Steve

This is a huge problem in this breed because the puppies are so adorable.Everything they do with their body language as babies is designed to make you love them and there are few breeds which look more appealing as babies. Makes me crazy because they are a breed which wouldnt cope well with a pound and changing homes.

Puppy farmers dont usually have papered dogs.They dont need to get them from registered breeders because there are so many other breeders who breed purebred without papers or at least they look like purebred. The reality is that a first cross litter where Mum is one breed and the father is another is usually pretty uniform to look at,though its possible to get 68 different coat combinations from a poodle cross lab mating and Im assuming it would be the same for a chow cross Sharpei and if one breed or dog has a recessive disorder such as PRA and the other parent breed doesnt then the puppies wont get that disorder where they may get it if both parents are the same breed and they both either have it or carry it. For these type of diseases breeders who know what is in their pedigrees and what is a problem in the breed can test for them and know whether one or both parents have the disorder anyway so if you go to a good registered breeder who knows their stuff the recessives are dealt with and the puppies have as much chance at being clear of these things as any cross bred. First cross dogs still get all of the known polygenic diseases such as patella luxation(PL), hip dysplasia ( HD), skin allergies etc so they are not necessarily healthier than a purebred for polygenic disorders. They also get a bunch of real nasty ones which we dont know the mode of inheritance for yet like syringomyelia,protein-losing enteropathy (PLE), protein-losing nephropathy (PLN), and Renal Dysplasia (RD). The possible health issues which are caused in some breeds by the way the parents look such as brachy head syndrome can be side stepped if its a short nosed breed mated with a longnosed breed where the outcome is usually a nose mid length between the two breeds but there are possible different combinations of 81 just in the jaw area. If the parent dogs have been affected by in breeding depression where their immune systems are lowered,where they are less fertile and have less longevity then mating them with a different breed would make the puppies more thrifty and live longer than their parents BUT people who are breeding F1 crosses as assumed to breeding healthy parent dogs so this is hardly a consideration either. Now here is the big deal and something that seems to be overlooked when ever we discuss the health of first cross versus purebred. First cross breeders only have to consider one litter and not what they may be breeding in for future generations to suffer with and without some of us breeding healthy purebred dogs it would not be possible for them to breed their crosses because the minute they breed the second generation there is a high risk of an outbreeding depression where the puppies could be less healthy than the original parents.If their puppies are desexed the genetic time bomb is diffused but if they back cross literally anything can show in subsequent litters and most are backcrossing. The question becomes-healthier than what. At a guess Id have about 200 beagles I have bred currently alive in pet homes .The oldest is almost 18 and unless they suffer an accident they all live well into the high teens and none of them need to visit vets or suffer anything which takes from them their optimum quality of life.When I sell a puppy there is nothing which I exclude in my guarantee but well a known first cross breeder has quote "We do not offer a refund with dogs affected by allergic skin problems" because at one stage she was getting 30% with skin problems! According to our breed health survey neither labs nor poodles have anywhere near that kind pf percenatage with skin problems. As far as any assertion that first cross dogs are more predictible - another quote from the lab x poodle breeder. quote "With regard to shedding about 70% are low or moderate shedders, 10% of dogs are non-shedding and the remaining 20% shed a lot (some as much as a Labrador it seems).I can't predict shedding with confidence – based on the results of the survey I have found that the chance of getting a non or low shedding dog is about 50% whether or not shedding was a priority.There are however among the pups a very few that we can confidently predict will be non shedding (about 5%)" So the people who are saying that first cross dogs have less risk of having some diseases than the parents, that first cross dogs are more predictible than purebreds arent stupid but they arent telling the whole story either. The are also speaking of breed averages and not dog averages - so unless you breed the same dogs with their own breed and do another mating with the same dogs with another breed any stats telling us they are healthier if they are crossbred than they are if they are not mean nothing anyway. Its also time we worked out that these breeders are not doing anything illegal and concentrate and promote what we do rather than get caught up in what they say and do.

