Steve

Actually its been pretty well orchestrated - You have to give them credit for being able to pull it off. Get them begging for tougher laws and make them go to work for you banging a drum demanding more power to the RSPCA and tougher planning laws then slam dunk em with the same laws they were asking for . You get puppy farmers, anyone who breeds a litter and anyone who rescues a dog. Tell me again - how does this stop one dog from suffering??

Can you please share where you got that data Steve, because I've never found anything concrete to show that crossbreed dogs are on average less healthy than the average purebred. Thanks. Padgett - I didnt say one was more or less healthy over all than the other I said that here is less genetic diseases in purebreds than in mixed breeds. Less, as in fewer types of genetic disease, or lower incidence? Will have a look at Padgett, thanks - do you have first initials or name of book/article? George A Padgett Control of Canine genetic Diseases - Its a book- I think Ive seen the table on line - He did a study on incidence of genetic diseases in dogs - Pure bred dogs have less types of genetic diseases in higher incidence. Our health survey shows that each breed has certain genetic diseases - usually under 20 per breed which you would say are issues for the breed. The cross breeds are showing less recessives but about equal numbers for polygenic and the mixed breed show lots more genetic diseases but only one or two for each one . You can easily see whcih diseases in which breeds need to be worked on and tested for etc but with the mixed breeds almost allof the known genetic issues show in low incidence so you would have no idea on what to test them for to try to eliminate risk of it showing in later generations. So our survey backs up what Padgetts study showed.

Can you please share where you got that data Steve, because I've never found anything concrete to show that crossbreed dogs are on average less healthy than the average purebred. Thanks. Padgett - I didnt say one was more or less healthy over all than the other I said that here is less genetic diseases in purebreds than in mixed breeds.

I dont think its going to be confined to Victoria - there is a push on Australia wide for this. In NSW it was this exact situation which has seen at least 3 rescues which I am aware of having to shut down. I believe save a shep was one of them. the new laws promised in Victoria to control puppy farmers by making them comply with planning laws will also apply to rescue just as they do in NSW. Albury dog rescue people and Radar have felt this sting too.

Malteseluna There is a whole lot of breeds which can and do get SM including cross bred and mixed breed dogs - Usually no one knows whether a dog has this until it shows symptoms and gives the owner and the vet reason to do tests and try to work out what is causing the problems. It starts to get messy because the disease is said to be a genetic disorder known in the breed even if there has only ever been one case and even if the cause may be something else. Until it becomes noticed breeders dont have a clue about it being there or knowing whether they should test their breeding animals. So theoretically it could be quite prevalent without anyone really knowing yet that more than a couple are affected. It possible that it would be un heard of in the breed and in lots of the breed almost over night. The fact that it occurs in Cavs has been spoken about pretty loudly and because of that lots of them have been scanned and there has been a lot done with research to try to find how it is passed on through the generations and how to try and stop it. Even if by a miracle they did work out the mode of inheritance thats no guarantee that it would be the same for another breed. Let me try and explain it this way. I am a carrier for a recessive disease and the only way I know that is because one of my kids developed symptoms and had tests done - So far 5 out of 8 have been tested and so far 4 have shown to be affected. If I had known back when I was making babies I had this genetic issue I could have made sure that the person I was mating with wasnt also a carrier and these kids wouldnt now have the rot to deal with - But its considered to be rare so even though they know about 5% of the population carries it that isnt enough reason to test everyone in case they have it. What Im trying to say as a breeder one of the things you have to work out is firstly the incidence and risk factor. Lots of different things help you to work that out so you know whether you need to test for that particular thing or not - because a dog has around 100,000 genes and you cant go mad testing every dog for everything which it may have a tiny chance of having because its known to be in the species. Even though purebred dogs are spoken of as if they are sicker the reality is that they actually have less chance of having about 200 known genetic diseases which dogs can get. The breed of dog which gets more genetic disorders than purebreds is a mixed breed dog. You cant predict what those diseases may be so you cant possibly test for them or screen for them even if they were only recessive issues, if the dna tests are available as carriers dont show sysmptoms for the disease and polygenic ones which are caused by 100 different things acting on each other are impossible to predict. Any genetic disease can show up anywhere without warning. Purebred breeds have about 20 genetic diseases each but they are in higher incidence than in a mixed breed dog. The press has jumped on this as if its a bad thing but the reality is that because we know what diseases we have in that breed we know what we should and should not test for work toward it being eliminated altogether from the breed. In the UK SM has been recognised as a problem in Cavs and as a natural progression cavs in this country are being sited as also having SM in a higher than average incidence than in other breeds.Some science says thats true and some are recommending that the status of dogs should be known before they are used for breeding.Some of the breeders are testing and scanning and others dont feel there is a need - time will tell. In your case - Malts there is no reason to suggest that SM is something you as a dog owner should be worried about over any other thing that might occur and there is no reason to suggest breeders should scan their dogs before they breed them. If at any time that changes and we see a higher incidence then that will change and what to do about will be assessed and the breeders will go about working on it. So back to the question - is there anything to read on this - probably - and as you go looking relax a little as at this time the chances that your dog has this is limited.

