Steve

And that is exactly what the desired outcome is. French Bulldogs are great - they make fantastic pets and though do have some potential health issues related to their conformation as all breeds do.

ANKC Policy on breed standards Link

No idea from a legal point but from a moral, ethical point - its disgusting and any hint from those responsible that this is about the bloody betterment of the breed and what some think is what is best for the dogs is needing to take a long hard look at a bit of reality. The law knows that until they wake the whole world up so less people want to own them that trying to stop it wont work thus why the campaign to try to de sensitise people to what has happened. You can hardly claim its not us when that garbage is what you bleat on about and bully anyone who wants to have a go at moving the other way. Because the only way they can is to breed away from the standard.

Not very hopeful. I can see that going down hill fast. Again, I am convinced the insularity of pedigree breeders is the cause. Each generation only has whats in front of them to form values, and each generation will expect less, and have less to work with. Permitted to cross breed for a "pet" market, I could see thoughtfully planned, health tested litters competing with both BYBers and puppy farms to promote better practices and dogs. Informing buyer expectation in the general population. Supporting the idea purpose and value are just as relevant in non pedigree dogs. The ways these are achieved. About time. Dogs that might not win in the show ring but having great value for companion purposes being retained for breeding because of value else where being recognized. And in turn comparative and alternative values being recognized by pedigree breeders and judges alike. I realy don't think we have time for anything less. We have some wonderful breeders, putting their hearts and souls into improvement, but until the pedigree is better understood to be a tool for better practice and not the end goal for their unique difference, they are pi**ing into the wind. standards can be changed. they need to be changed if that is what is above. as in Persians the standard was changed to favor the flat no face. when are the breed clubs going to make the changes BEFORE they are forced too? when are they going to become proactive instead of the decades of reactive? at least PDE , forced one good reaction the deletion of (in the case of equal merit the more diminutive preferred)in the chihuahua standard or words to that effect, some of us noticed the smallest were going to the top of the line before conformation was even assessed and commented should be deleted . but no nothing was done until public embarrassment. not good public relations waiting for that surely? how is shortening a breeds face over decades from what is was originally "improving" it into eye problems and suffocation? drooping skin so badly eyes look like they are sunk in sagging purses of dust catchers for infection? eyes bigger and bigger again until they are easily damaged and infected , how on earth can that be construed as improving anything other than the chances of needing veterinary intervention to cure the resulting damage? there are soooooo many sites to show the original breed and what "improved" has morphed it into, I doubt the original breeders would be any but horrified at the changes wrought over the past 40 to 60 years Because of the system and the shonky deals made to "protect the breeds" the standards can only be changed via the breed clubs in country of origin. And whats more that breed standard has only just been amended and up dated SINCE PDE !

Being able to test for recessive carriers and breed away from any animals in the gene pool ever being affected by them is a completely different issue to what the OP is about. Breeding dogs which have brachy heads is about selection for the way the dog looks and if breeders don't get that and start selecting for dogs with muzzles which are moderately short rather than acutely short they will only have themselves to blame. I said earlier that I didn't think the breed standards were the problem and it was more about interpretation which I still believe is the case in many but then I had a better look at this current breed standard. and clearly I was wrong and the breed standard extension is just as bad . You can't seriously tell me this is O.K. and that you cant see that dogs bred like this wont have health problems .You can't seriously tell me that a dog bred to this standard and this breed standard extension is not going to have welfare issues due to its conformation,be able to whelp etc! This was only amended in 2015 ! My link The skull should be very large - the larger the better - and in circumference should measure (round in front of the ears) at least the height of the dog at the shoulders. Viewed from the front it should appear very high from the corner of the lower jaw to the apex of the skull, and also very broad and square. The cheeks should be well rounded and extended sideways beyond the eyes. Viewed at the side, the head should appear very high, and very short from its back to the point of the nose. The forehead should be flat, neither prominent nor overhanging the face; the skin upon it and about the head very loose and well wrinkled. The projections of the frontal bones should be very prominent, broad, square and high, causing a deep and wide indentation between the eyes termed the "stop". From the "stop" a furrow both broad and deep should extend up to the middle of the skull, being traceable to the apex. The face, measured from the front of the cheek-bone to the nose, should be as short as possible, and its skin should be deeply and closely wrinkled. The muzzle should be short, broad, turned upwards and very deep from the corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth. The nose should be large, broad and black, and under no circumstances should it be liver coloured or brown; its top should be deeply set back almost between the eyes. The distance from the inner corner of the eye (or from the centre of the stop between the eyes) to the extreme tip of the nose should not exceed the length from the tip of the nose to the edge of the under lip. The nostrils should be large, wide and black, with a well-defined vertical straight line between them. The flews, called the "chop" should be thick, broad, pendant, and very deep, hanging completely over the lower jaw at the sides (not in front). They should join the under lip in front and quite cover the teeth. The jaws should be broad, massive and square, the lower jaw should project considerably in front of the upper and turn up. Viewed from the front, the various properties of the face must be equally balanced on either side of an imaginary line down the centre of the face.

