Steve

As if. Who is going to test all of the dogs in SA which are currently not desexed? More potential scoff laws.

Hope the dog was taken to the pound so the owners can find it.

My word program does this - looks to me that they copied it and pasted it . In all honesty the spelling is the least of the problems and now this document is out in the public arena whether the vote is a yes or no there will be repercussion not necessarily obvious now, way into the future.

The reason there are elected officials is so it not necessary to get permission from the entire community to propose a piece of legislation. Unfortunately, like politicians, some elected officials think once they are in they have carte blanche to do what ever they THEY want. It won't matter that it is legal to own a legally docked dog if the ANKC decides no docked dogs can be exhibited at an ANKC sanction show, no docked dog will be allowed to be exhibited. I don't doubt there are exhibitors/breeders using "mischievious'' means to legally dock puppies. However, anyone who makes such an allegation should have to put up or shut up. Such allegations without documented proof should have serious consequences for the accuser. Absolutely if it is voted in it is now an agreeance that they think theY DO have members who are capable of this and it taints all ANKC registered breeders. Animal rights love this stuff and it goes so well with accusations that ANKC SHOW breeders are cruel wicked creatures for breeding the in-bred suffering creatures they do ex pedigreed dogs exposed. Well, there's a couple of different possibilities. 1. The guy's barking mad and/or lying. This would probably be most people's in this thread's favourite but it's unlikely he's just gone crazy. 2. The ANKC has been infiltrated by AR whacktivists. Not likely unless it's a long term plan by a long time breeder to get rid of dogs. No really, not likely. 2. They suspect people are illegally docking puppies and are taking a shot in the dark to put the frighteners on. More likely. 3. They have proof that people are illegally docking dogs and are putting the frighteners on to get them to stop without involving the authorities. More likely. 4. They have proof and are getting in before one or more members are charged with illegal docking by the police because these people have indeed been reported by veterinarians. This way they can say, 'Hey, we were doing something about it' to show they're a responsible state body. This works even if the motion fails cos they can say, 'Well, we tried to do something about it.' More likely. Take your pick. Yeah you're right - either way its all pretty shocking and way past time to sort it out.

The reason there are elected officials is so it not necessary to get permission from the entire community to propose a piece of legislation. Unfortunately, like politicians, some elected officials think once they are in they have carte blanche to do what ever they THEY want. It won't matter that it is legal to own a legally docked dog if the ANKC decides no docked dogs can be exhibited at an ANKC sanction show, no docked dog will be allowed to be exhibited. I don't doubt there are exhibitors/breeders using "mischievious'' means to legally dock puppies. However, anyone who makes such an allegation should have to put up or shut up. Such allegations without documented proof should have serious consequences for the accuser. Absolutely if it is voted in it is now an agreeance that they think theY DO have members who are capable of this and it taints all ANKC registered breeders. Animal rights love this stuff and it goes so well with accusations that ANKC SHOW breeders are cruel wicked creatures for breeding the in-bred suffering creatures they do ex pedigreed dogs exposed.

Votes or not whether he wins or not look what he has just done to his members ?

Is he for real! Anyone deliberately breaking puppies tails are breaking the law - its extreme cruelty and he is saying his members are doing this - why the hell aren't they throwing them out then instead of making person who owns a legally docked dog pay for it ? What on earth has he gained by telling the whole world that some ANKC breeders are animal abusers? I would like to know the evidence on this and how he justifies putting every ANKC breeder in a position where they are seen to be potential criminals. Why not just stand in the street and throw them all under a bus use a mega phone to tell the world ANKC breeders need more laws and more monitoring to ensure they dont abuse their animals. What a bloody disgrace.

