Steve

Ignore me all you like Steve, but I DONT play games. I ask questions and give my opinion. I may not have the technical jargon at my fingertips like you do. I may have different principles than you do. I may have different beliefs as well. But it doesnt mean I am less of a person than you are. If you cant or wont answer my questions then so be it. where the hell are you getting this stuff from.I havent said or implied you are a lesser person than I am.You are the one telling people on this forum about my terrible breeding practices. Ive not made any attacks on you or your ethics or your anything. Almost every post you make is accusing or attacking me personally rather than questioning me about anything and its clear that you have gone way past what is acceptable forum behaviour. I have as many rights on this forum as you do and if I said the things about you that you have said about me publicly I would expect to be banned.

I have no idea what your problem is stonebridge but I have no interest in playing your games. If I dont aswer your atatcks and accusations its because I am ignoring you.

Why not indeed ?

Do you mean she had the dog and the mating happened without you being there ? No I had her bitches at my place. O.K. Then you need to sign the papers at the time of the mating and ensure the details are filled in for the bitches and the dates etc .When the girls go home you send the form with them.You dont sign it blank.

Do you mean she had the dog and the mating happened without you being there ?

As of today I have about 450 noms to go.

I believe that more than any thing else - anything else it is important to be sure that the registry - their's or ours or anyone's is dead set 100 % true blue . Without that any decisions a breeder makes which rely on what they know of the dogs and the issues in that pedigree is a wasted effort.In fact if you cant rely on thise things then actually having a stud registry is pointless. Even more pointless if you are profiling the pedigree for things you cant see. Genetic issues, health temperament etc. I believe that several of the regulations which the state CCs and the ANKC have introduced over the last couple of years have had the potential to erode that integrity far greater than it ever has before. Honestly how many of us that have been around a while truly believe that miraculously everyone is waiting until they are told the bitch is old enough to mate. How many of us honestly believe that people miraculously stop mating their bitches when they are told they are too old or when a certain number of litters is reached. how many of us believe that people are not having back to back to back to back litters? How many of us dont know why mandatory DNA for parentage would be the last thing some breders would want to see ? How many of us truly believe that everyone will miraculously stop breeding close relatives. Since this one regulation has been put into place to take effect in July how many of us didnt know you can purchase papers for dogs which dont now or never did exist to cover if you use a related dog? Papers on the black market in Queensland since the regs came in are going for $500 each. Im not saying these things happen all the time or that most of us arent doing the right thing - even though the right thing is open to debate - but all of these regs dont stop those who were prepared to do these things without concerns for the dogs and it increases the risk of false info being entered on the registry. That is a much greater threat to the health and welfare of our breeds. If someone is in breeding dogs which are too close we can see that in our pedigrees and make informed choices about whether we choose them for our breeding programs - once that info is compromised - why bother ? So even though over the last few days we have been accused of not caring about the welfare of our dogs because we leave decisions such as these up to the breeder and havent written them into our codes. We know that good breeders rarely if ever do these things proven by the study on our pedigrees but Im not doing anything which will make breeeders think they need to tell lies if they do - because that jeopodises the registry integrity and the ability for all breeders who trust that info to make informed decisions. It might be a good PR exercise for animal rights and those who have no idea of pedigree profiles and why we breed purebred dogs over any others but there are potential consequences which would justify telling those calling for this to piss off about now and stay out of what we dorather than make them think we agree with them. Try telling a stud cattle breeder close matings are banned and see how far that gets you.

The RSPCA push is on for a wider ban - going into grandparents. Ive no doubt that we will be in the same spot as your friend. Canine genetics people including those involved in the research on our pedigrees are not in favour of the introduction of laws to outlaw this. It seems to me that people have decided that what someone who knew nothing about genetics pushed via PDE - that in breeding caused all these terrible problems - must be right. Yet people who are more educated in genetics including clare wade believe that in breeding has played a very minor role - that its more about selection. I wonder why it has been forgotten that this is what all breeders of all purebred species do and why we are so quick to announce they are right by changing the regs. No point anyway - Its a done deal.

So how do we find out officially why they have decided to take action? I dont want to either support or not support without adequate official information of what happened and why

I think the reason shortstep was on about th egreens is because the original post tells us they were the ones pushing it.

My concern is that around 2 years ago I had a meeting with someone who has a fair bit of clout and is very much credible that there was a plan underway for close breeding to be outlawed and made a crimminal offence under POCTA.There is a review of POCTA in May next year in NSW. Id say the chances of that happening now has definitely risen. Wont matter though its just another law and hardly any of us do it anyway.

There is no such thing as any human behaviour with out personal gain. Sometimes that gain may be attention, or a feeling of fulfillment, a warm fuzzy feeling or a dollar or two but there is no such thing as a breeder who does what they do without a part of that being - whats in it for me.

