Breeders

[sandgrubber]

On 14/09/2021 at 7:57 PM, BDJ said:

Personally I think limited register should not be used as the 'default', but it sure does have a place.

 

The part of this discussion which I haven't read (apologies if I have missed it) - is that not all pups will be worthy of full registration.  There are many pups which genuinely should be on limited register.   

 

The differences between registrations is (a) should not be breed from and (b) not suitable for showing.   Regardless of the registration, they can still compete in 'sports' (obedience, agility etc), is a representative of the breed and the breeder (has pedigree papers and the prefix of the breeder) etc.

 

Bottom line - some dogs are simply not suitable for the show ring, nor are suitable breeding stock.   That is not (necessarily) a reflection on the breeder, their skill, commitment or the manner they care for their dogs - it is simply that some are not 'good enough'.  

 

At its core - a dog show is a beauty contest.   Correctness to standard, form, confirmation, temperament etc is measured - but to be successful it is a measure against 'perfection' (whatever that means per breed) and some dogs simply don't measure up.    Same goes for an animal being considered a good enough representation of he breed to be considered for breeding.    Some dog/bitch combinations simply don't work, and even when they do - not all pups are created equal.   It doesn't matter if the parents are dogs, cats, horses, budgies or people.   I have yet to see the perfect formula where any male A is mixed with female B and the result is ALWAYS 100% uniform and exceptional.

 

That is where limited registration has its place.   Pup 'fluffy' is amazing - representative of his breed in type and temperament, an amazing animal that is breeder is proud to register as PREFIX Fluffy, and his owner is delighted with.   But unfortunately, regardless of how much his owner wants it, Fluffy just does not cut it for the show ring or the breeding barn (horse reference).

 

But it costs just as much to get PREFIX Fluffy (limited registration) to the point of sale as it does to get his littermate PREFIX Perfect (main registration) to the same point.  The part that does peeve me is the 'limited registration for everything'.   That is what is contributing to dwindling numbers (but that, together with 'only breed when you need something yourself' culture is a mumble for another day )

I disagree.  The beauty pageant should be no more important in determining what dogs get bred than temperament and health.   Show rings are capricious and fad prone, often favoring extreme characteristics and failing to filter out unhealthy specimens.   Sure, show folks do health testing, but they commonly ignore obvious health defects, especially allergies.  Some things that I personally would consider to be faults, such as an extreme coat that is high maintenance and unsuited to Australian climate, are elevated to being virtues.

 

Another problem is that the registry decision is made too early in a dog's life...commonly before 8 weeks...and doesn't get reversed if, later in life, the dog turns out to be something that should not be bred from...say an epileptic or an extreme resource guarder.  Likewise the pup that gets off to a slow start and appears to be 'pet quality' at 6 weeks, may turn out to be a late bloomer.

 

Among Labradors, I'd much rather have a pup that passes screening for guide dog training than one whose sire and dam were both GrCh's.

 

 

[paul1]

17 hours ago, Dogsfevr said:

WA laws will come in soon .

This is reality & when we get puppy people jumping up n down claiming what they should be entitled too we ask "Did you support the puppy farm " bills.
When the answer is yes Then our answer is what your entitled to too is what you supported .
Many public in SA didn't care one bit about what they whole bill covered just the "fancy" parts .
When breeders expressed there concerns over early spaying or losing there lines the public all accused them off been money grubs,now they sell on limited & the requirements are spay there still called money grubs .

You buy a dog from another state you still have to meet the SA laws so all the ranting in the world off what you want,are entitled too or should be allowed are irrelevant unless you join DogSA or a body the law reconizes & meet the conditions or find a vet who will sign that the dog is too young to be spayed which you clearly have said is not going to happen then, what you brought 20 years ago is not current laws .

""The new laws also discourage accidental, casual, and ‘Backyard Breeders’ by forcing anyone wanting to keep an undesexed dog or cat born after July 1st 2018 to register as a breeder. The owner needs to registered as a breeder every year that their animal goes undesexed. If they do not register as a breeder every year, they will be obliged to desex any dogs or cats they  have that were born after 1st July 2018 .""

I believe the breeders fee if you are a member off the selected orgs is $75 yearly ,council fees then for undesexed is $65upwards  plus your membership fee to the org also payable yearly .
You will be listed as a breeder irrespective as you own an entire & have to meet the standards off that .



