Steve

Ground hog day again. According to the agreed upon definition of a puppy farm by RSPCA Australia and all other groups who attended the round table meeting on puppy farmers Puppy farmer does not equal commercial breeder. . Puppy farmers can also be people who breed for other motivations including for the show ring.

Yep Professor Mike Goddard has done some good stuff re genetics and temperament - basically you get what you select for but there is no doubt that dogs become accustomed to a particular way of life and adapt to the environment .Take them out of that and expect there will be no transitional stage especially if its radically different is un realistic. The point is however, THIS study is done on ex puppy mill dogs - that is dogs which are kept in rotten conditions without basic human socialsation and manners suitable for living inside being on the agenda. THIS STUDY is not on commercial breeders nor does it compare the difference between commercial breeders and puppy farmers. It compares adult dogs which have come from puppy farms with dogs which have come from other places.

but 30 years ago in my neighbourhood if you wanted your dog to stay safe you were repsonsible for it and accepted the consequences if you didnt If you had a dog that ate the neighbours chooks you might get one chance but if it happened again the dog was put down. Dogs who werent kid friendly stayed at home and every kid knew where they were and which ones to stay away from and if they were percieved to be a threat past a potential nip stage the dog was gone.

Im not sure what it is you are asking. You will need to enlarge it a bit. If someone is a member of any group or club which has a code of conduct then they are obliged to adhere to that or leave. The major danger in any of this is - again - who will decide the breeder's motivation? Just because a breeder does something others dont do or dont agree with doesnt mean to say they dont have the best interests of thei rdogs or the breed in mind.

helen - since it became obvious that Erny was wise to what was going on and will read this thread suffice to say here that the quilt will be delivered to Erny when she least expects it . If you would like more info Im happy to send you that privately but I want some of it at least to surprise her. Julie

I wasnt talking about dogs being rehomed but rather dogs who are much loved who have lived with their owners under certain conditions which the owner wants to return to when they recover or get back on their feet. Ams can tell you a great story about an entire older bitch she looked after for one of our clients but not many people are as easy going and as dog friendly as Ams either. My main concern is for any dog suffering especially in puppy farms because so many of them are affected at one place at one time but I dont believe its possible for us to judge who is keeping dogs like this based only on what we feel is their primary motivation. I think those who are doing it under the worst conditions are harder to find and that is what we need to address first. There is no science to back up the notion that breeding back to back litters makes dog's insides a mess - there is far more science to say that not having litters increases the chances of an entire bitch's insides being a mess any more than the fact that I had 6 kids before I was 25 should make my insides a mess. bitches insides might become a mess for all manner of reasons including complications from pregnancy etc however, to state that breeding a bicth back to back will increase the risk of her insides being a mess is simply not supported by science. I dont seem to be able to explain - I didnt make that up - its not my idea.People who specialise in canine reproduction and scientists have contributed to that as well as some older experienced registered breeders who mated their bitches young and back to back before it became against their codes of conduct. The fact is when animal rights use reasons to demonstrate what is worng with what puppy farmers do which is so easy to disprove it discredits them and makes the entire case against puppy farming open to being tossed off as animal loonies. If we dont stick to the facts and keep the arguments against this based on facts rather than assumptions or beat ups the whole thing is a house of cards and puppy farming is bad and horrible and it has to be stopped - it doesnt need things put in the mix which are so easy to disprove - its bad enough on its own.