This one wasnt coming direct from us but via the person who donated it. Ill check it out for you Julie

http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/news/call-for-major-review-of-rspcas-involvement-in-sa-prosecutions/1741623.aspxCall for major review of RSPCA's involvement in SA prosecutions EMMA PARTRIDGE04 Feb, 2010 04:00 AMA NUMBER of farmers are scrutinising the RSPCA's ability to prosecute animal welfare cases, according to a recent poll. The poll followed the RSPCA's clerical blunder which allowed 61 counts of alleged animal cruelty charges against South East graziers Thomas and Patricia Brinkworth to be dropped. They were subsequently found not guilty. More than 70 per cent of voters in Stock Journal's online poll believed the South Australian Government should be responsible for the prosecution of animal cruelty cases, rather than the RSPCA. Grazier James Darling, Duck Island, Keith, said the RSPCA's failure to tender evidence against the Brinkworths was "not simply unsatisfactory, but an appalling outcome." And he wants to know why the Director of Public Prosecution was not employed as the prosecuting authority for such a serious and criminal charge. "Why was it left to a largely voluntary organisation, a public charity such as the RSPCA to prosecute the case?" Mr Darling is calling on the RSPCA to explain how and why one of their employees altered crucial documents in the case. "It is necessary for the public to know why the RSPCA was so incompetent and why their legal tasks were undertaken by an employee and not a properly resourced firm of lawyers," he said. Democrats Legislative Council candidate Jeanie Walker is also calling for the State Government to prosecute animal welfare cases, rather than a cash-strapped RSPCA. Environment Minister Jay Weatherill called for urgent reviews of the Brinkworth case and the arrangements under which the RSPCA prosecutes animal welfare cases. "We have received an initial report from the RSPCA on the circumstances of the particular case," he said. "The review announced last week is being established and will commence soon." http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/liv...s/1741623.aspx#http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/state/liv...s/1741623.aspx#java script:changeFontSize(

http://rouse-hill-times.whereilive.com.au/...e-indian-mynas/ Dear RSPCA, There are thousands of Australians fighting a war in their own backyards seeking to preserve our Australian native birds and marsupials from being killed by Indian Mynas. The Indian Mynas hunt them in packs, deprive them of food, keep them from water, take their nesting and living hollows away and kill them. Sometimes they kill them reasonably quickly –that is, if pecking out their eyes and tearing their chests apart is quick. It is a much slower and more agonising death for the young birds that have Indian Mynas build a nest on top of them and allow them to starve to death…. that is, unless they have started to feed off them before they are dead. Despite this horrific slaughter my program and others are firm in promoting the humane euthanizing of these pest birds, we promote the use of car exhaust from a cold petrol engine. Please note the word cold, we agree with you that using a hot engine is in the same category as poisoning, drowning, shooting or electrocuting these birds …it is simply not on to do this. I go even further and add cervical dislocation and lethal injection to the list of disposal methods I consider inappropriate. They are added because I think that the birds suffer unnecessary stress as they are handled in preparation for dispatch. A hand entering the cage to grab a bird also puts other birds in the cage into a stressed state. Covering a cage after dusk and administering carbon monoxide from a cold engine is less stressful, much more humane and I might add, perfectly legal. I would very much appreciate it if your officers would be instructed to stop making headlines by threatening to prosecute trappers who are in fact using a very humane method to dispose of these birds. I believe we adhere to your guidelines found in Article ID 151 part of which is reproduced below .Those interested in the full item will find it at http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-humane-vertebrate-pest-control_151.html “What is humane vertebrate pest control? Humane vertebrate pest control (HVPC) is the development and selection of feasible control programs and techniques that avoid or minimise pain, suffering and distress to target and non-target animals. A totally humane pest control method is one where the animal experiences no pain, suffering or distress. In the case of lethal control, humane killing is defined as an immediate and irreversible loss of consciousness followed by cardiac or respiratory arrest and the ultimate loss of brain function. This is difficult to achieve even in very controlled circumstances. Consequently it is often appropriate to use humaneness as a relative term: when we talk of relative humaneness we mean causing more or less pain, suffering or distress” Rather than threatening to prosecute those who have undertaken this huge task to preserve our native birds and marsupials for future generations I would like to suggest that you openly and actively support the removal of these pests. In support of this I bring your attention to item 9 in the RSPCA Australia Animals Charter This says “• Native animals and birds should be maintained safely in their natural environment and should be free from hunting, trapping and captivity. Culling may occur, but only when proven necessary for the preservation and benefit of the species. Culling must only be carried out under proper supervision and control. http://kb.rspca.org.au/RSPCA-Australia-animals-charter_316.html What jumps out at me from this item is Native animals and birds should be maintained safely in their natural environment and should be free from hunting……….. Our native birds are being denied their natural environment by Indian Mynas and are in fact being hunted by them with devastating results. Your organisation is highly thought of and is to be commended for the work it does. It may be that you do not have the resources to wage an active campaign against these hunters and deprivers of our native bird’s natural environment. Perhaps you could consider allocating resources for this purpose in the future. In the meantime I strongly urge you again to have your officers cease threats against people who are disposing of these birds in a humane and effective way using cold car engines. Their actions have in fact restored safety to native birds in their yards and on their properties and allow them to enjoy their natural environment free from being hunted. Regards Garry Cunich National Coordinator Indian Myna Eradication Program (02) 45778335 <H2 class=heading>Write the News!</H2>Know something we don't? Help set the local agenda by writing your own news stories. Write news <H2 class=heading>About the author</H2>Writer: GarryC Articles Written: 8 Joined: 24 February 2009