Very nice long winded letter 

especielly... quote   You buy a dog from another state you still have to meet the SA laws so all the ranting in the world off what you want,are entitled too or should be allowed are irrelevant unless you join DogSA or a body the law reconizes & meet the conditions or find a vet who will sign that the dog is too young to be spayed which you clearly have said is not going to happen then, what you brought 20 years ago is not current laws .unquote 

 

If i buy a dog  and pay a premium for that dog  ,, Has i keep saying if you care to read , price is immaterial ,,, but if i  pay you or anyone else  $4---5000  FOR A DOG   i SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WITH THAT DOG WHAT I WILL BE IT bREED OR SHOW ,,  it keeps getting pointed out it cost the same to raise a dog with mains or  ltd papers ,,   so   why ltd papers , i think we all know 8 weeks is too early to know the true potentiaal of a dog   in fact my train of thought 8 weeks for the big breeds is too early to leave mom , should be 10 weeks , but thats another story ,,   having to desex a dog by law is immaterial ,, because you don't have to do it straight away  , and by the time that comes you will know if you want to show or breed , and can then make the discision has to wether or not you join the appropriate  associations to do so ,So all your ranting means nothing  anyone wanting to show there pedigree dog or breed from it  would obviuosly join these associations  or break the law  , but for the prices charged they should have the right to do so ,  Any other reason not to allow them and force ltd papers is nothing but   cutting out competition for dollars , nothing to do with breeders intergrity , 

 

breeders are just shooting themselves in the foot ,   there purposly limiting the amount of breeding stock out there ,  its not there job the SA govt has already  took care of that in SA by  making it illigal to own a un desexed dog UNLESS you become a registered breeder , the only reason for a breeder to become policeman and judge is to protect there own income 

 

[BDJ]

18 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

I disagree.  The beauty pageant should be no more important in determining what dogs get bred than temperament and health.   Show rings are capricious and fad prone, often favoring extreme characteristics and failing to filter out unhealthy specimens.   Sure, show folks do health testing, but they commonly ignore obvious health defects, especially allergies.  Some things that I personally would consider to be faults, such as an extreme coat that is high maintenance and unsuited to Australian climate, are elevated to being virtues.

 

Another problem is that the registry decision is made too early in a dog's life...commonly before 8 weeks...and doesn't get reversed if, later in life, the dog turns out to be something that should not be bred from...say an epileptic or an extreme resource guarder.  Likewise the pup that gets off to a slow start and appears to be 'pet quality' at 6 weeks, may turn out to be a late bloomer.

 

Among Labradors, I'd much rather have a pup that passes screening for guide dog training than one whose sire and dam were both GrCh's.

 

 

Sandgrubber - I wasn't saying that the ring is the perfect solution.  What has been done to several breeds is 'criminal' and bloody disgusting.  I remember the German Shepherds of the 70's - proud, sound (mind and body) beautiful animals.   Not the roach backed/down on hocks, screaming/mentally fragile beings of a few decades later.  And that is only one of dozens of breeds that have been stuffed up physically and mentally (before anyone loses it - yes there are exceptions in individuals and breeders - I am referencing in general).   The point I was attempting to make is that there are pups that simply aren't up to breed standard (pls note, I said the standard, not 'winning in the ring).  

 

The conversation seemed to be focused on 2 points.  (A)  If I pay $X,000 I should have the right to do whatever I want, and (B) if I pay $X,000 it should be good enough to show and breed from.    The point I was attempting to make is that not all dogs are worthy of being shown or bred from (regardless of which registration) and that there are valid reasons for limited registrations - and that I agree it is overused (note the 2nd last line in my original comment).

 

[Dogsfevr]

23 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

I disagree.  The beauty pageant should be no more important in determining what dogs get bred than temperament and health.   Show rings are capricious and fad prone, often favoring extreme characteristics and failing to filter out unhealthy specimens.   Sure, show folks do health testing, but they commonly ignore obvious health defects, especially allergies.  Some things that I personally would consider to be faults, such as an extreme coat that is high maintenance and unsuited to Australian climate, are elevated to being virtues.

 

Another problem is that the registry decision is made too early in a dog's life...commonly before 8 weeks...and doesn't get reversed if, later in life, the dog turns out to be something that should not be bred from...say an epileptic or an extreme resource guarder.  Likewise the pup that gets off to a slow start and appears to be 'pet quality' at 6 weeks, may turn out to be a late bloomer.

 

Among Labradors, I'd much rather have a pup that passes screening for guide dog training than one whose sire and dam were both GrCh's.

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Dogsfevr

[paul1]

Sandgrubber - I wasn't saying that the ring is the perfect solution.  What has been done to several breeds is 'criminal' and bloody disgusting.  I remember the German Shepherds of the 70's - proud, sound (mind and body) beautiful animals.   Not the roach backed/down on hocks, screaming/mentally fragile beings of a few decades later.  And that is only one of dozens of breeds that have been stuffed up physically and mentally (before anyone loses it - yes there are exceptions in individuals and breeders - I am referencing in general).   The point I was attempting to make is that there are pups that simply aren't up to breed standard (pls note, I said the standard, not 'winning in the ring). 