If you go here and read this submission - its pertaining to NSW but the issues relating to prosecutions are relavant http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parl...A25774B0025EC3A

QCAT - Says it handles complaints with Animal care Under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 decisions about registration, using an animal for scientific purposes, disclosure exemption applications and giving an animal welfare direction. Thats not quite what we mean.

However, reputable means people who have incorporated and who have to comply with planning laws. No matter where you live if you are running a business from home whether that is non profit or not you have to apply for a permit and comply with planning laws. To date these planning laws and mandatory codes are policed by councils except in NSW.

Not quite - rescue so far have been reluctant to think they too would be under the gun as breeders have been but this has been on the agenda for at least 3 years that I am aware of . It was One of the issues discussed at the RSPCA round table but put aside for the purposes of that discussion as a separate issue to puppy farming but not just in Victoria but everywhere there are definitely moves afoot to stop private rescue. When rescue began yelling for tougher laws and cheered when Brumby announced that would happen they didnt consider that if the RSPCA has greater power to police planning laws as well as POCTAA that this would be their battle too.

Probably - the animal rights have done a pretty good job on telling the public on how to find a good breeder - in fairness this has been embraced by the purebred dog world as a mantra of how they are better than any other breeder. Every where you go you see copious lists of what constitutes a good breeder and how to tell if they are ethical. Few of those things were ever true of a good breeder but it made us all think we should do what they say in case we were judged to be lacking and we all start believing it too. We strutt our stuff and tell everyone about how we test and how we give guarantees etc and reality is we probably asked for it.

