Steve

No I dont think there are never any pedigreed purebreds in pounds or shelters but when dogs are tagged as purebred regardless of who bred them its the pedigreed breeders and the breeds which take the flack.Dont get me wrong its hard not to call a dog that looks like a beagle a beagle. I get that but........... There is a push on for a data base to be set up so vets can log in what breeds they have seen and what diseases are in them - most of these will be dogs bred by un registered breeders without care for who they are breeding them with and cross bred breeders etc but when the stats come down its the bad purebred breeders and their purebreds who will answer for that. I dont want to see any cross breeding in future either but its still a rights issue.

I know but whats a purebred and without papers how could you know?

hi steve i dont know if they are doing the right, or wrong thing, not for me to judge, i dont have any experience in breeding and all that in entails. i also dont know if she shows or not, tho i have a feeling she does, not that is relevant to my original quesiton. i asked as i explained, we are looking at adding anopther pug to our family in the next 2 years and was doing some research on breeders. when this came up i was unsure whether it was a red flag or not to avoid the breeder, but i am realising that it depends on so many variables that it is impossible to have a yes or no answer without detailing the breeder and other information, which i am not prepared to do. but thanks for your input, everyone's replies have given me a bit to think about, so i can make the best choice for my family when the time for pug number 2 rolls around! There are some questions you can ask to narrow down the field. You need to know why they bred these dogs and what they were aiming for with their litter - the answer isnt really important - it could be a hundred different reasons but you also need to know what they were prepared to compromise on to get to that goal. For example someone who is breeding for the pet market needs to understand that they have to consider and look after the breed standard too even though they arent aiming for a champ. If they dont over a couple of litters the dogs look like mutts and their management issues change. If they were aiming for a dog to keep for the ring then you need to know they havent compromised on other things in aiming for that goal too. You need to know why they chose the pairs they did, you want to hear mentions of health and temperament as well as conformation.What they were fed during the pregnancy and while feeding and what the foods will be the pups are raised on.The quality of the diet and the breeders knowledge on nutritional needs for their dogs can speak volumes of their care and health of their dogs.Ask them what their biggest challenges are inbreeding their breed and what they do about that. Where they are raised is a huge issue too. You want to hear they are handled and loved ,that they are exposed to sights and sounds in a normal household like flushing toilets , vacumns cleaners TVs etc.You also want to know they have been able to leave their nest to utilise their natural instinct for cleanliness rather than be locked into a whelping box where they have to poo where they sleep. You want to know what the breeders expectaton of you is when you walk away with the pup.Do they want to get updates and stay in touch - be there if something goes wrong to support you.

Hi Steve, I read somewhere once, that the foundation of BSL began with the forming of a policy that breeds of a "fighting origin" shall be restricted, and the breeds falling into that category where then listed. The BSL as I understand it lists specific breeds on the basis of "fighting origin" and the problem is that regardless of where those breeds have evolved today fails to impact upon the tunnel vision perception that the breeds once had a fighting origin and contradicts the foundation policy. The strategy should perhaps focus on the fact like many other breeds that their original "fighting" purpose in most cases have been genetically removed as time evolved??? Thats true but since then there has been lots of work done and the recent report in the UK is a good feather in anti BSL's cap and one they should capitalise on.There have also been public statements by RSPCA and several other dog people to support that. Probably the only real pain you still have to fight is Hugh Wirth - thats a pretty big pain because he is in the pockets of National and state policy makers but its a good shot to have a go at it. You cant prove that all dogs of a particular origin no longer have their original drive - so why go there ? You can say all dogs regardless of breed or what their original purpose was can bite and its a people issue not a dog issue. Sure arm yourself with as much science and evidence that you can so that you are able to defend a breed if and when its named or denegrated but publicly push for eqality in the laws. The ability to own the dog of your choice as long as you are responsible with it and the focus on responsible dog ownership for all dog owners regardless of breed. Politically there is a fair window there for that to take off where earlier it was a lot more difficult. Personally I think the biggest hurdle from a political perspective is the general public's reaction to a proposal for overturning BSL, bearing in mind people that hate dogs are also involved in those decision making processes and are bound to kick up about such a proposal. I don't think owning a breed of choice carries much weight as it could be argued that owning a pet of choice should also be permitted for example someone wanting a pet tiger instead of a domestic cat???. Perhaps more demonstration work with those breeds, specifically the APBT which is the most common restricted breed to prove that they are credible pets as an education process. A few years ago a friend of ours had what he called a Staffy cross and she was a delightful dog. Sally her name was after several years, our friend told us she was actually an APBT I didn't think that I had ever met an APBT and would have expected at least severe dog aggression if ever I met one, but Sally happily played with my dogs and she was as stable and reliable as any other well bred and trained dog. I have met several APBT's since, all have been really good dogs The number one biggest issue that dog owners are ticked off about is that they cant go anywhere or do anything without off leash dogs and dogs at large causing grief to them and their animals. They get worried about bull breeds because of their reputation so instead of demannding that councils do their jobs and do something about dogs not under control [any dog]they think they cant solve the problem of roaming dogs so they want to restrict what type of dogs exist so when they roam they feel safer.Governments dont police the laws they already have so owners of dogs perceived to be a greater danger pay for the irresponsible owners of all breeds. Families dont just want some breeds of dogs under control they want all dogs under control so they have the ability to walk on the street or play in a park without being afraid.

