Steve

Worse. There is the Australian Association of Professional Dog Breeder (AAPDB) website. The developing new breeds is an open issue. Since Tasmanian Labradoodles is a developing new breed I wonder who gets to decide these kind of issues. Secondly, it is an uphill battle when there are organisations that are willing to sanction these 'unvalidated' developing new breeds. To my mind, developing new breeds should not leave the laboratory, if they can be justifiably used for research anyway. Remembering of course the well intentioned foray into a "non-shedding breed." It is very difficult trying to be wise when no one has a crystal ball and what new breeds might be admitted to the ANKC is largely unknown. That said, Tasmanian Labradoodles obviously involves large scale commercial experimentation which I, for one, cannot support Regards Px Traditionally breeds in devlopment havent been able to be assessed for anything as they are developing and the main recognising body still doesnt want to know until they actually reach the necessary crieteria for application for breed recognition. Approx 15 years down the track .That often causes problems due to in fighting so no independent is keeping their pedigrees or assessing for the welfare issues whcih may be associated with a standard or breeding program. Just because someone is working toward breed recognition rather than breeding a recognised breed doesnt automatically mean they are doing the wrong thing. but having an outside body means there is less risk they are as well. many other registries and countries have foundation registries including the AKC for exactly this reason and just because a new breed in development is accepted by a registry on their foundation registry that is no guarantee that they will ever obtain recognition - it simply means they are doing what is needed to try to get it right. That said it doesnt look to me that these particular breeders are in that league.

I can't see the relevance of state jurisdiction when the issue and context is animal welfare. Surely, what has been deemed minmal care in one state, and generalised for all dogs in that state, very easily can be extended to other states. What, do Tasmania and NT get a different set of basic criteria because the weather is different? Why can't NSW ask Tasmania what they think they are doing? And isn't the RSPCA national? Px Different laws and different regs apply in each state and some states have greater flexibility between shires and even though we have RSPCA Australia we also have an RSPCA in each state which is autonomous and they still have to fit in with laws within their own states. They cant just decide they like some other state's laws better than their own and go and police them even though they dont apply in their own state. - thank god.

If its the same and the submission from Queensland I looked at a couple of months ago it was the easiest Ive seen so unless there is something new - really new on the plate its hard to see how they will do much to stop much. It certainly doenst make life harder for large scale commercial breeders. My concern is that you end up with the same result as we now see in Victoria where large scale commercial kennels are advantaged and small breeders find it harder. we have already seen this happening in some shires in Brisbane. one breeder who has had a breed for 15 years on her 100 acre property and whelps her puppies inthe loungroom, dogs sleep on beds - has to find 25,000 to comply with regs for breeding dogs, quaratine areas etc. If there is an updated proposal there may be hope.

Actually yes they do have a Dol type website where they pat each other on the back and share their ideas.You will need to pay a couple of hundred dollars though to see what is going on and be one of the appointed. lets play fair just because there is no mention of a vet doesnt mean there isnt one and probably is one or two making lots of money from the exercise. All puppies leaving Australia are vet checked by aqis vets and its unlikely any would get out of the country if there were in less than optimum condition and health. With this many dogs they probably do have ancillary staff though Ive never ever heard of one who felt a behaviourist was on the need card. the entire issue for me is that they dont think they are puppy farming and nor do most others - because of that when we beat a drum for no puppy farming what we think we are yelling about doesnt translate to the same thing and the end result is bigger more commercial kennels. Here on this forum and via animal rights puppy farming = commercial but it simply doesnt in real life.Puppy farming for the purposes of regs and laws is someone who breeds dogs in substandard conditions - regardless of whether they breed for demand or any other reason.

There is no choice at all. People have a right to go about their daily business unaccosted. Which, btw, includes not being attacked by dogs. Further more, people are protected by law in that right and privelege. Mace I think you need to step back from this line of argument. It may be time to seek informed opinion rather than hanging on to a very tenuous point of view. You are not doing yourself any favours here. Px Yep.

