breed whatever you want irrespective of whether the crosses are compatible or not and expect the ANKC to accept the outcome as a desirable mating just because some random has decided they want to cash in on the trend of designer and boutique breeds?

 

as I said earlier, the whole point of a breed standard is to give confidence in the characteristics etc of the breed. Why encourage random, unthoughtout breeding. There are too many animals thrown away these days, why build facilities to produce more.

 

to my mind, the ANKC would do much better demonstrating why random crosses are a lottery in term of appearance, health, temperament, size, coat etc and using purebreds, which are consistent in all of those traits to show what alternatives are available. Jo Public generally knows very little about breeds, mainly recognising labs, golden retrievers, GSDs and the other common breeds like that. Educate them on the plethora of alternative breeds available that have characteristics the eg oodle crosses profess to hold such as low shedding. There are many low shedding breeds, people just have no idea they exist, so buy an oodle believing it won't shed, when the reality is 50/50 chance of a shedder.

 

I don think new breeds can't or shouldn't be developed. But I do believe that they should be developed using the best specimens possible and i do not believe the boutique breeders do this.

 

when I was looking for my next dog, I googled for breed ideas based on my desirable criteria, then I read the breed standards of the dogs I was interested in. The breed standard allowed me to make an informed and educated choice on the breed I was going to get and the dog is everything I could have asked for. That's why I think breed standards are so important.

 

I think the ANKC could do an excellent campaign on spur of the moment pet shop purchases vs having to wait for something that you value. Animals are too readily thought of as disposable and the public really need a good kick up the arse IMO.

[Pjrt]

The breeds in development requires a breed standard to be drawn up, and an open stud book of dogs most similar to that standard. Generations of dogs are bred from this foundation stock. The standard may be amended, and the stud book open for some time. At some point, the progeny will be deemed acceptable to the standard. And from there on it’s up to breeders to breed from the progeny to produce dogs as close as possible to the written standard. 

Like all breeds, yes, cross breeds and breed types, will be used as foundation stock. These dogs have pedigrees (for example, Banksia Park Molly x ACA Fred)  just not what we accept as pure breed pedigrees. During the process of a breed in development, appointed judges inspect the dogs put forward as foundation stock, and the progeny, and after a certain number of generations, and under the strict judgement of judges appointed by the ANKC, the progeny will get full registration and a pedigree under the new breed name. 

Its a long and exhausting process that turns randomly bred stock, into a recognisable, standardised, predictable breed. 

It’s not for the faint hearted, but for those truly dedicated to turning a randomly bred type, into an officially recognised breed. 

 

There will  always be randomly bred dogs with blended labels. Recognising breeds in development won’t put an end to that. What it will do is give potential buyers an option to choose a predictable, recognisable standardised animal with a breed name, a written standard, pedigree papers, bred by truly dedicate s breeders with their breed at the centre of their ideals. Breeders that will be limited by the umbrella of the ANKC. 

[moosmum]

On 10/31/2017 at 11:33 AM, RuralPug said:

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. 



 

 

Of course not. Nor should it try to.  I am asking that it be a registry only, as it was meant to be.

it has no controll. It does have an effect.

 

 I keep hearing-

 1) "Cross breeds have nothing to do with ANKC or Pedigrees. " and

2)"Why should ANKC recognize them?"

 

 A constitution can and will only directly affect conditions specifically mentioned. Thats why it should avoid mentioning conditions beyond its own.

 

Cross breeds had nothing to do with ANKC.

Until ANKC saw fit to state how that condition should be addressed.

 till then, the 2nd question wouldn't have even been  asked.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by moosmum

[moosmum]

On 11/7/2017 at 3:25 PM, karen15 said:

so what you're saying moosmum is pedigrees be damned, breed whatever you want irrespective of whether the crosses are compatible or not and expect the ANKC to accept the outcome as a desirable mating just because some random has decided they want to cash in on the trend of designer and boutique breeds?

1st, I don't expect ANKC to accept anything it doesn't choose to.

2nd, pedigrees are NOT cross breeds so how are they damned by this ?

