Steve

My link

I do believe that sometimes its the bitch telling you something but all good experiments give three examples. Couple of questions - did they do any swabs for bacteria count pre mating ? Have you spoken with her breeder to see if she has any advice for you to proceed with? Many years ago I had a beautiful bitch and 2 proven stud dogs. I couldn't get a tie with either of them as she behaved much like you describe your bitch's behaviour. My vet at the time was one of the few who had extra qualifications specialising in canine breeding so I rang her and told her what was going on and believe it or not she told me to give her a 15 mil shot of whisky .Well if ever you had any doubt about how alcohol can get you into trouble - you should have seen the difference! She stood and did everything she had to do, we got a mating from the boy I had preferred and we got a litter of 12 puppies . When she had the puppies she was a rat - she wouldn't stay in the whelping box to feed them - she kept wanting to jump up and out to tell me what funny things were in her bed .I was wrestling with her to get her to stay still long enough to get a puppy on to feed - so again I rang the vet and she told me to give her another shot . 30 mins later she was relaxed and letting the puppies feed, cleaning them etc. and all was well. next time she was heat - same problem - same solution .I didnt need to do anything when she had the puppies the second time but without the grog she wasnt having a bar of the mating.

The person who bred them, and the environment and culture that favors them. If its any environment and culture which favours them it's one created by the media and up until now animal welfare and even some animal rights propaganda until they got to a point where the registered breeders believed the sales pitch. Until recently every "how to buy a puppy" where to buy a puppy" was "Go to a registered breeder, especially one that shows their dogs because they are involved in activities ,they health test and operate under a code of ethics [ one that is less strict regarding welfare issues than state codes of practice]

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 ?

Sounds good and its the sort of statement needed to be put out here to make everyone feel the way you all feel. That the problem is acknowledged and they will take action to proceed to a better outcome. In my opinion its a push for them to really make a timely difference based on their system for registration restrictions etc which is similar to ours and reliant on the breeders and especially breeders who run the breed clubs.

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.

Well there are some points I would like to make Its common to blame the ANKC ,the rules of their affiliated clubs ,the standards and the show scene. the value placed on how the dog looks and the desire for show ribbons. We can toss over possible solutions and causes but no matter what the solutions may be at the end of the day if the breeders don't get it its going to be a long slow agonising process. There are no rules within the ANKC or affiliated clubs which have compelled breeders to breed their dogs to extremes. .The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them. Judges within the show system are pretty easy to blame as well but at the end of the day they couldn't award dogs which presented with extremes if the breeders were not breeding them. The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them. The wording of the breed standards may be lacking in exact detail of what is moderately short ,providing exact measurements etc but The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them. Large part of the problem is that traditionally breeders are educated on how to select breeding dogs and build breeding programs from breeders who don't really know themselves and have become desensitised to the potential issues etc. We can talk about breed politics, bullying, power ,egos, control etc and we can also take into account that conformational changes have been pretty slow so they crept up on us before we realized that they would create such health problems but The final responsibility for any puppy that is born with lessened quality of life due to its conformation is the person who bred them. The ONE thing that needs addressing so that all else follows as a natural , so that any changes or strategies decided on will be effective and as swift as possible is the reversal of desensitisation to the impact on health caused by the breeder's decisions, education and desire to be part of truly working toward better health of the dogs by the breeders and a genuine desire to primarily focus on what is best welfare outcome for the dogs they breed. In my opinion if you Address this then the opportunity to turn it around and prevent it happening again is more achievable and will create a snowball effect so everything else will follow.

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. 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 . Your bias makes you see that it is the CCs wanting or having jurisdiction over dogs which are not registered with them but that's just not the case.they only want control over their members dogs which are registered with them. So if the registry is not ruling against something outside their jurisdiction and only ruling about dogs belonging to their members and there is provision for the stud book to be opened if necessary why the constant focus on placing the blame for what we are dealing with on that rule? Breeders are already free to meet the needs of man first and herein for me lies the answer.