But who will decide where this cuts in - should a breeder breed dogs for personal loss? I dont think Im special I think MY DOGS are special just as I think my kids are. Not because of their breed any more than my kids are because of their nationality.Its because they are mine. For no other reason except that as an owner / breeder I am responsible for making decisions which will give them less chance of future health issues . You cant have it both ways. On one hand we scream that we want people to be more responsible - bond with their animals get educated and give a damn about whats best for them and then ask us to sit back and follow like sheep ,do as we are told even though we know its not whats best for them to some how stop other people's dogs from being treated irresponsibly. These decisions at government level are not made to prevent MY dog from suffering. In fact they dont care if MY dog suffers as long as other dogs which are not as special to someone else that mine are to me dont get bumped off because they are not wanted. I dont expect anyone else to think MY dog is special but its special alright and that's why it's MY job to protect it from being treated as if it is not special and that it's long term health isnt counted. My dog should not have to suffer because a bleeding heart has decided stopping un wanted litters is more important than my dog - no dog is more important or more special to me than my dog.

Did any of you know that as from the 1st of July next year it is against ANKC regs to breed close relaives and progeny wont be registered? In May next year NSW are up for a review of POCTA laws and I was told about a year ago that first on the agenda after the Bateson report will be to make in breeding a crimminal offence. As the ANKC have now basically handed us over to this Im just curious if it was only me who didnt know they had made this decision or if others were unaware of this too.

The BIGGEST problem is people making impulse and uninformed choices, choosing the wrong animal for their circumstances. Be it exercise, training, or grooming requirements you have to choose the dog that fits the bill for your abilities, and circumstances, choose a high maintenance breed when you would be suited better to an easy care low activity breed and you are inviting either heartache or simply dissatisfaction. All too hard, dog ends up in the pound or shelter. People also need to realise that not everyone including themselves will be a suitable and succesful dog owner so they may need to forget the cute puppy in the yard vision. Well here's 6 of them http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=211031

So where is the evididence of what happened to these dogs? A couple of hundred is hardly worth punishing every dog over in case it has an accidental litter isnt it?

But either way all of what you say is about social issues not health or the rights of the owner to make informed decisions about what should be done for their pet in conjunction with their vet. I am a responsible person and clearly the majority of dog owners are and I shouldnt have to be told what to do with my dog in case someone else is an idiot. Why call for more laws if there are already laws in place which force pet owners to desex before the animal is able to reproduce anyway? It makes no sense.

Where's your link to the stats? Dogs are being killed because owners dump them. Not at RSPCA ACT they are killed because they are sick or nasty thats it.

except idiots like me wont break the law so its me an mine who pay for them and theirs. That doesnt stop one dog from suffering.

Alright Ill bite how will desexing stop this? The demand for puppies is still the same so eliminating oops litters simply means someone else will breed them. Thisis irresponsible breeding problem is an irresponsible owner problem and all this does is ensure we have more sick desexed dogs and more sick desexed dogs coming into pounds. But we can blame the breeder for that too. I think you answered your first sentence with your second sentence. The problem is there are too many people allowing litters to be bred when there are already too many. Somone wouldn't be able to just go the next peron to get a pup, if the next person's dog was also desexed. If we are euthanising animals then clearly we have too many - the supply is greater than the demand - so why do people keep breeding? Puppies do get euthanised, so there clearly isn't a demand that justifies the current rate of breeding. A desexed animal cannot breed or contribute to the future over-supply of animals. Neither can a euthanised animal. All my pets have been desexed before 12 months old, including several on the advice of the breeder, and I haven't even heard of most of the medical conditions you mentioned in the earlier post, let alone had a pet suffer from one. I'm not saying they don't exist, or it doesn't happen, but desexing a dog before 12 months is not necessarily a guarantee they will suffer more sickness. My two pedigree dogs suffer from more medical issues than any other pet I have owned, and these conditions have nothing to do with early desexing. Still, I don't blame the breeders for it, just bad luck. Current laws don't stop people from drink-driving, committing murder, theft etc, so it is unlikely these new laws will be entirely effective in getting people to desex their pets. But if it stops enough people then we might eventually gain some type of control over the numbers of unwanted pets, or at least not have to kill so many which is probably the intent behind this legislation. We are not bumping off dogs because there are too many we are doing that because they are sick or nasty. There is not one single dog listed as being killed by RSPCA ACT because there are too many of them. If you can provide ANY evidence that there is an canine over population problem and dogs are being put down because there are simply not enough homes for them in the ACT then I would be interested to see this. Go into the past rescue threads here on DOL and look under the ACT DAS threads and see how many dogs that are both healthy and nice that have been killed, including some that have been transferred from the RSPCA. It is a myth that only sick or nasty dogs are being put to sleep. That is all I will say on that topic on a public forum If you have evidence to support a claim that the figures published by a charity which takes public donations to do what they say they are doing are not correct that is a serious accusation.One which I am certainly not prepared to believe without evidence. Until such time as any of us can see such things we have no choice but to go by what the figures which are published say. There is no over supply in the ACT. Mandatory desexing has not made any difference - unless you want to count a variability of 7 dogs as a difference and there is NO justification or viable argument to introduce even more laws for point of sale for breeders. There are scientific and credible studies to support abolishing all mandatory desexing laws rather than making current ones tougher. All over the world ststs show that less laws make for less kill rates.

