Steve

Do you really believe that? Where will the police, customs, guide dogs, assistance dogs etc source their dogs from? OK I will play the Why game. Why do these sorts of jobs require purebred dogs over cross bred desigener dogs made for these jobs, or even better why not dogs selected from the animal shelter? Why do we as selfish humans inslave any dog purebred or not purebred, to do these jobs? That is what animal rights groups would answer to your WHY. Why do people think that you can have animal rights groups and the government direct and manage how dogs are to be bred and anyone in their right mind would want to step into that no win situation? These sort of jobs have a strict criteria- physical and mental. They need dogs that have a proven history of success and certain temperament traits. They also require a specific size of dog (for police and guide dogs) and many need to very sensitive puppy-raising period, in order to get the best out of the dog. You can't get these from cross bred dogs or shelter dogs. Is it not more selfish to let humans suffer without the aid of an assistance dog? Many of these dogs are also loving companions for their handlers and enjoy their work. But who is going to bred them?

Best Friends Holiday Retreat Raffle [/font] [font=-->It has been especially designed for people travelling with their dogs.[/font] Located less than three hours east of Melbourne and only 3 km from the magnificent Tarra-Bulga National Park, they are located in lush rainforest surroundings adjacent to an all-year-round waterfall and a natural rock-formed swimming pool. All this and yet only a mere 25 minutes drive from the beach![/font] First Prize [/font] [font=--> Total prize value is $500. [/font] Second Prize [/font] [font=-->Total Prize value is $100 Drawn at 10pm at the MDBA Dog Owners Choice Awards Presentation at the Jika International in Melbourne on the 19th of March 2011 tickets available here - scroll down to bottom od page. [/font]

Fixed your website and the category name .

10

Yep or women who work in the same office.

Wow! Thank You Thank You. Of course all proceeds will go to Pacers - Thank You ! Ill contact you tomorrow so we can get something up on both websites for you and include it in the program [have to be quick] or the lady doing the program will turn into a pit bull. Thank You Julie

Jed Why? Who, how and when will they be taken away? I think you are underestimating the Environmental Imperative that is now facing us. All animals, great and small, must become sacrosanct. P. Some months ago I was approached to join a board which was intended to come together to oversee dog breeders. The theory and driving forces behind that is that when the Bateson report was released in the UK one of the recommendations was that there should be a board introduced - which has now been established in the UK to over see the breeding of dogs. I also remember a lengthy conversation I had with one of the driving forces behind anti purebreds in this country where he told me that there would be a major push as part of their strategic plans to introduce an umbrella org in this country to oversee dog breeders. If this happened it would mean that an outside body would have the final call on things such as breed standards,breeding COIs - basically what breeds could and could not be bred based on welfare grounds etc. The conversation I had which was asking us to join a voluntary board had a sales pitch which at first seemed appealing. Come onto a voluntary board so that we can then say we dont need government intervention because we now have our own board to oversee the dog industry. Vetab was used as the example where a voluntary baord was established and prevented a government run board calling the shots. At least this woul dgive as access to the ground floor and maybe we could have a voice in what comes next - right? As we chatted a bit more and I was told who else would have a seat on this advisory board it became very clear that the numbers would most definitely be stacked against those who understood and/or who supported purebred breeding. In effect it would be like asking 5 sheep to sit down with 15 wolves and vote on whats for dinner. We would be the sheep. I suppose to a degree the thinking behind the introduction in two states of an accredited breeder program may have stemmed from the same seeds but Im guessing. Look at Victoria where already under the prevention of cruelty to animals act it is illegal to breed a certain breed of cat with the legislation already in place to simply add more breeds.Where certain matings can see a breeder placed in gaol. Where showing a dog which has been debarked in another state by a certified vet can see you become a crimminal. Take a good look at regs which dictate breeding protocols designed for a PR exercise and have no basis is science or what is best for the species to a point where even our own believe it and start to beat their drum in time with the animal rights. Always taking more and more decision making ability out of the hands of the breeders. Professor Clare Wade did the research and said we rarely in bred publicly at a meeting soon after the PDE program - she told me personally that it was a given that the worst advice you can say to a breeder who has been line breeding is to outcross, she told me that the problem with purebred dogs in her opinion had little to do with in breeding and mostly had to do with selection and yet the ANKC have banned certain types of mating on relatedness and not on selection issues. Why? They have taken a tool from us which we may have been able to use to the breed's health advantage. Now when they propose laws to make breeders crimminals if they breed closely there is no resistance and they have to just go along with it. Why? Because across the board the idea that purebred dogs are less healthy is being promoted and some have an agenda to stop all dogs from ever breeding again. because breeders have become idiots, scum who are cruel and dont know what they are doing. Who ? Animal rights and brainwashed do gooders who will and have infiltrated politics and government. Fuelled by peopel like JH. When ? More and more every day. Every time you introduce regs and laws which make it harder and less enjoyable for those who have been doing it as a passion, every time you place expectations on breeders which make them responsible for things they cannot be reasonably held responsible for, everytime you give in even a little bit to the interference of loonies who know crap about what it takes to consistently breed a healthy well temperamented predictable dog. How do you make it harder for people to own more than two dogs and breed a litter now and then. Stop them from having the right to have them debarked, stop them from having the right to own an entire dog, stop them from being able to breed a puppy with out a licence, planning permits and lack of privacy and freedom of choice. encourage them to learn about the species but then take away the ability to decide what is bets for their dogs in their back yard because what they know or learn isnt counted. Split the groups and have them working against each other - showies against those who dont show, purebred against cross bred etc so when new laws are presented against one group the other cheers. You can probably do a fair job having the breeders of different breeds working against each other too. The fact that this person has used lies to perpetuate and continue to stir the pot is disgraceful and it has far far reaching consequences way into the furture and I hope someone gets lots of money out of a law suit for it.