And 3rd, I would expect people to support responsible practices instead of believing in responsible environments. Theres no such thing.

Quote

as I said earlier, the whole point of a breed standard is to give confidence in the characteristics etc of the breed. Why encourage random, unthoughtout breeding. There are too many animals thrown away these days, why build facilities to produce more.

The characteristics of breeds would still be there in breeds.

Then don't encourage random,  un -thought out breeding. Encourage planned, thoughtful breeding with a purpose in mind.

Quote

 

to my mind, the ANKC would do much better demonstrating why random crosses are a lottery in term of appearance, health, temperament, size, coat etc and using purebreds, which are consistent in all of those traits to show what alternatives are available. Jo Public generally knows very little about breeds, mainly recognising labs, golden retrievers, GSDs and the other common breeds like that. Educate them on the plethora of alternative breeds available that have characteristics the eg oodle crosses profess to hold such as low shedding. There are many low shedding breeds, people just have no idea they exist, so buy an oodle believing it won't shed, when the reality is 50/50 chance of a shedder.

 

I don think new breeds can't or shouldn't be developed. But I do believe that they should be developed using the best specimens possible and i do not believe the boutique breeders do this.

None of them? Do you know this? 

But they can't, you know, if the 'best' specimens are kept out away from any one who might use them.

And you know that ANKC breeders do? All of them?

Its not the environment. Its the response a breeder brings to it, and the support a breeders gets to respond in ways that bring value to it.

Not support for poor practices, but support for better ones.

ANKC can't 'demonstrate' why  random crosses are a lottery,. Its members can't even recognize them.

And if they could, I would hope they would be demonstrating that it really doesn't need to be.

Quote

 

when I was looking for my next dog, I googled for breed ideas based on my desirable criteria, then I read the breed standards of the dogs I was interested in. The breed standard allowed me to make an informed and educated choice on the breed I was going to get and the dog is everything I could have asked for. That's why I think breed standards are so important.

 

I think the ANKC could do an excellent campaign on spur of the moment pet shop purchases vs having to wait for something that you value. Animals are too readily thought of as disposable and the public really need a good kick up the arse IMO.

The standards would still be there. unchanged. All this would do for standards, is to allow other qualities to be recognized for any value they have.

No change to standards would take place without use of the protocols  already there for that purpose.

 

The thing is, Any  identity can only exist with a belief in its 'self', its potential and ability to respond. ANKC was a concept for an identity.  Dog  breeders. That was the identity ANKCs potential was for. To make use of them, a person  has to sign up for membership and agree to all conditions and codes of practice. That would not change.

The belief was shifted from Dog breeders potential, to dog breeders limitations. There is no belief in Dog breeders. Only limitations.

There is no potential.

A  dog breeder identity won't expand. it will contract, until there is nothing left. Thats exactly what it is doing .Its not a matter of what I want.

its a matter of physics.

 

Edited November 11, 2017 by moosmum

[moosmum]

As for breed standards, i think they they are a great thing and have never said otherwise.

I don't want to see breed standards go. Just get support from more diverse perspectives then the show ring.

 They fail over time because of what they they  don't recognize as well. The needs and purpose of buyers out side the ANKC system.

For them, the standards are there to support the purpose of the dogs, not as the end game of selection. There is more to a dog than its standard.

 

Consistency of traits is there. Its what is brought to them that is diminishing.

I've kept dogs for 47 years. Up to 7 a  time. All are companions and house dogs and all are kept for a purpose.

The dogs ability to respond to the purpose they have been bred for, in multiple environments, does diminish over time when the standards they are judged to and selected from are confined to a single environment.

 

It took me 7 years to find one dog that could respond to its purpose in the environment I provide. Matching the written standard does not adversely affect that.

The dog I found did. I doubt I can find another. My research included  govt.agencies here and over seas who had traditionaly used these dogs for their original purpose and expanded it. All had given up. The dogs could no longer respond effectively to that purpose  mentally or physically.

