Steve

Figures from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service show 5400 dog-export permits were granted last year, up from 4800 in 2009. At a guess Id say it will come down now our dollar is up and I havent done the figures but surely Australia wide just in what we export to other countries for breeding and or pets travelling to crufts etc and the ones that travel with their owners legitmately it has to be half that figure - then there is what McDougall Hawaii takes - last time I looked about 2000 a year. If these figures are true Id be interested in them comparing figures about 15 years ago when our dollar was down and figures quoted were much higher. Puppies cant get out of Australia unless they are chipped and vet checked by a certified aqis vet and there are very hard regs and laws in place to fly live animals on any airline leaving this country.How big the crate is, how many animals per crate, etc etc are all regulated - its not like they travel like cattle or sheep. I object to animals being sold including in litter lots to any pet shop whether it be here or in Hawaii but when you start getting into telling me that they are shipped too young or in poor conditions, un chipped or not vet checked I dont see how our systems allow that to happen.

When your papers are marked not for export all that means is that you can't send it overseas and get an ANKC export certificate transferring ownership of the animal onto the ANKC pedigree system. If you want to take it overseas or sell it to someone else overseas no one can stop you and you never have to tell aqis any onfo re pedigrees etc In other words all it stops is someone being able to take the dog overseas and having it accepted on some registries for showing or breeding. There are many overseas registries which accept limited register papers without a ANKC transfer straight onto their registry which allows them to show or breed registered puppies or breed cross bred or unregistered puppies. The breeder of the dog cannot dictate into the future what an owner will do with their property and the ANKC can only control what happens with their paperwork one of the main reasons that desexing contracts etc are not worth the paper they are written on. The MDBA was advised by the RSPCA that the export figures were not very high last July and based on the figures and knowing that many are being exported as loving pets its difficult to see that its something they should be saying this about.

It doesnt matter how many have submitted objections to it - they can only take into account those which are in the immediate area and will be personally affected - such as a neighbour who is worried about noise or smell etc. As soon as those objections are dealt with then they have the same rights to breed dogs as they would to breed chooks, cows, sheep, goats etc This was all researched and discussed when the application was first knocked back. Now they know where it is then they are obligated to operate under the mandatory codes for breeding dogs in the state of victoria which will mean that council and in the next few weeks the RSPCA is able to keep an eye on them and ensure they are doing the right thing by their animals. I have no doubt the people who tried to have it stopped will be watching them pretty closely too. Personally I see this as preferrable to someone who is simply breeding dogs and no one knows where they are or what they get up to. If you could see some of the things Pacers has walked into in suburbia where dogs have been treated in the most appalling manner by people who hide them in bedrooms etc then Im sure you too would feel its better for someone to do it by the book and be able to be held accountable along the way. Breeding dogs and earning a living from your property as long as you fit all council criteria is legal in this country and you cant expect that someone is going to be knocked back in case they muck something up or because someone or some group doesnt believe in people breeding puppies. While ever selling puppies in pet shops or anywhere else is legal you cant expect that any law will prevent you producing puppies for sale to wherever and whom ever you want to sell them to. Think it through if they were going to take that kind of approach then everything people might consider doing on their property or as a hobby or a business would be stopped from starting in case they muck it up. There is a much bigger picture here and if we want people to do the right thing and breed out in the open and therefore be more accountable than someone who is under the radar and doing it all really wrong then we cant justify beating hell out of anyone who dares to apply or less people who may have applied will apply.

Pacers will cover either a wage and or insurance. Anyone got an idea on where we can start to look. Jigsaw has offered help but is not able to help out for a few weeks and we would really rather have a hand before then if possible - so anyone inthis area or anyone who knows someone in this area who may be able to help out?

whew!

