Steve

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...p;#entry4897411 Recommendation as requested Written by AmandaJ on 21/10/10 Quote Go to the Mater Dog Breeders site - their Certificate courses are fantastic. I've learned far more from them than I have from any breeder. My mother used to breed and she's astounded at the stuff I'm learning. End Quote AmandaJ received a distinction in our Introduction to Canine Breeding and Parasitology courses - She was last Years MDBA student of the Year in the Dog Owners Choice Awards.

I would take a house sitter hands down every time over a boarding kennel.

Stonebridge this isnt about the breed - its about the fact that you cant seem to get that just because someone isnt breeding to win a championship they may still be doing something good for the breed - and you're saying it in public It might be time you tested and challenged your point of view. Steve where in my posts have I said that they ARENT doing something good for the breed. I havent. But then again I also havent said that they are doing something good for the breed either. Point it out please cause I cant find it. Who says that they are doing anything constructive for the breed by supplying just the pet market. I do not agree that people should be breeding JUST to supply the pet market. If that is what you mean by the above and that is why you are breeding then that is up to you. In my own breed back in the early years and still today there are many examples(yes I have seen lots) which do not make it to the show ring but they are healthy and structurely sound. But how do you know anyone breeds a dog JUST to supply the pet market ? What is so terrible about someone breeding dogs primarily as pets as long as they cover the standards,the health etc in comparison to someone who is breeding primarily for a show dog who is also covering it all ? Either one can muck it up. Why do we assume that because some one chooses to go one way or the other that they are doing a worse job of ensuring the well being of the breed than someone else? Dont you see that if you tell everyone how people who breed just for pets suck and if the others tell people that those who breed dogs for the show ring suck that there is a no win there especially in the current anti purebred climate. It separates and causes wars between people who should be on the same side.

Big list of complaits about breeders not living up to your standards. I am sad you think so poorly of close to a million working border collies, their owners and breeders world wide, who do not breed to a physical show standard. The standard for these dogs is the work. I am sorry that you can not accept that different people have different dog breeding beliefs, and that does not make them or their dogs of lessor value. Please know that if 'they' come to shut down show breeders, I will be fighting for your rights to breed your dogs the way you want to breed them, even though you do not give others that same respect. A breeds standard is not a show standard.....If a working dog is not bred to a standard how then is it able to work....they need to be structually bred to a standard which enables them to do the work/function. Also dont generalize with the word "show breeders"....I dont breed shows....I breed Pugs and keep the best of the litter for myself to exhibit and sell pet puppies of the highest quality. There are a hell of a lot of very good working dogs around here that go no where near a standard - Not looking like they are supposed to according to an ANKC standard doesnt appear to prevent them doing what they need to do. Some of the biggest and most prestigious working dog registries in the world have no conformation standard. Some will never allow a dog which has won a show championship to be registered with them. When you step back from the ANKC propoganda and mythology there is a whole other world of dog breeding out there and they are just as sure we get it wrong as you are that they do.

Actually I am not chucking any stones Steve. I have no reason to. I have merely stated my point of view based on 30 years of owning this breed. Stonebridge this isnt about the breed - its about the fact that you cant seem to get that just because someone isnt breeding to win a championship they may still be doing something good for the breed - and you're saying it in public It might be time you tested and challenged your point of view.

They cant reproduce with out help stonebridge - very few of them can free whelp. You had better stop chucking stones because your glass house is shaky.

Well bugger me shortstep. You say any animal. How about a human giving birth. I had to have a caesarian when I gave birth to my daughter because I didnt have a wide enough pelvic area to give birth to her naturally. Any more children and they would of had to be born caesar as well. She in turn gave birth to her daughter naturally. Does this mean I am not fit for function? Thousands upon thousands of humans either can not conceive naturally or give birth naturally. Some people just shouldnt breed in the first place. Some people have severe disformaties yet they still have children. What? Surely you're joking right?

