Steve

Because not all breeders support the MDBA & would prefer not to get involved when there name comes up. It seems a thing of late to be promoting the MDBA in DOL like some elite group when infact it isn't & i find it misleading .There are many wonderful ANKC breeders who do wonderful things & are just as ethical if not more yep flame suit on so shoot me O.K. No worries just start new thread and dont mention the MDBA and work out what you should do about the fact that the line between registered breeder and registered breeder is lost in the sand because whether Im involved or the MDBA is mentioned its still an issue.

That is assuming they are smart enough to do so. Many don't want to read pages of codes of ethics, they just want a pup. When someone ring here for a puppy I tell them to go and speak to other breeders and I tell them what to ask them and what to listen for. I dont say hell dont go to that one because they suck.

You're right, I don't. I don't either. Honestly, making people keep up to date with and pay multiple registrations and memberships every year (ANKC, MDBA, Council, any others that get invented...) doesn't preclude them from doing the wrong thing. It just makes life difficult for people who make sure they always do the right thing. I don't know what the simple answer is, if there is one. But punishing the honest people through additional fees and paperwok isn't it. I know that so how do you suggest we make a distinction for the public between you and a puppy farmer ?

Good idea but you also have to remember that part of your code of ethics is I shall refrain from making negative or malicious statements about other breeder's, their dogs or practices - so Im sure its not just because you might be sued. Well that is just a way of shutting the good people up. It is the same in the Law Society. If you say something bad about another lawyer you are made to be silent as legal practitioners are not supposed to say anything that could bring the profession into DISREPUTE. Never mind the fact that a lawyer/legal practitioner could be actually DOING THE WRONG thing. We just must not talk about it. How very uncivilized to do so!!! You can still get the message across without actually going after that one person. You can say what you do and what some do generally and what the buyer needs to ask and be aware of without specifically saying its that particular person.Give them enough info to work it out themselves.

Where do you go is about what you are willing to accept from a breeder not just what they do with your dog but with their own dog and the others they breed. Its about what you want the dog for ,your life style and your expections. Some people dont look at anything more than the obvious. If for example you are against a breeder selling puppies to pet shops and you dont want to buy a pup from them - as one of the things you are not prepared to compromise on: As group breeders can and do sell puppies to pet shops so you need to ask them if they do - though in reality most registered breeders who do wont own up. Some sell litter lots to a pet shop over seas and use the fact they export as a medal of honour. People who get sucked in by that sales pitch believe it something to be proud of . Cant balme them for that because usually if someone can export its a sign of a quality product. You cant assume they dont unless they are members of a group which prohibits their members from selling to pet shops. Read their codes Of conduct and see what they can and cant do and dont assume anything or believe anyone until you do that for yourself.

For a long time many things associated with this topic is folk law.People assume what a code of conduct says and means - even those who agreed to them.

Hmmm, interesting. I'm not sure if I agree, though I can see your point. For example, if I was new to dogs and I said "I'm thinking of getting a dog from breeder X!", I think it's good if my MDBA friend could say "well I'd think twice about that since breeder X doesn't hip score, and it's very important in your breed, also I've met her stud dog and it bit me". You know? A person who is your friend giving you private advice is different to someone ringing up enquiring about buying a puppy and half the conversation is taken up with accusations about why they shouldnt go to another breeder. Yeah that's very true - where do you draw the line with the MDBA COE, though? ETA - oh sorry, just read Amanda's post that it's an ANKC not a MDBA rule, so perhaps this question is in the wrong thread! Its both.

Hmmm, interesting. I'm not sure if I agree, though I can see your point. For example, if I was new to dogs and I said "I'm thinking of getting a dog from breeder X!", I think it's good if my MDBA friend could say "well I'd think twice about that since breeder X doesn't hip score, and it's very important in your breed, also I've met her stud dog and it bit me". You know? A person who is your friend giving you private advice is different to someone ringing up enquiring about buying a puppy and half the conversation is taken up with accusations about why they shouldnt go to another breeder. Yeah that's very true - where do you draw the line with the MDBA COE, though? So far it hasnt happened.No one minds what is said among people you know privately but If Ive got someone who comes into a forum and mnames a breeder and goes about trying to make their lives horrible I dont think thats on.