Any one who breeds dogs should know that taking a dog out of any environment it is used to and re homing it to a radically different life is difficult for the dog and that its more difficult for the new owner to work through the differences in how the dog lived to how its expected to live. You see dogs who have lived on concrete or similar all their lives whether that be in pens or because thats how the breeder's back yard is set up - with no lawn who move to a new home and dont know what lawn is - where we feel its normal for a dog to go to the toot on the grass, roll in the grass etc if we want that dog to do what is now expected of them it takes a bit to get there. You see dogs who have for the main lived with lots of other dogs in a pack and only outdoors who are like fish out of water when you take them out of that and expect them to live like royalty as an only dog living indoors. If the intent is to be for breeders to re home their dogs after they are no longer going to keep them then any breeder regardless of how many they have has to ensure that their dogs can be placed in family homes without too much stress on the dogs or the new families. Problem is people who treat animals so appallingly have little regard for what comes next and no interest in anything past today - most puppy farm dogs which are re homed have been siezed and the intent of the breeder has been to bump them off so they have no desire to put themselves out or to ensure the dog is being prepared for what humans today who live with dogs as pets expect of them. I think anyone who has much of a brain would know if you lock any mammal up in almost isolation ,without others of its kind to interact with and humans to teach it basic manners and behaviours more suited to living with humans then expecting it to come out and act like one that has been living in luxury with other dogs that they would have some major work to do to ever get it to be reacting the same. Many breeders kill their older dogs rather than attempt to place them into family environments and Ive spoken to 2 who feel its kinder to the dog to do that. Thats not so much different to a dog which is living with one person as a life long companion and has only ever known one environment who never sees any other dogs. Take the dog out of that in 6 years time and expect its going to see other dogs and not be fearful etc is also unrealistic and why rescue do such a great job in assessing and re homing dogs regardless of where they come from rather than just shuffling them out as if they are all the same because they didnt come from a puppy farm. If you take a dog from someone who has kept their dogs inside with only dogs of its own breed and put it in someone's back yard with a couple of big rough neck dopey dogs its not going to be that happy either. is it possible even if someone was motivated to ensure a couple of hundred dogs are more likely to fit into what we class as normal family homes without these type of symptoms?Can a breeder with a couple of hundred dogs anticpate what a potential new home would be and prepare the dog better for that to happen? I dont think so but I know owners and breeders who have never given a thought to how their dog may be able to be rehomed or cared for too. one of the major challenges we have when we attempt to help people who hit a disaster is trying to find someone who can take their animal into their home and foster it and care for it for a short period until they get on their feet because they never anticipate the need to do anything different to what they do which is good for them and their dog. How do you expect someone who has dogs of their own to accept a large entire dog aggressive dog into their home who has never had any contact with humans past its owner for 10 years. Should owners prepare their dogs with manners and behaviours which may be needed if they have to go into hospital or should they live their lives as it suits them and their dog without the need to worry about the what if's. T-he study shows that adult dogs kept in rotten conditions where socialisation and preparation for life after breeding is neglected - collectively - have a harder time in coping and adjusting to normal family life. It would be good if this is acknowedged and breeders were more open to preparing their ex breeding dogs to living in family homes but puppy mill operators are bottom feeders and I doubt that ensuring their dogs are more able to one day sleep on satin pillows in people's lounge rooms in case they get siezed in a raid is ever going to be a priority and they will simply bump them off rather than lift a finger to prepare them or find a suitable placement.

