Steve

Its just another example of different requirements for breeders and breeding dogs .As Willem says a fair defence should be if you are putting the animal out of its misery and doing so quickly to prevent suffering but breeding dogs are seen to be different and popping a half dozen off without a vet will be a case to answer.

I would think very carefully before defending this person. Well known to many. I wasnt defending her just pointing out there are ways to dodge the bullet - it was one used by the greyhound breeders a couple of months back.

LMFAO I guffawed aloud really loudly at that quote and Jiji bolted from my lap. Love Bob Bailey! Isn't he brilliant! I've been laid up the past few weeks so have been watching his 5 DVD series. I knew all that he was talking about but it was great to be reminded without any sense of bullshit factor :laugh: Steve - it's the same in every facet of human life - whether it's animal welfare, science, child welfare, world peace. You can't change the world, just do your little bit. Yeah thats why Im punch drunk.

You never know - she may have come home from shopping one day to find 6 dead dogs .No idea who shot them but they were buried on the property. She may have had someone in who is experienced in this kind of thing to do the job for her. Always a way around it and if it werent for the photos Id be suggesting we shouldnt judge.

My link This Code contains both standards and guidelines for the care of dogs or cats forbreeding. The standards have legal effect in three ways:• Failure to meet a standard may result in a Penalty Infringement Notice or a prosecution under Clause 20 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General)Regulation 2006.• In more serious cases, failure to meet a standard may support a prosecution for an offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1979.Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 the person in charge of ananimal is responsible for meeting the legal obligations regarding an animal’swelfare. The person in charge, who may be the owner of the animal or anotherperson who has the care or control of the animal, for example the breedingmanager or a member of staff, is legally responsible for the care of the animal, andtherefore for meeting the standards of this Code.

Nup

LMFAO I guffawed aloud really loudly at that quote and Jiji bolted from my lap. Love Bob Bailey! True except it doesn't bode well for anyone thinking change might come as easily as the Norwegians have implied. The young ones are just as stuck in fighting change.

...these guidelines (?) are part of the 'Animal Welfare Code of Practice', but they are not laws representing NSW legislation? These are not guidelines they are standards which are enforceable - they are also covered under POCTAA in NSW.

Well Starkhere is an MDBA member and Im very proud to say so.

Give us a hint. Was it something that happened because of hard times?

yeah made a difference to how I was thinking too.

Great news - how do I go about finding a registered breeder in Australia who is breeding them? It's only very limited at the moment. First litter are in their new homes. Give it time. So how did they get them in and get them registered with the ANKC? They went into the UK first and even competed at Crufts. Was a big story a few years ago. So came in as imported from UK or USA. I'm not really up on the details as I don't breed them, just have a strong interest. To have a dog on a special diet for its entire life to prevent a simple genetic health issue is just crazy if there is an alternative. Yes I remember hearing about this. Im really glad they have been able to skirt around the idiots in the states. It demonstrates what a minefield it is when that outcross was done about 25 years ago. Imagine how many dogs could have not suffered.

My link

Great news - how do I go about finding a registered breeder in Australia who is breeding them? It's only very limited at the moment. First litter are in their new homes. Give it time. So how did they get them in and get them registered with the ANKC?

NSW laws for breeding dogs. HUmAne deStrUCtion 8.3.1 Standards8.3.1.1 Where treatment to restore the physical and mentalhealth of a dog or cat while in the facility is impracticalor unsuccessful and where it is recommended bya veterinary practitioner, the dog or cat must behumanely destroyed.8.3.1.2 Euthanasia of dogs and cats must only be performed bya veterinary surgeon or a person who is a euthanasiatechnician. 8.3.1.3 Euthanasia must be performed by the intravenousadministration of an overdose of pentobarbitonesodium unless there are compelling reasons to useother methods to destroy a dog or cat. 8.3.1.4 Euthanasia must be conducted in an area that isseparated from animal accommodation at the facilityand must not be carried out in view of any otheranimals.

Great news - how do I go about finding a registered breeder in Australia who is breeding them?