Hmmm, interesting. I'm not sure if I agree, though I can see your point. For example, if I was new to dogs and I said "I'm thinking of getting a dog from breeder X!", I think it's good if my MDBA friend could say "well I'd think twice about that since breeder X doesn't hip score, and it's very important in your breed, also I've met her stud dog and it bit me". You know? A person who is your friend giving you private advice is different to someone ringing up enquiring about buying a puppy and half the conversation is taken up with accusations about why they shouldnt go to another breeder.

Good idea but you also have to remember that part of your code of ethics is I shall refrain from making negative or malicious statements about other breeder's, their dogs or practices - so Im sure its not just because you might be sued. Yes I know it's part of the code too - but is it malicious when it's true...... It has to be in most circumstances and truth is not always what it appears to be anyway. Edited to add. Telling someone you know in confidence is different to telling the public or people out loud.

Good idea but you also have to remember that part of your code of ethics is I shall refrain from making negative or malicious statements about other breeder's, their dogs or practices - so Im sure its not just because you might be sued. Really? MDBA members can't make negative statements about other breeder's practices? What if the practices are clearly unethical? Sorry for the double post, I'm just interested. You can say so generally but not specifically. Its about showing the positive and not getting into bagging out any you think are rotten. When a breeder starts putting down a competitor even if they have good reason most hearing it dont judge the one they are putting down they judge the one doing the putting down.

Well, to be fair, I don't either. I think your breeders are probably all great, but I've also met some great breeders who aren't MDBA members, and I wouldn't personally restrict my search for a dog to MDBA members (or to kennel club breeders, for that matter). Thats interesting - where else would you look for a good breeder? If I wanted a working dog, I'd personally be happy in some breeds to look at a non-kennel club affiliated breeder. ;) Yep I agree.

How many wheaten and kerry blue terrier breeders are members of the MDBA? I could be wrong but I dont think there are any - yet.

Good idea but you also have to remember that part of your code of ethics is I shall refrain from making negative or malicious statements about other breeder's, their dogs or practices - so Im sure its not just because you might be sued.

Well, to be fair, I don't either. I think your breeders are probably all great, but I've also met some great breeders who aren't MDBA members, and I wouldn't personally restrict my search for a dog to MDBA members (or to kennel club breeders, for that matter). Thats interesting - where else would you look for a good breeder?

Ive got a real easy solution for it - when you are looking for a new puppy or recycled dog go to an MDBA breeder or rescue member. Trouble is Ive no doubt registered breeders who are not our members wont see that as a viable solution.

Yep - its an issue and it gets bigger every day.

For many generations the term registered breeder has been used and most of society knew what that meant – someone who was a registered breeder with one of the states member bodies of the Australian National Kennel Club - Someone who bred purebred dogs under a code of ethics. Go to any animal rights or animal welfare org’s website or talk to any purebred breeder and they will tell you one of the ways you can be sure to lower the risks in buying a pup is to go to a registered breeder. However in recent history this has changed and its time we began qualifying who the breeder needs to be registered with in order to explain the differences. A registered breeder could be someone who is registered as a breeder with their local council, it could be someone who is registered with the Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders , it could be someone who is registered with a state purebred dog stud registry, it could be an accredited registered breeder with their states purebred dog stud registry or it could be someone who is registered as a breeder member of the Master Dog Breeders and Associates. Telling someone in the year 2011 to only buy a puppy from a registered breeder could see them going straight to the biggest commercial breeder in the country on our advice. Its time we all stood back and really looked at what a registered breeder is today and start to develop a different language to describe who we are and what we do I think. Members of the public dont have a chance of knowing this stuff - its an issue.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/01/a...n_flooding.html

What research studies are you after? The ones about what happens with calcium when the bitch is under stress?

They are on their way Tilly I promise. Im not sure how I missed yours and one other but its almost all better now. Julie

why not? overseas breeders are MRI'ing their dogs and declaring whether they are SM free or no. eta some aus breeders are MRI'ing as well More Australian dogs are being tested every day.