I breed miniature horses. I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose. So how are all those health issues emerging in Miniature Horses going? Should we ban them too? Or insist on outcrossing for size? I have NOT insisted on banning OR out crossing. Health issues identified: Before progeny from my stallion can be registered, he must undergo and pass a veterinary inpection. If he shows any signs of having those conditions, or of having surgery to correct those conditions, He will not pass inspection and his progeny will not be eligible for registration. D.N.A on file. ( my choice) We have the same problems with 'newbies' or those who see big dollars and think if they pay lots, they can ask lots. That problem is evening out ( very slowly, since horses are so much more long lived than some other species) as the market is flooded with inferior types and people do start to realize there is more to "big money" than male + female = multiply. They are also moving on to the newer 'fad' in American Shetlands. Its a common modern problem with any animal that doesn't ( relatively) need much room.... The more money people see asked for, the more they want part of that. When the money is less, the interest is more genuine and mostly more responsible because of that. I have also bred milking goats, long before they were considered worth any thing to Australian farmers, through the popularity phase when people would pay big money for anything and more for pedigree, and finaly the market settled down to achieve relative stability. The problems encountered early are mostly wiped out today, or confined to small pockets. There may be other new problems for all I know since I no longer breed dairy goats. My need for them is gone. But similar deal to other live stock. No restriction on what I could breed my animals with. If the results don't meet certain criteria they simply aren't eligible for registration. And thats fine. There seems to be an assumption that if a pedigree, registered DOG though, is used for breeding, the breeder must expect resulting progeny to also be eligible for registration in some sort of stud book no matter what that animal was bred to. That is not what I am arguing. There is no rule, in registries I have been involved with for any of of the mentioned species, that I can NOT breed a registered animal with any thing but another registered animal of the same breed. The breeder simply accepts that animal may not be eligible for registration if certain criteria is not met. Registration and/or eligibility for show is not the only value or direction recognized. I believe though not problem free, for the most part those species are in much better shape than domestic dogs of either pedigree or mutt heritage. A breeders decisions (weather they end up right or wrong) are based on value adding for the individual conditions or environment that breeders must work with. A goat farmer with pedigree stock and a goat breeder with unregistered stock both recognize the same values in GOATS to achieve the purpose of a Goat. The husbandry requirements are shared and discussed equally. The heath issues are shared and discussed equally, and tackled equally. The value of healthy stock is a shared responsibility. A breeder of cross breed goats has access to healthy stock and an understanding of what to look for, what to avoid and how to find a breeder matching his requirements, with advise to do that readily available. ANY breeder has access to stock with predictable traits and health status. A pedigree goat has likely gained value because of that. A cross breed goat has likely gained value because of that. Over what was being produced here 30 years ago. Steve, " So it is true that some state C.Cs have it in their regulations and code of ethics that the Registered Dog can't be used with an unregistered dog" THANK YOU!! I am not aware that that rule is 'new' or not pretty universal to pedigree dogs. I noted it in at least 2 overseas registries when I started this research, but it has never been formal research so no notes to confirm which. Will have to check. I do know it was part of Regs. in at least one country overseas 45 years ago. As to the fact people are doing it anyway contrary to rules and regs. They sign up to a code and disregard it, doesn't say much for their character. Some do all sorts of shonky things but the real argument against what you are saying is that there are thousands more people breeding unregistered purebred dogs or registered purebred dogs that they choose not to register than there are those who register them In many cases the only criteria for registration that is missing is that the breeder doesn't want to be a member of their states purebred organisation. Often the breeder provides a copy of the parents registered pedigrees or a hand written pedigree. I believe that even in your mini horse org you have to be a member to be able to register a horse. I have to be a member of the sheeps org to register my stud sheep. The people who are breeding purebred dogs which they dont register with a state CC are in just as much hot water [ more if you go with the accusation that its them and not us] so I just really dont get what it is you believe will be changed for the welfare of the dogs due to their conformation if this were to happen. I have never seen another registry which restricts the ability for a breeder to allow their purebred dogs to be mated in this manner This is the Dogs NSW one - note the date it was introduced July 2013. 12 . A Member shall not knowingly permit the mating of any dog or bitch which is not registered on the Main Register of ANKC Ltd or with an organisation on the listing of ANKC Ltd Recognised Working Dog Associations/Kindred Bodies as being eligible for registration onthe Sporting Register. 13. A Member shall not knowingly permit any of that Member's pure bred dogs to be mated toa dog of a different breed, to a cross-bred dog, or to any unregistered dog of the same breed or to a dog not on the Main Register unless:-i) such mating is for the health, welfare and/or the development of a breed or an aspect thereof; andii) The Member has obtained the prior approval of the Board of Directors.The prohibition against crossbreeding contained in this clause shall not apply to guide and working dogs.

