Steve

That labradoodle registry is breeding toward breed recognition. Desgner dogs breeders dont have a registry - what the hell would they register when they only do a first cross with the first dog that comes along as long as its a different breed to the first.

Yes I remember that breeder but Pauline was aware of this already as I have had a conversation with her about it on a previous occasion so I dont think it was a surprise to her.She made comment about how we could have that changed if we petitioned the Ccs. Lesley and I also had a conversation with Pauline regarding this after the seminar where she most definitely believed that as she bred primarily for pets that she would be considered breaching the code of conduct.

Very doubtful if the comercial breeders group would have the funds to donate but no as far as Im aware there is no pledge coming from them. DOGS NSW banner is on the LIDA website and they have pledged 30,000. I hope they have left it open enough to be able to withdraw their offer if it isnt in our best interests for it to proceed without ammendment. If they go ahead and donate as it stands now Im going to be a very unhappy dogs NSW member.

Its better if it comes from your own words Everyone needs to take 2mins out and write to their state's CC because this is the only way you can get to the ANKC too. If you do nothing or delay we run the risk that it will go ahead with no benefit to the people who will be helping to fund it.- Us -unacceptable.

A part of the discussion on the day was that breeders who are members of the ANKC are not able to breed with their primary goal to breed nothing more than pet puppies. Because we were in Victoria I will use the code of ethics for Vic dogs as reference but they are all the same and to me dont stop anyone from breeding pet puppies if they dont show. 20.1.11 A member shall breed primarily for the purpose of improving the quality and / or working ability of the breed in accordance with the breed standard, and not specifically for the pet or commercial market. Now all that says to me is that a breeder needs to consider what comes next after this litter they are working on as well as the current litter. The opposite to the way a first cross breeder works because they are only interested in one litter and there is no expectation that their puppies will be used for breeding on with. That they can breed to supply pets as long as they dont compromise on the health, temperament or standard with no concern for how that will impact on the breed or the dogs that are used for breeding from the mating.It doesnt say they cant breed if they dont show or if they have goals as their priority other than how it will do in a show ring that they cant remain within the code of conduct. All it says to me is that you have to consider the standard as well as what ever else you are going for. Personally I cant imagine why anyone who breeds purebred dogs would want to breed pets and not care whether the pups resembled the breed in how it looked or behaved because the major reason purebred dogs make good pets is the ability to predict how they will look and act. So I wouldnt want that clause changed as it ensures breeders at least consider how the dogs shape up according to the standard as part of what they do. I certainly never want a commercial target being the primary consideration either.But that doesnt say you have to loose money or not make money as long as you cover the other stuff. Yet some breeders including at least one of the presenters definitely believed that if they bred pups as pets rather than as show dogs that the code of conduct prevented them being members. There were calls for members to petition the CCs to have these clauses changed to allow people to breed pet pups. Yet in other parts we were told we get what we select for and part of what we select for is being able to ensure each dog is as expected according to its breed.If our primary goal is amicability but we never considered the standard after a few generations they would all look like silver foxes!Wehave to cosider them both or end up with generic dogs. Because we all know that the majority of our pups go to pet homes we already consider their pet potential when we breed them even if we are hopeful of a champion. Breeding with consideration for the breed standard doesnt say thats all you can breed for it says not specifically for the pet or commercial market. I feel like Im missing something - whats the problem?