Breeders have a duty of care to provide you with a healthy dog. It is simply a matter of finding one who takes that seriously. Was Lochie registered with SACA, and from a reputable breeder? The problems Lochie suffered - diabetes, rashes, cancer can and have all been caused by vaccinosis. Whether this is the cause in Lochie's case is unproven, but consider that, as well as the hereditary factor. Unfortunately, there is no proof either way, but I think it is worth considering. I had looked for a sub forum and had missed it due to it being initialised umm is that a word? and will leave a message shortly Thankyou for that. I seriously realise that I cannot expect breeders to have undertaken a MRI and am happily finding most are having heart,eye checks and will not buy from a breeder who has not at least had these 2 checks and written proof. I think the days of this puppy has been vet checked and vaccinated stated are possibly going to lose sales. I also take an interest in the great debate over vaccinating and that is a real hot potato. Lochie had been bought from a breeder who my friend had rung when diabetes was found and told it was not in the other dogs but then is a breeder going to honestly say yes? So onward I go with my mission to find my baby to make my home once again complete. Even the whole vaccination issue comes back to the fact that in order for the dog to react that way there has to be something wrong with its immune system and any reaction short or long term needs to be something which is recorded and bred against.

http://www.savingpets.com.au/2011/01/more-...s-in-australia/ More on ‘overbreeding’ of dogs in Australia A lot of time is spent lamenting the ‘overbreeding’ of dogs in Australia and its implications to shelter and pound intakes. “Irresponsible pet owners access puppies too easily and then abandon them” the theory goes, “if we could restrict the number of puppies bred each year, less would end up in shelters.” Anyone who reads this blog, know’s I love to put a good sheltering theory to the test. And as it turns out, this one was pretty easy. Australia has 3,754,000 dogs (source: Contribution of the Pet Care Industry to the Australian Economy 2006). But for ease of our examination today, lets look at just 1,000 dogs and their likelihood of entering a pound. Less than 5% of dogs ever need the services of a pound or shelter (source: The National People and Pets Survey 2006). So from our model 1,000 dogs 950 of these dogs will not enter a shelter, and 50 dogs will enter a shelter. From that tiny 5% of dogs entering shelters, 85% of these are entering the shelters as strays (lost pets), or 43 of the 50 dogs. Just 15% are owner surrenders, or around seven of the dogs. These are our so called ‘irresponsible owners’. (Source: What Happens to Shelter Dogs? An Analysis of Data for 1 Year From Three Australian Shelters (2004)) So, of these seven dogs, what could we be doing to stop them being ‘dumped’ at shelters? No Kill advocates call a euthanasia rate for untreatably sick or aggressive pets as less than 10%. We’ll call that one dog of the seven. Leaving us around six dogs entering the shelter. Let’s give the public the benefit of the doubt and say half of them have genuine reasons for giving up their pets. So we have Three dogs who were surrendered for genuine reasons and Three dogs who were surrendered by ‘irresponsible jerks’. So in a wrap up – as animal advocates we need to consider that we have low resources, are short of time and really want to be working on programs which show maximum impact. By these calculations, if we work on programs to restrict breeding and pet ownership, for every 1,000 dogs, we’ll be improving outcomes for just three. What do these figures mean in the real world? Remember our overall figure of 3,754,000 owned dogs in Australia? Approximately 188,000 of these dogs will enter shelters; which *does* seem like a lot. But when you consider the overall percentage of 5%, it really does reflect a pretty responsible community. While just a little over 11,000 dogs (from nearly 4 million!) end up in shelters because of truly ‘irresponsible’ owners. While there are groups who are working hard to make dog breeding more humane and ethical (and I’m not meaning to pass judgment on their work, as I do believe what they are doing is important), when we look at it purely from a ’shelter intakes’ point of view, our work should focus much, much less on this. In fact, it could and should be prioritised as the following: 95% of resources should be invested in initiatives which help dogs and owners live healthily and safe in the community Dog training opportunities, dog parks, pet friendly accommodation, pet hotels, dog socialisation opportunities, improving acceptance of dogs in the wider community including cities, cafes and public transport. From the remaining 5% of resources: - The majority of this (around 85%) should be invested on improving shelter and pound collection rates: microchipping, getting photos of pets up on the internet, improving pound opening hours, pets being taken straight home and impound fees waived for ‘first offenders’, and education about pet ownership responsibilities. - While a smaller amount (around 15%) should be spent on a combination of helping owners retain their pets, targeting ‘irresponsible owners’ before pet purchase, and reducing risk factors for health and behaviour issues. Which is definitely not how we’re prioritising things, when we focus solely on ‘reducing breeding’ or ‘restricting ownership’ as the solution to pound killing

Actually I have to say this. I hate cooking - I can cook - had no choice with 8 kids but Ive never ever understood how any one could possibly do this thing when they didnt have to. Its sort of way up there with doing the dishes for me. But Ive had a go at some of these recipes and they are pretty good and dont challenge me any more than I want to be and Ive whipped up some in quick time - which is what Im looking for - to get it over and done with quickly Its great and the people who put it together did an awesome job.