LOL that is likely true but we only have ourselves to blame for this situation, in my opinion. Now as I understand it, the total disease tracking system is not near complete yet. All dogs will soon have to be microchiped ANKC will have to collect the MC number on every dog ad link it to the dogs registration number. Vets will send the information linked to the dogs MC number. Uni collects all the registration records with MC number and downloads the vet records directly on to each dogs uni record. So only a disease for the dog with the KC MC number will be recorded for that dog, making it every accurate as far as tracking the ANKC dogs (Dx could be suspect however). But the real way this will be used to is to track the disease to the direct dogs in matings. Since they also are tracking the registration numbers of each dog to the MC number, they then can also track every pup back to it's parents, thereby tracking and recording any diseases the pups those parents have and can also link it back to grandparents. Here is the basis and data for the EBV system. They also can directly track each disease to each breeder BTW. As you may remember I was very vocally oppose to this on this forum and elsewhere, but no action has been taken and they system is slowing being put into place. so now I have to live with it and will make the best of it. So we have known for several years at least this was coming. Now I will just now have to make the most of it. I really an not worried as I follow all my pups closely so know what is going on with them. If there were any surprises then I would want to know anyway so this would bring them to my attention. Now all I can do is hope it helps me to breed better dogs. Well Im sorry Im not taking it on the chin.I dont reckon we should be as much to blame as other players in this game of diseases data base and what our dogs might suffer with. People who came at a topic with no objectivity and decided to go ahead and fix a problem they didnt really know much about because they chose to work without talking to the people they were bad mouthing If they had they would know that there was a glaring fault in their system - Purebred breeders only breed papered dogs and a dog that is called a breed isnt necessarily a dog we bred.

Well with this list for beagles Im going sticking with in breeding where none of this has been seen in over 30 years because if outcrossing puts my dogs at risk for any of that stuff it doesnt look like much fun to me.! Organ System Involved Cardiovascular Bundle branch block Factor VII Deficiency in Dog Factor VIII Deficiency Haemolytic Anaemia Haemophilia A Pulmonary stenosis Tetralogy of Fallot Ventricular septal defect Von Willebrand's disease Endocrine Hypothyroidism Lymphocytic thyroiditis Thyroiditis Gastrointestinal Allergies Hypercholesterolaemia Immune Immunoglobulin A deficiency in Dogs Integument Allergies Atopic dermatitis Cutaneous Asthenia Demodicosis Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Necrotizing panotitis Perianal gland tumor Sebaceous gland tumor Musculoskeletal Calcification of intervertebral discs Cleft lip Cleft Palate Multiple epiphyseal dysplasia Otocephalic syndrome Short tail Nervous/sensory Cataract Cataract with microphthalmia Corneal Dystrophy Distichiasis Epilepsy Eversion of nictitating membrane Gangliosidosis GM1 Glaucoma Globoid cell leukodystrophy Lysosomal Storage Disease Optic nerve hypoplasia, bilateral Persistent pupillary membrane Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA) (X-linked) Retinal dysplasia Respiratory Allergies Urogenital Amyloidosis Cancer, bladder Hermaphroditism Kidney aplasia, unilateral Mononephrosis Renal hypoplasia, bilateral

Bloody hell its no wornder every one is breeding them and wanting them! Just take their recommendations from the LIda data base :rofl:

Firsly I do not know if Chi have no eye disease in Australia or not, I am working off of Toy dogs information that the chi is not eye tested in this country and she is not aware of any eye disease. However in the UK, US, Canada, Sweeden, Norway, Finland, they either highly recommend or mandate eye certs for Chi. That is all I know. I think breeders need to proactive espcially right now and yes they should be able to prove their dogs are not sick if they are being accused by 'these' decisions makers. I do a DNA test on my dogs that I know they are negative on, because Kennel club people are working that some people might cheat on their pedigrees, so I have to be treated like I cheat too and cannot have more than one generation of Normal by parentage DNA results. And who is pushing this song and dance? Not 'these' decsions makers. But short step cant you see what you are saying? Surely you cant expect breeders should race around and get all of these tests done when they have no reason to because they havent seen it ? The beagle page has dozens and many Ive never even heard of being inthe breed let alone this country - why would I start to test my dogs for ALL of these things to prove they are healthy? If I saw it or I was alerted to it being a risk I will then be pro active but surely Ive misunderstood what you are saying and you dont expect a breeder to test for everything on the list in case when there is no reason other than a LIda data base to say there is even an in case?