I breed miniature horses. I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose. So how are all those health issues emerging in Miniature Horses going? Should we ban them too? Or insist on outcrossing for size? I have NOT insisted on banning OR out crossing. Health issues identified: Before progeny from my stallion can be registered, he must undergo and pass a veterinary inpection. If he shows any signs of having those conditions, or of having surgery to correct those conditions, He will not pass inspection and his progeny will not be eligible for registration. D.N.A on file. ( my choice) We have the same problems with 'newbies' or those who see big dollars and think if they pay lots, they can ask lots. That problem is evening out ( very slowly, since horses are so much more long lived than some other species) as the market is flooded with inferior types and people do start to realize there is more to "big money" than male + female = multiply. They are also moving on to the newer 'fad' in American Shetlands. Its a common modern problem with any animal that doesn't ( relatively) need much room.... The more money people see asked for, the more they want part of that. When the money is less, the interest is more genuine and mostly more responsible because of that. I have also bred milking goats, long before they were considered worth any thing to Australian farmers, through the popularity phase when people would pay big money for anything and more for pedigree, and finaly the market settled down to achieve relative stability. The problems encountered early are mostly wiped out today, or confined to small pockets. There may be other new problems for all I know since I no longer breed dairy goats. My need for them is gone. But similar deal to other live stock. No restriction on what I could breed my animals with. If the results don't meet certain criteria they simply aren't eligible for registration. And thats fine. There seems to be an assumption that if a pedigree, registered DOG though, is used for breeding, the breeder must expect resulting progeny to also be eligible for registration in some sort of stud book no matter what that animal was bred to. That is not what I am arguing. There is no rule, in registries I have been involved with for any of of the mentioned species, that I can NOT breed a registered animal with any thing but another registered animal of the same breed. The breeder simply accepts that animal may not be eligible for registration if certain criteria is not met. Registration and/or eligibility for show is not the only value or direction recognized. I believe though not problem free, for the most part those species are in much better shape than domestic dogs of either pedigree or mutt heritage. A breeders decisions (weather they end up right or wrong) are based on value adding for the individual conditions or environment that breeders must work with. A goat farmer with pedigree stock and a goat breeder with unregistered stock both recognize the same values in GOATS to achieve the purpose of a Goat. The husbandry requirements are shared and discussed equally. The heath issues are shared and discussed equally, and tackled equally. The value of healthy stock is a shared responsibility. A breeder of cross breed goats has access to healthy stock and an understanding of what to look for, what to avoid and how to find a breeder matching his requirements, with advise to do that readily available. A pedigree goat has not lost any of its value because of that. Steve, " So it is true that some state C.Cs have it in their regulations and code of ethics that the Registered Dog can't be used with an unregistered dog" THANK YOU!! I am not aware that that rule is 'new' or not pretty universal to pedigree dogs. I noted it in every overseas registry I checked when I started this research, but it has never been formal research so no notes to confirm which. Will have to check. As to the fact people are doing it anyway contrary to rules and regs. with no more success, the very fact they sign up to a code and disregard it at all, doesn't say much for their character. Actually the goat breeder who breeds registered stock and wants to enter them into shows and be awarded due to their closeness to the standard and get top dollar way over and above what his neighbour will get has at least a slightly different criteria and value placed on different animals for selection. In my breed of sheep a stud Ram which has won at Dubbo can expect up to $40000 for him. I hardly think the guy next door who has a commercial flock with no papers and no chance of a championship is going to get more than a couple of hundreds dollars for him - even though they produce great meat. I breed working Maremma which are registered pedigreed and a person who breeds this breed who is not interested in registering them has the same goal as me in seeking a great working dog.I dont show my dogs and around here if its a great looking dog resembling the conformation standard and it cant work is of no use to me or the people who take my puppies. We have the same value placed on a working dog but I believe using the pedigree system is a more useful tool to help me and those who come behind me to select the best dogs for my breeding program. We have hundreds of members who dont show and use the registered pedigree system to select therapy dogs, assistance dogs, search and rescue dogs ,agility dogs, obedience dogs, medic alert dogs, etc. There is no rule within any state CC codes or regs that someone must breed for the show ring