I dont think many people who are aware of what a puppy mill is will be surprised - it seems to only back up what we all know - .that keeping dogs in rotten conditions with littel human conatct is not conducive to them simply being able to be taken out and living happily ever after with out some work. Did it say in the report that dogs from well run commercial enterprises were included in their research or was the study done soley on dogs from puppy mills? Did the study state that back to back breeding of healthy dogs was something which has affected their long term general health? By the way for clarity - I did not say that I thought collectively there was nothing wrong with well run commercial enterprises.In fact I said if I had my way they would not exist and that I felt because the main motivation of the breeder being to make a profit placed the dogs in a higher at risk situation. I did not say that I objected to anyone protesting commercial breeding - however I did say that if we are to protest puppy mills we should be aware of what the definition and that we are all protesting the same thing. Some people clearly read puppy mill or puppy farm and see commercial enterprise and have no intent to judge on how people keep their dogs but rather to judge them on their motivation for breeding dogs. So not everyone is protesting the same thing when we protest against puppy farms. If we are going to judge people on their motivation rather than how they keep their dogs there are two major problems in that and its why I am not protesting against commercial breeders but I do protest about puppy farmers. One is that if we can stop someone breeding because of why they breed dogs rather than how then we can decide anyone's motivation is not good. Many people happen to believe that breeding dogs for the show ring is a terrible motivation and breeders who do so need to be stopped because they are cruel other believe that if people dont show their dogs but breed their dogs have a terrible motivation. How peopel keep their dogs has to be the focus rather than why they bred them or no one will be left who can breed dogs because no matter which group you belong to someone thinks your motivation sucks. The other is that ANYONE no matter how many they own or breed - no matter what their primary motivation is who keep dogs in rotten conditions without covering their needs needs to be shut down, charged and locked up and when we spend so much energy on targeting one group the ones I see who tell me they dont breed commercially are free to do what ever they want behind closed doors because people assume that because they SAY they are not breeding commercially - that all is well. Again dog mad I didnt make up the science regarding back to back litters and people who are much better educated and qualified than me have spread this terrible truth. You may think that its a persons role to tell lies about facts relating to canine reproduction in case someone breeds a bitch back to back who shouldnt but I happen to think we should be able to have access to the science and discuss what is best for our dogs dependednt on its breed and circumstances without being beaten up because we happen to say what the science tells us. So in regards to this report - its good and shows a correlation between dogs which are kept where the basic needs are not addressed - and these issues - but it is not any evidence that someone who breeds dogs in Australia commercially is necessarily guilty of doing that. Someone who owns a puppy farm - a place that breeds dogs in sub standard conditions regardless of their motivation needs to be shut down and the report demonstrates the need for all people who own dogs to be aware of the consequences if they dont address the needs of the dogs. Same old same old and I know you wont understand what Im trying to say or that we are on the same side. For you puppy mill equals a commercial breeder for me it equals anyone who keeps their dogs in rotten conditions and who doesnt look after their basic social and welfare needs. The report told me I was right in what I believed - the report told you the same thing - its just that we dont agree on what a puppy mill is. Until we all do - no one really knows what it is anyone else is fighting against. You see commercial kennels others see kennels where dogs are kept for the show ring, others see lounge rooms stacked with crates with dead dogs walking over each other and shit 6 inches deep where people dont have making a profit as their motivation. . I am against illegal action and sensationalist animal rights propoganda directed at anyone who applies for a Development application to breed dogs commercially - not because I think people should breed dogs commercially but because I want everyone who breeds dogs out in the open where we can see these things are being addressed - when you go after people who are doing the right thing by applying for a DA to breed dogs all you do is chase off anyone who may have applied for a DA and that is counter productive to the goal. Knowing who breeds dogs and ensuring no one regardless of their motivation or how many they breed is doing anything which is not conducive to them being happy and healthy.

Some times though its about the lack of understanding and eductation of the owner.We have discussions like this and we assume the adults who are supervising have a brain. I remember a couple of years ago going to visit a friend who had a GSD - beautiful dog appeared to be well trained with good manners. Wasnt used to kids. Until the kids there that evening started to move then I watched as she chased and grabbed the small kids and tried to pull them down. Gave growls and was stalking them as they tried to duck her.The owner and most of the other adults there laughed and enjoyed it because they felt the dog was so good with kids and was playing with them.All I could see was any minute some kids was going to be really hurt. My kids who have been around dogs all of their lives picked it in a minute and sat down and watched with me - I said that dog isnt playing its going to hurt one of those kids explained the body language I was seeing and that didnt make me very popular but it was really upsetting me - sure enough before the evenng do was over a 4 year old had to be taken to hospital to have stitches in her face - another had a nip on her leg but 'never mind the dog was just playing and didnt mean to hurt the kid' ive always remember that evening when I think of telling adults to supervise the dog with the kids because that night there were a dozen adults there who not only didnt have a bloody clue but who set the kids up for a bite and who wanted to argue that I was just paranoid.

They dont really mean much though do they unless you have some kind of benchmark.

You can say it anyway you want but realistically having rights does pass responsibilities back. A baby has the right to eat a healthy diet but if it stops eating whether its aware of the consequences of that or not , whether its does that intentionally or not someone will forget all about the baby's right to eat and start to feed in via a tube. I knew someone once who was devlopmentally disabled who had the right to all manner of things until he stabbed his sister 48 times - and his rights vanished pretty quickly to a point where over time he lost more and more and more of his rights.The last time I saw him he was locked in a small room with a straight jacket on and supervision by 2 adult males 24 hours a day. Each time he showed he wasnt able to be responsible with one thng it was removed from him. He had the right to watch telly until he threw it at a youth worker. He had a right to feed himself until he threw plates and food and tried to use anything that came into his reach as a weapon.He lost his right to exercise when he would do a bolt each time to outrun the youth workers to kill one of the other residents. Eventually he was drugged to a point where he stared blankly and shuffled his feet as he walked from one side of a locked room to another. Now you may not want to call that being able to be responsible but still having rights but most dogs Ive known have more rights than that boy had last time I saw him. Bout the only thing I could see that was different was that a human can decide to put a dog down but this kid was destined to a long miserable life because he couldnt be responsible but still had the right to live.