Board of Directors I suggest every person interested in the welfare and future of purebred dogs take this up with their dog clubs and Canine Associations NOW before its too late. Dogs NSW, P.O.. Box 632 St Marys NSW 1790. Open letter to the Board of Directors Dogs NSW, regarding contributing to the funding for the Sydney University LIDA research program and website. To whom it May Concern, I am writing this letter to express my concerns regarding the introduction of the LIDA research program and how that may impact negatively on purebred breeders, unless it is amended, to identify the breeders of those animals entered into the data base. LIDA was designed to collect, organise and disseminate information on the prevalence of inherited disorders among Australian cats and dogs. Dr Paul McGreevy, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney is the main developer of the site and has stated that one major aim in creating LIDA is to classify the disorders by breed. The collection of such data is intended to assist potential purchasers to make informed decisions when buying a puppy and kitten, for veterinarians to provide clients with local current data and professional experiences of their colleagues and for breeders to recognise which unwelcome traits are increasing and which are being successfully reduced. I am sure that all dog lovers would agree that this is a much needed resource and I commend the team at Sydney University for their initiative and their desire to collect such data and Dogs NSW for their show of support to the LIDA team. However, after several communications with Dr McCreevy it has become obvious that one major issue has not been addressed or considered in the development of this data collection. This, in the opinion of the Master Dog Breeders and Associates, will render this data completely useless and irrelevant for the pedigreed purebred dog and cat community, purebred dog and cat breeders and people seeking to purchase a pedigreed dog or cat. The reality is that there is no method within that data collection to identify whether any animal is in fact a purebred, bred by a pedigree registered breeder or any other breeder. This would in fact combine statistics and data with dogs which are bred by pedigreed purebred breeders, backyard breeders, puppy mill puppies and potentially dogs which are crossbred or mixed breed which resemble a purebred according to the vet who is entering the data. The Master Dog Breeders and Associates has discussed this issue with Dr McGreevy and we have made it clear that in our opinion that unless data is able to identify whether an animal was in fact a purebred animal bred by a registered pedigree dog or cat breeder, in difference to any other, the aims of LIDA would not be reached and our members would not be able to use the information collected to help us to breed healthier dogs. If an animal is entered into the data based on the practicing vets opinion of what breed it is, without identifying whether it is in fact a registered purebred, the potential for purebred breeders to have to answer for what those who do not screen, test or profile the parents and who may keep breeding animals in puppy farm conditions is extremely high and would not give a true glimpse of what a purebred breeder needs to be aware of in making their decisions in their breeding programs with their pedigreed animals. It would also, in our opinion, make the stated aim of educating puppy and kitten purchasers more difficult to achieve. This is a most serious concern for MDBA members and registered breeders especially considering the fallout from the Pedigreed Dogs Exposed program and the threat of laws and regulations being introduced based on the perceived health and disease level of pedigreed purebred dogs and cats. We are not happy about the concept of being held answerable for any other dogs than the ones we breed. Dr McGreevy has publicly acknowledged that this may be an issue and has stated that it is something which will be looked at, however, the MDBA is not convinced that this will be taken as seriously as we see it and that ensuring the data is able to identify pedigreed animals in difference to any other will not be treated as a priority by the LIDA team. I have asked the LIDA team to understand how important the ability to differentiate any data collected is to us, especially as pedigreed purebred breeders only breed approx 10% of puppies bred each year in Australia. This makes it even more likely that the wider and more successful the data collection is the more chance we have of being washed over by dogs which are not bred by our breeders and our actions and dogs judged accordingly. The MDBA is encouraging any person or group who is considering donating or contributing funding to this project to contribute only after this fault is amended and there is an ability for accurate data to be collected. I implore Dogs NSW who I believe have already pledged $30,000 funding to this research to ensure this is a requirement before they proceed. Yours Respectfully Julie Nelson Dogs NSW Member C.E.O. Master Dog Breeders and Associates .