So in other words what you are advocating is for members to be able to breed their registered pedigreed dogs to dogs which are not registered and if the progeny meets certain criteria you want them to be able to be admitted into the pedigree system. Is that right?

I breed miniature horses. I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose. Registration or pedigree is another matter. The progeny MAY be registered or not, if I prefer to fore go registration, or if the resulting progeny do not conform to standards. Regulations only govern an animal that WILL be registered, in which case, it must fit with breed standards and the pedigree will be incomplete if parentage is unknown or unable to be verfied. Registration requirements vary, in some registries it will be classified as as foundation. There are no rules I am aware of preventing pedigree cattle or sheep or even pig breeders to ONLY breed animals that will be eligible and registered into the stud books for that pure breed. Pretty sure a working stock dog breeder has the same options open. O.K. So its THAT rule but the ANKC dont have that rule at all. Nor do most other countries where they have the same welfare issues to deal with . I breed purebred sheep and as a member of the breed association I am not restricted on whether I want to put my ram over a bunch of ewes of a different breed but I cant expect that when I do that all of the lambs will be entered into a closed stud book either. In any closed stud book for any animal species you cant just pop one in that's not already registered because you as an individual think it would be nice. If the stud book is open you could. But that's two different arguments. If you breed your registered purebred to a mutt without intention of bringing that progeny into the gene pool for future development of purebred animals thats not the same as wanting to bring a mutt in because it brings something good with a desire to include it into the purebred genepool. How does it benefit the registered pedigreed gene pool if that progeny cant be registered because both parents arent registered? You say you are not arguing for the stud books to be open so please correct me if Im wrong what you seem to be asking for is that everybody should just allow their dogs to be with any dog to have dogs outside of registered gene pool sired by dogs owned by registered breeders ? Then what ? We already have a whole bunch of people who are using registered dogs to let them mate with other registered dogs of the same breed or different breeds or any old dog they want they just arent CC members and their dogs are in the same boat - under the spotlight because because they have conformation related health issues. So It is true that Some state CCs have it in their regulations and codes of ethics that the registered dog cant be used with an unregistered dog.Some states are O.K. if your registered dog has an unregistered litter or if you only register some of your puppies. So if the answer to the question of how we can breed healthier dogs is to remove that rule then how do you explain that this is a relatively new thing - people were breeding to extremes before some states introduced that rule, that its not the case in other countries, and this can be done and is being done by people who dont stick with the code of ethics and who have chosen to breed unregistered pedigreed purebred dogs.