Again. Forget purebred breeders working to make it accurate they should be yelling their bloody heads off about any of it being used to judge our breeds and what we do. We only breed 8 and a half thousand dogs a year australia wide and everyone else breeds a couple of hundred thousand how is the stats they collect on any dog that looks like our breeds going to help us and why should we have to make decisions in our breed based on what is happening outside of what we are doing? However, not much bloody chance of that when the ANKC gave em 30,000 bucks to fund it. Before you know it we will be told there is a prevalence of 10,000 and we only bred 1000

An anti breeder bandwagon instigated by them. The author of the most quoted article on anti purebreds and how cross breeds are MORE predictible is behind this data base.

In my breed all diseases it is accused of having it does have. We also as a breed have a very good history of testing for disease and doing research. both inside the kennel clubs and outside of the kennel clubs. Even though it took you to tell them to remove some?

We should perhaps be clear that this is a list of both congenital and hereditary conditions complied by LIDA. Some of the conditions are listed as a result of a vet seeing a dog in their clinic that the owner says is that breed and reporting the condition for the database. There is no indication in this list which are genetic and which are congenital as a result of (for example) one reporting. I will give an example: The listing of Vaginal Hyperplasia for Pyrenean Mountain Dog was the result of a vet seeing a puppy of that breed with a mild case of this condition (which later corrected as the pup grew) and reporting it to the database. All you need to do is send your evidence that the disease listed is not present in your breed and they will remove it, I know this because I have done it. So basically, they just list diseases for a breed with no proof If what you said is true and they'll remove a disease from a breed list if you show evidence it isn't present then what are they using for proof it is present in the first place? If they are using data from vets and the owner is the one reporting breed then that is very scary because a lot of people report their crossbred is a purebred or it is from a farm or BYBer who doesn't care about health. Surely you can see why this data you are relying on is suspect. I'll say it again, you must have missed it, It was basically accurte for my breed, I am sorry if it is really misleading for your breed. It seems that any thing that was not accurate was corrected. I sugest if your breed has information you disagree with that you contact them directly and have it fixed. Also incase you thought that I sugested this system to the Uni, I had nothing to do with. But since they are now using it and most vets in the country will soon if not already be downloading in to it and it will be used in part fo EBV which could directly affect the choice of breeding pairs, and other issued concerning disease in pedigree dogs, I think it is is every breeders best interest to not just complain about it but work to make it accurate. But certainly others can have their own opinion on how best to deal with this database. Crap how can we work to make it accurate when the data collected is on any dog that looks like our breeds and regardless of how or who they are bred. Forget purebred breeders working to make it accurate they should be yelling their bloody heads off about any of it being used to judge our breeds and what we do.

Yep yep yep.

Its not just supsect data it gives a perception that purebred dog breeds are much less healthy with many more diseases than they actually have . Guilty until proven innocent so to speak. Good enough to get a good PDE show though and funding for a mickey mouse data base.

We should perhaps be clear that this is a list of both congenital and hereditary conditions complied by LIDA. Some of the conditions are listed as a result of a vet seeing a dog in their clinic that the owner says is that breed and reporting the condition for the database. There is no indication in this list which are genetic and which are congenital as a result of (for example) one reporting. I will give an example: The listing of Vaginal Hyperplasia for Pyrenean Mountain Dog was the result of a vet seeing a puppy of that breed with a mild case of this condition (which later corrected as the pup grew) and reporting it to the database. All you need to do is send your evidence that the disease listed is not present in your breed and they will remove it, I know this because I have done it. So basically, they just list diseases for a breed with no proof If what you said is true and they'll remove a disease from a breed list if you show evidence it isn't present then what are they using for proof it is present in the first place? If they are using data from vets and the owner is the one reporting breed then that is very scary because a lot of people report their crossbred is a purebred or it is from a farm or BYBer who doesn't care about health. Surely you can see why this data you are relying on is suspect. Yep and why its such a disgrace that the purebred dog group Dogs NSW gave them 30,000 bucks with no sign what ever that it will do purebred dogs a scrap of good while ever its up to a vet to describe the breed and and who bred them is never part of the data.