Same but I breed stud sheep.

You cant insure breeding dogs as far as I know.

Me too. My puppies are pretty well house trained before they go home without the use of a crate. The only time I introduce a crate before they leave is if they will be travelling in a crate to get them used to it so they dont get stressed during the travelling.

More added today in the Foster Carer Category.

They wont stop here note the first sentence- the welfare issues which need to be addressed in Australia today. puppy farming, pedigree purebred health and welfare, and inbreeding. This one appears to go after puppy farms but purebred health and inbreeding will come any minute and will also be covered if the have their way with POCTAA laws for puppy farms which will have sub clauses in there regarding indiscrimminate breeding - in breeding and selection of breeding dogs INCLUDING purebred ones. Im watching with interest the purebred dog world - in particular those who are heavily involved in showing their dogs and many still think its everyone else but them that are under the gun and yet they are the primary target. Their arrogance that they are the only ones who get it right because they show and belong to the CCs amazes me. Not even the flack they have received from the PDE program or the fact that if anything on the puppy buyers page and hints in everything the RSPCA do including this paper state that being registered isnt necessarily a good thing has made them realise that this is about everyone who breeds or sells puppies.That it would affect their choices in what and how they have been doing things, their privacy and their basic rights.

Being a member of the CC is no where near what they are going after. They want to know who is breeding and where they are. They want the freedom to enter and check you out without having any reason to do so, take your dogs and make you pay up front if you want to argue. They want your dogs housed as boarding kennel dogs which only stay for a week or two on concrete floors and they want store owners and vets to dob you in - not because they think you have been cruel to a dog but because you get more than average puppies vetted and buy your food in bulk. Better still they dont just want to know themselves but they want our street addresses put up on a website so people can just drop in and check out our homes. We're right back to judging breeders by whether or not they advertise their litter in a newspaper or on websites and whether they put their street address up on their websites. So big places who are set up with big kennels and they dont use ther backyards and loungerooms get a steady stream of people coming to their shop front and smaller breeders have to let people know they have pups available by ESP. Those of us who breed rarely would have to put up with people dropping in and wanting to look at puppies that dont exist or check out our kennels [homes] because they know where to find us via a website. Puppy farmers would see these as customers but I would see it as a major pain in the neck. A couple of years ago I was living in Wagga on 500 acres and at about 6.30 pm on a Sunday evening 2 men arrived at my front door wanting to see my puppies - I didnt have any but they pushed and wanted to see my dogs so like an idiot I allowed them to see my dogs and where and how they lived. I had just recently mated one of my girls. I asked them how they found me and one said off the net .I said not true my husband would kill me if I put my street address up on the net and they admitted that they had been to Eagle Boys Pizza and given my phone number to one of the workers who accessed my address from their data base and gave them directions on how to find me. They asked me to contact them when my puppies were born,I told them all the puppies were already spoken for and they left. That litter of puppies were stolen at 6 weeks of age. Another time Saturday afternoon my whole family was at my house - pretty rare now as most are older and not living close and a bunch of friends.We were all in the back yard having a bar be que to celebrate one of them getting engaged and one of my kids told me someone was asking to see me.Husband and wife and 2 kids were asking to see my dogs which were in pens about 40 feet from where they were standing in full view of everyone in the yard because of the party. I was a bit shocked,but I was polite and said now isnt a good time, but by now their kids were up at the pen poking their hands through the wire to pat the puppies. Mum was begging "could we please just cuddle some of the puppies while we are here we travelled a fair way to get here" Padlock on the pen - key in the house, 40 or so guests, food going cold ,uninvited and unwanted people wanting to play with puppies? Nup - told them it couldn't be done and there were no puppies not spoken for anyway.One of their kids threw a wobbly and screamed blue bloody murder - didnt want to leave until she got a puppy,the other kid was riding my kid's bike which had been parked up the side of the garage out of the way of the party goers and someone had given Dad a beer. So I got a bit tougher and said "Where did you get our address from" Turned out it was from someone called Malcolm and it took me weeks to think through who the hell Malcolm was [oneof the shearers]but I said "look I dont mean to be rude but we have a rather special family thing going on here,now isnt a good time and I would prefer it if you left" then it was "well when is a good time " I told her to ring me and I would speak to her via phone because now isnt a good time - again. As they head out the gate Mum says "how bloody rude - its a wonder they ever sell a dog" There's not a chance in hell Im putting my street address up on any internet website. And thats a fact.

:D :D

Microchipping laws in NSW wont get tweaked because that would tell who bred every puppy thats sold and it takes away the ability for puppy farmers to remain anon when they sell to pet shops or agents. PIAA will fight this and so will breeders who have to date been able to avoid chipping or who have chipped straight into the new owners name so council doesnt know they are in their shire and breeding commercially. Is that really all that stands between us and getting a tweak of chipping ? Yep.

Microchipping laws in NSW wont get tweaked because that would tell who bred every puppy thats sold and it takes away the ability for puppy farmers to remain anon when they sell to pet shops or agents. PIAA will fight this and so will breeders who have to date been able to avoid chipping or who have chipped straight into the new owners name so council doesnt know they are in their shire and breeding commercially.

They dont need any of this anyway. Councils could have a method of seeing who is breeding what with a slight tweak of the microchip laws and ensuring they are policed. Problem with that is that council cant just blab about microchip data because part of the way it was allowed in from the beginning was with respect to people's privacy. All they have to do is ensure that every pup is chipped and that the breeder details are noted and that eliminates at least half of what they are worried about. Council would pick up if someone were breeding a hundred pups they would know how many were on the property and when to go and have a look to see if they were complying with laws and alert the RSPCA if they are not. But for that to work current laws have to be enforced.