I've always understood that rear dew claws are illegal because of the lethal damage they can inflict. Seriously pewithers think it through - how on earth can rear dew claws be illegal when dogs are often born with them?

Actually I think the problem will lie with Joe Public who believe accredited = good and end up finding out this is not always automatically true. I see very bad things ahead for the dog world with the very organisations which should be leading the way in defending our hobby folding up at the first sign of an animal rights nutter. :D ;) Me too.

You should start breeding these Steve, they will do the job for you (and fast with it! :-D ) Or these :D

None of them do it for me. I want something that allows me to pick it up without being so close to it.

Is it? When I joined back in 2004 I wasn't asked if I was a breeder, let alone if I was a breeder of pure breeds. I thought that was why breeders had their own forum on DOL at which the others of us are not allowed to join in .... or is it that we can join in but not start? Sorry - I'm not sure because I usually don't venture there. I tend to stay here in General and Training and Health. I do think that precluding everyone other than those who breed pure breed dogs from DOL would make for a pretty narrow-minded mode of conversation as it would cut a lot of good ideas, experiences and help to others out, but I didn't know that me not being a breeder precluded me (or others) from being a member of DOL nor in partaking in any conversations. The banner at the top of the page says Australia's Pure Breed Dog Community So one would assume this forum is as advertised. I believe that includes all owners of pure breed dogs, not breeders only, because it fails to specifically mention breeders. Nowhere is the preclusion of non breeders mentioned. It is interesting that those who are pushing for dogsqld members to pay up are from other states, and most of them do not appear to be breeders. I would have thought the matter would be for discussion amongst affected breeders only? Well clearly you thought wrong . Any old body gets to have an opinion and say what they think as long as they dont breach forum rules. Heck even if its in the breeder's forum any old breeder gets to say what ever they think. Shock and horror sometimes even people who are not registered breeders get to play in that forum. If you want to keep it a discussion where only queensland purebred registered breeders are able to have an opinion maybe you could speak with their Controlling body and tell them to start their own forum and dont let the nosy people who are not from their org have a say. But guess what ? You just might find that some of the people you and some others think are not members of the CCCQ actually are. You may even find that some people you think are not even registered purebred breeders actually are that too. ;) For the record this subject affects every one who will ever consider buying a purebred puppy from any registered breeder ever again and one of the best things about this forum is that all people who love dogs get to have an input and say what they think.

Yes anyone who isnt able to attend needs to try to spot someone who is attending who will be able to accept your award for you if you win and notify us of who they are so we are able to put it into the running sheets,so we know who is coming up on stage etc.

So - why shoot the messenger? I agree with you but why should good breeders be asked to jump through more hoops? Because your CC has already put the hoops in place. Its not right - its not fair but people have already joined and everything points to the fact that its there to stay. Historically when an accreditation program is introduced some hold out for what ever reason and eventually the new kids and the people who join are seen to be the only ones worthy and those who stay on the outside are seen as a lower class. Accreditation programs are actually promoted that way. At the end of the day the ones who hold out are the loosers. Would have been completely different if NO ONE had joined for a couple of years but the game is on. So what will a good breder gain now if they refuse to join? Of course time will tell how this is going to work in with the RSPCA push for all breeders to be licenced too - more hoops.

Well I see the fact that they caved to animal rights and didnt tell them to bugger off, that every one of their members was one of the good guys and if they are not that they will deal with them [as they had the power to do] as totally appalling. In reality whether one or more of those who have joined is rotten or not isnt going to make a scrap of difference because no one is going to believe you if they are able to stay where they are. I sincerely hope that between now and when its written in stone and a done deal in other states the breeders who are members there say what ever they can to their reps to try to get it stopped. However, once its in and its gaining support and momentum.Once the CC is promoting these members over any others I cant see how holding out and not joining is going to make any kind of difference to the big picture. From what I can see that is what is happening - time will tell but holding out and not joining is one thing but publicly saying you wont join because there are bad breeders who have already joined when you are already a part of the group being presented as even worse ? .