http://www.mdba.net.au/shop.html?page=shop...p;category_id=8

Big list of complaits about breeders not living up to your standards. I am sad you think so poorly of close to a million working border collies, their owners and breeders world wide, who do not breed to a physical show standard. The standard for these dogs is the work. I am sorry that you can not accept that different people have different dog breeding beliefs, and that does not make them or their dogs of lessor value. Please know that if 'they' come to shut down show breeders, I will be fighting for your rights to breed your dogs the way you want to breed them, even though you do not give others that same respect. Dont be sorry for me shortstep Funny thing is I am all for breeding to the standard. Standards were written up with form and function in mind. It is the breeders who have changed the dogs and then wanted to change standards to suit the dogs they were breeding. Standards werent just written up for fun you know I dont think poorly of a million working border collies. The show standard should also be the working standard. Get my drift yet? I doubt you will be fighting for my rights Shortstep. I wouldnt want you to. I actually have alot of respect for certain people and none for others. Is that not OK? Yeah but who's interpretation of the standard bought the breed to a point where it cant reproduce without help?

I would hope that breeders are not just selecting ONE thing to improve on in their breeding programme, for it is fearful that they will definetely lose sight of other aspects that are just as important. For example. a British Bulldog breeder who has decided that they must have free whelping bitches. With incoprorating solely that in their breeding programme they may lose sight of other important aspects in what makes the Bulldog unique. I am not saying that free whelping shouldnt happen. But to lose sight of what makes the Bulldog a Bulldog just because THEY want a free whelper is wrong. There is more to it than just this. This is just a drop in the ocean and I am not going into the Bulldog breed in depth on this thread. I have seen some changes in some Bulldog breeders programmes in the last 30 years that have simply made me cry. Because in alot of cases it is all about the mighty dollar. In my post I said I would have more respect for those breeders who produce a good healthy show quality dog. I didnt say that the dog had to make it to the show ring. Many of our puppy people have never shown their dogs, but structually they(the dogs) are sound and healthy. I care whether people breed for the sake of the breed or if they breed to line their pockets. Maybe that is because I am old school and am not money hungry. In this day and age am I in the minority? But they dont want a free whelper for themselves they want a free whelper because they believe its in the best interests of the breed. Why is the discussion back on the money? How do you know that's all a breeder is going after ? Some maybe but lots of them are going after goals which they feel are just as important and valid as yours are to you. Why cant a breeder who breeds but doesnt show their dog not be capable of breeding structurally sound healthy dogs ? It is the personal definition of for the sake of the breed which is variable but if a person who breeds dogs primarily for the show ring wants the benefit of the doubt and be seen to be caring about the rest of the dog and not just how it looks then they will need to do the same for others. If you want someone to believe you are caring as much for the dogs and the breed as you are for winning then why is it so difficult for you to be able to do the same for them?

There are many many good breeders out there Aphra who do not breed often. Many of these breeders are now down sizing because of various other commitments in life. It doesnt make them less of a breeder because they do not own x amount of dogs. The gene pool in alot of breeds these days is quite extensive and now with adding frozen semen it is almost endless. Conformation is not the only way to judge the rightness of a dog, that is true. But in my opinion it makes up a huge portion of why breeders do what they do. We must never loose sight of our Breed Standards, ever, for these are the Blueprints of our breeds. On the other hand many breeders do not show but breed solely because there are puppy buyers out there who want a dog for their family. They may have x amount of dogs. They may produce x amount of litters, because they want to. Many breeders health test their dogs to some extent. Just because breeders health test but do not show, does not necessarily mean that they are breeding for the betterment of their breed in regards to the Standard. Some breeders hardly give the standard a second glance when breeding. And that goes for people who have working dogs as well. Some breeders do not extensively health test. But that also is not to say that they are doing their breeds an injustice. It may be that their breed does not need to have alot of testing done. Good purebreed breeders should be concentrating on type, temperament and soundness though. No matter what they breed. I would have more respect for those breeders who breed pedigree registered dogs firstly for themselves, to try to produce a good healthy show quality, dog than those who produce almost exclusively for the puppy buying market. eta in bold Of course it doesnt make them less of a breeder because they dont own X amount of dogs - but itdoesnt make them automatically better either and thats exactly how having less is promoted. Who is to say that breeding 100 champions in one persons breeding career is better than placing 100 healthy happy pet puppies who are good examples of the breed. Who is to say the pet puppy couldnt be shown and win or that the champion isnt well suited as a pet? Who is to say that when someone runs a dog around a ring in front of a limited audience that its is a better judgement on how the dog looks and moves than the one that walks on a lead around a city ?

