Steve

Again I say if this is something which people don't agree with going after PR isn't the answer because what you are saying is that its a fault in the legislation which enables ANYONE to get a dog out and take it home,or being able to advertise that a dog is on death row regardless of whether it should be able to be taken home according to what has become convention via dogz.

But they arent stating what they think is reputable practices - doesn't seem to matter to them.Membership is about applying - after they get their 300 first names they will start charging for membership there isn't any list of eligibility criteria or code of ethics etc accountability etc all they are doing is offering services to those who join.

So should it be PR who are held accountable for them being released to the public or the pound? Fact is I doubt that it would be PR. Who should decide when to give a dog its wings - is it the pound or someone who advertises the dog is available ?

Nup - http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Forms/08-73%20Clause%2016d%20Guidelines.pdf

Well I'm convinced - you cant beat these guys. They believe they are doing whats best for the dogs - its not in my opinion about money or anything else. If you don't agree with them best thing to do is promote what you do and why how you do it is better for the dogs and the families who take them and stop giving them any attention and free publicity.

Come on T chill out a bit if its got people in states all over Australia it can call its self national or even if they didnt they could call themselves anything they want and as long as its an opt in they would be seen to be consulting those who have opted in and they therefore represent .

Yep agreed and it exposes the system which enables them or anyone to be able to do it and not be held accountable. Their only focus is on getting dogs out of pounds - very noble action theoretically get it out and its got a chance, not much else matters, you have saved a dog and this is a good thing. however, as you know problem is it undermines what a lot of people have worked hard to do - educate the public that there is no risk in taking a second hand dog into their homes and that dogs with problems will be placed only with people who can deal with them. Its still a systemic issue and one way or another either by lowering of standards seen to be within rescue and takling the PR back a decade or by law changes its pretty hard to see there wont be a long term impact - Ive no doubt they would say its worth it because they have a different philosophy and different focus on whats best for the dogs.

Granted if they are moving dogs around without paper work etc its a breach of the requirements but you need to look closer at how its all being done to be sure its them that are not doing what is required and that the responsibility isnt being relayed onto someone else and that they arent getting it within the time frames allowed etc. They will get through their audits as far as I can see but they wont do their first audit until late this year anyway. But in the big scheme of things in my opinion the paperwork and what they do with their money is secondary concerns to how anyone is able to get dogs like this out of a pound without some kind of safety controls.

What current laws are they flaunting?

No they really cant be stopped - as it stands what is going on is legal and there is no accountability. Blacktown Pound must love them because they are keeping their kill rates down . There are several groups with lots of power who have been advocating for law changes for rescue in NSW and its difficult to see how it isnt going to happen.If someone were putting together evidence to show cause as to why the system needs to be changed and reascue needs to be more heavily legislated this is certainly one group which would give them all they needed and they dont even have to look hard - its all out in the open.

How on earth is this ever going to be controlled or stopped if they don't bring in laws to make it harder for everyone?

Easy - the dog has characteristics desirable in the breeding program, whether it's a champion or not. Sometimes you might have a dog that, while not champion material in itself, has traits that will counter shortcomings in a line, and hopefully the pups will be an improved version due to this new blood. Anyway, figured that particular question was mostly aimed at me, but I'm really no expert, so will bow out of this particular debate. :) yep it was aimed at you and I think you're right in theory - just not convinced in practice its been the best method of selection.

So how do you explain the fact that sometimes dogs which are not champions are used for breeding by those who show? I don't show but that doesn't mean I cant have a method of ensuring I'm breeding within the standard and most often using champions to breed with to breed champions I don't show personally.

I have no experience with a vet charging more for the same service for a dog that's insured over another but I do have experience with vets who over service when they know a dog is insured .

Ill chuck this one in. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/nutrition/ Just because its so interesting and every breeder needs to think on it.

Geez we used to have some great conversations didnt we. I miss it.

No you're right they could take blood and check vitamin and mineral levels , platelets etc and may help to prevent whatever it may have been if som,ething showed up or at least give a diagnosis I just didnt understand what you meant when you were saying it the way you were but surely that is part of the autopsy and the blood work would be done for the dead pups ??????

I dont think that this would have shown as a spike - purebred dogs havent become more expensive since 09 in fact some are less expensive and the limited register has been in existence for a very long time. Ive no doubt these things have impacted over time but in these years numbers went up and then dropped again quickly . To be honest the only thing that does make much sense why it went up and then down is the Mcdougal thing as it was at this time that they were running ads and more were being purchased by the pet store. In my mind just about every thing doggy is either pre string or post string and that was jan 2000 Never took notice of any McDougal, advertising post 2000, was essentialy shut down from that date for something like 5 years min anyway. So my learning of their activities and those who sold to them was early 90's I think? From memory Transpet became the sole agent for Mcdougal in Australia and PIAA was given a tick by Dogs NSW around about '98.

Yep but that probably would explain why there are more being bred now but it doesn't explain the spike in that one year time frame. I would say there are several breeds which are fetching less now than they did back a couple of years ago.