If they have to register as a shelter rather than a rescue - that will change everything for them. legislation in Victoria relating to what you can and cant do as a shelter will see lots of animals go without. You see this is how they work. They propose laws whcih will afect those who are shelters. No one really kicks up much because they are not shelters and they think it will only affect the big shelters which are already known as shelters- pass the legislation and them wammo - you're it. chuck in a bit of new laws to make sure you can be policed and its all over.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/animal-r...1120-181z4.html <H1 class="cN-headingPage prepend-5 span-11 last">Animal rescuers say letter is a death warrant </H1> Mark Russell November 21, 2010 Puppy love: Jenny Allen, of Hoppers Crossing, adopted 12-month-old Aysha after seeing the three-legged terrier on the PetRescue website. "This little girl has brought so much joy to my life," she said. Photo: Ken Irwin COUNCILS have stopped handing over cats and dogs on death row to rescue groups following a bureaucratic decree that animal lovers say will lead to the unnecessary killing of abandoned pets. The Department of Primary Industry's Bureau of Animal Welfare has sent a bulletin to councils warning them about dealing with unregistered rescue groups. The bureau wants each volunteer rescue group to be registered with the local council as an animal shelter and to operate under the code of practice for the management of dogs and cats in shelters and pounds. Volunteer rescue groups, who claim they save more than 1000 animals a year from death row in pounds and official shelters, say the move is bureaucratic, heavy-handed and discriminatory. Dog Rescue Association of Victoria president Trisha Taylor said volunteers take unwanted dogs and cats into their own homes and spend time and money rehabilitating them so they can be rehomed. They did not want to have to turn their homes into animal shelters and report to the bureau. ''The rules for shelters are onerous and intended for multiple dog situations,'' Ms Taylor said. ''This is no different than you taking an extra dog into your home and having to declare yourself an animal shelter, with the bureau coming to check you meet the code's standards.'' She said volunteers did not put the rescued cats or dogs in cages, but treated them as pets until they were adopted out. She said the bureau wanted to either gain control over rescue groups or shut them down - a move that would force up the kill rate of abandoned animals. An estimated 250,000 dogs and cats are killed each year in Australia, but three-legged terrier Aysha escaped the noose. Jenny Allen, of Hoppers Crossing, fell in love with 12-month-old Aysha when she saw her photo on the PetRescue website. ''She was so beautiful and this little girl has brought so much joy to my life,'' Ms Allen said. ''She runs, jumps, and does everything a four-legged dog can do and it's just ridiculous to think she was about to be put down because she has only three legs. If these volunteer rescue groups are shut down, it's going to be a very sad day.'' Ms Taylor said the bureau's bulletin was being interpreted by local councils to mean they could not release dogs and cats to rescue groups. She has written to Premier John Brumby asking him to clarify the legislation. ''No pound or shelter should be able to kill a dog or cat that a rescue group can save,'' she said. ''Why is the bureau not welcoming us?'' The bureau's Steven Moore said councils needed to be made aware that the aim of the Domestic Animals Act was to promote responsible pet ownership, animal welfare and the protection of the environment. Mr Moore said councils could not hand over a dog or a cat to an animal shelter, foster carer or rescue group without ensuring they had the facilities to provide the necessary veterinary care. In a letter to Ms Taylor, he said: ''The legislative issue is to meet the requirements of the act, not prevent people like you assisting councils with the rehousing of physically healthy and behaviourally sound dogs and cats.'' Ms Taylor, however, said rescue groups operated under strict rules and stringent rehoming practices, and that the bureau should be advising councils and pounds that the groups have the right to rescue any animal that would otherwise be killed.

breedinginquiry.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/final-dog-inquiry-120110.pdf The Bateson Report Page 45