definitely 100% purebred breeders on the whole should be breeding to the standard when they can and it doesnt mean they have to compromise on health. The one thing that makes a purebred dog different to any other dog is that we can say what its going to look like -example a lab x poodle can have 69 different coat combinations a purebred only has one. We can therefore predict that if I dont want to live with a dog which requires huge amounts of grooming which breeds should be eliminated if both the dog and myself are going to have a greater chance at living happily ever after. If we let that slip and dont select for the standard - the phenotype or the way the dog looks and the way the breed typically behaves then we will - over several generations loose that. But breeding for the betterment of the breed can be many things to different people yet the assumption has become if you dont show you dont care how the dog looks, yet how the dog looks has changed and the show breeders are responsible for this every bit as much if not more than any BYB is. It is the accusation that animals have been selected for extremes which has bought down the wrath of PDE. If I breed for a couple of generations and select for one thing which I believe is in the breed's best interest and - say I bring down the incidence of what is a high rate of C sections in the breed, or if I select for a couple of generations for nothing else except DNA cleared dogs of a certain known genetic disease in that breed why would a breeder who breeds for what they feel is for the betterment of the breed - champions - assume that what they do is more important or more valid for the betterment of the breed than someone who breeds for different goals? Why is it assumed one doesnt have the same motivation as the other - what is best for the breed and what is best for the dogs? Why do we have to beat hell out of each other and not respect what each does and work together? No group can happily go along bagging out any other or any breeder in particular because you cant assume what or why they breed dogs or that you are the only ones who can get it right - that your goals are the only ones which are valid especially when there are a hell of a lot of the other groups yelling about how you get it more wrong than they do. example x 2 Wheatens have the most horrible genetic disease and any one who can work out how to rub it out is going to be doing whats best for the breed way over and above anyone who breeds 1000 champion Wheatens. Cavs have high incidence of heart valve disease - those breeders who can eliminate this from their breeding dogs and make them available for other breeders to use and improve the health of the breed will be heroes in my opinion and I dont care whether they show or not or if they make a million bucks off selling their puppies to pet homes.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it has something to do with their organs etc working harder due to their size? Being the 'extreme' of their species, things wear out quicker? They start of small and grow rapidly to a size much bigger than they started - perhaps that's somehow relevant? But then with that theory, it doesn't make sense as to why larger parrots live longer than smaller parrots. It is weird, because typically in mammals it's the other way around. Smaller mammals have shorter lifespans, and it has to do with a faster metabolism. Though there's no causal relationship between size and lifespan in mammals, there are direct correlations. (The mammals with the shortest lifespan are also the smallest). From a brief search, I was unable to find any information about why big dogs seem to have shorter lifespans, with the only theories being that the increased strain on their organs and joints leads to an early grave. This doesn't make sense to me, because wild dogs in captivity can live just as long, and they tend to be large. To me this suggests that it had something to do with the development of the breeds by man. This is probably totally out there but... Perhaps because typically larger dogs were kept for working and smaller dogs were kept for companionship, and younger dogs (1-6) were more useful working dogs than the older ones (7+) they never worried about how long they lived after that, or it was a lesser factor? Thats funny I dont remember seeing very many tall old men