Toy dog No matter how much a breeder tests their dogs they can still breed dogs with HD .And whats more there is lots and lots of science to show that genetics only plays a part in it all.Any dog especially dogs of larger varieties can and do get HD. Some breeds would be diagnosed with HD but with dogs with low scores in comparison to the rest of the breed - its still HD and they are still used for breeding - but even more note worthy is only a couple of breeds have to be scored anyway. Are we seriously going to push for rescue to test when most breeders still dont test? Do we test every single dog for everything? How does rescue know what breed is in the dog to know what to test for? If we are going to start to carry on about recue dogs and who is accounatble the same thing has to be held as is done any transaction.that is to the best of the breeders/ rescues knowledge the dog is not in ill health. If sometime after a sale the dogs develops any condition which the breeder or the rescue could not know existed after that then its an owner issue. They can eliminate that risk by insuring them. The insurance company covers them as long as the condition is not diagnosed prior to activation of the policy. That should tell you heaps in itself. Im sorry but in all honesty for anyone to be calling for rescue to be health testing past the basics which can be picked up in a vet check not only does it make us appear crazy it also opens us up for more crap. What do you test a puppy for before it goes home?

Very interesting especially as the pet owner repsonse was so high. Better duck in and ad the dogs to the survey when you get a minute

For me the answers came when I considered what a lack of the hormones have been proven to do in dogs and other mammals.Fact is lack of estrogen and testosterone does cause health issues and does affect longevity. My decision probably would have been impacted by other things if I had a different breed - so for example if I had a breed that was more prone than most to Hip /joint problems.I would be less eager to do it. The research and results from our breed survey which has been running now for 2 years appears to suggest that there may be a higher risk of a dog especially a male dog developing HD if its desexed early. Problem is the same as it is with most things. Its hard to get the info because in order to do that it has to correlated with something else. If you desex a dog and in 12 months its got HD do we blame the owner, the breeder or the hormones? Is the risk of that the same in all breeds or is it igher in those which may have a higher than average breed disposition to it etc. Vasectomy and tubals sound good but lots of people want dogs desexed not just to stop unwanted pregnancies but in order to prevent anti social behaviour , escaping,leg cocking, etc In alll honesty whether or not someone has a litter from it when they shouldnt isnt really something that worries me too much because I think there are many health issues a dog can suffer with throughout its life time which may be impacted by lack of hormones especially through its high growth stage .I have assessed the risk of unwanted puppies in my breeds to be a lessor risk factor and made my decision based on that. I guess what Im trying to say is I dont think there is any right or wrong answer . Whether a dog has a litter that I as a breder would prefer it didnt have after it goes to a new home is as far as Im concerned an issue of ethics for the new owner.I have ethical decisions to make in order to keep them healthy and ensure there is nothing I do which impacts in any negative way on their health. I see the potential for someone breeding one of the dogs I bred when Id rather they didnt as a lessor evil.

This isnt consistent with the result we have for standard poodles via our health surveys There are around 100 responses and of them 47% were breeders the rest pet owners - not one listed with bloat . 2 with cancer. There were only 1 or 2 diagnosed with HD as well. I would also expect that in Australia they were reasonably closely bred. It looks to me that this breed in comparison to many others is doing pretty well. The results may be affected by any number of things but one fo the things our survey is showing across the board is that Australian breeders should be judged on their dogs and not what is supposedly going on in their breeds in other countries.