 

There is less support for the breed  because of that. The standard supports its own limitations, not the purpose of the dog if the standard is all that is recognized. Breeders who try to respond to the standard in any other way leave them selves open to censure from the pedigree fraternity. Sure, it can be done. But there are barriers to doing it great enough that  fewer are left to try each year. I want my breed to have a future and a breed needs a standard to be a breed.

But it needs an environment to be dog more.

 

So tho', I support pedigrees, I can't support an org. if I can't see a future for dogs by doing so.

I tried.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by moosmum

[asal]

On 06/11/2017 at 5:59 AM, sandgrubber said:

The sad side of this story is how difficult things have gotten for the small, hobby breeder who aims for quality.  The two dog rule hits hard in much of Oz... you need to be able to run pups on to do a good job breeding.  The limited register mentality makes it very hard for newbies to get started.  The animal rights mentality demonizes people who might want to give breeding a try...and you must have beginners if you are to end up with experienced breeders.

So numbers of quality breeders dwindle.  That creates a niche for commercial breeding...and that niche is getting filled. 

Larger scale breeding need not be bad breeding, nor need it be cruel.  In time past, some of the big name kennels on old country estates... at least in some breeds, kept 100+ dogs.  Dogs are social animals, and in some circumstances, a big mob of dogs hanging out together can be very happy dogs.  Happier by far than the lone dog who gets at best an hour or two of human company a day and very little contact with other dogs.

so many good points made by so many.

 

I think what shocked me the most in that legislation victoria tried to push through was the assumption that any breeder had only two options they would choose for their retired breeding dogs, rehome or euthanasia?

thanks to the idiot laws on how many you are allowed to have now. its assumed you have no wish or thanks to that if it had become law no right to keep them for the rest of their lives like the population can keep the puppy or dog they bought solely as a pet.

 

Well I have news for the rest of the population, just because you breed your dog doesn't mean its any less loved as your pet!

 

Dogs same as so many domestic  species serve a purpose way beyond whatever else reason they are kept, the new buzz word is "therapy" dog, cat, horse etc.

Domestic animals, especially dogs have been "therapy dogs" for thousands of years, not just the few years that the amazing contribution they make to improving quality of life for the people who have them, how many times have we heard someone say after trauma both psychical or mental that their pet "saved my life"? Simply by being there and giving comfort the second they sense their human is suffering whatever?

 

Moosesmum is right about the kc's being their own worst enemy. I know it didn't take me long to realise after becoming a member very few actually knew much about genetics or breeding for health. the majority love their dogs, love to show and want to win. If winning means selecting for shorter and shorter faces, bigger and bigger eyes, less and less ability to self whelp then so be it. as for hernia's, when I queried on breeder why all her's had anything from one to three hernias, ie navel and groin, she replied no way am i going to keep second best just because its hernia free! she even went on to say "I doubt within 12 years you will be able to find a hernia free cavalier".

I had been looking for a puppy for my sister, as she had asked me to find a nice puppy for her. I was miffed she didnt want one of my chihuahuas but did her bidding and trying to find a hernia free puppy, let alone a hernia free litter took me 6 months.

 

 that was over 20 years ago now.  It did prompt me to decide to prove her wrong and I certainly did, but all that achieved was to have war declared on me by the show fraternity, because I didn't show them just sold them for what they were actually bred for in the first place... pets.  Even worse, as they were very sound, both hernia and mitral valve free, I hoped some would continue the lines so were sold on main register in hopes the lines would be continued. interestingly 99% were desexed by their happy owners as they didn't want to breed. yet try and find a kennel that will sell a puppy on main register?  the stats show the story, the number of breeders is declining the number of puppies is declining, the pedigree dog is imploding and will soon qualify for the endangered list.

the number of times the rspca were called to check on my dogs at some stages was an average of every fortnight, was on first name terms with the inspectors by the time they told me not to worry the next time they would be charging the caller with stalking or harassment.  But that rspca no longer exists its now a peta clone.

 

once  I realised the danger after the stringy incident I gave up and dispersed both my chihuahua's and the cavaliers.

