Steve

Petition, from the NSW Animal Welfare League, trying to stop puppy farms - $ 500 licences, with inspections each year and randomly by AWL and RSPCA http://www.awlnsw.com.au/ http://www.awlnsw.com.au/dogs-deserve-better.html http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/659/566/554/?z00m=20228308

One of the things that used to happen was that there were lots of breeders breeding dogs the way they thought the dogs should be bred with lots of different goals. It meant that if one group got into trouble with genetic issues or form etc there was somewhere else to go . If you approached a breeder and told them the truth - that you may like to breed a litter one day the breeder took that into account and gave you a dog which wouldn't do the gene pool any harm - it may not be the best they had but it was a good start. They patted you onthe head and offered help even if you were only going to have a litter to pay the new lounge suit off because they didnt want you to muck it up regardless of what your reason for breeding was. Now everyone has to breed for the same goal with pressure on to conform to what is currently winning in the ring - if they don't show the dogs or breed champions rather than the ones they like best they are beaten up , accused of being unethical or worse "puppy farmer" If show breeders cant see how anyone else may breed for better eyes, or better hips and not test the dogs in the ring - they are unethical but that means we end up where we are now. Limited choices , limited gene pool, limited numbers of breeders. The minute you start to dabble in this and challenge someone on their motivations there is a no win. they can tell you their motivations are anything and you cant prove what they were thinking - you can disagree with what they do but you cant prove that your idea of what is best for the breed is any better than their idea of what is bets for the breed. Who decides and if one breeder believes the show ring is not helping to better the breed and may in fact be detrimental to it and decide to go against what the next person thinks - which is unethical. It would appear that the way the thing is written the onus is on the breeder to decide what they think is best for the standard of the breed and the premise is that as long as that is their intent no one else gets to say whether how they are doing it is evidence that they didnt have the intent to do the right thing by the breed whether someone else agrees with their methods or not. The only way you could prove that this part of the code wasn't being followed is if the breeder actually said - I couldn't care less about the standard of the breed and when I choose my dogs my intention is solely to make money- because it not based on results but on intent. Every person's idea on what is best and how to put that into practice is different. Therefore the solution is to do what you think is best when you have clear goals and don't worry about what anyone is doing regarding what is best for the standard of the breed. Most often as you are around longer and evolve as a breeder what you know now is best for the breed changes and you can see why someone else did something you didn't understand at the time.

down to 4 and a half thousand registered purebred breeders Australia wide - dropped by about 2,000 in one year. Numbers being bred don't sustain a gene pool but even worse when the numbers being bred are even more limited by limited register - its only a matter of time. Couple that with a good flogging every where you look on the poor health of pedigreed dogs and breeders deciding on what is ethical based on what animal rights dictate - all over red rover.

No I don't think so - I think its since it became a forum where open debate from anyone including breeders and dog owners is no longer tolerated unless it suits a few who bully and attack people personally to get them to shut up when they have an opposing opinion. The person who was beaten up the most for daring to discuss what the rest of the world was thinking to the table for discussion is a purebred breeder. Now it would appear that even if someone is a purebred breeder its still likely to get them a personal swipe or two about something which has nothing to do with the topic just because you can.

Putting them on limited doesntstop doodle breeders they dont care if it has main or limited they cant register their pups with the CC so it makes no difference The ONLY thing putting pups ouT with limited register does is stop REGISTERED BREEDERS breeding them and selling them as registered pups.

Well you know when anyone tried to say anything about that they were slammed dunked on this forum - shut everyone up quick smart

What message do you think is being sent? The message I get is "we're taking this seriously and regulating ourselves now". Thats not the message I'm getting and doubtful the one the public will get either. Its saying to me that purebred dogs which are bred for the way they look are sick. Whats more most people with two eyes in their head and who are not blinded by the culture can see it and have seen it for years. The thing they control is the judges and they should have thought this out better rather than make public sacrifices.