You can with somethings that show up at birth or soon after but for things that a really horrible such as PRA , Degenerative Myelopathy etc if you don't test by the time you find out you have a carrier is when you get an affected - in the mean time the dogs have been used for years for breeding and spreading the good news all around. This is only about recessives anyway. Lots in this day and age have DNA tests available but you have to know what to test for and you have to be prepared to do test matings to identify carriers for things that don't have a DNA ID. I dont know any breeders who would balk at breeding carriers to clears so not sure what we are talking about with limiting gene pools in this way. Gene pools are limited much more by selection for conformation.

The breed standards are not responsible.They are the same as they were when the breeds were first presented and there are few breeds which have remained as the founders of each breed ever intended them to look . The interpretation of the breed standard is another matter because moderately short to me [a beagle breeder] is obviously different to breeders who are breeding dogs with heads like bowling balls. What is moderately short ? There is an argument which blames the judges because if a certain type with really moderately short muzzles begin to win then the theory is that all of the breeders who show and puppy buyers want to have dogs that look like the ones that are winning. However, if breeders didn't breed dogs with heads like bowling balls in the first place no judge could show a preference for them. We need critiques of the standards written which define such things and we also need a better definition of "betterment of the breed" because to me its pretty hard to justify how anyone is "bettering the breed" if each generation produced doesn't have a better [ rather than worse] quality of life.

Moosmum this is pointless - its the same tap dance. I don't underestimate abilities of a culture to influence direction of the environment that holds it over time- in fact I have some nice though old certificates to show that I get that bit as part of my degree - but a long time ago as I learned about the international purebred dog system I came to a conclusion that any change that saw results coming from change within the system without certain other things impacting on education and stimulating breeders and dog owners to question what they think they know that change would be too slow for me and the dogs. Debating with you about whether individual,personal values can have an influence in changing an environment over time or chatting about constitutions and rules which you think are there that you think need to be changed in order to create a cultural change, discussions on whether the ANKC should give a damn about dogs or people outside of their group etc is a nice distraction but it offers me nothing toward analysis and identification of the problems caused by individual decisions and possible realistic solutions I believe I might see in my lifetime.

No. I would advocate removal of that rule so that Pedigree breeders are not ruling against some thing outside of their jurisdiction, which is PEDIGREE dogs. A dog ineligible for a pedigree is outside a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against just about every thing NOT in a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against the environment the registry system itself needs to remain viable. The pedigree dog used might be jurisdiction of the registry, but surely its not bred FOR the registry alone, but for a human and a purpose. The purpose surely is dogs, not the registry itself. The registry alone can not meet the needs and expectations of Man. Dogs can. A 'Registry only' making a political statement can not be a 'registry only'. They invite an expectation and the pressure they will be more. IF breeders are free to meet the needs of Man 1st, I believe the culture will change to reflect those needs better. If that turns out to mean admitting other values/dogs into the pedigree system, it should be easier to accomplish with a culture willing to see values in other directions but inwards. I believe I have a similar situation with my kids. I couldn't care less what someone else's kid does or what some other parent allows their kids to do but I do what I can to control my kids . I couldn't careless if someone else's kid has sex with someone else kid but I sure as hell care if my kid has sex with someone else's kid that doesn't fit my criteria. That's not because I have or want jurisdiction over someone else kid but because I have jurisdiction over my own . Breeders are already free to meet the needs of man first and herein for me lies the answer. That criteria surely doesn't include the kid slept with must come from the same family or cultural doctrines for any value they bring to the family to be recognized. Surely a persons value as a human being is recognized before cultural doctrine or identity? You disappoint me . Of course the criteria I have for my children is different to those I will have for my dogs. They are still my dogs and my kids ,that makes them my business and I don't have a desire to get involved in how someone else manages their kids or their dogs any more than I welcome someone else telling me what I should or should not do with either. If I do see a person who might be suitable for my kids being recognised by some crappy thing you dont agree with its still not your business. The ANKC is not involved with nor does it have any need or desire to control a group of people or dogs outside of its criteria. Breeders hold the power to leave, not to breed to extremes, put the welfare of their dogs and their breeds over and above all else whether they are within or outside the system. And the very huge majority of those who are breeding dogs to extremes and which are unhealthy are not now nor have they ever been under the FCI purebred system.