This helps to see the big picture Allowing dogs of the same breed but from different registries is one thing; what about allowing crosses to dogs of a different breed? Early in the creation of breeds, crosses to other breeds were commonplace. For example, modern Shih Tzu descend from seven dogs and seven bitches, one of which was not a Shih Tzu, but a Pekingese. This cross occurred in 1952, long before AKC recognition of the breed. Approved crosses to other breeds after AKC recognition are rare but possible. In 1988, at the request of the Dalmatian parent club, the AKC approved the introduction of a Pointer into the Dalmatian gene pool in an attempt to introduce the genes for normal uric acid metabolism. The plan was to breed the progeny back to Dalmatians for several generations until theoretically all that remained of the Pointer influence was the gene for normal metabolism. But by that time a new board was in control of the Dalmatian club and they objected to the registration of the crossbred progeny. AKC lifted the registration privileges for these dogs, so the pointer genes never made it into the Dalmatian gene pool. The AKC now requires a full membership vote from the parent club before granting approval for such ventures. In the 1980s some Wirehaired Pointing Griffon breeders made crosses to Cesky Fouseks in an attempt to widen the Griffon gene pool. But without a priori parent club and AKC approval, they were not able to get AKC recognition of their stock. My link

A couple of years ago there was a pretty big push to belt up the purebred breeders due to inbreeding - just before during and immediately after pedigreed dogs exposed was when it was loudest. .One professor not qualified in canine genetics was beating a pretty loud drum and he was developing the LIDA program via his university. This program is designed to gather health information about dogs sorted into what breed they are to enable them to be able to tell us what health issues were most problematic in each breed. Anyway I had one on one conversations with this professor and my reason for not supporting it was that there could be no distinction within the data being collected to identify which dogs of a breed group were bred by purebred pedigree breeders, or which were even really a purebred. I wrote an open letter to DogsNSW back then My link So it would have been preferable in my opinion if money being donated could have been put toward doing our own database of health problems in our dogs which wasn't contaminated by any others and able to be used against us but we need to accept we are lacking in this regard for a method defending ourselves and consider what we can do about it. By the way the money was donated by Dogs NSW and their logo is on the vetcompass /LIDA website.

So when we understand the system wouldn't it make more sense for us to be asking [say] the Pug Club of Australia to make a comment about what they think is the situation and if anything what they intend to do rather than going after the ANKC or the state canine registries ?

If the norwegians start outcrossing the pedigrees will be recognised in all FCI member countries - that's the deal they have .Its why when the boxer bobtail thing was accepted by the UK we accepted their pedigrees. If the Dalmatian nfusions are accepted by one of the FCI member kennel clubs then they automatically get accepted by other countries. The hold up is the AKC for the Dalmatians. The UK kennel club has ALL of their stud books open too and any dog registered on their registry is accepted by ours. But none of that is the same as changing the breed standard . All they have said is that they will consider it and it wont be done as easily or as the statement makes you think and it certainly wont be done for more than one breed at a time. It wont be the Norwegian kennel club decision any more than it would be the ANKC here - it has to all come through the breed clubs. Each breed club can produce explanations and critiques of the breed standard - so for example they could define what moderately short will mean so breeders start to select for that .Theoretically if they did that you would still have dogs which would fit the breed standard but not the extremes of the breed standard - but it has to come through the breed club. Then nothing is black and white - the breed clubs comprise show breeders who all own the current version of the breed - changing how long a pug nose should be will meet opposition and show breeders wont want to import longer nosed pugs if they have no hope of winning here. Then of course if you look at the bob tailed boxer issue even though Australia accepted the UK pedigree with these infusions which created the bob tailed gene the breeders who went with that have been belted pretty well by their peers and even to this day many do not consider them to be purebred This on the whole is a PR exercise and clearly works better for them than "its not us" worked for us

The whole studies subject is frustrating. I see loads of studies which cost stacks of money that aren't really needed or conclusive and not subjective in the methodology or approach and they are cited over and over. I see some things which are legislated against where no studies have ever supported the presumption the legislation is based on. Seems it works when you want them to but doesn't count when it goes against what the consensus is to the world which doesnt breed dogs. The way the modern world works they will take this study and cite it to back up what they think we should do about dealing with the situation when it suits them so everyone is bleating "all they need to do is outcross - this proves their argument for opening stud books, inbreeding, selection for the show ring etc. Doesn't matter if it is only about one breed or if another study contradicts it etc .

