Steve

We have had word today that its all now starting to come together for these people and they are able to take their cat home with them next week. Fantastic outcome, one has a new job , the other is still looking and they have somewhere to live which allows them to have a cat . To Loren who put her hand up to foster care for us - thank you. You have been instrumental in ensuring this couple could keep their 15 year old pet and you have made a huge contribution to making it all better. Julie

So how many were being dumped and Euth say 10 years ago? We dont even know if its better or worse - we do know mandatory desexing in areas where that has happened hasnt made a scrap of difference to dogs being bumped off.

And if everyone were as responsible as you, we wouldn't have problems - but the majority of pet owners are not being responsible I agree the responsible minority shouldn't have to conform to desexing rules just because some people are ruining it for the others - but I also belive things shouldn't stay as they are and continue to allow acts of blatant cruelty to continue. This is an interesting response. How do you know the majority of pet owners are not being repsonsible ? Who is committing blatant acts of cruelty?

I know my research science.....which is why I point out that statistically one group of breeders (registered) stood out (in a scientific study) in how they tend to socialise their dogs and puppies well. Important, because as the same study points out, lack of early socialisation has a link with later aggression. 'Statistically' means there's a greater chance of a certain group of breeders (registered) socialising their animals well. It predicts nothing about individual breeders, tho'. So it does not mean that every breeder in that group socialises their dogs/puppies well. There will be those who do not. Also, statistically, breeders in another group (unregistered) were found, in the same study, to be less likely to socialise their dogs/puppies well. Once again, this predicts nothing about individual breeders in that group. So it does not mean that every breeder in this unregistered group does not socialise their dogs/puppies well. There will be those who do. What is highlighted is the critical importance of socialisation....whoever does it. And the information that registered breeders are more likely.....but not invariably so....to do it well. We have good examples from individuals who do it well. Clearest descriptions I've heard, are from Jed here on DOL & the member of the Rottweiler Club of Victoria on Radio National. As this is a purebred forum that supports purebred dogs, such examples make good models. Your comment suggesting it's being said that one group...meaning all members of that group... 'stand out as a better example' is not true. That would show lack of knowledge of statistics. Stats show trends within groups...and examples are shown by individuals (whoever they are). Exactly. So it seems Membership statisticaly improves out comes. How do we broaden membership to include all interests? The example of hybrid vigour was used to show how different sides present only 1 half of the truth to push their arguments,while both could bennefit from a broader knowledge. Definitely stop being defensive, and strutt your stuff! But involve others where possible,not just the ones already there.You know they are dwindling.There are other contributions to made outside of pedigree dogs,and that needs to be aknowledged.It holds back on credibility. Allow others to strutt their stuff too. Im certainly not preventing you or anyone from any group from strutting their stuff in fact it appears to me that the cross breeder mob have had a pretty fair shot at it and the reality is probably the only people who beat you up a bit are a dwindling number of purebred breeders.In the main that is happening because they have had to defend what they do because the method of promoting designer dogs has incorporated an attack on purebreds and their breeders. There may be contributions made outside of pedigreed dogs but my focus is only on pedigreed dogs and whilst Im eager to include dog owners regardless of what breed they own and bring in new pedigreed dog breeders,and Im happy for you to do your thing as long as you treat your dogs well - its a bit silly to suggest we would involve you if what you do is based on a different philosophy. Asking us to involve you is like asking the NRL to involve the AFL.

Well the whole hybrid vigour thing is way off topic - though Id love to chat with you about that . I happen to think that its time we stopped trying to defend ourselves and just get on with it and strutt our stuff just the fact that we are here talking about what this fanatic has said gives her free publicity and credence to her bullshit beliefs. Animal rights have run some good campaigns here and over seas - some say its part of a big plan - stop all breeding - reasonably credible as both PETA and animal Lib have declared that is one of their desired goals .In the big scheme of things identify a problem council has - dogs roaming the streets and coping flack for putting them down and give them a solution - of course a solution for council should move you further toward your goal. Problem is that the goals are about getting more members, getting less dogs bred ,getting more power , getting more money etc We are in a time frame where we have the most awesome tools and ability to share info and resources to breed healthier, better temperamented beautiful pets and working dogs than ever before in history. As a breeder we should know about breeding depressions and have strategies in place to ensure that doesn't impact adversely on the health of what we are breeding. If they get off their crap and allow us time and energy to develop and educate those who might breed into the future and concentrate on what we are doing dogs will be the major winners - until then ignore them and give them no free plugs.