Sorry to seem arguementative, but I don't like the skateboard example. Skateboarders shouldn't be on the footpath or the road. Even the good ones can have an accident & are used by kids, no brakes. I would come up with Skateboards in designated suitable areas or on your own property. No license. Which is probably a good way to go for dogs too. A license is useless, like dog reg & does not stop any of the problems. Maybe the post was not intended the way it read. It does get frustrating, registered breeders do appear to be getting targeted & get some bad media publicity. I see a future of no pedigree registered dog breeders & puppy farm mongrels the only dogs available. The same number of dogs being dumped & euthanised each year, cruelty to animals continuing & the RSPCA never getting it right, & a whole heap of useless laws & rules put in, again. Sound like the prophet of doom Your post a while back on what makes a good dog owner was a good example of how people do not think of all the implications of asking for certain rules & their interpretations & how people do not agree. Yep but when they talk about what they will do in order to stop puppy farming in effect those things will also stop us. Just because they are frustrated because they dont get enough convictions isnt cause to take away everyone else's basic rights because they happen to breed a litter of dogs now and then. Take a look for example at asals case when they seized her dog and eventually gave it back and said sorry. But asal had to go through hell with supporting vet records etc and her dog was tested and prodded in order to make a case. If that had gotten to a court case and it almost did then asal would have needed mega bucks to defend herself and her dogs if they are demanding a bond before you get to say "hey thats my dog and I didnt do anything to make you take it away" What of Judy Gard's case - they took her dogs and then returned them 2 weeks later but they didnt have to they could have kept them and held them until Judy's court case. They want to be able to sell your dogs before you are found guilty and before any court has heard the circumstances and laid a penalty and they want to be able to try to do that with no penalty for them if they get it wrong.They want you to pay up front in the form of a bond in case you loose. How many of us could afford to do that and not have to watch as our dogs are sold off ? They might be just dogs to some puppy farmers but to most of us they are our family and our bloodlines are our life's work. I dont want my breeding dogs living on concrete and all of that stuff assumes we have them 24 hours a day in confined areas which we will never clean properly. Sometimes I feed some foods off the ground too.In summer I throw them frozen barf balls to chase and chew on. The ground isnt contaminated with poo etc so why make me comply and assume my ground or floor is as contaminated and filthy as a puppy farmers might be. It makes no sense for one person to have to have concrete floors regardless of how big their dirt areas are because a filthy puppy farmer may not clean up or may keep a dog in a dirt pen and never clean it properly.

My feeling is that they are making the same mistake Clover Moore made. It was noble for her to go out to stop live animals in pet shops but there was a lack of knowledge in the consultitive stage and it branched out too far by trying to change advertising and a bunch of other stuff. Trying to stop dogs suffering in puppy farms is also a worthy goal which most of us would like to help to bring about but by branching out and being un informed about the basics of the culture and the processes dealing with trade laws and export etc and natural justice and privacy issues its wasted an opportunity. Just as Clover should have consulted with various groups before anything got to white papers etc so too should that have happened in this case. They didnt even know you cant take dogs as excess baggage on international flights.

Thats how I saw it too

Christina someone I was speaking with used this example I liked it so Ill pinch it. If you had a problem with skateboarders knocking over old ladies on the footpath - it was costing the community in emergency care and generally making society worse - would you come up with a skateboarder licensing scheme? Or would you just make it illegal to ride on the footpath? One approach targets all skateboarders good or bad, costs a bucketload to enforce and administer... and the other just makes it easier to bust those people who don't play by the rules and not every skate boarder has to pay for what a small minority of skateborders do. The MDBA has an accreditation process but the only reason it works is because its opt in and there is advantage for the people who are accredited as they are promoted over those who are not by our organisation. There a a hell of a lot of chooks which are kept in battery farms and they have an opt in accredition type thing for eggs how do you think what the paper is going after would work if everyone who had laying hens suddenly needed a licence? Because there is no difference the same people would still cause chooks to suffer just as the same people will still cause dogs to suffer.