The ANKC does not now nor has it ever had any association with individual members .Their constitution has never had any reference to individual members. The ANKC only has affiliated state bodies which are autonomous. The role of the ANKC is that of a co ordinating body to help ensure the affiliated state bodies - their members have the same standards for dogs, judges ,national recognition of awards and suspensions. The ANKC does not have a code of ethics for breeders though more recently they have a code of practice for hereditary diseases. Their rules and regs are pertinent to the registry. THEY dont say what a member can or cant do which dogs they can use etc THEY only state which dogs under which criteria they will accept on their registry. They do have regulations which are in need of a revisit in my opinion pertinent to this but all of the restrictions and approvals for registration of any breed are able to be changed via a process as directed by the breed clubs.and its a decision which carries Nationally because the purpose of the ANKC is to ensure co ordination and that its the same Australia wide. There is also criteria in place to tender and to accept breed extension explanations and even though within this they do reserve the right to do this themselves if they feel it is required and a breed club doesn't want to this would be exceptional and still needs to go through a process which takes at min 5 years. As stated in their regulations the purpose of these is to educate judges and students of the breed. Some obvious problems with this as to how they can be distributed due to copyright. The actual standards are pretty much set in stone with the ability to enter a extension. For example if a standard said "moderately short " theoretically a breed club can submit an extension which might clarify exactly what moderately short is via measurements etc. There are agreements in place via country of origin as who can and when they can in anyway alter the breed standard and is restrictive in whether a breed extension might fly. Reason for this is that the FCI acts as the coordinating body internationally just as the ANKC acts in this capacity nationally. Now knowing these things plus a whole long list of other things which are impacting on the current situation discussing realistic solutions with an understanding of what could possibly be done before it is taken out of their hands is something that I think has some merit . the culture and the environment is toxic but its not in my opinion due to the rules,regs and especially not any one rule in particular that we could remove and magically make it all better and be more confident and state our case and provide evidence that we don't breed dogs that suffer into the future. the environment can change if the cells [ the breeders- not the dogs] begin to think and operate differently.

One more time the registry [ the ANKC] does not set the protocols for each breed - and why you will see lots of "unless approval is given etc" within the codes, rules and regs.

But removal of that rule says nothing of the sort. The rules for breeding PEDIGREE dogs stay exactly as they are. The rules for breeding pedigree dogs are set into the rules and constitution even without that rule. It serves no purpose to the pedigree itself. Pedigrees would function the same way as they do now. A positive ruling ie: "We WILL..... " gives direction and purpose. It tells you to do this brings value to the purpose of the organization (or dogs) A Negative ruling gives no direction. It simply informs where there is no value to be had. Its a ruling AGAINST values to be had. What values must not be accepted into the pedigree system. Its a ruling against the environment, or what is out side the pedigree system. In this case, every thing out side the pedigree system. Never mind the fact that its STILL a dog. The language of the constitution says there is no value in any direction outside of a pedigree. The culture of its membership are bound to express that. Just as much as the language of genes govern expression. Exactly what constitution are you referencing ? ANKC origninaly, though I haven't found access to that more recently than several years ago. Though I would use as reference any registry with a rule against members breeding dogs out side of their protocols. There is no reason to exclude what was not there to begin with. As for individual breeders striving to do their best, I believe they do. Cells respond independently to their environment. How that is expressed in a cell culture though, depends on the language in the genetic code that binds them. My link I cant spot anything here to resemble what you say is there.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure.... Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test . as much as I would love to share your optimism I just can't find an example where the findings of scientific research have not been misused in the past. In this case I see organisation trying to use these new technologies for all kind of not so ethical manipulations, e.g. 'increased production' = bigger litters...mass production...military purposes...food production (see China)... Wow Willem thats a new way of looking at this that Ive never considered but we are talking about dog breeding and breeding for better health temperament, fertility,and longevity etc. Im struggling to see how this could be such a bad thing or worse than hit and miss especially when these sort of things have in the main been neglected. Ill think on this but right now I cant see how more knowledge and more information could be anything but a good thing. Its hard to consider someone would use such info to the detriment of purebred dogs rather than to their benefit. It can be harmful if you are depending on those methods to over come continuing problems- Good breeding practices with out those aids becomes harder, more complicated and impractical for small hobby breeders. More suited to a commercial venture and less part of a communities responsibility. Reducing the environment. It sacrifices more of the value in small hobby breeders.Less purpose for breeders and more for science driven by the ecconomics. MM Im not even going to try and answer that because to me that's just straight out illogical,seems a bit nutty and not based on the real world of the purebred pedigree hobby breeder .