Hi All :) Well if we are going to pick holes in this 'multi-million dollar enterprise?' then our criticism needs to be based on breechs of the known laws. 10.1.1.3 During mating, breeding pairs must be isolated from the remaining breeding population, and monitored by the person in charge. Two males and one females is a breech. 10.1.1.6 Whelping bitches must be provided with a suitable whelping box, lined with clean bedding, changed daily. I can't see plastic clam shells being suitable as whelping boxes. There is no protection for the pups. 10.1.1.9 Bitches must not have more than two litters in any two year period, unless with the written approval of a veterinary practitioner. The number of pups produced suggests that continual back-to-back matings are occurring. It is also obvious that they are ignorant of several of the guidelines in the animal Welfare Code of Practice, or they are deliberately disregarding them. Clearly, Brightside Sanctuary is not complying with RSPCA or Council requirements. The Council cannot allow breechs of the DPI Code of Practice Px EXCEPT - They are in Tasmania and they dont say that the dogs are in a pen together when they are mating anyway - only they are housed together - they may well take the dogs out when they are in season. Many breeders expecially of smaller breeds use clam shells as whelping boxes and its one of the things breeders on this forum have inthe past recommended. There is no limit on litters for breeding bitches in Tasmania and its an assumption that they are breeding back to back rather than turning over their breeding stock . These People believe they are the good guys and thats why they are being used to write stupid newspaper articles. Many - most if not all of the really big commercial kennels in other states believe they are the ones doing it right too and pass requirements for mandatory codes for breeding dogs more easily than a small hobby breeder .

Hi Well, if you are ever talking to Italians and you get them repeat the word 'Maremma' you will quite clearly hear the correct pronunciation. Regards I've always been under the impression that it is pronounced "Mar-ee-mah" but changed my tune after I was told off by a 10yr old girl who owns one :laugh: Good to know I can go back to my original pronunciation. Every researcher and farmer involved with LGD's I've ever met has pronounced it Mar-emma. I've been to seminar series where they were the sole topic and never heard any other way of saying it. Mar-emma is an acceptable Australian pronounciation. Chosing to use a foreign inflection is of course fine too. As is 'that fluffy dog over there' I am Italian and I say it Mar emma - this Italian agrees http://www.howjsay.c...a&submit=Submit and so does the American Maremma Club >http://maremmaclub.com/faq.html Too hard for me to change now after 20 years in the breed so regardless of how they may say it in one region Ill stick with Mar - emma.

Agreed, Problem is that when they say they dont come from puppy farms they actually believe it - because their definition of a puppy farm, is not a commercial breeder . Thats how that article reads too.These breeders are proud of themselves and using what they do as some kind of model because they dont believe they are what the issue is about - they dont see commercially and huge = puppy farming. If it is true and they really do keep 2 entire male dogs with one female its difficult to believe- apart form the obvious how would you know which was the father they would fight - more likely 2 girls with one boy. I also found it confusing and had to go back to be sure I had one the sanctuary were doing as at first it sounded that they were also the sanctuary.

Merryn MacKay author of Canine Foster Care Manual has offered proceeds of sales of her book to Pacers for a limited time only. http://www.fostermanual.com/

I dont mind many except these days I dodge anyone who is or has been a registered breeder. I also get a bit niggly about - "have you managed to move your puppies out? If not and you are prepared to drop the price I will take them off your hands"

RSPCA Queensland's adoption rate has more than tripled since the animal welfare organisation relocated to it's new facility at Wacol. RSPCA Qld CEO Mark Townend said about 35 animals were being taken to new homes each day - compared to an average adoption rate of eight a day at Fairfield. "We are seeing hundreds more visitors to our new facility because it's a more pleasant environment to visit," he said. "People used to go to the internet to look for new pets but there is a risk with doing that. "We hope to put an end to bad internet sites and bad pet stores and encourage more people to come here." Last week, the adoption figure hit 500 since the organisation relocated on December 7. Julie Shaw, of Carole Park, was one of the many visitors who took home a new four-legged friend. "I came here to check it out and decided, on a spare of the moment, to adopt a kitten," she said. "The new facility is so welcoming. I lost more than an hour looking around." Next month heralds the official opening of the new Animal Care Campus at Wacol with a ceremony held on February 26. The organisation is still in need of about $6 million to complete the vet and education areas. http://www.thesatellite.com.au/story/2012/01/16/rspca-move-sees-adoption-rate-grow/