 

Could not agree more

 

 

[sandgrubber]

On 16/09/2021 at 11:25 PM, paul1 said:

  The point I was attempting to make is that there are pups that simply aren't up to breed standard (pls note, I said the standard, not 'winning in the ring). 

 

Could not agree more

 

 

But who should make that decision, when?  The pedigree dog fancy has made a mess of it (although a few countries are seriously trying to clean up the mess...Finland is doing some amazing stuff).  

If clubs were seriously trying for health and good temperament, health data and indicators of temperament would be kept along with parentage, and decision about what to breed would be postponed until breeding age. 

 

BTW, the expense of breeding a pup is usually exaggerated by citing the case where things go wrong...unless you pay a living wage for the hours put in caring for the little time wasters.  When I was breeding Labs, I  considered my time freely given, and I never had a litter that didn't yield a decent net profit.   When I started, pups were going for $600.

 

  Of course things do go wrong more often when bloodlines have been selected for conformation to breed standard as currently interpreted by show judges...and lots of inbreeding is done to attain titles.  The relatively random genetic mixing done by breeding much loved family or working dogs is probably better from the perspective of health and temperament...and generally rules out bitches who can't whelp naturally or are prone to singletons.

 

The current high puppy prices encourage breeding anything that is fertile, especially in favoured breeds or cross breeds.

Edited September 18, 2021 by sandgrubber
further thoughts

[Rebanne]

3 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

 

BTW, the expense of breeding a pup is usually exaggerated by citing the case where things go wrong...unless you pay a living wage for the hours put in caring for the little time wasters.  When I was breeding Labs, I  considered my time freely given, and I never had a litter that didn't yield a decent net profit.   When I started, pups were going for $600.

 

 

Gee wish my litters yielded a decent net profit.

[asal]

3 minutes ago, Rebanne said:

Gee wish my litters yielded a decent net profit.

 

 

only a breeder is supposed to fit the ethical responsible definition by making so little they could not afford to breed unless the sufficient finances to do so at a loss, your time alone is considered to be worth nothing without factoring food, vet, maintenance and parasite, heartworm etc.

 

 

the mainstay of ankc breeder members used to be pensioners who relied on the 'pin money from their puppies.

 

 

[moosmum]

@sandgrubber

I'm not as up to date on what Finland is doing atm, though I heard of some interesting developments from a few years back.

Hope their new developments are avoiding the 'solutions' of some European countries ie Breed Wardens. IMO they are only further narrowing the selection pool to cater to those individuals personal priorities.

 

There seems universal agreement that education is needed. The problem is most who agree think it should be up to some one else, or some specific body. 

A new registry based on function/purpose and responsibility would include that duty as part of its membership- because that is what responsibility is. Ensuring the knowledge and understanding to make informed choices. 

 

It would right away, with its formation,  put a big dent in Petas claim there is no purpose to breeding. AND provoke more thought into personal choices in both ownership and breeding.

Edited September 19, 2021 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

 

Try convincing the farmer with a ‘short coat border collie’ who works hard daily and saves him the wages of several men, that his dog is less worthy than the show winning pedigree border collie, and vice versa...... All dogs have value in the big picture.

 

Before the introduction of conFORMation dog shows, domestic dogs were bred almost exclusively for purpose. And more often than not, practiced their purpose. The look of the dog was secondary to what the dog could do, and even when ‘looks’ were taken into account, preferences were usually based on the terrain the dog was expected to work in and how. 

 

As Conformation dog shows rose in popularity, that drove down diversity by its very nature. the concept of uniformity and purity has been a disaster for domestic dogs. 

Anyone who thinks  dividing and limiting gene pools towards a dead end is a great idea has their heads in a strange place. 

 

the very nature of the ‘working v show lines’ is so divisive and does dogs no good. Within breeds, I doubt breeding exclusively towards either goal is a great thing. 

 

It seems all the pedigree conformation system has done for dogs is divide, limit, reduce....