No. I would advocate removal of that rule so that Pedigree breeders are not ruling against some thing outside of their jurisdiction, which is PEDIGREE dogs. A dog ineligible for a pedigree is outside a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against just about every thing NOT in a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against the environment the registry system itself needs to remain viable. The pedigree dog used might be jurisdiction of the registry, but surely its not bred FOR the registry alone, but for a human and a purpose. The purpose surely is dogs, not the registry itself. The registry alone can not meet the needs and expectations of Man. Dogs can. A 'Registry only' making a political statement can not be a 'registry only'. They invite an expectation and the pressure they will be more. IF breeders are free to meet the needs of Man 1st, I believe the culture will change to reflect those needs better. If that turns out to mean admitting other values/dogs into the pedigree system, it should be easier to accomplish with a culture willing to see values in other directions but inwards. When you are a member of a state CC which has this ruling you agree that the state CC has jurisdiction over dogs you own which are registered with them. If you as a dog owner want to mate your dog with any other dog the CC has no jurisdiction over you or your dog but it does have jurisdiction over a members purebred dogs. They don't want to have any say over what a dog not their business is able to do. Breeders are already free to meet the needs of man first and herein for me lies the answer. I disagree. If a breeder is not free to choose a mating based purely on the value it offers, even if that dog will be ineligible for registration, then they are breeding to meet needs of the pedigree system 1st. No if they have needs which are over and above or outside of that particular pedigree system they still have freedom to do any mating of their choice - just as most breeders do and either resign their membership or never take a membership in the first place.

this is great info for Pom owners regarding grooming and what to expect including best shampoos and conditioners etc. My link My link My link

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. if it were we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Attitudes take time to change for a start. And it's not about allowing lots of Pointers to breed with lots of Dalmatians - what was done in the USA was a careful outcross to a single Pointer over something like 30 years. It really is that simple and the club could easily control it so there isn't lots of pointers and lots of Dals .The reason its been happening for that long is due to the Dalmatian Club in the states who could have expanded the program if they chose to and who could have at the least approved opening the stud books to let them in. You're right attitudes do take a long time to change but the attitude of the Club is 100% controlling this.

Or even better if the Dalmatian Club here approved a program for this here and allowed the stud book to be open to move it ahead where it is viable .

She certainly wasnt big on picking up poo either by the look of it. Ive no idea who she is but I hope she gets help for the sake of the dogs.

Oh and by the way - Im so very proud to know her and have her as an MDBA member .This took lots of courage and will make her a target for nastiness all over the place. It should also be noted she tried to do it via the breed club and the ANKC but no go.The only factor was that it was blocked was it was from an outside registry.

Here is an example. We received an application from a member to have permission to include a dog of a particular breed which has a registered pedigree from South Africa but it isn't a registry which is an FCi member or that the ANKC will recognise. The reasons for this request were that in this particular breed there is a genetic health issue among the registered purebred gene pool world wide which carry a recessive gene which causes health problems. The breeder has located this dog and is keen to bring it into the gene pool because it has a registered pedigree, it does not carry this gene [proven via DNA ] and because its a good representative of the breed standard. She has been given approval to do this, by the MDBA the dog has been entered into our registry and her puppies due in a few weeks will be provided with a registered pedigree notarised stating that he is clear of this genetic disease. Puppies will not be eligible for ANKC registration and will not be able to be shown in an ANKC affiliated show,she will not be able to sell puppies or semen to anyone in any other country who want to breed FCI recognised dogs or show them in FCI recognised shows but DNA testing will identify carriers and affected. She is breaching her code of ethics as a state CC member and there is no doubt that sooner or later she will be flogged for her decision and made to resign. Up until now she has been a state CC member for 35 years and has numerous champs under her belt . So in my opinion its THAT rule that gives absolute power to the breed clubs without provision to over ride them if its shown to be detrimental.

Clearly the revolt is happening and removal of the international agreements for other registries excluded from the FCI means that dogs can be accepted from all registries and theoretically one registry can register dogs from any country if it is not an FCI affiliate or member. This is why such agreements were cut in the first place - it has the ability to restrcit one country registering dogs not born in their own country and not enabling any diviation form a common breed standard or interpretation. . The United Kennel Club in the states and the MDBA are two examples of registries which do not have these kind of restrictions and the ability to move sideways but there is a long way to go before the FCI world wide monopoly is shaken. Even in cases such as the ANKC which is not a full member of the FCI but only an affiliate the culture rules like an iron grasp and restricts and adversely influences some definitions of ethics and what is best for the dogs under the guise of what is best for the breeds even when they are falling into states of poor health due to these restrictions. This is why I maintain it is the breeders who ultimately have the power to change things because the revolt will not come from the top - too much money and politics to fight.