I hear you Mita and while Im reluctant to state my personal feelings on how what I heard in that seminar has affected me on a public forum its hard not to say: Until I heard Kate S read I was drafting a response to the RSPCA puppy farming paper which I was pretty confident about and clear in my thoughts on what I felt would and wouldnt work and what I thought should or should not be considered among the RSPCA proposals. After attending that seminar with goldchow, my fellow MDBA and MDBA Pacers board member,to say we were disgusted would be an understatement. I am no longer so sure about what I need to write in response to that paper and its a much more difficult task to bring it together and it will definitely be changed in comparison to how it was going to be. It is probably not politically correct for me to say as CEO of the MDBA so I will ask you take this next comment from steve as a personal opinion but [in my personal opinion] if this is what commercial farmers are hoping will lift the bar and be used to legitimise puppy farming -if scientists and RSPCA and welfare groups are endorsing this as it is - then God help the dogs. The concept of a regulatory group is good but what was presented didnt make me think that it had a shot at what I had hoped it would.Thats not coming from the fact that I have a bias for purebred dogs but because I love dogs and it breaks my heart to know they suffer at the hands of humans.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/articl...45631_news.html RSPCA says shock collars cause for concern Danny Lannen February 13th, 2010 RSPCA officer Hugh Robinson with an anti-barking collar. Photo: REG RYAN ndm.kit.halfpage();ndm.kit.halfpage();function ebStdBanner0_DoFSCommand(command,args){try{command = command.replace(/FSCommand:/ig,"");if((command.toLowerCase()=="ebinteraction") || (command.toLowerCase()=="ebclickthrough"))gEbStdBanners[0].handleInteraction();}catch(e){}}func tion ebIsFlashExtInterfaceExist(){return true;}try{ebStdBanner0_DoFSCommand(command,args);}catch(e){} ndm.kit.halfpage(); Share this article GEELONG RSPCA inspectors are concerned uneducated dog owners are ignoring regulations and inflicting too much pain on their pups by using electronic anti-bark collars. Inspector Hugh Robinson said the collars should be used only as a last resort to curb problem barking and only under the supervision of a vet or qualified dog handler. The collars deliver an electric shock to the dog each time it barks. Have your say on the feedback form belowMr Robinson spoke out in response to growing RSPCA unease with their use. Businesses selling the collars also face strict regulations and fines of up to $1000. "We had an incident where somebody bought a collar not really understanding how it works and not being provided with the relevant information, placed the collar on their dog and the collar went off without the dog barking," Mr Robinson said. "The dog was quite distressed and in pain." Mr Robinson said people should only use the collars with sanction and written instructions from a vet or qualified dog trainer. Dogs have to be over six months old and owners need to have use of the collar reviewed by vets or qualified trainers every 12 months. "If you're going to use one of these collars it should be an absolute last resort, and last resort means the only other alternative is you have to get rid of the dog," Mr Robinson said. "I think they're used as a quick fix and I can't say they're cruel because they're legal, but I would discourage the community from using them."

They get their money back from the pet shop. One of the presenters (Paul I think it was) stated that research findings found that HD was in fact reduced in cross-breed dogs even if both parent dogs were breeds prone to it. One question for dog people who've been around awhile - just when did petshop puppies get SO expensive? Surely this is the driving factor of commercial puppy farms? Back in my youth pet shops sold pups for around $10 and the pet shops generally got them from locals who let their dog have a litter and then couldn't find homes for them all. I doubt commercial puppy farms existed back then - why would you when even the retail end only got $10 max for a pup and most people sourced pups thru FTGH. Another aspect to this, is the part played by vastly increased rates of desexing - perhaps this has been TOO successful? It was Mike Goddard who spoke about HD being reduced.Purebred unpapered beagles sell for double what I charge in pet shops. I rang a pet shop once who I was told had a litter of beagles and he told me he wouldnt buy a pup he couldnt make 500 dollars off. So therefore someone selling to his pet shop would still get more for their pups than I ask for mine. Its not just desexing - its a gradual lowering of the purebred dog breeder numbers too. Transpet - an agent for a pet shop in Hawaii pays about 100 bucks less for purebred main regsiter pups than most breeders charge. Breeders take their pups to Transpet on Monday and if they fail the vet test due to heart murmurs, hernias etc they call into a particular pet shop on the way home and pick up the same money with no vet check and no disclosure. Happens every week but they are still getting as much as me without the accountability or the buyer contact and support. Supply and demand - if you want a puppy where do you go to buy one ? Puppy farmers dont want to have you calling in and purebred breeders cant breed enough anyway. If they couldnt sell them they would be cheaper but they have people lined up for them. A litter of beagles wouldnt stay in a pet shop for 24 hours.