Barnson and Ralles - both beagle. By the way Sway it hasn't been said recently but you have done an awesome job of this especially as the info isnt that forthcoming from the ANKC

I haven't looked at this thread for ages, feeling it was an absolute wase of time, but just spotted this response. Steve, Dogs Queensland have heretofore conducted themselves no differently to any other state canine body in regard to complaints and inspections, in my direct experience in working with the various councils and from what I have been told by interstate breeders. In my experience it has been the Queensland canine council who have taken anything put to them more seriously and are always communicative in regard to the outcome of anything. I've approached interstate canine controls about matters, and have yet to receive a response !!! I am sure there are plans afoot in regard to what to do about non-accredited breeers, but as I don't work for Dogs Qld, I'm not aware of them. It stands to reason that there would have to be some plan involved, either to have all but perhaps probationary (for want of a better word) breeders to become accredited, or something which encourages and makes it mandatory for the remaining breeders to come on board with the accreditation scheme. To be honest, I personally think the breeders who don't wish to come on board, (a) don't have the right to criticise and belittle those that have done so, or the scheme itself as they are not part of it, and (b) are the ones doing themselves the most harm by creating suspicion about themselves with their own reactions to the schemes intent of more stringent monitoring, insofar as other breeders and the general public are concerned, at a minimum. Yep I agree. Now its in - the time for critising it is past and I encourage all Queensland registered breeders to sign up. Publicly bagging out those who are already in is very much doing all registered breeders an in justice.

Nup - you can put your name in for next year though. If you get nominated again we just dont let you judge that category.

Tickets will be out soon. We are just waiting on them to come back from the printers.

But a large part of this is about who is to judge who is and who is not "ethical" What is and is not ethical? Each and every one of the people who you see and feel are making registered breeders look bad believe they are MORE ethical. They have signed up for this to prove they are. According to the criteria everyone who has so far been accepted as accredited breeders have agreed to do things over and above what other registered breeders have agreed to do within the standard code of ethics. They have been accepted as members and remain members. They may be being judged as lacking and unethical by some but according to the association they have been judged to be more likely to be doing things ethically correct according to the CC definition than those are who have not agreed to join. Clearly their definition of what is ethical is different to what some others think is ethical but a code is used to describe what the association feel are the important things to address and articulate for their members on a minimum level.Members of that group agree to than minimum level and many [hopefully most] operate under a much higher level. Biases and beliefs get in the way of observing the objective truth. If you believe a) and b) contradicts that, you'll ignore b) even if it gives you a more accurate representation of reality. Say you go shopping and interact with cashiers all day. Nine are neutral or semi-pleasant. The tenth is a horrible with someone giving you tons of attitude. A friend later says, what's up with cashiers? And you say, I know - I had one today who...and the other nine go right out of your mind. What is being said here makes little sense and it really doesnt do registered breeders many favours in the PR department. If you want to be a good cop do you refuse to become a cop because some are crooks? If you want to become a priest do you refuse because some have been exposed as being rotten. So rather than focusing on the people who you feel are "unethical" according to your beliefs, biases and values personally who have put their hand up I think the focus of the discussion needs to change if we are to honestly look at the scheme and to be given any credibility for anyone watching who is trying to understand it all. Ive already said I think the whole thing is a mistake because it has made two levels of membership which makes the members who choose not to be accredited as lesser members. But its done - its there so if we can forget for just a moment about the breeders who have signed up who some of us feel are unethical according to their own criteria is it possible to look at the actual code. If everyone who had joined was considered to be ethical and it was cost free would Queensland breeders have any objections left to joining? Is there anything in there which they feel is out of line with what they think should be in there? I can understand if someone decides not to join on a matter of principal because they feel the introduction of the program was detrimental to the purebred dog world and the PR of registered breeders, or they cant or dont want to agree to a particular criteria or two but to say out loud the reason you wont join is because you dont want to be in the same pond as the unethical ones who have joined and thats your only reason is going over like a bomb and making it look like the old pond is even worse. If you constantly tell the public that there are rotten ones in the group being promoted as being prepared to agree to more than those who are already there what does that say about the old group - your group? Especially when the CC seemed to have felt that they had some members who were really getting it wrong and they needed to create the new group to allow the cream to float to the top. Again I think its introduction was the wrong way to go but its done and now it is if we are to consider the greater good,the bigger picture, then probably the best thing is for every Queensland breeder to join or at the very least stop talking about not wanting to join because rotten breeders have joined.

All done - check the website too. Im sorry about the errors but when I ring I try to tre member to double check spelling etc but the nominations info is most of what we have to go by Its easy for me to miss spelling issues.

Why thank you for the personal introduction Stonebridge. Perhaps I could return the favour.

Sorry I dont take PMs please email me [email protected]

All done

Thinking of you.