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker. Yes but there is a difference between not supporting them because we dont agree with their assumed motivation or where they sell their puppies or if their philosophies are different to ours and fighting a war about it. No one is saying if they are breeding dogs in rotten conditions that we should not say so and work against this. Stand back from this a minute and look at it objectively. On this forum there is a consensus that breeding ANKC registered purebreds dogs is the preferred method of producing a puppy and there is a bunch of assumptions which go along with that. The reality is that the only thing that a registered purebred breeder HAS to do and CAN do which is any different to any other person who allows two dogs to mate is that they can register the birth details on one particular registry unless they breed a select few breeds which have to be scored or screened for specific things before the puppies can be registered. However, even if I have to score or screen thats no guarantee I only use dogs with low scores or that I will breed unaffected puppies. Except in Victoria if I know the status of my dog's DNA I can still breed carriers or affected dogs to anything I want. Any argument we want to put forward and tell people about why buying a registered purebred puppy is better can be squashed except that they are more predictible and there is a greater chance of knowing the ancestry of the parents. None of what Im about to say relates to any breeder who doesnt treat their animals as they should be treated. Lets look at the things that most people on this forum have come to expect from purebred breeders. Where tests are available for a known recessive issue in the breed breeders can test for that - but even though its not politically correct here to say so - if I were breeding first cross dogs I could test for the same things if the issues are known in the 2 breeds Im breeding or not need to test if the issue is only known in one of the breeds. Is it more likely that a purebred breeder will test for these known recessive disorders which have tests available ? Probably but I promise you there are in my opinion, only a minority of breeders who do test even when they can. Even if they do test for the things which they are able to test for there is no guarantee that the dog wont get something which hasnt been able to be tested for or for things which show up even if the parents are tested and selected to try to avoid it such as HD. Some breeders know their parent dogs have produced puppies with problems but still continue to use them to breed with regardless of whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred dogs. Then there is much talk about how registered purebred breeders are better than any other if they test their dogs against the standard and other dogs of their breed by showing their dogs.This has become more of an issue than it was 30 years ago because registered purebred breeders who show their dogs now worry about who will take their dogs and breed them and they have become restrictive on who can take a pup with papers suitable for breeding - unless the buyer is going to be led by them, sign all manner of restrictive contracts and do what the breeders tell them to do its become almost impossible to buy a good puppy which the breeder would feel is good for breeding.So now anyone who wants to buy a papered dog which they may want tohave a litter with has to go to someone who doesnt really understand the importance of the whole selection for breeding stuff. If I wanted to buy a purebred puppy 30 years ago and I told the breeder I might want to breed a litter or two later on the breeder sold me a pup which wouldn't do the breed any harm if I used it for breeding and offered to give a hand finding a stud dog if I did decide to do that when the time came. It didnt matter that much if they didnt show the dog because it had good stuff behind it and it was one which had as much chance of winning as any the breeder kept to show. You may not get litter pick but you got a good representative of the breed which wasnt likely to have too much risk for genetic diseases. I might even buy my own male but I could tell the breeder what I had and that I might want to breed so they would sell me a male which I could put with my bitch and not do the breed any harm. Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed. Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals. Now they are low life puppy farmers -after all isnt it now a medal of honour to only breed a litter every couple of years and only for yourself? 30 years ago these people were seen as those who were less serious about the hobby and not regarded as being more knowledgeable or more elevated in status than someone who really put their lives and resources into the betterment of the breed by owning and breeding more not less dogs. Yet here, as soon as the discussion started, the assumption is that anyone who agreed with the basis of the article were wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder and support people who were treating animals poorly. Thats not what I got out of it at all. I saw it saying stop bagging each other out and rather than follow on like sheep re assess what you have come to believe are characteristics of a person who breeds dogs well just because they happen to be in one group or another which has been promoted as being something it probably isnt. Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better. And :D again! I did not breed in my younger days because I thought there were people more qualified and dedicated than myself. I only wanted a good dog as a companion and nothing to detract from that relationship.I could not be a show person.Wrong temperament.I thought I would have to show to be any good as a breeder. I came to regret that decision when the breed of my choice took a different direction to my own ideals. What I wanted in my dogs could no longer be found. Who is to say my ideals are wrong? When fads in the ring lead to unforseen problems down the track,the gene pool is too small to correct them easily or maybe at all the way things stand. Even uniformity of type can be taken too far.With too narrow a gene pool you might as well just clone. Exactly - take a look at how people like padgett advise for us to go about correcting genetic issues when they crop up and how much better and easier it is to do that if we have more dogs in our own yard to choose form and either take out or keep in our breeding programs - a breeder having more than average numbers of dogs is a good thing. A breeder who breeds often rather than spasmodically IS potentially doing much more for a breed and the dogs into the future. Yet anyone who does this regardless of whether they show or not is branded and castigated. Its assumed they cant look after them, that they keep them in rotten conditions and that they have only making money as their motivation for what they do. The yell for testing is deafening - and definitely there are some things which are in high incidence and for which tests are available which should be tested for but the propoganda has bought people who are looking at buying a puppy to us in the belief that we are somehow demi gods who can prevent or take responsibility for everything known to man - th eminute anything shows up we are likely to be flogged all over town and predominately by other breeders. The whole concept that no amount of ANYTHING especially in polygenic disorders will prevent any one of us from breeding a pup which might show a problem seems to be forgotten. We are pressured into taking responsibility for things we have no control over , covering irresponsible owners , not advertising in "those places" having our dogs sleep on satin pillow cases,and keeping them even if its better for them to be placed in family homes when we no longer need them for breeding. We have laws and regs introduced which contradict the known science of the husbandry and reproductive cycles of the species - which no one really knows where it came from but its sucked in our CCs in their quest for good PR and even our law makers. We are spoken of worse than crimminals because we line breed yet thats what purebred breeding is. Every other purebred domestic animal breeder is able to make their own decisions on what mates to choose in a breeding except dog breeders! Popular sires are cursed yet its O.K. to put a ram over 500 ewes even if every one of them is his daughter. They have gotten to us too. We judge each other in the belief that what they have fed us is true - younger or newer breeders bang their drum based on animal rights propoganda rather than facts and science and older breeders know its crap and give up and walk away. Its time to stop.