 

The biggest danger to an ankc member is their fellow members. The rspca is used as the weapon of choice to eliminate anyone that another member thinks or decides doesn't belong and in their opinion is really a backyard breeder. bit like a kangaroo court but the target doesn't know they have been tried and convicted till the knocks on the door start.

 

I became a member in 1978 and it was about 1980 that Betty Stepkovitch and Nancy Gate began telling me how much damage backyard breeders were doing to the reputation of pedigree dogs.

 

even then I asked them, how do you define a backyard breeder, when everyone has a backyard?

 

Well its 39 years later and so far I still do not see a definite description?

 

it was about then the "ethical" became the watch word too.  An ethical breeder always showed their dogs, an ethical breeder never sold their puppy with registration papers or it would fall into the hands of puppy farmers.

Neither Betty or Nancy agreed with what they were hearing and telling me was now being said among members, both encouraged newbies to become members and keep the lines they had continuing into the future. They loved showing and worried about me as I quickly lost interest in the show scene, my pet hate was the sentence in the chi standard that said "in the case of equal merit the more diminutive preferred" it only took me 3 shows to realise the majoity of judges didnt bother with the "equal merit" bit but just selected from the smallest in the class.  so when they heard the murmerings about me being a puppy farmer because I didn't show mine any more would take one of mine and show it for me. Ok so a few with my prefix became australian champions, in chips case he was the 3rd best of my three stud boys. but what it it achieve? he was still the same dog and all he did was stop the reall showies dogs achieving their Ch in front of their names sooner. The two we didn't show were still better than chip? the lack of Ch in front of their name made no difference to their genetics or their abiltiy to sire beautiful sound puppies?

But then as now the vast majority just want a pet.  Breeding is hard work not just time, but emotionally. Few cope.  decades ago there was some research done and I think less than 10% who joined were still members after 5 years and the remaining 10% tended to be in their 60"s.

 

now with the plethora of dead end kennels who only sell limit and a high proportion already desexed, the only place you will be finding most of the breeds someone looking for a puppy wants to buy,  will be from a non member .

 

I don't think the ank's will fold, once the numbers of registered dogs falls to near extinction level, they will do the same as they did for the stumpy tailed cattledog, open a register for breeding up to purebred status so all probably is not lost.

 

there are probably a couple of hundred thousand purebred but unregistered's for every registered dog of that breed out there in backyard land anyway. as for x breds millions.

 

the future will be interesting as it unfolds, although I doubt I will be around long enough to see it.

 

my vet is of the opinion without puppy farms people will be unable to find a pet without a ten year waiting list the way its going at present .

 

If he is right we will be seeing the same "RSPCA APPROVED" logo appearing on breeders gates same as the chook and pig etc farms are paying for. its all about income not welfare for PETA/RSPCA now.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by asal

[asal]

I just realised something?

 

the very organisation that the politicians listen to and draft legislation accordingly as per the "Code of practice for dog breeders"

 

No one seems to have twigged or gone mental over is the fact that they have now applied to be permitted to sell seized animals that are pending court proceedings before the matter goes to court on the grounds that to keep these animals in their facility is not in its best interests because of the fact such cases do not go to court in less than 2 years from the date of seizure.

That their facilities are not suitable for long term .  I think it was on a forum that they will sell them within 3 months of seizure to prevent repeats of the medical disaster of injuries and temperament damage recorded  by the Roxy case?

 

Haven't the cattle dogs seized in Victoria already been sold, pending the outcome of the court hearing? Even if their owners won, their dogs are already desexed and gone.

 

Yet aren't those facilities in accordance with the 'Code of Practice for dog breeders" that they demand breeders have to build instead of the homes they used to enjoy with their owners?

 

no one seems to have realised this?

Are they admitting the facilities they have, are not in accordance with the said Code

or

are they admitting the very pens they demand breeders build to a minimum standard set by them are not suitable for long time residence?

 

no grassed area to play in or saints forbid, dusty ground to dig in, just easily disinfected hard on the legs and body concrete.