But what no one seems to hear is that the states CCs codes are less than the current ones which everyone in every state have to comply with. Every state has POCTAA laws and companaion animal laws already - The only purpose a licence will serve is that it will make it easier to track the people who have a licence but those who will have a licence already are the ones complying with all the laws anyway.Those who are not wont get a licence and the fact that a licence is a way that the RSPCA or anyone else can locate them will make it more likely that those most needing to be controlled will scoff at the laws anyway. If they are a big commercial concern they have to have an ABN they have to have council approvals for development applications and environmental impact issues assessed etc and everyone already knows where they are.Its the ones that do it all illegally which will still do it all illegally and with more regs on checks and managemnet will do it even more hidden than they do now. Its the people who are doing it right now who will pay the fees and introduce things they know are often against the welfare of themselves and their dogs because its made law and dogs will still suffer.

I supoose that's one way of looking at whats going on here but rather than us sitting on here and bitching its more that we are simply using this forum to sort out and discuss what we think are the issues before we do write up our submissions. Its is everyone's chance to help stop puppy farmers and also protect registered breeders however mostly everyone wouldnt know about that opportunity or the issues if we are all off writing our submissions without the opportunity to participate in these type of discussions. 'Better ideas" have more chance of being found,tested and written up if more people contribute to the thought process and the conversation so perhaps what you see as us sitting here bitching may just serve its purpose to enable us to do what we intend to do and offer realistic alternatives.

Defendants to be required to pay court bonds prior to any litigation appeals or appeals in relation to the forfeiture of animals. The bond amount should be based on the financial cost of caring for the dogs on a daily basis, acknowledging that during this period such this care is being provided by RSPCA or other rescue group and not by the defendant. Where a court bond is not paid, the owner would be required to surrender the animals for rehoming. So much for innocent until proven guilty. If that happened anyone they take a dog from wont have even a slight chance of defending themselves,or getting their animals back.Based on some cases we've heard of how scary is that one?