Both Helen Bennett and Mike Gollard made comment that perhaps people who breed show dogs shouldnt breed pet dogs and KateS requested that registered breeders should be more open to selling their breeding dogs to commercial breeders. Kate was there to propose what role a professional association could play in promoting the welfare of companion dogs by helping and registering responsible pet dog breeders. She spoke of how she felt that the RSPCA and others [including us] had a perception that puppy farmers were people who kept filthy establishments and didnt have the welfare of their dogs as a priority. In reality it wasnt that far removed from the motives the MDBA had when we started out. Just as we wanted to be able to say our members had agreed to a code of conduct harder than any other and that we would go further to screen and monitor their practices than the CCs do the aim of this group is to say their members keep clean establishments and they take socialisation etc into account in what they do. They are hoping to bring in purebred breeders, cross breeders and breeders developing new breeds - we aimed to bring in purebred breeders and people developing new breeds. Its about legitimising puppy farming and allowing those with higher standards to stand out from those on the lower end of the puppy farm group.Like it or not puppy farmers are here to stay so the theory is to try to lift the bar a bit. I think its a good idea. Im not sure how I feel about a commercial breeder being let off the accountability hook by selling to pet shops because obviously that may in fact increase rather than decrease animals going into pet shops but thats not my business.A commercial breeder with 300 breeding dogs can potentially breed a couple of thousand puppies a year and realistically I cant see them putting up their hands for ever to take em back. The work load involved in testing,screening buyers, having to take calls and answer that amount of enquiries and provide that volume of support is huge and it would take employing people just to cover it.That cuts into profits and would have them constantly being watched by the public because of the volume of people coming to their kennel to pick up dogs.Why on earth would they do that and not just drop their price a little and hand em over to a pet shop.? The MDBA is the only dog group in this country which doesnt allow their members to sell to pet shops and we can legally stay that way without someone screaming breach of trade laws and restriction of trade and that ensures that no matter where our members sell their dogs they never get let off the hook for accountability and thats the way we like it.

Does anyone know anything about The Companion Animal Breeders Association?

Could you also please ask questions about laws and regulations which we cant do anything about at Ipswich level so we know what we can and cant change localy before we work out a plan to get them to wake up to themselves.

No unfortunatley it is state wide. Some councils will hold dogs longer but they are under no legal obligation to. Ipswich pound are "difficult" to work with although Varicool did manage to a little bit. It's a pity because in most ways Ipswich is a very progressive council. So they can hold them longer if they want to - is that right ?

When Kate S said out loud she was O.K. if several purebred dog breeds were to become extinct you could feel the whole room shudder. The heat coming from a couple of GSD breeders when she said the poor dogs because of what had been done to them almost scorched the paint off the walls too.

From the Ipswich Council website: "Cats and dogs are held at the Pound for three working days, while livestock is held for seven working days. " It doesn't say what happens to them after that. Don't they offer (or outsource) an adoption service? Or are they automatically destroyed after 3 days. That's criminal! And why on earth is the holding period more than double for livestock (which typically owners are not as emotionally attached to as they are family pets)?? Yes that is crimminal and I thnk perhaps its time we did something about it. Someone help me out to save me time -the awards have me snowed in - This is a local policy particular to this queensland pound and not state wide - is that right?

I thought she said she did. I could be wrong though .... So they have actual certificates from a certified opthamologist then? Not just a quick look by herself? If they have the certification,at least its a very basic something,bu ti doubt it. They would argue there is no need as PRA is a single gene issue and their idea is that these dont show in F1 crosses. Also not all DNA tests have been developed yet for most breeds but the hybrid vigour thing with PRA would be the most powerful argument against them testing or profiling a pedigree of the parent dogs etc . Elfin who works in an eye clinic is clearly seeing that they forgot dogs are the same species and they are breeding dogs with problems they were confident they wouldnt get in first crosses. Our survey is showing similar and skin problems in F1 crosses are showing way too high.They also have a fair showing of HD and patella and elbow issues. Kate S gave stats for her dogs which have been diagnosed with HD but there's a fair argument that would challenge that because they are pets and unlikely to be scored unless they show sure serious signs of a problem. Purebred labs are scored as a matter of course so many more are in the count. When they compare that figure to labs [as she did ] there are several bumps to take into account. Such as how many have been screened and a bunch of other stuff. The figures tell us nothing and until there is better research its a crap argument. Its all in the way you say it too.If she is right and there is less HD in these crosses than in labs the big question which wasnt mentioned was whether they had less incidence than the other parent - a mini poodle. Also the survey she uses for her figures is old and the dogs being surveyed were all still pretty young. Id like to see a recent one but how many were sold through pet shops and how many would they be able to track and there's too many variables including what they are scoring them against and who is doing the diagnosing etc. It means nothing.