 

In days gone by, I doubt Fred would have cared if Dave’s Labrador had white feet. Dave probably would have watched Fred’s dog and if Fred’s dog had some ability that Dave thought could enhance his own dogs, blokes would have got the dogs together to see what the results were. Maybe they gained some desirable traits, maybe they didn’t. Because they were using the dogs for a purpose they could nut that out pretty quickly and decide their next move. Meanwhile, Mark from a few districts over might have heard about those pups, that were a bit short on leg and a bit too flashy in their marking for the purpose that Fred and Dave needed, but reckoned they might be just the ticket for his slightly different terrain. Once working his new pups, Mark worked out they were lacking in the scenting department for his needs, but decided to take a chance crossing one out to his best little spaniel, and managed to gain the best working dogs he ever had! ( for his purposes) 

 

The idea of conformity & purity  in dogs is the biggest disease we have bestowed on ‘mans best friend’ and no amount of health testing can undo what driving toward that end has done, whilst ever we still drive in that direction.

 

I use the example of our ‘ beloved’ Australian breeds to demonstrate this. EVERY single Australian breed could only have existed in its current form since, well, since Australia began! And in all of those breeds I can think of, none of them ran off a ship in the form we know them today. They’ve all become what we know them to be today, since Australia was settled. Most recently, the Tenterfield Terrier, our newest ‘breed’ .

 

I feel a little bit ragey when I see discussions about so called designer dogs. Pedigree show people get their knickers all mixed up decrying these dogs. But, in reality, I see new breeds and types emerging. Contemporary dogs bred for contemporary purpose. Just like the old days when the breeds we know and hold close today, we’re being developed, these contemporary ‘breeds’ don’t just hatch out of an egg. They take generations to emerge. We just happen to be the generations witnessing this transition, as I’m sure, in fact hope, that generations to come, will be able to witness the emergence of new dogs to suit their time and purpose. Because things change, and that is ok!! 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Scratch

[paul1]

Good post scratch ,,,,, I have always been sceptical about showing ect , i've never  shown a dog but whilst i can appreciate  the time effort put in  i question whats happenning , i live over looking a dog beach  , i spend half my life on it , either walking  or swimming or  just in my kayack ,  i fish there ,  my little dog is always with me  maltese /cross from the pound ,,  now he runs up  to dogs and people and  they come to him ,    so i always end up talking , and too be honest i look at some breeds and think what the ,hell ,,  especielly GSD's ,   every single owner will say , i got him /her from a top breeder , i'll smile  say he / she's nice ,  and think GSD's are supposed to be  strong alert , confident , good looking dogs , and i see   humped backs with short back legs and  skinny snouts ,    very wary and a little nervous , shake my head and think , yep and i bet there dogs win shows ,,   it seems to me   there changing the comfirmation of shepards too suit there pocket  not the breed ,

 

Now its only  because  the last couple months i've wanted to get another big dog  i've come across stuff  , thats disapointed me  and can see the problems ,  and  the biggest problem i see is the breeders have become  policeman , judge and jury  over byb  , so much so they are not allowing sue , and peter up the road  to breed or sell there dogs , by insisting on desex , and ltd papers ,

 

Now i did'nt know until someone here pointed out In Sa  you buy a pup and by law you  either join the apprropriate association , or you desex your dog ,, i think its a good law , but its a law that allows me to

A---- Buy a dog

b----- decide if i want to breed it or show it  if i think its a great example of its breed

 

So why do breeders in SA need to sell with ltd papers , the law has already sorted it out ,  either join the correct association or desex , thats law .

 

Now i can tell you i would never want to do either BUT i would want the choice  if i paid out the money  for what a breeder tells me is a good dog with a good background , so is the law stopping me breeding a dog for   a job has opposed to  confirmation in the show ring , NO its the breeder who refuses to sell a dog on mains papers . are the ones who make it very difficult for me to know if there  breeding / selling dogs  because there just really no better than puppy farms trying to protect an income ,, or if there genuine breeders trying to protect there  strain of dog .

 

Everyone will have different answers , but personaly i believe   when i bought pedigree dogs , will admit  not for 15 or so years , but  i've bought  7 from good breeders and every one of them was proud to give me mains papers and everyone of them encouraged me or at least tried to  encorage me to show them they were just never going to talk me into it  '

 

 Keep saying  breeders are shooting themslves in the foot

 

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by paul1

[Pjrt]

People breeding ‘pure breed’ dogs largely don’t seem to be able to grapple with the concept that ‘protecting’ is denying them exactly what they seem so keen on protecting ! 
 

[Pjrt]

Also , 

look at the reasons why we have what can be perceived as less than desirable commercial dog breeding facilities. 

A couple of decades ago there was a strange shift in attitudes regarding dog breeding. When the first few of the really horrible cases of puppy farm busts hit the media, there was naturally an outcry, and the cogs began turning in the “war against puppy farms” . In the race to legislate them out of existence, all that happened was pedigree breeders sort of shot themselves in the foot, where it became positively taboo to actually breed dogs! Breeders eyed suspiciously breeders who appeared to breed volume as well as, or in favour of, showing and ‘hobby’ breeding. The phrase “oh I only breed when I want something for myself” became the cry of the respectable pedigree breeder. 