For those of you who havent seen this - This is the document shortstep is referring to whcih is the plan for us put out by Sydney Uni. Their website tells us that they collaborate with the ANKC ,RSPCA, AVA,GSD club and a couple of others. http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/research/d..._point_plan.pdf Ten-point plan for dog breeding Collaborate: encourage collaboration amongst all interested parties; facilitate genuine dialogue amongst all interested parties, resulting in positive action that can be embraced by all stakeholders Review breed standards: review breed standards and change them where necessary; provide incentives to encourage the breeding of healthy dogs with favourable temperaments Conduct pedigree analyses and monitor the extent of genetic variation: enable pedigree analyses to be conducted on all breeds, to determine the actual levels of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity. Complementary to the pedigree analyses, obtain estimates of actual genetic diversity levels in all breeds, using any information that may be available. Increasingly in the future, DNA technology (including dog SNP chips) will be used to obtain estimates of genetic diversity Limit the mating of close relatives: recommend that the offspring of any mating between first-degree relatives (parent-offspring; full-sibs), and possibly second-degree relatives (e.g. half-sibs, double-first cousins, uncle-niece/aunt-nephew, grandparent-grandchild), be not registered Import genetic variation from other countries and from other breeds: especially for the numerically-small breeds, encourage and facilitate (a) importation of less-related animals from the same breeds in other countries, and (b) programs involving an outcross to another breed, followed by backcrossing. Provide examples of how this has been done successfully without compromising the integrity of breeds. Such programs are very effective strategies for introducing genetic diversity in numerically-small breeds and for addressing particular inherited disorders in any breed. Progress in such programs can be monitored by genotyping with dog SNP chips Monitor the incidence of inherited disorders: in conjunction with epidemiologists, implement the LIDA strategy for continually estimating the prevalence of inherited disorders within breeds, and for making this information available to breeders, veterinarians, researchers, and potential pet-purchasers Control single-gene disorders: recognise the distinction between: (a) eliminating (or decreasing the incidence of) inherited disorders (which is certainly possible), and (b) eliminating all mutant genes that cause disorders (which is not possible) Consistent with this reality, for known autosomal-recessive disorders, devise guidelines/rules that encourage/ensure that all matings involve at least one parent that is known to be (or has a high chance of being) homozygous normal [this will achieve (a) above]. At the same time, do everything possible to expand research into inherited disorders, especially with the aim of expanding the list of inherited disorders for which DNA markers are available for identifying homozygote normal animals. For practical feasibility, aim to expand current DNA testing to the stage where all available DNA tests can be incorporated in a single dog SNP chip (which can also include DNA profiling) Control multifactorial disorders: for multifactorial disorders, develop schemes (in close collaboration with breeders) for using the most powerful means of predicting the results of any mating (namely estimated breeding values; EBVs), using phenotypic and pedigree data (and in the future, also from DNA marker data); and provide incentives for matings for which the average of the parental EBVs is on the favourable side of the kennel average and/or the breed average Investigate insurance schemes: investigate the potential of insuring breeding stock against throwing offspring with particular disorders, especially those for which neither DNA tests nor EBVs are available. This provides increased financial security for vendors of breeding stock, reduces the likelihood of serious legal disputes between vendors and purchasers, and (very importantly) encourages reporting of disorders Facilitate continuing education for all stakeholders: work with educational institutions to enable breeders, administrators, veterinarians and pet owners to increase their understanding of the biological and ethical issues involved in dog breeding Frank Nicholas, Chris Moran, Peter Thomson, Imke Tammen, Herman Raadsma, Mohammad Shariflou, Bethany Wilson, Peter Williamson, Claire Wade, Paul McGreevy Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 17 September 2009

jacquie835 Im hearing you but there are many sub issues in what you are saying. Im not trying to duck the issue Im simply saying hang on a minute until we get to that bit. for the record Im not up for condoning any breeding which is to the detriment of the dogs or the breed either.

pet plan is a sponsor for the MDBA awards - Vet Nurse of the Year Category and this next post isnt an advertisement for them just answering some of the issues which have been presented. Ive spoken at length and given hypotheticals for breeders. What if I get my pup examined - all clear - send it home and next thing its a mess. Answer as long as it didnt have these issues when it went home and your vet gave it a clean bill of health when they examined it - all is clear and they will cover the insurance. I put 6 weeks free insurance on my puppies as they are leaving my property and I recommend to every one that pet insurance is a good idea and give them soem very good reasons why. I give examples of the one I sent home where dad was playing golf in the back yard and the pup ran between its legs and was killed in front of the kids, I give examples of the one which drowned in the pool, I give examples of the one that ate snail bait 2 days after it went home,I give examples of the 2 which died from snake bite and explain how Petplan covered the vet fees and the price of the pup minus $100 and I explain that while I do everything I can to ensure that it will live a long happy and healthy life because its a living thing that anything can happen. I advise them to take out insurance when the free one runs out with either pet Plan or another company. There is also a viable suggestion that a breeder may pay for the first year's insurance and add that onto the price of the pup. Pet Plan have won Pet Insurance provider of the year in our awards 3 years ina row and the main reason is because of the fact that they let breeders off the hook a bit when they send the puppy home. Of course there are some exceptions but they are things Im happy to cover anyway. If the buyer doesnt buy insurance when the free one runs out Im happy to discuss what my level of responsibility should be if its something I could have or should have avoided and I was neglegent in some way.