Thanks for your interest in my research and sorry I was running about flat chat most of the day and not able to spend much time chatting - the day absolutely flew past for me! I'd be more than happy to catch up and chat further any time you like Steve I have some journal articles about dogs kept in backyards from Amanda Kobelt's PhD research several years ago. Happy to forward them to you if you like? Email me at: [email protected] Thank you - Email on its way.

http://city-news.whereilive.com.au/your-ne...bred-puppy-dog/ All Lachlan, Jack and Lilly wanted from santa was a Border Collie dog. It was on the christmas list, delivered with bells on and the children were so excited. Little did the kids know that the Ipswich City Council Pound would kill the poor doggy without cross referencing with the RSPCA. ‘Josephine’ was sent to us at Peak Crossing all the way from a reputable Townsvelle breeder. She was wonderful dog for the children, gentle, timid and friendly. Very pretty and clean. We even had her desexed before she was sent to us. Sadly, the day after boxing day ‘Josephine’ dug under the fence and escaped before we had the chance to register or coller her. The local council and vets were closed over christmas. The children were crushed, but began searching for her. Quickly we registered Josephine with the RSPCA as a missing pet and put her photo up on their internet site. We checked the Ipswich City Council’s website for any animals matching our dog’s description and posted leaflets around our local community and vet. To make things worse, the day the dog escaped Mummy was put in hospital due to illness for the 3rd time during that year. So the kids and daddy were doing their best to search as well as driving a hour each way to visit mummy in the hospital. By chance the local postman told us that a gentleman in Purga handed the dog into the Ipswich City Council Pound on the condition that it would’nt be put down. To our delight we rang the pound to get our dog back, but were horrified with the news that it was put down the day before. Ipswich City Council Pound did not cross reference with the RSPCA before they put her down otherwise Josephine would have been returned to us. I would have thought the RSPCA would be the first place they would liase with. It has been such a horrible experience for the children to have their beautiful dog put down while their mummy was in hospital. It wasn’t fair for our kids or the dog. I don’t think we will be getting another animal for a long time.

I just wish that everyone who is coming to the table was a little bit humble and accept that we all have our own knowledge base and not be too quick to ignore what we may be able to contribute.Just as we have a lot to learn from them they too need to see that they may have a bit to learn from us.Even just simple basic errors and assumptions in what they think our codes of conduct say and what we can and cant really do starts it all in a negative block.