The list was taken from an American animal rights data base and the gaping big hole in all of this is that even they admit no one has a clue about how prevalent they are or if its even in the purbred population any where let alone Australia. Whats more the way they intend to proceeed to collect that data it wont tell us jack shit about our purebred dogs anyway.

He doesnt need lots of time off the tether and he should not touch the chook at all ever. This is what you have to correct him with - dont ever let him touch the chooks..

i dont know why a breed standard has to be so open to individual interpretation. cant really fathom that at all, some say for eg. moderately short nose, so what is moderately short nose. ours for instance says, weight can be from 2-6 lbs with a preference being 4-6 lbs. no height specifications at all so a dog can be quite tall and still be within weight range. so some people who are enquring about pups ask for height measurements. i dont' know why that can't be included in the standard and other breed standards as well. pretty vague really isn't it. Yep exactly - when you say words like moderately, long , short, etc people see longer, more moderate or shorter as better - depending on the judge. We need ratios - this bit should equal this bit etc Take a look at the basset ears set low has seen them set lower and lower and lower - they should have said where they should sit in comparison with the eye level or similar so everyone didnt keep going for lower set. We rely on this in the breed critiques but even then who is writing the critiques and we shouldnt need a critique - its should be clear to everyone .

And none of these tests will tell you if a dog can get pregnant on its own, if it can maintain a pregnancy without help, if it can free whelp , if it can mother effectively. And how do they get to have it both ways On one hand they want more genes, less inbreeding so the recessives are not clustered in breeds but spread around and as that happens we know what to test for less and less and checking for one disease which is known in the breed might still mean there are several which havent or cant be tested for been tested for. Will we also require that dogs competing in agility have to do the same tests, or competing in working trials etc. whats the difference? If we are judging a dog on agility or obedience thats all we are judging it on so why would we judge a dog on anything other than conformation in a conformation ring? We need the breed standards re written so they are less open to interpretation and we need judges who can effectively judge on that standard. Then we say as we do now the dog is judged on the day for how it conforms to the breed standard and if thats important to us when we choose a mate we take that into account but its only one of the things we need to take into account. The show ring is to judge the dog thats entered against its breed standard - thats what it always has been and in my opinion all it ever should be and if the KC simply said that and worked at breed standard interpretations life would be much simpler when we defend ourselves.

no i meant test for known and common genetic problems within a breed to make sure they are healthy examples before they enter the showring. that would be ability and there would be other areas to test all that out some clubs hold not only confirmation shows but tracking shows or other sports in conjunction like GR's. the ANKC is not all about dog shows there a whole range of other events for dogs as well. But how do you do that when many genetic diseases have no tests and others show clear one minute and there the next - whats the point? All you can do is hope the breeder gets this info before they decide to mate the thing. Even harder if they open stud books and there are more less common diseases. For things like gait etc and other things a judge can see is clearly an issue with the naked eye - thats very much needed but asking a judge to be able to examine a dog the way a qualified vet does or for an evaluation of a whole pile of test results etc before a dog can be entered or get an award would be a nightmare logistically. If we just accept that the conformation ring only judges conformation and how a dog stacks up against a breed standard then we can go off and get other qualifications for the dogs before breeding with it etc. At the end of the day the show ring cant make the final dicisions its the breeders and they need as much info as they can get when they are about to mate the dog not go by a qualification made years earlier when it was awarded.