Ahhh, fair enough Victoria is hell for small non commercial dog breeders including Vicdogs if those enforced with policing it want to push the ticket - they just don't know it yet . However, its still the same point in play VIcdogs have these exemptions because they have made a promise to police their members and punish them if they muck it up.Their members get to have a couple more dogs before the outside licence fees come in but they still have to have DA's etc to breed dogs on their property. Lots of juicy politics and stories to tell here.

By the way Victoria is a whole other story - much bubbling there too but not in the same game as this so far.

"Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group." If you are registered member if the ANKC you don't get any physical inspections by the club to ensure you are actually housing your dogs correctly and that they are in good health or that you are following the mandatory codes and have the right type of "set up". If you are not a member of the ANKC you will be inspected by a council officer and your kennels will have to comply with the code of practice. If you are a member of the ANKC you are exempt from this. No that's not even on the table at this time and this is NSW. For now the only exemptions we get in NSW is a fee reduction for rego. The model they are working off is the Gold Coast [ what a joke] but even though QCCC get fee exemptions there they still have to be inspected by council in order to get the licence.

Moosmum - Whilst it would appear you need a "group" to be able to feel you have a voice you need to see it all as it really is. Being in one of the groups in NSW which is allowed exemptions doesn't mean you get to do things other people cant - you still have to comply with prevention of cruelty to animals acts, companion animals acts,mandatory codes and local laws etc as well as the regs and codes for that group. If this crap does come in here all it means is that if you are in a group its going to cost you money to be in the group and they are asking for exemptions on licence fees.So one group will pay for a licence and the others [with exemptions] will pay their club. Dogs NSW are effectively saying that if the licence comes in if they give their members an exemption they will police their members and ensure their members are educated on what is required which theoretically means that the government wont need to do that themselves. Politically they fear that if their members have to pay these licence fees and their membership, prefix and rego fees that they will loose members and of course they have to be seen to be working for their members and want to be sure they still have the kind of fee exemptions they have had. Their members in the main are saying that they already pay enough and if they have to pay an extra several hundred dollars a year before they can breed a puppy they will be out for the count. No one at welfare level or government level is saying that people who are in these groups are better than any other breeder and any requirements will be the same for you as it is for us and the only real difference is who you pay your money to - assuming of course if a licencing system comes in that we get the fee exemptions. The reality is that the mandatory code for breeding dogs in NSW is more restrictive than Dogs NSW codes anyway and regardless of what group you are in we all still have to comply with the state laws and codes. No one can stop you breeding cross bred dogs if your neighbour can breed purebred dogs as long as you both follow the rules, pay your dues to either council or your club. Fact is in this political climate with PDE and media crap which is about to get worse via the gardener etc you have more people speaking for you than purebred dog breeders do. Remember this is just a task force which will make recommendations - its a way way off law YET. There is much going on in the back ground and at the end of the day its about money and power - not really about whats best for the dogs at all.

I agree however, we worked pretty hard to get our members equal benefits as the ANKC - we didn't set the system up and until recently there was only one group who could get any exemptions if they were ever on the table. It only means that the group agrees to police their members which theoretically lets the people who are supposed to be policing it need to take a lesser look at them. In an ideal world it wouldn't be so bloody over regulated and there would be no need to beg for exemptions. They justify it by saying its less administration for members of one of the groups which are exempt from the fees. It doesn't mean they are exempt from having to follow the same laws as everyone else - just means they get a reduction in council fees. There is no statement that one group is better just that one group is promising to police their members and so get a reduction in fees.