Yep pretty straightforward. It would be easy enough to prevent double ups with ethical breeding practices enforced by ruling anyway such as no coloured to coloured breedings, anyone found to be in breach (whether they are registering the progeny or not) should be kicked out of the club for practices that are detrimental to the breed. Mind you the fact that there are breeders pumping out crosses and not getting kicked out of the club for it doesn't give me a lot of faith in the ability of the club to take a firm stance on these things. Well, just as knowledge of and understanding of the system is needed to know why some colours are not able to be accepted due to the system it takes the same understanding and knowledge of what the system is regarding the codes of ethics and crosses. That is probably a whole new topic so I wont enter it in too much detail here but The fact is I know of at least 15 members of Vicdogs who breed designer dogs ,purebred dogs which are not registered etc.Two are the biggest names in the business for commercial breeding and I have no doubt if I'm aware of this many that there must be many more! I know of several in NSW and half a dozen in Queensland as well. One who I was involved with a discussion and decision over yesterday is an accredited breeder . The system allows people to be members of the states CCs and not own a purebred dog, not own a registered purebred dog,breed cross breed dogs,sell dogs to pet shops,breed dogs without a breeders prefix and take advantage of the exemptions afforded members etc so why would they kick them out ? As I said that's another topic. You can breed non standard colours - you just cant register them on the main register or in the case of white boxers you cant register them on any register and the chances of the system changing from within is limited at best and would meet with much opposition and take another 100 or so years. Best hope is to ensure breeders are educated and hope that they really do care about what is best for the dogs they breed as well as what they consider to be best for the breed.

So we all agree no doubt about it some genes in some breeds cause health problems and they should not be be bred where they are able to double up and create the problems. Lethal, lethal white, white spotting, piebald etc etc its still the same result but some colours in some breeds have been kept out of the gene pool without any evidence that they cause health problems in that breed. Easy.

I like this one - http://www.lethalwhites.com/lethalwhite.html

..

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3672/23/5/3 Pilot scheme for registering dogs of unverified parentage A pilot scheme which could enhance genetic diversity has been announced by the Kennel Club. It will allow purebred unregistered dogs to be registered on the Breed Register on a case by case basis. This is a return to the position which existed forty years ago when similar rules were in force. Enhancing genetic diversity The move, approved by the Kennel Club General Committee last year, will if used, enhance genetic diversity by widening breed gene pools and allowing new bloodlines to be introduced within breeds. Under the new pilot scheme, every successful application will be admitted to the register with three asterisks next to its name. Asterisks will be applied for three further generations, in order to identify the fact that there is unknown or unregistered ancestry behind a dog. How to apply Applications will need to be accompanied by a letter of explanation of how the applicant acquired the dogand will then only be considered on the proviso that the dog: a) is verified by two Championship level judges appointed by the Kennel Club who should agree that the dog is representative of its breed. b) is DNA profiled. c) has relevant health tests (equivalent to that required and recommended under the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme) for the breed. Breed specific health requirements under the ABS can be viewed atwww.thekennelclub.org.uk/breedhealth. To ensure that only genuine applicants apply, strict requirements have been put in place that will need to be completed before an application is finally approved by the Committee, and in addition there will be an administration fee of £100 per dog. Every application will be considered on a case by case basis. Whilst the Kennel Club is keen to open up its register, it should be noted that there is no guarantee that dogs so registered (and their progeny) will be accepted for registration by overseas registering bodies. That will depend upon their local regulations. Application forms are available direct from the Registration Office on 0844 4633 980 and This My link Dogs of breeds already fully recognised, whose breeding is either impure or unverified, may be accepted for registration on the Breed Register. The registration certificate for a dog so registered will be annotated with an asterisk to indicate impure or unverified breeding. Such dogs will be similarly identified in the Breed Records Supplement.

Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision. Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them .... Well, "lethal" implies "deadly" (in horses lethal whites die within days of birth because of a malformed intestine if I remember correctly, it simply does not connect to the anus....) Deaf or blind or even deaf and blind pups are not technically dead unless they are put down so it can hardly be called "lethal"? Am I missing something or did people simply like the sound of it and that is why it is called thus? Yep, that's right- breeding two Frame horses together gives you a 25% chance at a lethal white foal (LWF - homozygous Frame) which will die not long after birth from an incomplete intestinal tract. I never understood why in dogs they called it that either- those puppies will live while a LWF foal has to be pts or dies in pain a few hours/days after the only thing I can think of is the colour-? A lethal gene is usually one where the pups are never born because they die soon after the cell is fertilised. My bad- I thought the term 'lethal white' was given to dogs who were homozygous Merle/Harlequin- Must go and read into it a bit more... edit- Yep, what I originally thought- http://www.lethalwhi...ethalwhite.html http://www.australia...thal-white.html http://www.amazingau...al%20Whites.pdf http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lethal+gene lethal gene n. A gene whose expression resultsin the death of the organism, usually during embryogenesis. http://ghr.nlm.nih.g...ary=lethalgene0 Definition(s) Genes which result in the premature death of the organism; dominant lethal genes kill heterozygotes, whereas recessive lethal genes kill only homozygotes.Definition from: MeSH via Unified Medical Language System at the National Library of Medicine Any gene in which a mutation will result in the premature death of the organism carrying it.Definition from: CRISP Thesaurus via Unified Medical Language System at the National Library of Medicine A gene that in some (as homozygous) conditions may prevent development or cause the death of an organism or its germ cells -- called also lethal factor, lethal mutant, lethal mutation.Definition from: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary by Merriam-Webster Inc.

Firstly most people who breed other colours are not breeding for colour any more than someone is who actively breeds for recognised colours and never any other - its still breeding for colour. Secondly there is no proven problem with breeding parti poodle to pari poodle so there is no good reason for not breeding this breed which has the piebald gene and even if there were breeders are now able to DNA test and ensure only one dog has the piebald if thats what they want to be sure of anyway. The gene pool shrinks every day and that has been greatly influenced by the introduction of limited register in Australia with breeder protecting their bloodlines and preventing dogs which are perfectly suited for breeding including colour not able to be used for breeding and more recently greater restriction on what can be placed on the main register and able to be used for breeding even if the breeder thinks its the best conformed dog they have ever seen - even if its the only pup that doesn't have a genetic disorder that the breeder may be trying to breed away from. Did the original founders of the breed intend to only have dogs which could be shown used for breeding? Doubtful because if they did that would have been restricted for the last 100 years when in fact it isn't restricted still in most countries and has only been restricted in this country for around 5 years. If in fact breeders need to be controlled and given no opportunity to assess all of the variables they are working with and determine what is best for what they are working with then why not put restrictions on each breed and disallow certain combinations of colour genes. Eg no white boxer to white or flashy but O.K. for white with plain? Why not prevent anyone breeding flashy to flashy - then a white pup would never be born ? With calls for widening gene pools, and the push for not placing so much emphasis on how the dog looks leaving it as it stands simply adds weight for the critics and it isn't what is best for the breeds or the dogs. The really really crazy thing is that in the UK every stud book is open - someone can go to a pound find a dog that looks pretty much like a poodle and have it entered onto the pedigree and breed registered puppies and in 4 generations all dogs are again recognised as purebred - these puppies can be registered in Australia on the main register and used for breeding as long as they are a recognised colour - yet we yell about a purebred with a pedigree for a couple of hundred generations being used for breeding because its a non recognised colour! Even where in most breed's country of origin allows them to be used for breeding but not shown.

Yes, doubling up on the merle gene is considered to be lethal white. So merle to merle matings are not a good idea. I met a dog last year who was the result of merle to merle breeding, copped the double merle, and had something like 10% vision. Harlequin to harlequin also produces semi lethal white - Mendelian expectancy 25% in each litter. These pure white puppies are usually deaf, and sometimes blind or vision impaired. They are usually euthanised at birth. Or they used to be, until some breeders found they could sell them .... Well, "lethal" implies "deadly" (in horses lethal whites die within days of birth because of a malformed intestine if I remember correctly, it simply does not connect to the anus....) Deaf or blind or even deaf and blind pups are not technically dead unless they are put down so it can hardly be called "lethal"? Am I missing something or did people simply like the sound of it and that is why it is called thus? Yep, that's right- breeding two Frame horses together gives you a 25% chance at a lethal white foal (LWF - homozygous Frame) which will die not long after birth from an incomplete intestinal tract. I never understood why in dogs they called it that either- those puppies will live while a LWF foal has to be pts or dies in pain a few hours/days after the only thing I can think of is the colour-? A lethal gene is usually one where the pups are never born because they die soon after the cell is fertilised.