Thank you - much of this is an age old probelm. For as long as I can remember purebred dogs have been more expensive than mixed breed dogs but these days its more common for papered purebred dogs to cost less than purebred dogs from pet shops or cross bred dogs. When I was a kid everyone knew why purebred dogs cost more. because you could breed them and have puppies and have her pay her way . A purebred costs as much to feed as a cross bred but if they had pups you couldnt get the same amount for your pups. Some showed their dogs but lots of them were what we call now back yard breeders. If you bought a purebred pup froma breeder and told em you would breed it you expected the breeder wouldnt sell you a dud and they wanted what was best for the breed in general regardless of who was breeding them. If it wasnt suitable for breeding the breeder would say so and tell you why. There were more puppies around from lots of different combinations of male and female - breeding wasnt limited to one show dog which wins a bit sire 100 or more pups so if the dogs did have some filthy genetic thing going on the potential for it to get into the entire gene pool was limited. At the end of the day its coming down to a cost = supply and demand and that is basic economics so for a variety of reasons including the costs of scanning and testing etc the less there are available the more the pup will cost. I have also struck breeders who should have their phones disconnected if thats how they respond to potential puppy buyers and then they tell us they care about the future of the breed!

To just start a media campaign endorsed by a celebrity isn't the answer. However valuable the media is. Recommendations from the "Bateman report?" Let's not hang around waiting for independent bodies to make laws out of that, while we sing the praises of purebreed dogs and parade around pet expos with puppies. Let's be proactive, commission or collect our own scientific reports, get what we can out of the Bateman report, make a big plan, make the tough decisions, and package that into a positive message to the (powerful, scary?) audience that has the concerns that Steve started this topic about. Yes I agree in the main with this except that I think this and what raz and Jaxxbuddy are saying needs to be incorporated into it all too. And of course its not that easy when the scary within our own ranks are bigger liabilities than anti purebred factions.

Sheridan I like that better than the pet expos too. For now I need us to simply work through the natural progression of this thread and openly discuss the things we feel would be worth having a closer look at - we dont all have to agree and debate is healthy - just dont take to a personal level though I have to admit there was a bit there yesterday where my fingers were itching Then Id like to pull some of you aside who feel you could contribute and you feel passionately about it and take you away to a private section of this forum where we can take it to the next level and really go to work on solutions without the side chatter distracting us. Its important to run through this bit first because it sorts it a little before we get to having those working on it united in that one goal.

We went looking for the numbering thing but decided not to worry about it yet. If thats what's needed we will simply number them when they come in. I hope there are 100,000 and I have to bring ina team to number them . Yes you're right even one is good.

There is much work being done in that area pebbles and I dont think it will be ignored. The most difficult and frustrating thing to get around is that basically the system is set up to keep you shut up and make it hard to get past go. Its been a steep learning curve to try to find the protocols and procedures of how to present what you have and bring it to attention. Even just putting a petition together to comply with the crap they have in place so that when you get it to where its has to go - after you work out where it has to go - makes you go . My whole life I thought if people felt strongly about something they could canvas others, get up a petition, show their local member and then he would know his constituents had a pain and as our elected rep he would do something about it or at least listen to you. Not that easy Im afraid. There is much going on behind the scenes and its not all in anti purebred favour - we are making friends too .So your threepence worth is most definitly is part of the way to go.

asal - dont worry about them. Any Australian who cant see the need for any group who has police and prosecutorial powers regardless of what legislation they are given for them to be held transparently accountable has issues that there is no point in sweating over. You cant speak logically to illogical people.

i know for example the apple dome so loved by chi breeders is certainly a lot bigger apple than ever on the original dogs and been increased over the decades along with the molera, and as a result a percentage of puppies never make it to even their first vaccinations. although in that case its never an issue for a puppy buyer because they simply dont survive. but i know id love it gone from the breed so i dont have to see a puppy born with no skull. no molera in the parents is first on my wish list. moderation in all, to me is good, muzzle not too short, dome medium not extreme. trouble is that makes u open to being branded as not breeding to show win and by default......get the drift Hold that thought Asal - its important we look at that in the thread on these issues.