Yep anyone reading this needs to be aware of the fact that this would regulate anyone who sells even one pup. A reputable website for sale of companion animals could be established. Criteria for listing would include: providing the street address of kennels, compliance with the Code of Practice, provision of a licence number, provision of information about membership of any breed association and provision of an ABN or similar number. There is not a chance on earth that I would have my street address listed. Apart from the obvious which is the safety of my dogs [remember Ive had one litter stolen] there are many other security and privacy issues. If this became law I would stop breeding dogs and so would many other people who would feel vulnerable by advertising their street adddresses. Good Grief ! Do they realise that our "kennels" are our homes?The places we live with our kids and other animals? Where we keep our personal possessions ? The only people left breeding would be puppy farmers. • The minimum age for export of puppies for commercial purposes should be raised to 6 months. • Exemptions should only be given on a case-by-case basis and only when the puppy is travelling to accompany the existing owner overseas (ie for non-commercial purposes). • Any breeder who exports dogs over 6 months of age must be licensed and comply with a regulated Code of Practice (see 1 above) before being granted permission to export dogs or puppies. This should include the dog being desexed unless it is destined to be a breeding animal owned by a licensed breeder in the importing country. We already know this one isnt going to fly - if they make us wait until the dogs are 6 months old it will interfer with Federal trade laws. It gives other country's breeders unfair market advantage. If they are all desexed it does the same. PIAA is going to howl over this one and It makes me wonder whether they really have any idea of what goes on and what sort of homework they did to write this stuff. Puppies which go out for export to pet shops etc are not owned by the breeder because they have already been sold so what comes next has nothing to do with the breeder. Breeders dont export these puppies the owner does and again its anti competitive trade issues. Only able to sell to someone overseas who is a licenced breeder in another country ? Are you kidding? Thats too stupid and brings so many things to mind I could say that it would take me all day! Even if these countries had these licences how long do you think it would take before every pet shop in Hong Kong or Honolulu held a licence? The Ccs arent going to sign off on this - there goes hundreds of thousands of dollars in export certificates they issue puppies.PIAA arent either as their members are the export agents who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars on exporting 8 week old puppies and we already know that there is a federal trade law which prohibits people from being restricted in in being able to sell their animals to whom ever they want.Every pup that is being exported is checked within 24 hours of it leaving the country by specially trained Aqis certified vets and there's only a handful of them in the country. The ATO should be required to inform the relevant government authority of any positive identification of a puppy farm in order that the welfare of the animals can be assessed. AND Provide information to vets and pet supply stores to help them identify possible puppy farm operators. Indications of a puppy farm operator include consulting large numbers of puppies but rarely, if ever, treating adult dogs, breeders reluctant to entertain home visits by vets, the regular purchase of large volumes of food and/or other pet supplies. Formalise a reporting process for vets, pet supply stores or members of the community to notify the RSPCA or government authorities if they suspect one of their clients is running a puppy farm. So many unintended consequences for this one and so many things that anyone who is doing something