You don't have to be a vet to hear a dog that can't breathe quietly at rest, to know what obesity is, or ectropian or entropian or excessive skinfolds. You don't have to be a vet to see a dog that can't get out of the way of its own hocks to sit easily You can see it at almost any dog show and until now no one in a position to act for change has done a damn thing about it. Breeders and exhibitors and dog shows got us to where we are... do you HONESTLY think that those who have more invested in the current breed standards and judging are the ones to lead us out? The future of purebred dogs is ON THE LINE here. If we don't want to see entire breeds banned for health reasons and extinct soon after then drastic measures are called for. I will wait for the dust to settle but God knows someone had to do something and the KC has. All I can say is that the dog fancy has been a hothouse for these issues for a bloody long time and frankly if you don't see a problem with some breed standards then chance are you are part of it. The PR generated by breeding for dogs that can't live comfortable, healthy lives is a hell of a lot worse than the PR for dog shows. Come on you are preaching to the converted - I just think the system they used to do it sucks.

Yep plain as the eyes on your face alright - hard to deny it . That's a lot of judges that should be booted too.

So it would appear that the UKKC have made a statement that rather than dogs be judged by a judge on the day for how it stacks up against the breed standard by a qualified judgeit will also be judged by things only a vet can pick up. Rather than educate breeders into being sure that they have to take the health and things only a vet can pick up into account as well as the championship when they select a mate for their dogs and explain this to the public - that a dog show has only ever been that - we are now on new territory.Sort of like a swimmer being disqualified because he has asthma or a runner being disqualified because he has and eye injury.Don't really think they can get out of it now either. Terrible PR for dogs shows that's for sure.

What a sucky system. they let them win then check them and One vet can wipe it out without any recourse and without a second opinion That eye issue the clumber had isnt even noted in the breed! If it has such serious consequences not just for the exhibitor but also the entire dog show world they should have had an appeals process. Makes one ask if the UKKC has been infiltrated by animal rights loonies - surely they had to know this might happen If those exhibitors didn't sign and agree to this they should sue them - if they did sign and agree they are idiots.

Good grief sandgrubber - this is a heinous sin - considering the link posted here was about a breeder accused of having back to back litters - the last of which was in 2005 and still getting flogged for it even though she denies it happened it would appear the punishment for being accused of such a thing is worse than most criminals would have to live through. I'm not even sure these laws were even in existence back then.

I think can get through to Naranderra and the Coolamon to Ganmain - is good now

There is no doubt that regs are put in place to try to prevent the bad guys doing the wrong thing - problem is you first need to define the wrong thing according to science rather than emotion If you have a responsible breeder who knows their bitches and a good vet there isnt any need to put those kind of restrictions in there but just in case some one might want to breed a bitch which is not in good nick[ almost impossible anyway] we all have to do as we are told and put our bitches at risk. However, having said that the laws in NSW are harder than the code of ethics with Dogs NSW - Laws say no more than 2 litters in two years , Dogs NSW says no more than 2 in 18 months- neither is necessarily based on good science or what really is what is best for the bitch. So whether a breeder in NSW is under a code of conduct or not they still cant have any more than 2 in two years. No need to write it in because makes no difference they have to comply with the law of their own state. Considering the MDBA has breeders all over the country and in 8 different countries if they were to say one thing which turned out to be less restrictive than local laws it creates a problem so its all simply a case of comply with the laws. Some pencil pushers who don't bred dogs have been told how dogs should be bred by people who dont breed dogs and know nothing of the science and we are stuck with it so - follow the law means no one has much to say about any groups code of ethics do they as long as they are agreeing to follow the law.?

What a BITCH! She supposedly consistently year after year comes in heat time after time within 5 - 12 weeks after her puppies go home, falls pregnant every time and off she goes again! What a load of crap - Just goes to show you can say anything you want on the net - She must have been in good nick to be able to do it ! That bitch should be in the Guiness book of records! We wont mention the way the register thing that shows it didn't happen

No Im out the other way in - near through Matong - Grong grong area and I dont have a 4 wheel drive anyway I dropped a heap off today to some people from the Rock and Wagga but it was shit as I had to keep changing roads and turning around to get to where I had to go Im going back Wagga way again on Tuesday and I will give a yell when the new load arrives.Have already distributed about 5 pallets over the last week or so. We have some of those bony treat things too.

Say when we can move a bit and Ill meet you half way if you like.

Anyone affected by floods in the Wagga Area Im making a dog food [Eukanuba] drop there today for Pacers if anyone needs some help. I go towards Griffith Naranderra as soon as I can get through Only Dog Food today but Cat food should be available in the next few days. Julie

Anyone affected by floods in the Wagga Area Im making a dog food [Eukanuba] drop there today for Pacers if anyone needs some help.Julie <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

Thats right I remember being told this some months ago now I wonder what they do with the feedback?