O.K. I know it had to happen and its as good as here as anywhere. Ive no doubt that what Im about to say is going to get me in the poo. The reality is that some breeds of dogs have less quality of life than other dogs - in regard to the ability to cater to the natual instincts of the dog as a species. Its one thing to have a dog which doesnt play much with other dogs because it prefers not to because of how its temperament has evolved and quite another to have a dog which can't behave like a dog is normally expected to behave based on what other dogs normally choose to do because of the way it has been bred to look. Around about now we also have to take into account realities and not just what people think the dog would like to do. So the question becomes if a pug had every other gene the same as a pug except the way it looked would the pug choose to be more active ? Are they less active because they are temperamentally less inclined to action or are they less active because they are physically unable to cope with activity? Lots of dogs chase a ball but a Maremma will tell you to go get it yourself - that has nothing what ever to do with its mouth, or body - temperamentally there is no instinct or desire to chase or retrieve that ball. If it had a brachy head someone would be telling me about the poor dog because it cant catch a ball. Obviously when we have medical evidence the dog suffers because its structure doesnt allow it breath naturally whether it chooses to run around the block or not and registered purebred breeders are the ones breeding them thats a whole new ball game and one that its time we addressed - not as easy as it sounds but we can do it. If its O.K. with everyone this is a whole new topic and one Ive been putting off until we work through some other issues but we have every intention of addressing it - in a way you dont normally expect breeders to go about it.

Well that begs the question - why arent the breeders out there for the breeders. How long do they have to wait before they work out that their CCs are not going to do it for them and do something ? I find this completely ironic. Not that long ago, there were a number of DOLers who wanted to do something for purebreds - promotions at shows, brochures, etc - and it died a death because the majority of breeders on this forum dismissed it as unnecessary. yes i get quite confused as there are a few double standards/mixed messages from breeders No. I see no point in breeders being keen to see a hastily organised 'promotion' of purebreed dogs to go ahead when many good breeders cannot currently fill demand for their pups. And it certainly wouldn't do anything positive to address this topic "How do we counteract the bad press for purebred dogs?" A tent full of people at the Royal show shows self interest, it doesn't counteract bad press. Yes. But who is 'we'? trouble is. every breeder who self grooms emself thinking they are the "ethical" ones dont think they need to do a thing. the world knows they are ethical, they know they are ethical. its only the riff raff puppy farmers giving breeders a bad name, so why should you get out of your comfort zone and work on good press? bit of shame soo and i mean VERY few realise pillary one and you pillary all. far as joe public knows if you breed dogs your a puppy farmer. and so the press is out there and its the bad stuff, and its being passed on by the very people who should be realising the ones they want destroyed are a MINORITY yet they are spreading the paint and its sticking to all. yes there does need to be good PR done. but knowing how the papers like to get a good story and the truth isnt on the radar. i well remember Wynn Eason working her heart out for publicity for the Cavy Club and pedigree Cavies, (guinea pigs for you not in the lingo know) they had a field day poking fun at her and conning her into putting em into custumes , flower pots and all manner of stuipid poses, but Wyn gladly put up with the snide cracks and implied lunacy on the grounds that any publicity for the fancy Cavies is good publicity. how many have her fortitude is the problem. i know one name springs to mind if he were ever interested, and thats Dr Harry's brother, now that guy is a wag. met him years ago and he had me in stitches. yep hes the hansome one, he told me so, so i can take it on good account cant I? I dont believe that the pet buying public think everyone who breeds puppies is a puppy farmer - some do but people who come to me to buy puppies on the whole are much less likely to be concerned about that than would be expected from what is said on this forum. People who want one of mine are on the whole pretty smart people.