Yep and by asking for exemptions if licencing comes in it lets them know we will go off like lambs to the slaughter even though we don't want licensing The time for asking for exemptions is after what we want is lost - after we had a spit about losing it - too late now - its lost and we may as well have said go ahead.

I can cope with companion or pet but when they start talking guardian instead of owner I start to break out in a sweat.

Sure, but it was in the concrete jungle of the CBD and I don't carry doggy items on me. I wasn't expecting to see this. I know it shocks you when you first come face to face with it but nothing is ever simple and the whole situation needs to be looked at in much greater wider detail before we start calling for them to have their animals removed. Many of them are homeless BECAUSE of their animals as they cant find animal friendly cheap accommodation and they choose to live on the street rather than abandon them

After being involved with their idea of a round table and watching them load the bases and really taking from it exactly what they wanted when they first walked in - Ive little faith in any of their current systems .At the end of the day the loudest noise wins and they have to say they have consulted with interest groups . The round table held in the ACT where not one single breeder group agreed to a licensing system was used to petition for a licensing system and when they say they consulted with breeder groups the assumption is that it was something breeder groups agreed with . Back then Dogs NSW said No but now they are asking that we ask if it is to be that their members get exemptions. The MDBA is also now afforded the same exemptions so any they get we will get and of course if it is to be we wont knock back exemptions if we can get them - however, fact is none of us want licensing but they consulted with us.

That's excellent - I'm curious about how you find out about the need and deliver such assistance, Does a concerned person let you know of a problem and act as a conduit for the help? Or has the network of Pacers groups been established? From what I see here on DOL - you're doing some great work. Just that it appears (from this side of the screen) that Pacers=Steve and I wonder how one woman can spread so wide ! Pacers isnt just one woman - its just I'm the mug who sticks her neck out asking for help.We have a board which works tirelessly in the back ground and an army of wonderful people who do the most awesome things to help us deliver it all around. We get references from all over the place - health services, counselling services, refuges, councils, vets, vet nurses, doctors and just private people who meet someone who needs a hand. We have lists of people who have put their hand up and when we get a call for their area we give them a yell so they help with organising goods and deliveries, pet sitting, foster caring etc. Dog food can be a bit of a challenge to move around as its so heavy to post or ship etc so around the areas where we have a depot we distribute a fair amount that way but often simply order dog food, wormers etc to be delivered.If there is a high demand in one area - for example when the bush fires were on we set up shipping containers and had people moving the stuff around for us and in the floods we had a dozen pallets delivered to a central area. In the Queensland floods we had a truck go in with animal first aid kits and human survival kits. Ideally we want chartered club type groups all over the country so they know the risk factors, the possible strategies to prevent problems and know the local resources we can build on and use. We sort of like to identify what put people where they are in the first place and help them to find ways to get through what they face and set up ways to help them prevent them being in the same place again. Oh by the way we don't just help dog owners either its cats too and during the recent floods lots and lots of hay went all over the place and fencing help was on the list too to help horse owners. So I only play a very small part in it all - its just that I'm the only one you see banging a drum on Dogz.

That's why Pacers gives them dog food and other things to help them look after their dogs and not money.

I had a call this week from someone who had owned a Maremma cross which was poisoned in orange - my first thought was barking got someone mad but these people have no neighbours who would hear it barking.

This is not quite accurate. Of the dogs that are not claimed by owners far more than 33% are euthanised. With cats the figure is much higher Its a business. They do not make money if they spend it keeping animals until they find a home so a few are chosen & many that are not old,sick or unsuitable are disposed of. It is mass slaughter really by a so called caring society & absolutely disgusting. I am not sure if I agree with this or not but something needs to be done. Cats a whole new ball game and should be looked at separately including how many are ferals. There are different health issues for desexed cats and completely different reproductive systems. Its not just mass slaughter by a caring society - its a complete balls up by how the whole thing form go to wo is looked at. Everyone has come at it with assumptions and accusations, and demand action without understanding the whole issue and certainly without understanding why it happens. You have academics in this country yelling about how much better unpredictible cross bred mutts are and touting their assets of hybrid vigour and greater health etc without one small word about how it might cost you a squllion a year to keep the thing groomed, or another sqillion to build a ten feet high fence. The way they have chosen to educate the public about how to buy a puppy is based on everything but the most important - if you choose a purebred dog you are less likely to get a box of chocolates which you dont like much and which puts demands on your lifestyle you cant cope with . Some people can live with any old dog but most cant and that is the reality and its time they focused on that - which would make people more conscious of what dog best suits them - then of course it wont do much good if by the time they get it there is no one left breeding predictable purebred dogs. there is a much bigger picture here and fanatics like this one are calling the shots.