I understand what you were saying but I think you see it from a different angle and its a bit over simplified. The fact that some breeds are so much different to the same breed which havent been shown shows that breeders have in fact been selecting for things which will make better pets without being that aware of it. So we have been flogged because we supposedly only breed for the show ring but the truth is we havent. Now some scientists will tell you that certain looks must be related to certain temperaments and that may be the case sometimes and they use the silver fox stuff as evidence for that but I dont believe it is most of the time with purebred dogs. We're always hearing that particular breeds dont look the same anymore and we blame judges for that but even though thats part of it isnt the full story. Its pretty easy when you study a particular thing and come at it from only one angle. So someone who studies genetics for example will have a theory and set out to either prove or disprove something based on that start point but not even experts in the same field agree much of the time. Then you have a bunch of other types of scientists who look at things from a diiferent start point. For example, even though polygenic issues were discussed and environmental impacts etc we didnt hear anything about how disease may impact on temperament - yet Jean Dodds comes at it from a different angle and before she would look at the heritability she would eliminate thyroid issues. The thyroid issues may be heritable but they may be because of vaccination, heart worm meds etc Some others would look at diet. What happens if say hormones impact on how friendly a dog is today, maybe the weather, etc. When you breed dogs you cant afford just to single out one "expert" and blindly follow their advice until you consider a bunch of other stuff. One study says if we score and breed low scores thats all we have to do to bring the incidence of HD down another will say we need EBV to bring it down, another says we need both , another says if we feed raw we can prevent 60 % of animals deemed most likely to develop HD from getting it and so it goes on.Yesterday Mike Goddard said puppies dont learn fear response from their Mums but that needs further investigation from me before I blindly accept what he's saying because if thats not what goes on here it sure is a good imitation especially with the Maremmas. Ill talk about that another day. Then you get one guy [billinghurst] who says feed em raw and they wont get the thing - others say feed them crap because then if they get it we know where it is. I have 8 kids - I had 6 before I was 25 and 2 in my 40's .During that time there were lots of studies and lots of trends.One was advice for us to use controlled cryng to "train our kids" to shut up. One said alternate which side you allowed them to sleep on - never let them sleep on their tummies, another said dont lay them on their side let them lay on their tummies. We had some telling us what was the best age to introduce new tastes and solids and other for a while told us formula was better than breast milk ,delrosa was best for vitamin C, only let them feed 5 mins on each breast, then let them feed as long as they like, oops then back to ten minutes each side. We get people poppping them out in wading pools, electing C sections, using drugs , not using drugs etc Now they tell us controlled crying is child abuse, delrosa was full of sugar and all of our kids teeth were rotten.One clinic sister advised me to put a bit of vegemite on the tip of my baby's tongue when he was about 2 weeks old and the poor kid hated it and shuddered for ten mins .He's 36 now and still wont touch vegemite.The next baby doctor told me not to put a simngle thing in my baby's mouth except me until it was 6 months old. Some weighed me every visit others never did. I asked around the fourth one why he didnt weigh me and told him I was worried I might put on too much weight so he told me to look in the mirror .Next pregnancy the doctor was a weight nut case and approached it with a vengence! My point is as a breeder we have to take it all into account and we all have our own mini labratories so you cant just grab onto one theory and be so sure thats definitely the answer. Mia's study was great but as far as I could see we werent checking whether their diet had changed when they came into the kennel or maybe something like them being recently vaccinated as a matter of course before they may enter the kennel might impact the results too. Im not knocking Mias study Im simply saying that when it means how you are going to manage your breeding program we cant afford to just do as we are told and hear one study result and not challenge and think hard on what we know too and we need to challenge it all a bit. I promise you that just when you think you have the answers when you breed dogs something new comes along or you have new science to poke at.

Elfin Hang onto those figures we are going to need them. Our survey is showing similar things but I doubt they are going to believe our stats without thrashing us a bit and you are in the perfect spot to supply a follow up. Is there any way you can keep track of the stats for us for a while longer? By the way - you're beautiful and I was truly glad to meet you in the flesh. Julie I was nervous about meeting you... Of course I will keep track of the stats... Goose.

I wont assist them either and Mcgreevy was definitely right on one count. I would rather eat my own vomit than see one of my dogs used for crossbreeding especially in a commercial kennel. I dont think anyone other than perhaps Kate thought we would ever just hand over our dogs to them Assisting them isnt the same as coming to the table with them [with our hands in our pockets]

Elfin Hang onto those figures we are going to need them. Our survey is showing similar things but I doubt they are going to believe our stats without thrashing us a bit and you are in the perfect spot to supply a follow up. Is there any way you can keep track of the stats for us for a while longer? By the way - you're beautiful and I was truly glad to meet you in the flesh. Julie

Gee, I have big ears, should be able to hear. I thought she said 362? It was both 362 she sent the survey and over 2000 animals over 10 years or [there abouts.]

well find me a website from a registered lab breeder that proudly states "voted worst breed for leaving hair everywhere by Best friend Holiday Retreat" or a website from registered french bulldog breeders that has in it's banner "WANT A FARTING DOG?" ;) and then I will duly frown at Kate for glossing over some matters on a website designed to attract buyers. Spotted Devil - I too had some problems following Kate's talk. I don;t think it was so much the lack of the powerpoint rather than she was reading notes rather then speaking out to the audience and "presenting" plus many things she said caused some muttering in the audience - making it hard to tune just her voice in and truly 'listen'. I note the people most disinclined to take anything said 'onboard' and make quick smart posts dissing the presenters (and even the people who DID go) weren't actually there. One aspect of the seminar was very much about how dialogue needs to be opened between all stakeholders for the good of the species we all love - dogs. We can't afford to have a multiple "us and them (and them and them and them, oh and them too!)" situation. Yes I agree we need to have an open dialogue but lets be honest its going to be difficult when first blood has already been drawn.