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure.... Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test . as much as I would love to share your optimism I just can't find an example where the findings of scientific research have not been misused in the past. In this case I see organisation trying to use these new technologies for all kind of not so ethical manipulations, e.g. 'increased production' = bigger litters...mass production...military purposes...food production (see China)... Wow Willem thats a new way of looking at this that Ive never considered but we are talking about dog breeding and breeding for better health temperament, fertility,and longevity etc. Im struggling to see how this could be such a bad thing or worse than hit and miss especially when these sort of things have in the main been neglected. Ill think on this but right now I cant see how more knowledge and more information could be anything but a good thing. Its hard to consider someone would use such info to the detriment of purebred dogs rather than to their benefit.

But removal of that rule says nothing of the sort. The rules for breeding PEDIGREE dogs stay exactly as they are. The rules for breeding pedigree dogs are set into the rules and constitution even without that rule. It serves no purpose to the pedigree itself. Pedigrees would function the same way as they do now. A positive ruling ie: "We WILL..... " gives direction and purpose. It tells you to do this brings value to the purpose of the organization (or dogs) A Negative ruling gives no direction. It simply informs where there is no value to be had. Its a ruling AGAINST values to be had. What values must not be accepted into the pedigree system. Its a ruling against the environment, or what is out side the pedigree system. In this case, every thing out side the pedigree system. Never mind the fact that its STILL a dog. The language of the constitution says there is no value in any direction outside of a pedigree. The culture of its membership are bound to express that. Just as much as the language of genes govern expression. Exactly what constitution are you referencing ?

I dont think I would call it cynical - more of a realistic view in my opinion. One of my main" I am intrigued" is by the notion thats its a simple fix by just changing the standard , open the stud books, rub out a rule or two.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure.... Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test .

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard. Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions. 16% in a survey is not too many. moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose. Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool. Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog. But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away. It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin. Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing. Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity. The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs. So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job. As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today. That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow. No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs. Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only. Is that it? It THAT the rule you constantly reference and push about it being the root cause of the problems? Yes. I have been quite clear on that from the start. But thats not true - there is no rule which forbids members to recognise value in a dog ineligible to show. Show me where in the constitution of the ANKC that this is stated. If a breeder wants to demonstrate their success in breeding dogs which conform to the current view of the standard then the show ring provides a reward for them but to suggest that this is the only reward a breeder seeks or can receive is way off the mark. I think you confuse a pedigree with a registered pedigree.A dog can still have a pedigree if its not registered on the Kcs system even a hand written one scratched up equivalent to a birth certificate is a pedigree and as I have pointed out numerous times the ability for breeders to use dogs which are not registered, which do not have a pedigree - registered or other wise is now and always has been available when there is a good enough reason and when the necessary criteria is reached. There is a system in place which protects the breed from everybody making their own individual decisions in this regard which comes from the breed clubs. The ANKC cant just make up their own rules regarding a breed on its own ,they cant just decide to change a breed standard or place mandatory tests or conditions on registration criteria on a breed without the parent club and in lots of issues such as changes to a breed standard has to come through a breed's country of origin breed club. They cant get out of this due to agreements which are in place and have been for over 100 years without massive changes which for them would mean serious negative financial consequences. The UK has opened its stud books and theoretically they allow people to apply for and get approval easier for inclusion of dogs which dont have a pedigree but they have a different system and my deep argument in how this has been developed is wholly and soley on criteria about how the dog looks rather than what else it may bring to the gene pool.

Yes again I agree and it would be good if in this country Kennel Clubs, vet associations, research centres and welfare orgs have some point of agreement but that will mean re thinking how they respond.