I made no blanket statement against in/line breeding as I'm getting different opinions for different sides and haven't had the time to read the huge amount of information carefully. I am quite ready to say that close line breeding can unearth nasty recessive traits, and should not be undertaken by 'beginning' breeders who find it convenient to use a dog they have bred over his mother or half sister, even if he seems healthy and is a lovely dog. The canine genome has around 3 billion base pairs. The general effect of inbreeding is to make an increasing number of those base pairs homozygous. Line- or inbreeding with selection may help in getting the 'baddies' to drop out of the target base pairs, leaving the DNA more homozygous for the desired state of the target allele. How many traits are you breeding for . . . I'd guess less than 500. What happens to the 3 billion minus 500 base pairs? They also become more homozygous. Eventually this will lead to problems. I came across a table for pup survival rate vs COI. Unfortunately, the blogger didn't note his source. If you have better data, please post it. But until someone comes up with verified numbers, this is what I accept as a tentative hypothesis: COI: survival rate <0.19: 75% 0.25-0.67: 51% >0.67: 25% source: http://www.astraean....g-yourself.html But no one is suggesting we all do this all of the time. Its simply something that can be done sometimes . You cant go by random stats because they don't consider variables and what - if anything has been selected for. I can tell you here in my yard there is no difference between litter sizes or survival rates whether I do a close breeding or other wise but one of the things I select for is fertility. My inbred dogs live up to 20 as well. Ive known breeders who select for small litters and one of the things given as a hand out via the Cat society back when I was breeding cats was advice to selectively breed for small litters and cats which came in season less often. Im not advocating that everyone should go nuts and inbred Im saying dont just discount it because it can be a good tool when breeding purebred animals.

I made no blanket statement against in/line breeding as I'm getting different opinions for different sides and haven't had the time to read the huge amount of information carefully. I am quite ready to say that close line breeding can unearth nasty recessive traits, and should not be undertaken by 'beginning' breeders who find it convenient to use a dog they have bred over his mother or half sister, even if he seems healthy and is a lovely dog. The canine genome has around 3 billion base pairs. The general effect of inbreeding is to make an increasing number of those base pairs homozygous. Line- or inbreeding with selection may help in getting the 'baddies' to drop out of the target base pairs, leaving the DNA more homozygous for the desired state of the target allele. How many traits are you breeding for . . . I'd guess less than 500. What happens to the 3 billion minus 500 base pairs? They also become more homozygous. Eventually this will lead to problems. I came across a table for pup survival rate vs COI. Unfortunately, the blogger didn't note his source. If you have better data, please post it. But until someone comes up with verified numbers, this is what I accept as a tentative hypothesis: COI: survival rate <0.19: 75% 0.25-0.67: 51% >0.67: 25% source: http://www.astraean....g-yourself.html But no one is suggesting we all do this all of the time. its simply something that can be done sometimes . You cant go byrandom stats because they don't consider variables. and what if anything has been selected for. I can tell you here in my yard there is no difference between litter sizes or survival rates whether I do a close breeding or other wise but one of the things I select for is fertility. My inbred dogs live up to 20 as well.

Nup not a chance.