HD scores are not included on ANKC pedigrees I think in the main the conformation ring should only evaluate a dog on a breed standard - the breed standard needs to be better written so ears set low doesnt mean its so low it drags the face down and causes ear canal and eye problems etc so exactly where the ear needs to sit needs to be set in concrete so when its judged its not up to how a judge interpreted it but rather what it needs to be for the thing to be healthy. if you want to test it for scenting etc then you do that via another venue and if thats important to what you are selecting for you can take that into account but to have all bassets having to pass some test for scenting to win a conformation show doesnt warm me much.

We dont - thats why we started the MDBA. But that example is as much due to the system as the breeders who bred them . If the goal is to win a championship and a certain look - an extreme is winning it makes people who havent got the whole big picture breed for their goal - a winning dog. if someone says Im not going to show my dogs because I think what is winning is not good for the breed we belt the hell out of them.

Short step - Good example - but that is a prime reason why breed standards need to be re worded and when I talk of health issues not being able to be judged at a conformation show Im not talking about the ones a judge can see on the day and should not award. That photo is 100 % about the breed standard and that's what the judge should be accountable for. If the KC needs to put up their hand and be accountable for that - no denying it from me but when people call on a judge to be judging things other than the breed standard it wont and cant work.. Dog shows are intended to judge dogs based on the breed standard and thats all they should be judged on in that venue. That sure as hell should have the judges responsible for letting that dog win be held accounatble and kicked in the bum.

no need to jump all over you. I agree that is a very good idea and hopefully it may work. it all depends on how many breeders or pet owners for instance, log patella scores. I've been stating this very thing since i started research into this genetic problem for many years. I would love to see some sort of a recording registry going on so we can all use the information to our own advantages. but by the same token if you are any kind of a caring ethical breeder, you'd be doing your own recording system yourself. i.e. tracking dogs you bred their patella scores jotting it down, on limit as a pet or not it makes no difference. Well i do that anyway! its the only defence i have against this genetic problem. but there are so many not doing this, don't care not interested its not funny. i once did up a patella certificate and presented it to a few clubs to ask if breeders would be intersted in using them to grade their dogs and have some sort of a recording system. do you know i only got 2 people interested. i continue to do this on my own. so thats very good what you are proposing there, im all for it. i just hope that many will want to use it judging by the response i got........yeah. But you see as it stands in order for people to access that really important info that you have on dogs in your lines its been reliant of word of mouth or you offering it to a select group and them seeing it as important as what it is .Some breeders have even told lies in order for it all to be kept secret. If its entered onto a system which everyone can access when they come to profiling their pedigrees then it can be used for the true betterment of the breed by everyone. We can see patterns on a much wider base line and the info is avilable for ever not just while you are around. the reason we have invited those who have limited register dogs etc to add the info is because we know that if we only rely on breeders we wont have enough info to do what the system is capable of. but for us this is a preferable method of tracking genetic or heritable issues in dogs we breed. We tried surveys and found that many breeders tell lies and so that info is not reliable and we look at the system propsed by Sydney uni and its not going to tell any stories about the dogs WE breed so for us this is the best we can see for our breeds into the future. yes, you are 100% right, as my brother quoted and he is not in the dogworld at all, just has two GR's as pets that a purebred one is a reg. pedigree and one is a rescue from a puppy farm found wandering down a busy road one day - he said, it seems to him the systems they have in place in the purebred registry is one big honor system. lol and i can't really dispute that. IT IS. and yes, at times i've come across big secrets but i believe and many now believe its time to start being honest with each other and themselves and it seems to be getting through TO SOME EXTENT but we still have a long way to go. this is why when i first came out and stated based on my experience 6-7 years ago that PL is very rampant in some toy breeds simply because not enough of us are honest with ourselves and each other, that caused quite a stir!! Yes but being honest with only a selective few rather than for everyone who comes behind us for ever is a long way apart. I believe that the pedigree system if used correctly is the very best tool we will ever have to be able to select breeding dogs which are for the true betterment of the breed - where show dogs and working dogs and sick dogs and healthy dogs can all be considered when we select.