Good post Mita but the glaringly obvious is that none of the activities reported or the research cited which the ANKC are involved in or are funding is relevant to BOAS or other conformational issues and it is the conformational issues which are being focused on in the current media campaigns. In order to be seen to be doing something toward elimination of dogs suffering due to their conformation something needs to change.

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard. Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions. 16% in a survey is not too many. moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose. Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool. Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog. But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away. It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin. Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing. Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity. The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs. So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job. As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today. That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow. No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs. Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only. Is that it? It THAT the rule you constantly reference and push about it being the root cause of the problems?

And the issue I have is that people have lumped every single pedigree dog breeder into the 'bad' basket. Never mind all those who health test their dogs and pour money into health research. Never mind all the pedigree dogs that die of old age. Nope, a few people see some unhealthy dogs of a few breeds and therefore every pedigree breeder is responsible even though they're not and that most dogs are not pedigree dogs. What on earth are you talking about - no one has said or suggested that every single pedigree dog breeder is in the bad basket and its clear that part of what the CCs are using as defence for what they do is about telling about the research and testing etc. Of course we are mindful of what is done on a positive level . The point is that everyone in the whole wide world can see that some pedigree breeders are breeding dogs which have poor quality of life and in order to get something done about it and defend their right to continue to carry on that its going to take something other than "Its not us" because sometimes it is. You are the only one in this thread making assumptions. The ANKC's rebuttal statement to the ABC report. ANKC Ltd are disappointed with the comments in the ABC article attributed to Assoc. Prof.Zuber and Dr.Crawford which continue the relentless attack on purebred dogs, amongst some of the inaccuracies in the article is the age to which Bulldogs can live, healthy Bulldogs from caring and responsible breeders can live to in excess of 10 years. It is regrettable that, in articles on the state of pedigree dogs health there is no acknowledgment of the multi thousands of dollars spent by ANKC Ltd Breeders on health testing and support of ongoing research into Canine Heritable Diseases . The Canine Research Foundation (CRF) is the official vehicle for funding ANKC Ltd research programs, it is an independent public charitable trust and is funded by a $1 levy on every puppy registered with the ANKC, A good proportion of the funds have been allocated to researchers at Sydney University a fact which Prof.Zuber and others choose not to acknowledge. Since 2000 CRF grants to researchers at Sydney University have totalled $324,000 they include: Dr Christine Griebsch for Evaluation of serial thromboelastography and platelet mapping in dogs with immunemediated haemolytic anemia treated with aspirin or clopidogrel. Assoc Professor Peter Williamson for research into Genetic management of canine lymphoma and Primary immunodeficiency in Australian German Shepherds, and a study of integrated genomics source for the health and well-being of dogs in Australia. Dr.Chris Weir for Efficacy of a personalised tumour vaccine to treat dogs with cancer. Dr.Katrina Bosward for Coxiella burnetii (Q fever): is this an important agent of disease in Australian dogs and reservoir for human infection?. Dr.P.Sheehy, Generation of 'clinic ready' canine induced pluripotent stem cells for regenerative medicine. Dr.Govendir Improving therapeutic control of seizures and Long term use of phenobarbitone in idiopathic epilepsy. Dr.A.Dart Magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of stifle pathology in naturally occurring cruciate ligament disease in dogs. In a recent interview with the ABC on the subject of brachycephalic breeds ANKC Ltd President Hugh Gent OAM conceded that the whelping of Bulldog puppies was a problem with a large percentage requiring caesareans, however, further information on research into the problem, given to the ABC in the interview has yet to be presented. What is not recognised by many commentators on the health of pedigree dogs is that there are two sources for obtaining puppies, in Australia, Registered Breeders and those who are not constrained by codes of ethics regarding health testing and programs to eliminate hereditary diseases, the majority of whom sell their puppies through the Internet. Of the estimated 341,000 puppies bred in Australia in 2015 only 20% (66,000) came from ANKC Ltd Breeders, it is from the 275,00 non registered puppies that most of the problems associated with BOAS are found. A separate posting will be made regarding important research in to BOAS.