Sandgrubber - no one is saying that inbreeding doesn't carry risks and as usual when discussing genetics even the "experts" cant agree .The point is that if its used in dog breeding , selectively with knowledge and specific goals it can be a good thing and just because a dog is closely related to another dog shouldn't automatically discount it as a possible mating. the fact of the matter is that we do inbreed - its how we got our breeds , how we got health issues in our breeds and if we are to maintain viability of our breeds it needs to be used as a tool sometimes to take us where we want to go - to inbred animals which allow us to be able to predict their characteristics so we can place puppies in homes which are most suited to them and their traits and characteristics. To date we have selected for the wrong reasons - how the dog looks and overlooked other things which we should have been more aware of. So if someone is now considering a close mating with specific goals and knowledge of the risks it shouldn't be out of hand discounted simply because of how close it is. The basic question should be what we are selecting for not whether they are closely related and we have to simply own up to the fact that purebred dogs are inbred - its what we do - and it is what we have always done - just as any other breeders does of any other purebred animal - because the alternative is a generic dogs with little or no predictability including no ability to know what to test for or try to identify and eliminate . In breeding has been pushed as being all evil and the root cause of pedigree dogs ill health - it probably is but its not because they are inbred its because of what they have selected for. We live in exciting times with the ability to access greater knowledge and new science to enable us to score and tests and eliminate carriers etc and a time where in breeding could be used to ensure less dogs suffer as long as we make our choices with knowledge.

So how far do we need to play with this - Last time I looked the human race had one of four women in common didn't they? Dogs move through generations a lot quicker than humans. What is your COI ? i don't know what mine is or what my ex husbands was but we each turned out to carry the same gene which causes haemochromotosis . I have 5 of 8 kids affected by it - so no doubt if we went back in our pedigrees far enough we would see where it came from - one common ancestor. If I had of known the lines and the pedigree i could have avoided that mating and prevent my kids from suffering - there was I thinking I was safe with an out cross. Lets not forget that humans in Australia can legally marry their cousins. the only time COI are helpful is if we know what else is in there.