Your presumption that the culture is set by the constitution and rules. I don't agree. I think the culture is set by those who have the greatest power to influence outcomes regardless of the constitution and rules - the breeders. You see the ANKC as a body set up for breeding dogs and no matter what info you are given you dont seem to be able to see the ANKC is a co ordinating body charged with keeping records not for breeding dogs. As far as your comments pertaining to the role you think the CCs play in BSL - specifically BSL for dogs they have no jurisdiction over or what you seem to expect them to do about it is also way off the mark. I disagree and believe it will be shown to be otherwise. I believe those with greatest power to influence the culture are there because the constitution and rules favor them to be there. And all it takes is removal of one rule out of a couple of Australian state's code of ethics which does not exist in any constitution ? If it has ever existed in the parent bodies constitution before the split into affiliate bodies, I believe so. I guess that is some thing I will need to confirm. O.K. To some extent regarding the environment of the traditional system I agree with you but your language confuses me and your insistence on constitutions being in the mix just doesnt fit for me . If you leave out the word constitutions and get a bit closer to the real environmental impacts of purebred dog world we a bit of a push we might even be on the same page. If you want to look at the agreements made between the FCI and all other countries, taking into account that the FCI will only recognise one affiliate per country and a whole heap more that may take you further in your argument than constantly speaking of a constitution. The entire world of the FCI affiliated registered purebred is based on their management and rules.This creates problems for the purebred dog but its not because that rule exists in any constitution because only a couple of small sub groups have that rule and all the above reasons . Its based around the agreements and the rules of the FCI. this is true but thats only a part of it all. Constantly referring to that rule and how you believe things would change if it were removed just isnt sitting logically with me. Regardless, All indications are that a breeder org. whos members sign up to that philosophy of closing a culture to out side influences and ideas, even with an already closed registry, will lead to exactly the problems we are seeing. Physics operating on biological principles. Democratic elections of those who will represent a breed or anything for that matter without the ability for those decisions being able to be over ridden "for the greater good" for me is the factor. The ANKC cant just say"right thats it - you have had your chance and we have considered the science and consequences and we are taking this out of your hands" Doesn't matter what area of life you are speaking of humans resist change and that is even harder when there is a monopoly and international deals in order to ensure another registry can never participate. What I'm saying is this is a world wide issue and asking for one rule to be removed in a couple of states of Australia to enable members to allow their dogs to breed with dogs which are not registered is not going to have an impact on the current situation. I agree with you that we can carry on about what leads to what and it will make a great research paper but around about 15 years ago I worked out that the system was not able to be changed from the inside - they will fight to the death. So some of us went in a different direction and now there is an alternative and we have the bruises to show for it.

Based on what you have said I think its bad timing.

Bahaha. Great quote! I would sell my soul for a Dalmatian, but similarily I'm happy to wait until LUA's are more common in Australia and wait for one of them. Will be interesting to see how the majority of the breeders here accept them too. Historically purebred breeders don't always warm to such things as expected. Well I expected a complete backlash so I'm happy with the amount of support these dogs are getting. Hopefully there will be more imports/exports to spread the gene around. How much easier would it be if you could import semen from an unregistered dog and have it admitted into the gene pool for the benefit of the breed without the treadmill .Well actually you can but not via the ANKC.

Bahaha. Great quote! I would sell my soul for a Dalmatian, but similarily I'm happy to wait until LUA's are more common in Australia and wait for one of them. Will be interesting to see how the majority of the breeders here accept them too. Historically purebred breeders don't always warm to such things as expected.

Yeah Bev- Another MDBA member !

Many breed standards state skull to muzzle ratios - Brachy breeds have shorter muzzles to skull . This could be why the boxer isnt in as much trouble as the Pug My link My link

What comes first the chicken or the egg? If the breeders were not breeding dogs to extremes then the judges couldn't award them. If the breeders stopped then quite quickly the judging would change. It is the breeders who control the breed clubs and the judging there is no point blaming everyone and everything else because the breeders hold the key.

Yep except it still up to the breed clubs. What concerns me is why an endurance for only some breeds - does this lead us to having different expectations for a brachy head breed and they will make allowances for their conformation and breed? If not why not a standard endurance for all breeds.