The second and third.The first is a cav x beagle and if I didnt know I would say its probably a purebred.The second is a papered purebred and the third a papered purebred from hunting lines. Someone who breeds dogs without CC papers is different to someone who does and no matter what it looks like if you dont know its parentage are CC registered purebreds its not a CC pedigreed dog.

Most puppies go to pet homes anyway and one breeder finding 26 good homes for their pups isnt a hard ask for pugs. Whether they show or not doesnt count them out and in my opinion judging someone as doing the right thing by whether or not they show their dogs doesnt take into account the variables either.

So how do you know they arent using some other form of accountability system? If they are selecting for [say] less elongated soft palate or less brachy head syndrome,less patella problems etc and not a champion until they get the other bits right for example? Whether they show or not might be an indication that they have bred champions but not that they are doing something they are not being accountable for.

Why?

Hi Steve, I read somewhere once, that the foundation of BSL began with the forming of a policy that breeds of a "fighting origin" shall be restricted, and the breeds falling into that category where then listed. The BSL as I understand it lists specific breeds on the basis of "fighting origin" and the problem is that regardless of where those breeds have evolved today fails to impact upon the tunnel vision perception that the breeds once had a fighting origin and contradicts the foundation policy. The strategy should perhaps focus on the fact like many other breeds that their original "fighting" purpose in most cases have been genetically removed as time evolved??? Thats true but since then there has been lots of work done and the recent report in the UK is a good feather in anti BSL's cap and one they should capitalise on.There have also been public statements by RSPCA and several other dog people to support that. Probably the only real pain you still have to fight is Hugh Wirth - thats a pretty big pain because he is in the pockets of National and state policy makers but its a good shot to have a go at it. You cant prove that all dogs of a particular origin no longer have their original drive - so why go there ? You can say all dogs regardless of breed or what their original purpose was can bite and its a people issue not a dog issue. Sure arm yourself with as much science and evidence that you can so that you are able to defend a breed if and when its named or denegrated but publicly push for eqality in the laws. The ability to own the dog of your choice as long as you are responsible with it and the focus on responsible dog ownership for all dog owners regardless of breed. Politically there is a fair window there for that to take off where earlier it was a lot more difficult.

Thats part of the problem for pedigreed breeders.For us the only dog which is a purebred is one that we can see the papers on. Without that anyone could have bred them and anything could be in the mix and we get blamed if there is temperament or health problems.What people see happening in what they describe as a purebred isnt necessarily anything related to us or our breeds. Here's an example. Which of these is a beagle? [att achment=203148:x_r.jpg]

Please elaborate your logic. Not clear what you are saying. I think what Steve may be saying is that you are all asking for regulation on what should and should not be bred- just because YOU don't like these crossbreeds/mixes you don't think they should exist. Is that not a form of BSL??? (Steve, correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I read it :D ) I understood it that way too. Guess I was confused cause I -- and some others posting -- don't seek such legislation . . . rather for an acceptance that old breeds might disappear and new breeds may appear . . . some of them through crossbreeding. Dog roles change. Dog breeds need to change also. The 'breed standard' doesn't easily allow for change. So of course people move outside the framework of pedigree breeding. Yes thats what I meant but you cant just say you think it should be allowed to happen if they are going toward a new breed it also has to be cross breeds such as Kate breeds which will never go past F1 crosses and mixed breed if someone wants to do that. If you dont say everyone who does the right thing by the welfare of the dogs has equal rights to breed their dog then you are accepting legislation which relates to one breed or part there - of differently to another - breed specific legislation.