O.K. so if in - breeding is such a terrible thing how do we understand how some of the cultures which have had the most impact on mankind came about. Many developed in naturally or artificially confined areas For example Crete and Japan, Peninsulas like India, Greece, and Italy,naturally enclosed areas like Peru, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, and more or less artificially enclosed areas like China and Palestine . History tells us that these people were secluded they had no choice but to inbreed and close linebreed; Humans who gained certain unique qualities usually had an instinct to separate themselves and even in primitive societies it's been well documented. The Egyptians, Greeks, Jews all not only in bred but were also incestuous. Take a different perspective on how you look at nature and you will see Animals striving everywhere to produce homozygosity. They don't have any instinctive safeguard against incestuous mating. Among antelopes incestuous matings are the rule. The African reedbuck, for instance, has two young at a birth, male and female, which mate together when mature. Only when one happens to die by accident does out- or cross-breeding occur and this is true of the smaller antelopes too, it's the same with red deer. Brother and sister tigers mate as the norm and among African buffaloes, breeding occurs mainly among the immediate offspring of the same cow. The cattle from La Plata in the Falkland Islands, not only quickly multiplied from just a few , but they also broke up into smaller herdsaccording to colour, and the close inbreeding became more intensive because ofthe cattle's own instincts. Many animals do chase off the younger males and don't let any new comers in so the, males mate with their own daughters. In nature among some monkeys constant matings between the head of the horde and his daughters, sisters and other close relations, happen. Among most animals,including elephants , the leading male mates with his daughters,grand-daughters, and great-grand-daughters, as long as he is able to keep other males away. Even when he isn't strong any more that doesn't stop the incest because usually it will be one of his sons which take his place. Have a look at the rabbits and foxes of Australia and these are all the offspring of just a few individuals In New Zealand the red deer began as 3 and were introduced in the 1800's from England and last count about ten years ago the herd numbered over 5,000. They show no signs of disease and they are superior in vigour and health to the original parent stock. .A fellow called Kronacher, starting with one male and three females (a motherand two daughters) of ordinary goats, and in bred for eight generations,without any loss of size, physical development, milking capacity, fertility or vitality. In fact their fertility tended to increase. And he declared that in this case he practised no selection whatever. In 1916 Professor Castle stated that he had successfully bred Drosophila, brother and sister, for 59 generations, without obtaining any diminution in either vigour or fertility. Moenkhaus crossed the same fly, brother and sister, for 75 generations, without harmful consequences.Hyde and Schultze achieved the same result with mice. Castle tried rats, and Popenoe guinea-pigs, and both concluded that no deleterious effects could be ascribed to the in bred system of mating. King experimented with white rats,mating brother and sister regularly for 22 generations, and among these inbred rats some were obtained which proved actually superior to the stock rats from which they had sprung. The males were 15 per cent. heavier, and the females 3per cent., while the fertility was nearly 8 per cent. Higher. In old Egypt,national law didn't allow mixing with foreigners, incest was common both among the people and within the ruler groups. Cleopatra, famous for her wit, beauty and intelligence, was the daughter of a brother and sister,great-grand-daughter of another brother and sister, and a great-great-grand-daughter of Berenice who was both cousin and sister to her husband. In Britain,as late as fifth century, Vortigern married his own daughter. Nor could the practice have been condemned, since the son of this sinful union was none other than St. Faustus. The ancient Irish married without distinction their mothers and sisters, and it was customary for the ancient Germans to marry their sisters. There is overwhelming evidence that the Peruvians were strictly inbred . The Incas, refused to mix their blood and married their sisters; More modern studies in human population genetics are The Pitcairn islanders, the Kisar Hybrids, the Bastards of Rehoboth, and the people of the island of Batz, all of whom are examples of human breeding with close inbreeding without harmful results. Even in tribes and races where incest is illegal, often the rulers or chiefs deliberately breach laws to keep their blood pure. For instance in several countries, marriage with half-sisters is forbidden, but the King always marries his half-sister. may marry his sister and his daughter. Eg.Cambodia, the chiefs of the Marianne and Ladrone Islands,in Hawaii, Nukuhiva, Tahiti and Madagascar, and it was also true of the Northern American Indians of New England. Nor are the people who do inbreed degenerate or diseased, and travellers comment on their great vigour and beauty. With the Fijians — those stocks which have adhered to the ancestral custom requiring first-cousin marriages, are very much the superiors from every physical point of view of those who no longer practise, or else forbid,first-cousin marriages, and the latter are even said to be dying out, while the former have a higher birth rate and greater vitality. The Bataks of Sumatra, who also habitually marry their first-cousins, are some of the healthiest people in the Indian Archipelago. The chiefs in Polynesia and New Zealand have all been noticed for their superior height, looks and vigour. And throughout Polynesia the closest inbreeding inmating is among the chiefs. Therefore, humans are just as capable as some of the animals of thriving onclose inbred matings, if the strains are pure; and in fact when a human stockhas become quite pure close inbreeding is actually the only means ofmaintaining it. I also remember living in a small community in northern NSW where some research on incest was being done in an isolated community near to us where every one ofthe residents were related to each other but they were definitely a prime example of what stock NOT to use as your foundation stock. I guess the movie deliverance showed that too. So - There is a difference in how a good purebred modern dog breeder and mos tother humans in charge of breeding practices in other animals proceed. Profiling a pedigree which can identify recessives, mutations, diseases etc before a mate is chosen can have a huge impact. Then of course we have all the modern technologies and resources too such as DNA X rays, scans and specialist testing we can use. We're not considering animals which are inbred from a natural occurrence due to isolation etc which is usual in studies with population genetics but we are manipulating which mates to use. Without manipulating the matings things such as environmental factors [ such as loss of habitat]deficiencies in soils which lead to nutritional deficiencies etc have to also be considered as to how they may affect the study results. Usually when a scientist goes after an answer only one variable is looked at when in fact their study results may have been impacted by many others Next - not only are we talking about breeding animals of the same species but many of the genetic issues modern purebred breeders have to contend with are not recessive issues. Polygenic genes cause us more grief than most others and the contributing factors are in all dogs .So outcrossing doesn't eliminate the potentials for seeing genes which are affected by things other than recessives BECAUSE we are still breeding the same species. If the unrelated strains share common genes for genetic disorders, no amount of hybrid vigour will over ride the risk of the disorder showing up. Short answer is that there is nothing "wrong" with breeding any two animals of any degree of relatedness, as long as the breeder realizes the potential risks and benefits of the mating. Any level of inbreeding does carry some risk (the risk that one or more formerly hidden recessive traits will be expressed in the homozygous offspring), but there is also the potential for benefits . Each breeder has to weigh the potential costs and benefits and assess whichstrategy best fits his or her long term goals and interests and they shouldn't be frightened off making those decisions by propaganda spread by those tryingto discredit what a purebred breeder does in order to promote crossbreeds.