shonky will do to get around it. If a person breeding like this is gong to be reported by their vet - privacy and confidentiality issues- they will stop taking their puppies to the vet.Vets and Pet supply places love puppy farmers if they can get them as customers because they make a packet out of them - how eager are they going to be to dob them in and loose that much business anyway but there are a hundred things someone who is buying large supplies can do to avoid detection anyway.Rather than make policies and laws to ensure less puppy farmers are vaccinating and microchipping puppies for fear of being reported by their vet and rather than making them less enthusiastic about buying foods and other products needed they should be encouraging them to get them in there and looking after their dogs better. All this will do is make them more likely to hide and make those doing it right to be worried that someone will brand them as a puppy farmer and have them investigated. As a side note bringing in laws to stop inbreeding regardless of whether thats for purebred or any other breeder wont stop people who in breed irresponsibly doing so. They will simply say its a different sire etc or dogs are horny creatures and accidents happen all the time. But apart from that in breeding is one of the best and quickest tools a breeder may want to use to prevent thousands of other dogs suffering a genetic disease into the future and it has to be on a dog by dog and breed by breed basis. If we have dogs which have a known genetic problem which we are trying to elminate so no other dog ever has to suffer with that in future then knowing the dog is clear of that is much more important for that mating than whether or not they have a common ancestor in 5 generations. As a breeder if you knew you could in breed for one or two matings ,not have that showing for ever and eliminate something horrible from your future generations and help prevent dogs from suffering or you could possibly prevent it showing - for now - by using a dog which isnt closely related which still means many many dogs into the future may suffer the same disease for ever which would you do? If you were going to be branded a crimminal for doing that would you follow the law and know you may have been partially responsible for a genetic time bomb waiting for that gene to show with dogs suffering each time those genes meet their pair or would you tell lies about the parentage? Once people telll lies about the parentage it creates a whole bunch of other problems because the only way we have to identify problems and know which dogs should or shouldnt be used for breeding especially where the DNA for something or the mode of inheritance hasnt been identified is to know the ancestry. The Year 2010 could be the most exciting year for breeders where they could use the latest DNA tests and modern screening methods to identify carriers and breed dogs which wont pass those things on without radically reducing the gene pool and while they are working on those things whether or not the dogs are related is the least of their problems.

This category is a stand out for great reactions when I ring them and to those of you who have gone out of your way to nominate them I want you to know that it makes a huge difference and makes them feel very appreciated.I thank you for allowing me the honour of hearing their stories and being part of making them feel its all worth it. Julie There are still more of these to come but Ill add them when I can get onto them. Foster Carer of the Year [so far] 1.Jennifer Scott - Sharpei Rescue - 2 nominations 2.Julie Norman - Wagga Dog Rescue 3.John Brunnenmeyer and Andrea Merkle - Albury Dog Rescue 4.Belinda and Darcy Buck - Beagle Rescue Victoria 5.Sue Armston - Sharpei Rescue 6.Des and Barbara Bownds - Albury Dog Rescue 7.Nicole Burford - Hawkesbury Pound 8.Tracey Dierikx - NSW Animal Rescue 9. Judy and Ron Mitchell - Beagle Rescue Victoria 10. Heather Robey - Shar Pei Rescue 11. Marilyn Bottrell - Shar Pei Rescue