Thats funny Im a bit like that too .When I find a quiet 20 mins I will re listen but it seemed to be a least a bit contradictory to the article about the head shape.Dont quote me but I think they said no correlation to head size but something to do with the amount of ventricular. Their advice for trying to deal with it didnt include an outcross. I'll give it a try on a quiet day or night! I start thinking over one line, then miss the next two lines while thinking about it, then have to rewind a bit, then forget what I heard earlier so have to rewind further. It's also easier, as you say, to mishear (and I like all the photos and diagrams in studies) With videos it is easier, because I have their face and movements to focus on at least @Jed, oh I am sure there will be lots of opinions either way, but no matter the result of the study it can help knock out or knock in how the size of the skull can affect CM/SM and contribute to other studies around backcrosses in general. Valuable information from the bits I've seen so I'd like to see it written up in its entirety. I think my link was about generation 2, but they're growing out generation 3 now. Probably a bit to wait for those studies. Grow up faster, puppies! For me asking me to be able to sit still for that long without phones or people or dogs not needing me to do something is a hard ask but some of that pod cast is discussing the differences between the Cav SM and the GB SM. You have to also take into account that dogs that don't have brachy heads get SM too. So finding out about SM in one breed isnt necessarily going to give the cures for others. I wouldn't want breed clubs to jump in too quickly in decisions of outcrossing if in the future it isn't shown to be necessary.The Aussie Terrier was used in this outcross by accident as well so I dont want to see just any breed or dog being infused [ if it did come to that without heavy consideration of what breed and what possible things you may have to deal with in future .Aussie Terriers for example have a fair incidence of seizures and a couple of others so Id want to know the pedigree health data and assess each potential infusion using science rather than pot luck. Id also want to see a concurrent experiment of another group using dogs of that breed cleared of SM or chari like malformation being selected for nothing else than that for 4 generations and compare the results . In other words O.K. by accident you got a group of dogs that you were able to play with and your results say that outcrossing is able to change it - that's nice but can we do the same thing without outcrossing? If we can which one gives us the best quickest results. I don't want to see shouts for outcrosses and changes made without consideration for all of the variables in every breed. Personally I think if we rely on scientists and studies which are going to take a fortune to finance and will answer a narrow range of questions that this will take us too long and the risk is knee jerk or legislative solutions. I would like to see breeders who could work to a structured scientific plan in co ordination and provide data just as they would if they were the scientists or part of a study run by a uni and feed their results to the breed clubs and scientists. In other words work with breeders who are prepared to allow us to use their dogs as part of our research and studies and their back yards as our labs. Right now we really dont have a clue there is no mandatory testing and we gather snippets on one breed or another and the way assumptions are made and the way our dogs are lumped in with tens of thousands of dogs outside of the pedigree system is not only detrimental to us and our dogs but it is no solution to helping our dogs. We gather stats and data in dogs already born not knowing how the parents were selected or any other variable. We grab at study results - an outcross has the ability to prevent chari like malformations in one generation - thats nice and over time we will be told the results over a few generations - but what are the results if we use the same number of dogs without an outcross chosen for nothing else except that they don't have Chari like malformations,which still are good representatives of the breed then what are the results if we use dogs only selected because they have slightly bigger or a slightly different shaped head to the average of the breed and how does that stack up in 4 generations against the dogs which haven't been selected outside they way they are selected within a breed now. then when these results are in what do they look like in 4 generations? So many questions could be answered in this way or at least so many things could be given a kick start for further studies

Thats funny Im a bit like that too .When I find a quiet 20 mins I will re listen but it seemed to be a least a bit contradictory to the article about the head shape.Dont quote me but I think they said no correlation to head size but something to do with the amount of ventricular. Their advice for trying to deal with it didnt include an outcross.

Unless its also been changed, even the closed stud books of one of our oldest breeds, The Arabian, allow for environmental influence with registries for horses derived from the breed. You have to remember the Purebred dog is under an all breeds umbrella not individual registries for each breed. Depending on which country you are in you get more or less ability to do this. Also in some countries there are no members and they are not interested in the people who own them or breed them only the dogs and only if you want to register them.

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.