My only question is why showing dogs gives people the right to keep entire dogs?? People that do protection work should have the same rights, as should people that do herding. Not all these people are registered with an organisation recognised by the Govt but they should be allowed to breed. Agreed - its about a dog owners rights and we shouldn't be so quick to chuck that away especially when the numbers who do show are radically reducing every year.

So you believe that the general population should have to do what they are told by a government regardless of whether they think it is what is best for their dog in case someone somewhere else they don't know might have unwanted litters? Sorry not me. Before we go making new laws about stopping where we think dumped dogs come from to a point where it reduces all dog owner rights to non existent we need accurate stats. No one has a hard time selling puppies, there is a constant demand for them and none of this is addressing the demand or why people dump them.

Yep. Its an owner/ vet decision and a government shouldn't be able to interfere with that. If someone does debark their own dog that's already covered in the POCTA acts and they get them anyway. To think that in Victoria [ because YOU cant be punished for a vet debarking your dog in another state] you can be charged with cruelty for taking a dog which has been debarked by a vet to a dog show is the most blatant display of the dog world gone mad - of over regulation and ridiculous government interference in our ability to enjoy the company of our pets.

If you breed for specific temperament, you are more likely to get that temperament. ...... After all the effort put in to obtaining a certain temperament in a purebreed, if others are allowed to claim that 'brand' for their own cross breed dog, the good reputation of the breed can suffer. If you think mislabeling doesn't matter, you are saying that the differences between breeds don't matter and good breeding doesn't matter either. That is harsh on all breeders that strive to improve their breed in temperament and conformation. People buying dogs should be aware that breed does matter and that different breeds have different tendencies. So are you saying that you think tha BSL is correct? That you think the government is correct is saying that all members of such-and-such a breed have such-and-such a temperament? Therefore if a purebred pedigreed dog SHOULD prove to have a bad temperament, for whatever cause, would you then be happy for all members of that breed to be so labelled? Or in that case would you then cry "deed not breed"? I have been involved in breeding and showing dogs for over half a century and I simply don't have the faith in breeders that you do. Individuals yes, but not all and not en masse, sadly. I am sure that most of us can think of lines within our own breed that tend to different temperaments from other lines, although how much this is actually due to nurture plus the tendency of the breeders concentrating on that line to choose certain homes, I don't know. You are wrong if you believe that I think good breeding doesn't matter. I think it is the MOST important factor, but I do not fall into the trap of assuming that all breeders of any one breed are good breeders and that is why I encourage puppy buyers to research breeders as well as breed. Any excellent breeder is entitled to defend their own kennel name and lines, defending the breed as a whole without admitting that there are ignoramuses and downright bad apples also breeding that breed is simply naive, most especially in the more popular breeds. There could be a case for very rare breeds, but you seem to be claiming that the reputation of a breed will never ever suffer from the misdeeds of one of that breed but only ever from a lookalike mutt described as that breed? That is a very very dangerous assumption. Also you seem to be saying that a hardwon "good" reputation for a breed could never be overturned by uncaring or ignorant purebred breeders leaping on to a popularity bandwagon? More correct in my view is the assumption that a dog with GR CH or CH or titled dogsport ancestors in every line is very very likely going to have a good temperament. I honestly think that that is what should be pushed and not just "pedigreed"or "purebred" because that label alone cannot guarantee temperament any more than a random mutt can have temperament guaranteed. Perhaps I am wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. But the observations that I have made over the years and the thought that I have given this matter means that an enormous amount of conficting data would be needed for me to revise my opinion. Edited for clarity. Sigh. More than likely failed at that, too. Yes I agree with you - but there are two different issues here. Its bad enough for me that I have to answer for and defend my breed against those who breed them and who haven't given a fig about what is best for the dogs as an overriding goal in their breeding decisions without having my breeds judged based on what other idiots do when they let their dogs mate with any old dog in the neighbourhood just because it happens to look like my breed according to opinions on an internet forum. A dog of any breed is supposed to be easily identified as part of that group without any doubt by the person doing the looking - some of us will say we also want to see the papers as their definition of purebred is even tighter - its why its so hard to get a new breed recognised and its why I breed purebred dogs and not cross bred dogs - because I think this is important . It tells people by just knowing the breed what management issues they may face and what will be most likely needed to live happily ever after with the dog. If someone needs to come to an internet forum and ask then surely its not a case of just looking and knowing without doubt what breed a dog belongs to. Its a free world and if someone wants to play this game here or anywhere other than my playground all power to them but it still annoys the crap out of me.