Yep but inspected for what? They still have loads [100's of dogs] and couldn't tell by one visit as to what they do on a daily basis only what they see on the day. Its still the breeder passing the buck even if it is onto PIAA - its still not them being contactable by the buyer or being held responsible after the sale. Nice for PIAA to offer to do but it means the breeder is rewarded and out of gaol if they sell to a pet shop. Remember that ANKC registered breeders can also sell to PIAA pet stores. Some can Steve but not all. See my post above. Yep I saw it - I should say ANKC registered breeders in some states can sell to pet shops. Thank you

Yep but inspected for what? They still have loads [100's of dogs] and couldn't tell by one visit as to what they do on a daily basis only what they see on the day. Its still the breeder passing the buck even if it is onto PIAA - its still not them being contactable by the buyer or being held responsible after the sale. Nice for PIAA to offer to do but it means the breeder is rewarded and out of gaol if they sell to a pet shop. Remember that ANKC registered breeders can also sell to PIAA pet stores.

I think if you have a look at the complaints processes its reasonably easy to understand and on the whole I would say they do a pretty fair job. Whether people accept the judgement is more the issue but its difficult to see an alternative because only those responsible for enforcing it and addressing breaches are able to make informed decisions. Traditionally people usually only make complaints when they think there is reason to find the person guilty but when the person appears to be off the hook they no longer feel the CC should make the judgement . Those who get an outcome they agree with trust the system those who dont feel they cant trust it - thats pretty much the way of the world.

I don't know what you mean. I mean if its is the state CCs code then we need to trust that they will accept the complaint and make an informed judgement and take appropriate action So do all states have the ability to have complaints lodged? Do all states have a similar process? (What is the process?) All states have a code of ethics and regulations and a complaints procedure I don't know what you mean by "in at least two states some [who?] will join in order to get exemptions [to what?] and have no intention of playing by the rules [the code of conduct?]". In NSW , Vic and in some parts of Queensland ANKC members are given discounts and exemptions - in some places if you are not ANKC you cant own an entire dog. Recent new laws in Victoria where ANKC members are able to have 10 fertile dogs with out a permit has seen many breeders who are not breeding ANKC registered dogs applying for membership.It is not a requirement that you own a purebred dog to have a refix. I agree this is a subjective area. Perhaps the subjectivity means that it should not be included in the code of conduct, as it is unenforceable. Surely the controlling bodies would be the judge of any violations to the code of conduct, or should have a process in place for judging these violations.

In this case, I am using the term 'unethical' to refer to breeders who have agreed to abide by the code of ethics - but aren't. Of course, unethical has different contexts in different situations, and so perhaps it is more useful to just say breeders who are violating the code of conduct. I guess we have to ask, can we report violations of the code of conduct? And what will be done about these reports? I agree, Janba, that some of the ANKC's (and their bodies) code of conducts are vague at best. However, I'd argue that either they have to a) make it more specific or b) take them out, in order to have an enforceable code of conduct. If we allow ANKC breeders to breed violate the code of conduct, then being ANKC registered means nothing. If ANKC are not willing to uphold some aspects of their code of conduct, then who is? And why have a code of conduct? Is ANKC only a fun club and registry or should it stand for something more? Surely sooner or later we have to agree that those charged with investigating accusations against a breeder and are able to assess all of the variables and information need to be trusted and have the final say. I think that the CCs o the whole do a pretty good job especially as anyone can get in and are assumed to be doing it all right until a complaint is lodged and in at least two states some will join in order to get exemptions and have no intention of playing by the rules. How does anyone know if a breeder is or is not breeding for the betterment of the breed when this may mean different things to different people .perhaps the breeder is striving to eliminate a whelping problem and the quality of a couple of litters goes down while they do it - maybe its a breed with few options if they are targeting one thing or another etc.Maybe many things - who should be the judge? However, when you get breeders who only vaccinate one male and one female per litter and photo copy that certificate for the rest as if they have all been vaccinated that's a different matter - hopefully if the vet ads the chip number to the certificate that will slow it down. If someone sends a pup home with out a certificate or its forged its pretty easy to prove as was the case in Queensland a few months ago when a breeder sent a litter home with forged vaccinations certificates and the vet who's signature they used exposed them for fraud. Many of these type of things are covered by state legislation and not just a code of ethics.