At around the same time, breeders of all colours where marginalised to city fringes & rural areas, further from their market and further from scrutiny by the masses. 

Add to this the law makers busily deciding what constitutes a puppy farm and how & where dog breeding facilities should be run, basically making it legal to run large scale commercial dog breeding facilities. For whatever reason, pedigree breeders thought they’d be exempt or able to side step these laws, but in fact, to law makers, dogs are dogs, no matter their parentage, where they come from or who breeds them. 

The owners of commercial breeding facilities can quite legally say that they are registered breeders, licensed breeders, breed papered dogs etc, because it’s true. It’s just a different version of all of those things than what the ANKC system offers. 

Morally & ethically, we all know that large scale facilities with 100’s of breeding dogs is never best practice for dogs, but it can all be legal these days

Theres a whole new generation of puppy buyers coming through now who are going to find it ever increasingly difficult to decipher what class of registered licensed breeder they are dealing with. 

These people have grown up online. When I go online around pet sites, all the advertising that pops up is from ‘designer dog’ breeders. Never once have I seen an ad from an ANKC breeder! Ever!! 

If ANKC breeders want to claw this back, they have to breed dogs, in volume, and not see it as some sort of offensive thing to have a few dogs & breeding for the pet market. The current supply & demand has to be met somewhere, and while fewer and fewer pedigree dogs are being bred, it’s not rocket science that the market turns to where there is supply. Easy to access, in their faces, supply.

[moosmum]

Value is always subjective. 

Applying it objectively is negative/subtractive of the value being measured.

 

Those who promote or subscribe to  Critical Theory need to understand this. 

It was the wrong measure of Humanity when we accepted oppression of some.

Its the wrong measure to combat it now.

 

The measure of Humanity, or Domestic Dogs, is ONE. With all parts being equal to that sum.

There can't be a  'measure' of equality if it really is 'assumed' 

 

You can't measure what is equal with out fracturing its sum.

 

An all inclusive registry would also allow us to present a powerful and unified voice to inform better and more realistic legislation.

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

@moosmum……..“To measure equality by its diversity can only diminish diversity, because equality cancels it out” 

I think I might be quoting you. I love this. It’s really not hard to grasp, yet somehow ……..
 

 

[asal]

the ankc is largely geared to exclusion.

 

exclusion of anyone perceived to not breeding only to replace for the next generation.

 

exclusion of anyone perceived to breed pets.

 

my friends Nancy Gate and Betty Stepkovitch used to occasionally take one of mine and show it to champion to shut up the people who thought I was not showing enough and stop dialing the rspca to try and get me into trouble enough to give up being a member and that was from 1980 on. 

 

I did show occasionally but I did not like the show scene, I did not like attitudes of too many there, I sure did not like that too many saw no problem with ceaser only lines long as they won in the ring?

 

I would argue, how can you do this?  what if someone outback buys one?  if no vet near to do a ceaser she will die?

 

when my sister wanted a cavalier it took me six months to find a litter that neither the parents or puppies had hernias?  a supposed top breeder told me "no way will I keep second best because its hernia free, i doubt you will be able to find a hernia free cavalier within 12 years"

 

all that before pedigree dogs exposed what I already knew, a ribbon was more important than health in the show world

 

 

they had lost the plot longer ago than many realise

[asal]

oodles can never become a fixed type, until their admirers can select for the non shedding gene just for one or there is no point to the resulting puppies anyway. 

 

BUT as so many see, too many oodle lovers keep forgetting they need to be regularly groomed AND CLIPPED.

 

TOO MANY poodle owners forget too.

 

I gave up grooming other peoples because they would turn up with an unwashed, ungroomed bundle of knots to the skin and expect to pay the same price as a clean tangle free.   forget it

 

as for more and more laws?  you cant legislate out stupid.

 

 

nice if it could be done though

 

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by asal

[moosmum]

3 hours ago, asal said:

the ankc is largely geared to exclusion.

 

exclusion of anyone perceived to not breeding only to replace for the next generation.

 

exclusion of anyone perceived to breed pets.

 

 

they had lost the plot longer ago than many realise

 

ANKC could not ever have been geared to anything else once they accepted the belief that only pedigree pure  bred dogs  were worthy of recognition.

Thats objective. To anything not of the object. 

 

 But dogs are the subject. Of their Environment.  So inseparable.