I dont remember the last time one of my dogs died before the age of 15 unless it was a snake bite or similar. Its nothing for my beagles and corgis to live late teens and the oldest Maremma I have here is 14 too. I havent bred all of them and while some are related many are not. Matilda died in her sleep at almost 22. I attribute that to many things as well as selection. Their diet, exercise, exposure to chemicals and stressors,even the geography of where they live etc When you see a breed such as the neo's with an average life span of about 5 years you have to say its time this was looked at and I know one breeder who has been working like mad to select for dogs with an increased life span in this breed who is doing a great job and in that kennel its now way over the breed average and gets better every generation. Not so hard to see when its a very short life span you are watching but quite a task as the lifespan increases.

So what happens when you cross a dog with a short nose with one with a long nose?

Sounds like a timing issue to me.

O.K. This is the last call for these badges orders are going off to the printer first thing Monday morning in order for them to be back in time for the awards. Going going going ...............................

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker. Yes but there is a difference between not supporting them because we dont agree with their assumed motivation or where they sell their puppies or if their philosophies are different to ours and fighting a war about it. No one is saying if they are breeding dogs in rotten conditions that we should not say so and work against this. Stand back from this a minute and look at it objectively. On this forum there is a consensus that breeding ANKC registered purebreds dogs is the preferred method of producing a puppy and there is a bunch of assumptions which go along with that. The reality is that the only thing that a registered purebred breeder HAS to do and CAN do which is any different to any other person who allows two dogs to mate is that they can register the birth details on one particular registry unless they breed a select few breeds which have to be scored or screened for specific things before the puppies can be registered. However, even if I have to score or screen thats no guarantee I only use dogs with low scores or that I will breed unaffected puppies. Except in Victoria if I know the status of my dog's DNA I can still breed carriers or affected dogs to anything I want. Any argument we want to put forward and tell people about why buying a registered purebred puppy is better can be squashed except that they are more predictible and there is a greater chance of knowing the ancestry of the parents. None of what Im about to say relates to any breeder who doesnt treat their animals as they should be treated. Lets look at the things that most people on this forum have come to expect from purebred breeders. Where tests are available for a known recessive issue in the breed breeders can test for that - but even though its not politically correct here to say so - if I were breeding first cross dogs I could test for the same things if the issues are known in the 2 breeds Im breeding or not need to test if the issue is only known in one of the breeds. Is it more likely that a purebred breeder will test for these known recessive disorders which have tests available ? Probably but I promise you there are in my opinion, only a minority of breeders who do test even when they can. Even if they do test for the things which they are able to test for there is no guarantee that the dog wont get something which hasnt been able to be tested for or for things which show up even if the parents are tested and selected to try to avoid it such as HD. Some breeders know their parent dogs have produced puppies with problems but still continue to use them to breed with regardless of whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred dogs. Then there is much talk about how registered purebred breeders are better than any other if they test their dogs against the standard and other dogs of their breed by showing their dogs.This has become more of an issue than it was 30 years ago because registered purebred breeders who show their dogs now worry about who will take their dogs and breed them and they have become restrictive on who can take a pup with papers suitable for breeding - unless the buyer is going to be led by them, sign all manner of restrictive contracts and do what the breeders tell them to