Surely the answer to that is education to try to help people not make good informed decisions coupled with a a greater sharing of knowledge.- which is why my answer is that it depends on your goals and what you know about what is or may show up in the lines - good and bad. There are many things that testing and DNA is not going to be the answer for so the only hope we have of doing something to prevent problems is to use breeding systems as a tool. You can keep out crossing and make these things less common or less likely to appear but they are still there and can turn up anywhere. If there is a tool available to us which has the potential of wiping it out of our lines and if we work together - our breeds why not use it?

im not saying they wouldn't care about their dogs and what they are breeding, ofcourse they'd care given that they are going to charge 4 times the price for the pups, ofcourse they'd care. lol its not cheap to import dogs but whose to say what lines these dogs are from and how healthy they are, but the interpretation is, our dogs are imports so there fore better able to produce pups that are not related to each other there fore better. and if you know anything about breeding thats not always the case. i mean a dog could be a grand champion or be imported doesn't mean it is any better than any other dog just because of the fancy title. Yet if they were registering their pedigrees with Vicdogs it would be O.K. to say this? Better check no registered breeders are making such claims too.

why shouldn't we compare? they are sure doing this in their statements on their websites and in their facebook pages bagging us all. telling the public purebred pedigrees are inbred, unhealthy and especially if the breeders shows because its all rigged so why can't we defend ourselves? and say its not true but not bag them. but it is true, why some breed and they may hide it no one ever says they breed for money, and i don't know why its always been a big secret. even in pedigree circles its always been a big secret, i've known some breeders who show, only show to the public the ones in the house meanwhile out the back had a big shed full of dogs selling to petshops and that was their secret business. so you are right its very hard to distinguish between a breeder who breeds solely for profit as motivation and a hobby breeder out for the breed only. Whatever, but while you are knocking yourself out comparing better think of same way of telling people who they should go to with a phrase or term which identifies you as being different. You cant stop them from calling themselves registered.

i know of a heck of a lot of breeders that don't only breed for a ribbon steve, thats only part of the equation as i mentioned before. i know from past threads that you don't show yourself either. there is alot of misconceptions about the showring going around. "A dog show is not a beauty contest. A dog needs to be able to move well and have the right sort of temperament. Most importantly, the structure, or conformation, of the dog must be sound and show no signs of ill health or other problems. I am glad to see strict rules are in place to ensure responsible breeding and showing is practised by breeders throughout Australia.", states Dr Higgins. i'd invite judgement on ourselves because most of what's been said to me by some of these breeders is based on heresay and inuendo. and praying on the very ignorant which really gets me upset i hate seeing people being duped. and sweeping statements that has no possibility in being true all because of clever "marketing" as you say. i don't know this breeder we are speaking off, if i was a new owner i'd be very impressed but some of what they say because of my experience has no possibility in being able to be accomplished. Have they tried to get into MDBA? i know for privacy reasons you prolly cannot say. how do you know them? Of course you know a heck of a lot of breeders who don't only breed for a ribbon - so do I. I don't show myself but I have bred champions - conformation, agility and obedience champions and will again .I also place a lot of importance on conformation .I wasn't saying that what is said is true Im saying it is being said of us as a group just as it is being said of anyone who doesn't breed purebred registered dogs is only breeding for money. You dont have to come back at me in defense of yourself or the ring - and have a shot at me because I don't personally attend dog shows - you are preaching to the converted. If they are the breeders I think they are I have met them in person and had several discussion with them as we were introduced to them at the breeding better dogs seminar and also the round table meeting for the RSPCA - and not because they have tried to get into the MDBA . They have nothing what ever to do with me or the MDBA .