Out of almost 400 puppies which came through or were born at the ACT RSPCA all but 22 found homes and they were PTS because of medical or behavioural issues. People keep breeding because the demand far out weights the supply.The only thing we have an over supply of is irresponsible owners. When rescue stop allowing pregnant dogs of unknown parentage to have puppies under the banner of saving them because there are not enough homes for them there maybe an argument for over supply.

Alright Ill bite how will desexing stop this? The demand for puppies is still the same so eliminating oops litters simply means someone else will breed them. Thisis irresponsible breeding problem is an irresponsible owner problem and all this does is ensure we have more sick desexed dogs and more sick desexed dogs coming into pounds. But we can blame the breeder for that too. I think you answered your first sentence with your second sentence. The problem is there are too many people allowing litters to be bred when there are already too many. Somone wouldn't be able to just go the next peron to get a pup, if the next person's dog was also desexed. If we are euthanising animals then clearly we have too many - the supply is greater than the demand - so why do people keep breeding? Puppies do get euthanised, so there clearly isn't a demand that justifies the current rate of breeding. A desexed animal cannot breed or contribute to the future over-supply of animals. Neither can a euthanised animal. All my pets have been desexed before 12 months old, including several on the advice of the breeder, and I haven't even heard of most of the medical conditions you mentioned in the earlier post, let alone had a pet suffer from one. I'm not saying they don't exist, or it doesn't happen, but desexing a dog before 12 months is not necessarily a guarantee they will suffer more sickness. My two pedigree dogs suffer from more medical issues than any other pet I have owned, and these conditions have nothing to do with early desexing. Still, I don't blame the breeders for it, just bad luck. Current laws don't stop people from drink-driving, committing murder, theft etc, so it is unlikely these new laws will be entirely effective in getting people to desex their pets. But if it stops enough people then we might eventually gain some type of control over the numbers of unwanted pets, or at least not have to kill so many which is probably the intent behind this legislation. We are not bumping off dogs because there are too many we are doing that because they are sick or nasty. There is not one single dog listed as being killed by RSPCA ACT because there are too many of them. If you can provide ANY evidence that there is a canine over population problem and dogs are being put down because there are simply not enough homes for them in the ACT then I would be interested to see this.

In a one year period in ACT about 140 dogs are PTS - The only reasons given for that are medical and behavioural - there is no animal recorded which was PTS because there was not enough room at the inn or they couldnt find homes for. Now how is making baby puppies have their reproductive bits taken out at point of sale going to make a single bit of difference to those figures ? And at least some of those in that figure would have to be because shelters and pounds are often used as an alternative for legitimate euthanasia of an animal. It is widely accepted that many pet owners use shelters and pounds as an alternative to a veterinarian when seeking euthanasia of an old, sick or dangerous animal.

Several weeks ago I was approached by a group who are looking at mounting a class action against local councils which have given pet owners no choice but to have their animals desexed pre 1 year. They have some interesting figures and some good science to back up that as a direct result of taking away their pup's hormones at a young age that their dogs suffer various issues throughout their lives. That their health and welfare is affected and longevity is reduced. Laws which remove basic property rights given to us way back with the Magna Carta and cause a property owner to take actions which not only remove their right to make an educated decision but which can also be proven to cause suffering and financial hardship for years of medications and treatments for the owners will cost a bit I think if they go ahead.

I think , no cross that out I KNOW you are on the right track with your comments re impulse buying, you cant' do it with firearms, you cant' buy a drivers' licence on the spot you have cooling off periods for many purchases so why not? If we are all really serious about our love of dogs' and/or other animals why would you be concerned about some restraints on the impulse buying of a pet for '" little johnnie " in the days' particularly coming up to xmas. If you wish to buy a pet for your child plan ahead, dont' just walk into your local shopping complex and walk out with a totally unplanned pet. How about we all get real and put the welfare of our animals above the rush and the greed for money at all cost. Lets' make sure that the poor animals that are flogged every year get a fair chance at a decent life. Yep I agree but do I have to lose my rights to make decisions on what I think is best for its health to do that? Steve, nobody would be more aware for the need to protect our rights' than myself but the dogs/cats'etc only have us to care for them and if we have to compromise on some things' for this purpose so be it . That does' not mean we simply go along with anything that is put before us without examination and questions and voicing our opinion. But what gives anyone the right to determine what I should have to compromise on. Ive had entire animals all my life and Ive never had an oops litter - and if I did I would take responsibility for it. Early Desexing isnt something thats best for dogs is something that society wants me to do to my dog in case someone else has an oops litter with their dog and to make my dog pay for someone else being irresponsible. You may think its O.K. to compromise my dog's health in order to make sure someone else isnt going to have an accidental mating but I dont and last time I looked as a property owner its supposed to be my call. If you are going to tell me its O.K. to take away my choice to keep an entire animal but leave me the choice of having my vet kill it - I can have my vet kill it without a second opinion but I cant have its voice lowered - something is radically wrong with this picture.