do its become almost impossible to buy a good puppy which the breeder would feel is good for breeding.So now anyone who wants to buy a papered dog which they may want tohave a litter with has to go to someone who doesnt really understand the importance of the whole selection for breeding stuff. If I wanted to buy a purebred puppy 30 years ago and I told the breeder I might want to breed a litter or two later on the breeder sold me a pup which wouldn't do the breed any harm if I used it for breeding and offered to give a hand finding a stud dog if I did decide to do that when the time came. It didnt matter that much if they didnt show the dog because it had good stuff behind it and it was one which had as much chance of winning as any the breeder kept to show. You may not get litter pick but you got a good representative of the breed which wasnt likely to have too much risk for genetic diseases. I might even buy my own male but I could tell the breeder what I had and that I might want to breed so they would sell me a male which I could put with my bitch and not do the breed any harm. Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed. Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals. Now they are low life puppy farmers -after all isnt it now a medal of honour to only breed a litter every couple of years and only for yourself? 30 years ago these people were seen as those who were less serious about the hobby and not regarded as being more knowledgeable or more elevated in status than someone who really put their lives and resources into the betterment of the breed by owning and breeding more not less dogs. Yet here, as soon as the discussion started, the assumption is that anyone who agreed with the basis of the article were wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder and support people who were treating animals poorly. Thats not what I got out of it at all. I saw it saying stop bagging each other out and rather than follow on like sheep re assess what you have come to believe are characteristics of a person who breeds dogs well just because they happen to be in one group or another which has been promoted as being something it probably isnt. Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

Thanks guys Im trying for the Sudney area as the owner is at Neutral Bay and the dogs will be at Richmond but will fall back if we need you.

can anyone care for the cat?

Marian - at http://www.fitfurlife-australia.com/ Fit Fur Life is your best place to start.

O.K. Pax has come to the rescue as is able to take all three - and she has agreed to let the owner come and visit Thank you to everyone who said they would give a hand - its very much appreciated but being able to keep them relatively local and all together is something that has the owner jumping for joy and its a good out come. Next the same owner also has a 9 year old cat. Gets on with dogs , is affectionate and healthy,sleeps most of the day and is very easy going. She has been an indoor cat all her life so probably someone who can give her this for 12 weeks would be best. If someone could fit in this cat to help out that would be great. All expenses paid by Pacers.

From all accounts these little guys are pretty bomb proof.

Do you think that laws will discrimminate and define what is a good or bad breeder the way you define them? Will they determine that if you show your dogs and breed only purebred dogs once every couple of years that you will be treated any differently than any other breeder? I dont want to stand shoulder to shoulder with breeders who I believe are dodgy or even may be dodgy according to what I think a good breeder should do and its why the MDBA was started - because many of us didnt want to be seen to be in the same pond - but that doesnt mean that I think we should be fighting the hell out of each other so we are always a fragmented minority group and we never have a voice when its needed to protect ourselves and our dogs. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with most people or groups if I thought the end would justify the means and when we have gone in to say our peace we have defended breeders rights and dog owners rights as a whole even though we know some of them are not doing the right thing according to our codes and they are not our members. I saw registered purebred breeders stand shoulder to shoulder with animal liberation and call for more laws against breeders . Hardly much of an argument left is there in the who will stand shoulder to shoulder with who department.