Lets just take a minute to look at the bigger picture. We really have set much of this up for ourselves havent we? Rescue come into this forum all the time asking for people to help them ID what breed or breed cross a dog is and people race in to say what breed type the dog looks to be. For ever RSPCA and anyone in similar areas has sold dogs off with a breed like description. Our whole canine registration / microchipping system has enabled us to register dogs as any breed we choose to say the dog is or looks like. Many of us actually choose the dog based on how we think it looks to be a particular breed or type. Our society has acccepted that dogs or breeds can be identified by looks but when its goes against the dog and used to determine which dogs may be at higher risk of a particular behaviour we cry fowl. Some of us have been coming in when asked what breed do we think a dog is with a standard answer - cant tell - mostly because we saw exactly what is happening now happening in Queensland but then everyone gets bent out of shape because we are spoiling the guess the breed fun. Not able to see the bigger picture coming - which is the fact that its considered acceptable to ID a breed or part breed based on how we think a dog looks. So there is no point now in saying we dont want someone looking at our dogs and determining what breed they think is in the mix when identifying what breed they think has been in the mix has been part of their job description for years. A question for every dog which is found at large or surrendered or registered has been a box to fill in - what breed? Go and look at the petrescue site and see how many of them are not described as a breed or breed type. They win. Then here in the news forum this week we get a news story where some dogs got out and killed the neighbours dog and we fall over ourselves saying how its not possible to be 100% sure we can keep our dogs contained - we tell stories of trees falling on fences etc - that kinda blows out any arguments we want to present about it being an owner responsibility - so if we educate owners or be proactive and ensure people who own dogs have fencing and containment which suits their size and breed that no matter what we can keep our dogs home and not upsetting or worse anyone else in the community. Does this help an argument for not judging a dog on what if - when the intent of the government is keeping the community safe? No- we tell them they are right and no matter how hard we try shit will happen and dogs will get out - better ensure if the dogs get out they are small white fluffies then in case when they get out they eat children. They win. We have agreed that a method of identifying what breed of dog may be is if it has rego papers we cant now say that papers are not an acceptable method of determining that a dog is not a restricted breed. Vic dogs seem to have missed that the LEGISLATION talks about breed and breed types but the basis for registered purebreds of these tyupe of breeds to be let off the hook is the presumption that the breeders are breeding well temperamented dogs, they are placing them in well suited homes and even if its the same breed at the end of the day there is an assumed less risk. Thus you see editorials like this which place the blame on people who are breeding cranky cross breeds. If the Victorian government is going to concede that registered breeders are not policed and they dont breed better, healthier dogs which are placed in better homes then their whole system is shot to pieces .Registered breeders and Vic dogs members have been given financial discounts and exemptions based on this presumption - its not something thats going to be moved out now. Therefore accept it - Vic dog members are going to be given exemptions and be given the benefit of the doubt over anyone who is not or who has a dog bred by someone other than a Vic dogs member. It is not going to benefit them at all to be seen to be saying that there dogs are not better and using what ever argument they can to promote that - hell they have been doing it forever and animal welfare and animal rights have helped them. How do you fnd a puppy ? Why is a dog from a registered breeder better? Its too late to yell at peope like John Byson now. As a community we have promoted the fact that purebred dogs bred by registered breeders are better - whether that has been true or not its a fact that thi sis how its all been marketed. We [ MDBA ] argued against Mcgreevy's Lida DATA base because we said unless the dog had stud papers no one could determine what breed a dog was so even though we got no support for that via ANKC and Dogs NSW gave them 30000 to develop the data base which identified breeds based on how they looked and not papers what we argued then still stands - we dont believe you can determine what breed a dog is without stud papers no matter how it looks. So- If you can only identify what breed a dog is which has stud papers [ which appears to be the premise for the whole carry a card concept] then it shouldnt be a one sided benefit - if you cant identify what breed a dog is without the card or papers then you shouldnt be able to identify a dog with no card or no papers. If its not about the papers but rather about the type then ANKC registered dogs which are of the same type theoretically cannot be excluded. There fore we cant really yell too much about the fact that if someone has papers to help them protect their dogs, if they do all they can to use them to keep their dogs safe. If carrying cards to say your dog is a registered pedigreed purebred works good for them but we surely we can all see that if you can take a dog out because of its type or its assessed breed that card or not its still that type of breed and sooner or later the same restrictions HAVE to be placed on those with papers - because they are still the same type . If a dog needs a card to prove its bred by a registered breeder because it is so easily confused with dogs which are not at the end of the day anyone Identifying them as that type is off the hook. with or without the card. The point Im trying to make is that when we agree everyone in the whole world can look at a dog and guess the breed its a bit late to say that someone working on a set of breed criteria isnt able to do so. If we nag about the fact that its not possible now its going to take a hell of a lot of energy, money and a huge publicity push to even try and convice a part of the community . This is a wasted argument - it will not take us to where we want to go. Accept the fact that dogs will be judged by how they look and if they are bred by a purebred registered breeder and even if DNA can prove one of their parents is a maltese we are not going to win on this point. Accept that in at least 3 states registered purebred breeders are an integral part of an established relationship with government. Now we need to stand back and look at the politics within the dog world ,how things have come about and work out a relalistic strategy which wont take decades to see results. In order to gain any ground for the dogs we have to know these politics and work with that knowledge and right now Im afraid we are not.