Wish those people would leave their reasons in writing! :) Most of the time its not much more than personal preference of the founders. People select animals which are the ones they think look the best just as they select coat type and size etc When a breed is in development as soon as its determined that there will be a breed developed by one person or a small group of people a preliminary breed standard is put in place and often different colours are not even seen until more dogs enter the gene pool with open stud books. Its almost impossible to have a breed developed with out a plan or recipe for whats in the mix and what should be left out of the pot during selection. Then of course as the breed develops and other things turn up you will possibly have some people who want it others who don't and there then starts internal brawls and splits so the founders write in which colours will be faults. When it gets to an application for breed recognition a finalised breed standard is tendered and its basically about who has stuck it out and who gets in first. When the breed develops this way there isnt any science to it or any real reason why a colour isnt included. When you see a situation where some colours were accepted and now they arent its just as likely to be about politics as anything else but may be because certain colours have shown to cause or are accused of showing genetic issues. Of course it may also be a combination of politics and a question over health issues. There is no doubt about it that decisions on what can be placed on the main register or what cannot be placed on any register is in the main about politics. In my opinion the decision to not allow any white boxer to ever be registered on any register in Australia was 100% about politics. Even if they wrote what their reasons were many would make little sense because they werent logical to begin with.

Lol yeah they seem to have a registry for anything over there :laugh: Yeah the pinto STBs have been around a while they aren't too popular for racing but some can find homes after racing, unfortunately they aren't a popular breed for pleasure/performance so there is a lot of waste That is one thing I found interesting with the reactions to the coloured TBs because of the performance horse market many people believe that a coloured TB has a better chance of finding a home after racing, whether or not that's true I'm not sure certainly the pretty ones have a better chance as hacks etc but they are still TBs underneath so not for every rider. I think if acceptance of certain colours will bring new people into breeds and widen the gene pool (within that breed) then it is a good thing whether it's horses or dogs or whatever, you will always get dodgy breeders who will cash in on a fad no matter what it is. I want a white shep one day, I don't want to get one from a dodgy breeder churning out rare whites for the sake of it I want one from a good breeder who has health tested stock. Luckily we do have people breeding some lovely whites in this country, they went against the grain and some started their own registry some started the push for the ANKC to accept them (as another breed which makes no sense to me since they all come from GSDs as far as I'm aware but anyway that's a whole other can of worms). Anyway my point is that I think if the kennel clubs are going to be stick in the muds about colours then I'd rather people breed coloured animals with quality in mind than not breed at all, because not breeding just leaves the niche available for dodgy breeders turn churn out rare colours IYKWIM? Agreed

yes but a breed standard cant be changed unless the country of origin has done so first.

Sure, but how many Joe Averages look at a dog and think that's a <insert dog breed here> outside of the obviously popular ones? I mean, I look at the photo of the kerry blonde and despite the colour, that's a kerry. Shape, conformation, that's a kerry, but that's because they're my breed. I would think for the vast majority of people, including the doggy fanciers on DOL, it doesn't matter that kerries are only supposed to come in blue. True

Which is really the point to the entire subject isnt it? One purpose of a breed standard is so that you can look at a dog and have no doubt what ever what breed it is - seems a bit stupid if you see a dog and think it's maybe one of a particular breed but you're not sure

Hard to be confident of that when no partis have been shown though isnt it and not everyone is breeding them for only the pet market without care for the type and temperament and health.

Lot of the time there is no good reason as its about what the people who were first working on the breed preferred and selected for . Brown eyes are generally considered to be friendlier - or they are to me.

Problem is we need real studies and not assumptions - especially assumptions based on what happens in other breeds before anyone can say categorically that dilute in staffies causes more health problems.

Im guessing they'd be around the hundred mark and - might be the ones who wanted it depends on why they want to know I guess.

Are there really more issues related to the dilute gene in staffords ? There are no health issues in blue staffords which dont also show in other staffords - is it true or a myth? Where is the science and how do we eliminate how selection may impact rather than colour - eg . If one breeder tests and selects only healthy dogs with knowledge of health issues in the pedigree and another only breeds for colour with little knowledge and without ensuring they don't compromise on health does that impact more than the colour?