 

Mind you once said concrete pens are built then is that not what it is said by some people, defines a puppy farm?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by asal

[RuralPug]

19 hours ago, asal said:

 

 

 

No one seems to have twigged or gone mental over is the fact that they have now applied to be permitted to sell seized animals that are pending court proceedings before the matter goes to court on the grounds that to keep these animals in their facility is not in its best interests because of the fact such cases do not go to court in less than 2 years from the date of seizure.

That their facilities are not suitable for long term . 

 

 

 

It is being done. Not just dogs but seized horses and pedigree cats are being rehomed while RSPCA(VIC) and quite possibly RSPCA in other states dallies on the court action being taken to establish right of seizure. Of the irreplaceable bloodlines lost to STACD and ACD well, bad luck, apparently. It is very common to hear that people have been bullied by RSPCA officers into signing surrender forms at the time of siezure.

At the very least, pets in kennels due to waiting court action should be fostered out to await their time in family homes. When that is suggested, the reply comes back that they cannot be, as they are wards of the court/wards of the state. How then, is it that these seized wards of the state are being advertised as adoptable and onsold?

[asal]

6 hours ago, RuralPug said:

It is being done. Not just dogs but seized horses and pedigree cats are being rehomed while RSPCA(VIC) and quite possibly RSPCA in other states dallies on the court action being taken to establish right of seizure. Of the irreplaceable bloodlines lost to STACD and ACD well, bad luck, apparently. It is very common to hear that people have been bullied by RSPCA officers into signing surrender forms at the time of siezure.

At the very least, pets in kennels due to waiting court action should be fostered out to await their time in family homes. When that is suggested, the reply comes back that they cannot be, as they are wards of the court/wards of the state. How then, is it that these seized wards of the state are being advertised as adoptable and onsold?

WHY there has not been a huge public outcry has me totally baffled?

 

Dont people realise they could be next?

 

or is joe public so brainwashed they really still believe only the guilty have their pets taken??????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by asal

[asal]

6 hours ago, RuralPug said:

It is being done. Not just dogs but seized horses and pedigree cats are being rehomed while RSPCA(VIC) and quite possibly RSPCA in other states dallies on the court action being taken to establish right of seizure. Of the irreplaceable bloodlines lost to STACD and ACD well, bad luck, apparently. It is very common to hear that people have been bullied by RSPCA officers into signing surrender forms at the time of siezure.

At the very least, pets in kennels due to waiting court action should be fostered out to await their time in family homes. When that is suggested, the reply comes back that they cannot be, as they are wards of the court/wards of the state. How then, is it that these seized wards of the state are being advertised as adoptable and onsold?

 

 

 

your comment about people being pressured into surrendering. reminded me of what happened to Marion Alcorn.

she had 22 horses on agistment (she bred arabians) received a phone call, better check your horses. when she saw their condition immediately booked trucks to take them to her home where she had 7 acres and hand fed them. she expected the neighbours might call the rspca. what she didn't expect was ten were taken immediately the inspector arrived. he made a phone call, the truck arrived and ten were taken.  

 

the really weird part of this was they never came back to check on the remainder?

but the ten taken were kept ten weeks and she had to appear in court to face charges of $7,000 for agistment. I went with her and they asked the magistrate could they settle out of court so she and I and them went to a side room and they told her they would waive the $7,000 agistment charge if she signed them over.

three times she asked would they promise if she did, they would find good homes for them.  She was told each time she asked, they would.

 

she signed.

all went back to the magistrate and he was advised settlement had been reached, then the surprise.  BUT they still wished to charge her for failure to worm the ten taken?  The magistrate, just like the add that was doing the rounds on TV, then replied "its a crime not to worm your horses"  this despite the fact they had been seized the day he arrived?  when could she have complied?

the fine?   $7,000 and three months to pay or face jail time.

 

 

that week many people who knew these horses including me phoned to ask to buy them. to be told every time, they was not available yet.

 

by saturday when told the same thing again, I replied that's ridiculous, they were signed over on Tuesday. they could have been sold from that day?

the lady gave a sigh and then said, "well I suppose it wont hurt to tell you, they were sent to McGraths Hill sales this morning".