Gets a bit muddy doesnt it - when the controlling body is responsible for designing and maintaining and policing the code of ethics says it's completely ethical for someone to sell puppies to an overseas pet shop or an Australian pet shop as long as they are PIAA that its O.K. to sell to agents as long as they are PIAA - and this is the criteria which was used for someone to determine whether they wanted to join or remain a member or not -that they determined that they had the same philosophies and they fitted what was being asked of them no amount of personal opinion or change in how society perceive it all the fact remains that according to the group that they belong to it is completely ethical. At the end of the day the only ones any breeder has to answer to regarding their ethics is the group they belong to - in Asal's case it was Dogs NSW .May not fit with some other people's idea of what is ethical but its not possible for everyone to see things the same way anyway as long as that clause is in the CC codes those things are considered ethical by those standards for their members - the only ones that count. Steve, i don't think it's at all muddy and unless you have removed the membership criteria of not selling to pet shops from your MDBA criteria then neither do you. except my dear who thinks they know all. See all and can judge all. I dont think MDBA was even in existance when what I was talking about was going on, besides the fact Ive been a member of RNSWCC SINCE 1978 AND SHOCKING AS you may find it the rules were exactly as stated by Steve. I did nothing unethical by the rules I was advised not only by the breed club but also the chairman and committee. Tho who knows all, see's and and judges all and who I gather firmly belives should be bowed down too, ho great one. Are you the past or present Director of Dogs NSW? In which case why put one rule in writing, then slander those who dont know thers another "secret.........only the ETHICAL KNOW unwritten rules" lord high hyprocrite The MDBA began in 06 but what the code is for the MDBA isn't relevant as ASAL has never been an MDBA member and never agreed to their code of ethics .She was a Dogs NSW member and according to that org and their code she was being ethical just as any breeder who sells puppies to PIAA pet stores is considered to be within the ethics for that org now .Everyone who signs up agrees that if they do sell their registered puppies to pet stores they will only sell to PIAA stores. Based on this if someone was within the codes for the org they belonged to regardless of whether others they agree with people selling to pet stores or not it was and still is considered ethical by their own yard stick.

I dont think that this would have shown as a spike - purebred dogs havent become more expensive since 09 in fact some are less expensive and the limited register has been in existence for a very long time. Ive no doubt these things have impacted over time but in these years numbers went up and then dropped again quickly . To be honest the only thing that does make much sense why it went up and then down is the Mcdougal thing as it was at this time that they were running ads and more were being purchased by the pet store.

The lining being thin is a symptom of the oxygen being cut off as is seen in bloat which is why Im asking about what you are doing with weaning . MUP how would the puppies be checked for immunity? Immunity to what ?

No

In most circles including dog breeding you get what you measure, reward and select for.For most breeds given time, it should not be too difficult to address this within the breed, once breeders are no longer rewarded with top prizes and high prices for extreme examples and if other things are rewarded instead. Any change whilst adhering to current conventions will at best be very slow and more dogs will suffer along the way. But when you go looking for an answer - if you completely sacrifice the standard – that is the breed's behavior and instinct AND body – in order to breed more widely you may create dogs that live a year or two longer but the breed and its uniqueness will be gone – unacceptable. If that's how we are to measure success, then we may as well stop breeding and live with any mutt that comes along or simply adopt more shelter dogs, because why would we need more generic dogs with no breed specific usefulness or predictability?What's more if we did this there will STILL be hundreds and thousands of personal tragedies for the media and animal rights to focus on because all living populations have individual problems. Take away all breed standards,there would still be individuals with genetic problems within the population and those breeding dogs with particular type to fit current market trends. Opening a stud book is known to be useful where the breed has a known, simple,single-gene disorder that has a known mode of inheritance and is known to be in no other or few other breeds. The uric acid issue of Dalmatians is a great example. They were able to cross a single Pointer in to the breed and develop a strain of unaffected dogs. Their experiment worked and one single cross enabled an unaffected pedigree to be established.) But it's important to remember that this wasn't to introduce more genetic diversity it was done for a single purpose and so far there is no evidence to say that the LUA Dals live longer,and have less cancer, have better temperaments, less Hip Dysplasia etc. as nothing other than elimination of one gene was selected for. When that gene was eliminated the dogs were bred back to selecting for conformation. Again - you get what you select for and what you place little or no importance on is eliminated. We live in a time where we're supposed to breed dogs like other animals but once they'reborn they're supposed to be family members and each and every problem is a personal tragedy and often it is seen as a personal offense committed by the breeder. Breeders are expected to consistently create a living being that never dies young and never has any health or behaviour problems, with predictable body types, behaviour, and management issues with the correct instinct sets of specific breeds. The reality is that this is scientifically and physically impossible. Even if we breed for total maximum diversity, with no thought of breed and delivered a generic"dog," as has been advocated by some animal rights groups some of them are going to get Hip problems, cancer or epilepsy or bite people or bite other dogs. In fact as breeders we are being asked to do something that is literally impossible no matter what choices we make but when we reward dogs which should not be rewarded and use dogs which should not be used because some judge has decided they were the best specimen on the day and nothing else - its madness.