I dont believe that this mind set leads to breed specific legislation - breed specific legislation is already here and if we didn't all agree that some breeds do behave somewhat differently to others then none of us would breed or own purebred dogs . Whether we agree with it or not the reality is that pure breeds and purebred breeders are being judged by the variables which show in dogs which they don't breed. This is done via council regs ,public perception and pedigreed dogs exposed. We have enough to answer to already without having to defend our breeds when a bunch of people on an internet forum decide a dog looks like a certain breed or breed mix . Sure it shouldn't be happening but when something goes wrong or when dogs behave in a certain way,or develop certain diseases the rest of the world judge them based on what they are called. You and I can see the stupidity in this but stand back from this . I have a breed which is pretty scary when you encounter them but they are gentle and do all they can to stand back yell at you and dont bite unless there is heaps of warning and no choices left to protect their herd - mix that size and look up with a cattle dog temperament and those hearing the Maremma or Maremma cross just took a chunk out of someone all they hear is Maremma . Staffy cross is only heard as a staffy. Its not about how you and I - purebred breeders see it or hear it but people taking rescue dogs do make decisions on whether they will take a dog based on what they expect of the breed or breed cross its called. A bunch of people saying I think it looks like a Golden retriever cross are not getting what they have at least some expectation of if its a Maremma cross . If naming them doesn't mean that this puts at least some expectation on them why name them? SM is being talked up in cavs and there is a high incidence of MVD but you mix a beagle with a cav and most of them look like beagles - before you know it their health stats tell the world that beagles have it too = bad purebred breeders who in breed. I get it and understand why its done but I want to protect my breeds and I think that allowing someone to call mongrels which may have any number of mixes in there by the name or part name of what people think they look most like it is not good for my breeds You cant have it both ways if you feel it encourages BSL at least it allows the breeds to be judged on their own actions because the alternative is no purebreds and just a generic mutt - which by the way is what some animal rights groups have as their stated goal. I don't think those who have the general intention of promoting purebreds as a common denominator which attracts us here should participate in this because our breeds are fighting for their survival and we should promote them as being unique because we know what they are and we can predict their reactions to certain conditions and stimuli.

Nothing - nothing done to stop dogs being bred by people who only have a litter on rare occasions is going to prevent large scale commercial breeders picking up the slack left if you remove that part of the supply chain - because the demand is still the same. The only thing that will stop dogs being dumped is to do something about the people who dump them. Again more over regulation which disadvantages small breeders and advantages large scale commercial breeders. While everyone is beating their chest about we don't mind licensing if registered breeders can be exempt just remember that there are 3 orgs in NSW which have registered breeders status and one of them represents commercial breeders. Make them take a harder look at pounds and shelters and how they should be working more with private rescue and let them spend some of their resources on pretending they are educating the public rather than pretending they will ever lift a finger to police any new laws or old ones for that matter. Say no to any new laws which will policed by a quasi police force with no outside accountability which have already made it abundantly clear they are against the very group they want to police .