 

I rang all the people I knew who wanted to rescue these horses and hot tailed it to McGraths Hill myself.

I arrived in time to see the seizing Inspector walk into the ring with the first of Marion's mares and tell the Auctioneer "You are to accept bids from no one except the doggers".  he then turned on his heel and as he left his parting words were "and they are all mad".

 

Bidding started and the man beside me was bidding so I asked him would he buy them for me and I would pay him a commission.  He replied "Doug rang me and asked me to buy them for him as he cant get here in time, lucky im a dogger,  they wouldn't have accepted his bids even if he had been here."

 

except when the crenel colt came in he didnt bid and it sold to the qld dogger. He refused to resell so the colt was trucked to qld and slaughtered.

I asked him why didnt he bid and he said "Doug only said to buy the mares, " so I asked him to buy the rest for me. so all but one were saved.

 

what shocks me to this day is that inspector became  the CEO of RSPCA NSW  and still is...........

 

As for Marion, I did not try to contact her until the next day as I was pretty occupied getting them home that afternoon and sorting who got which.

 

by the time I remembered better call Marion she was not answering her phone.

I went to her house but although I knew she was there, (her car was in the carport) she would not answer the door or the phone.  Tried talking to her through the door hoping she could hear me but no response.

 

it took me many visits none of which had any success in getting her to answer the door.  over a month later I happened to arrive as she was walking home from the shops with food, did I finally get to talk to her.  Frankly she had lost it.

After I calmed her down, learnt that the day they had gone to McGraths Hill she had received a phone call advising her all ten had been slaughtered for dog meat.

 

She said the caller did not say their name, but that they were calling on behalf of the RSPCA 

 

after that she said the guilt of having signed them to their deaths, it was as if her mind exploded,  she has lived as a hermit from that day and even though she trusts me and will answer the door is still very nervous and has PTSD and OCD ever since.  But then the way it is now if you have animals  and that vehicle is parked outside your gate all rights to "innocent until proven guilty" just went out the door. 

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by asal

[tdierikx]

At a minimum cost of $23 per animal per day for at least 60 days - and longer if they decide to take you to court... is it any wonder most people end up surrendering animals the RSPCA seize? Whether or not they have good cause to do so, may I add... you have no rights whatsoever to refuse to let them take your animals - unless you can get a lawyer to make a submission for an injunction before the animals leave your property... which is why the RSPCA tend to "visit" on a friday afternoon...

 

T.

[Tempus Fugit]

On ‎15‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 1:02 PM, asal said:

I just realised something?

 

the very organisation that the politicians listen to and draft legislation accordingly as per the "Code of practice for dog breeders"

 

No one seems to have twigged or gone mental over is the fact that they have now applied to be permitted to sell seized animals that are pending court proceedings before the matter goes to court on the grounds that to keep these animals in their facility is not in its best interests because of the fact such cases do not go to court in less than 2 years from the date of seizure.

That their facilities are not suitable for long term .  I think it was on a forum that they will sell them within 3 months of seizure to prevent repeats of the medical disaster of injuries and temperament damage recorded  by the Roxy case?

 

Haven't the cattle dogs seized in Victoria already been sold, pending the outcome of the court hearing? Even if their owners won, their dogs are already desexed and gone.

 

Yet aren't those facilities in accordance with the 'Code of Practice for dog breeders" that they demand breeders have to build instead of the homes they used to enjoy with their owners?

 

no one seems to have realised this?

Are they admitting the facilities they have, are not in accordance with the said Code

or

are they admitting the very pens they demand breeders build to a minimum standard set by them are not suitable for long time residence?

 

no grassed area to play in or saints forbid, dusty ground to dig in, just easily disinfected hard on the legs and body concrete.

 

Mind you once said concrete pens are built then is that not what it is said by some people, defines a puppy farm?

 

 

 

 

What about the pens that declared dangerous dogs have to be housed in?

[sandgrubber]

I support condemnation of RSPCA seizure of animals and it's ramifications for the animals and the owner.  But perhaps that is better discussed under a different heading?