Very long - they were the first in with the AAPDB but used to be ANKC - they dont believe that is the motivation for their organisation and nor do many others. Just because you think it doesn't make it so. Just work out what you need to say so you are sending people to breeders you are trying to get them to avoid. i think its obvious why this organisation exists. blind freddy can see it, well at least people with a bit of experience up their sleeves. their statements in their website all points to money. and i knew they'd have a beef with ANKC or shows or show people or something in the pedigree world. somehow they've gotten a very bad experience as do some people but why take it out on the dogs and on the sport itself. just because you get treated bad or have a few words alienate a whole group? i've heard this over and over again over many years. Its called marketing.

the difference is the sole purpose they exist is entirely for money to corner the market on puppies. and its working having a negative campaign coupled with the media these days. yes there are large volume ANKC breeders who also do the same thing in some instances thats why i always say, to screen your breeder as there are farmers in our group too solely out to make a profit. But that's not true - the breeder you are speaking of in the OP is every bit as keen to get it right as you are and her original intention wasn't only to make money . You assume that anyone doing it differently to you doesn't care about the dogs or what they breed - there are those type of people in both groups. The negative campaign is being fueled by just as many in one group as the other because no one can say what a breeder's motivation is for breeding . We will get beaten because we must only breed for a ribbon and dont care about the welfare of the dogs and they will get belted because they don't breed for a ribbon so they must breed only for money and not care about the welfare of the dogs. We need to promote what we do and not be caught up in comparing and making judgments when we don't want judgments on ourselves.

I'd agree that articulate breeders who line breed do so selectively, and for a reason. But historically, I think you'll find a lot of breeders (not the top eschelon) used the nearest acceptable dog . . . Even now, when it's relatively easy/cheap to travel or do AI, I suspect that there are quite a few people who can't resist the temptation to use one of the beautiful dogs that came out their lines over his half sister . . . or equivalent combinations. I'd be very surprised if close line breeding wasn't widespread on puppy farms. I'd love to see someone go through pedigree registrations and prove me wrong. Meanwhile, I think it's good to keep the bar high . . . and to make it shameful to line breed for convenience and cost reduction. Someone has gone through the pedigrees and proved you wrong - Professor Clare Wade form Sydney Uni did a study on our pedigrees and she said very few of us in breed. When I spoke with her numerous times she told me the issues with purebred dogs were not because they were in bred but caused by what they are selected for. If you have a breed with genetic issues and you find a couple which don't have it whether or not they are related isn't part of the issue. It depends on how much you know of whats in the lines,what your goals are, what your choices are. If I have to choose a good dog with great health over one which isn't just because its not as closely related it makes little sense. I know whats in my lines ,what to watch out for and what to take out - the minute I bring in an unknown out cross I have to start again. Big deal of all of this is that those who want to carry on about genetic diversity and how bad in breeding is don't seem to get that we have to consider future generations and what the dogs we are breeding bring to the gene pool They want us all to act like cross breeders - only concerned about this generation - how do you know what may turn up as hidden recessives if you just outcross for the sake of breeding further away ? Assuming you are selecting for things conducive to good health the only risk you run is in breeding depression usually obvious with diminishing litter sizes which is easily fixed with an out cross with someone else's dog which is in bred to other dogs. If the only reason you are going to stay away from a mating is how closely related they are you are breeding with luck rather than science. We are purebred breeders - in breeding is what we do - because its is the only way to predict EVERYTHING ,characteristics, health, temperament .its about what you select for not how related they are. If you have the knowledge you are more likely to get good stuff than bad. In breeding doesn't create bad genes it just show where they are. Its a tool that can be used to do some great stuff and eliminate problems if the breeder has the info they need to be confident they have a good shot at improving the quality of life for future generations.

I agree....I can see the adds for rare colours now.....and the $$$$ signs in the eyes of the greedy. yep here it comes.