If the breeder cannot trust you with an entire pup, I wouldn't give them the opportunity to take my money. Their reason for early desexing will be purely generated by self interest anyway, not for concern of the pup's future health and proper development. Geez its hard work being a breeder these days. Whilst I agree that early age desexing isnt the best way to go for numerous health reasons there has been a hell of a push on for breeders to do exactly that. Not because its self serving but because animal rights and animal welfare have very sucessful in pushing their propoganda and have breder believeing this is what should be done in order to prove they are responsible. You also have to understand that Breed specific legislaton is alive and well and this breed has also had more than its fair share of attention in this regard.peopel who take home puppies and have oops litters have the potential to not only have unwanted litters but to put dogs onthe ground which look like purebreds but which could damage the reputaion of the breed. So whilst I dont agree with breeders who do desex their puppies before they send them home I dont think its fair to say that its purely generated buy self interest Often breeders will have posted ontheir websites that they do desex and then they dont in order to ensure thiose apply for a pup understand they are going topet homes and not to be used for breeding- and there could be thousands of valid reasons which has bought the breeder to deciding puppies in a litter are not suitable for breeding.

has she had them all tested ? If so does she know the others arent affected? Is she putting any out which are carriers with breeding papers?

cant answer without more info. Depends what the disease is and what the pups will be used for. If they are not affected but go out for pets for example. However, in my opinion other breeders should be notified to enable them to add that into their knowledge base for their ability to profile pedigrees to try to dodge it.

Bastard.

most likely not but he has a point, why should breeders be the only ones required to health test and be at risk of being prosecuted if they sell a pup that ends up with a health problem? Basically because only breeders have a clue what to test for I guess. Rescue dont mate the dogs so cant test the parents and dont know who the father is even if they know who the mother is - what would they test the dogs for assuming of course that each dog sold is examined by a vet and cleared to be in good health. Perhaps this is what they meant and something has been lost inthe translation?????? Breeders in the main arent required to health test anyway - there are only a handful of breeds which have mandatory testing . Rescue are as accountable under consumer law as anyone else selling a dog. If it isnt fit for the purpose for which it is sold they have to refund, replace or repair. its interesting that many of the dogs which are now being seen to be un fit as pets and have extra requirements on them to enable people to be able to live - if they are able to live with them because they are pit bull types came from rescue. Perhaps if a class action was started against the RSPCA because they have sold them dogs which were unfit for the purpose for which they were purchased and or their breed was misrepresented BSL may get more people more eager to stand against it. It would appear to me that if I buy a dog from anyone or any rescue/ breeder as - say a staffy cross but council judge it other wise which restricts me in ways i wasnt expecting that someone should be accountable and someone should be asked to pay. As I said that may make animal rights groups, animal welfare groups etc become more interested in yelling louder about what is going on. Deathrow pets etc should be in bangng a drum like mad at the fact that lots of dogs that could be saved can no longer be saved and have to go to God because rescue will be held accountable if the dog grows into something which may resemble a pit bull type by some council ranger.

Looks to me to be a pretty narrow view and a bit shallow. Surely , honestly no one from the ANKC is really calling for RSPCA to health test dogs are they?

yep

My dogs are more than possessions to me. In my book, it's ok to rip out a car's radiator or a computer's hard drive, but not ok to pull out something from a dog's guts. I've met people who take on a second job to pay their vet bills. You don't do that for a mere possession. Slaves didn't have equal rights, but if I remember my history correctly, slaves have had some rights in many slave-holding societies. Saying dogs are more than chattels one is not signing on with the animal lib agenda. I think the very special place dogs have in many of our lives should give them a status higher than that of a possession. Sorry if they have a higher status than a possession it prevents me having the ability to own them - not acceptable. However, laws which are bought in to ensure they get basic care and attention or I loose my right to own them is good by me. That way we talk about my rights and not the dog's Same as Im able to drive a car on the raod if I ensure it is roadworthy and I follow road laws. Its neat I have a right and a responsibility to ensure I keep that right .

Happy Birthday Daisy.