So in reality what you are all asking for is Breed specific legislation?

You cant just decree that the only kind of dogs which will be able to be bred are bred by CC registered breeders. I dont like people breeding anything other than pedigreed purebreds but as long as its done properly how can you deny the right to breed a dog based on its lack of purity especially when the current politcal push is to stop people breeding purebreds.

Hi Cosmolo I am not challenging your figures... I am just really surprised you are seeing a 70/30 ratio cross to purebred. Given that purebred dogs represent a small proportion of the total dogs sold for you to be seeing that many in rescue represents a significant percentage of purebreds abandoned! Are particular breeds more common and do you get to know the reasons behind them ending up in rescue? I am surprised. I thought the same but purebred doesnt equal bred by a registered breeder.

For what its worth I think the whole strategy has to change and that as much as possible specific breeds shouldnt be mentioned any more than they have to be. The fight has to be against any breed specific legislation not for pittys or any other breed.

Yes to a point I am speaking of my own personal circumstances.However,if I lived there I would have the exemptions because I only own CC registered dogs. That 's the issue though isnt it? There have been laws in this shire for ever which can punish people if their dogs are at large and whether or not those dogs are able to have pups or not isnt the biggest problem caused by dogs which roam the neighbourhood and remember this isnt just about dogs which end up at the pound.The laws say that unless your dog is registered with Vicdogs -therefore a pedigree,bred by an ANKC registered breeder which you have paid money to Vicdogs for to register the dog in your name you have to have it desexed. You are assumed responsible enough to own an entire dog and make decisions based on what you feel is best for your dog based on this criteria. Whether my dog is a purebred or not - its my dog, my responsibility yet my right to make decisions based on what I think is best for my dog is taken away because a very small minority of people who own entire dogs have unwanted litters? MDBA dog owners are as responsible as anyone who is a member of Vicdogs and in many cases they are more responsible and about half of them own crossbred dogs.They should have equal rights to make decisions on whether to have their dogs desexed as any purebred dog owner and the way the system is set up it gives Vicdogs an unfair market advantage.Its disgraceful. Its straight out Breed Specific legislation.

I still think if its my dog its my choice as to whether I will remove its hormones.And breed or who bred it shouldnt come into it. You cant expect me or anyone else to be forced to do things with our dogs whcih we dont think is in their best interest because there are some people who get it wrong.Why should any dog have to suffer because of who bred it?

The boundaries are already set. There are state laws and Prevention of cruelty to animals laws which control breeders much more than any Canine Council does which relate to everyone who breeds a dog. All they have to do is educate people and enforce them. Purebred breeders can be just as rotten as cross bred breeders if they are that way inclined.

No I like it.Gives us a chance to look at the issues.

I guess considering the group I belong to that me having that view might surprise a lot of people but for me its a rights issue. I dont like it,I think its a dumb thing to do but its their right to breed cross breds and its a persons right to want one and own one and not have to treat it differently because its not a purebred.

It's a Council run pound Here's the link http://www.logan.qld.gov.au/LCC/residents/animals/animal+net And here's info on the For Sale program http://www.logan.qld.gov.au/LCC/residents/...saleprogram.htm (just as well I looked - I notice the price of the dogs has gone up - females now $199 and males $180, and cats only $50 - I list them on petrescue so I will need to update the prices asap) The also have a Seniors for Seniors program http://www.logan.qld.gov.au/LCC/residents/...sforseniors.htm Sorry my question was about how Blacktown was run - I know now its run by council but the links look like thats a good way for a pound to run.

The issues for me are that they are only exempting dogs which are registered with Vic dogs.That dog owners only get to decide what they think is best for their dogs based on Vicdogs membership. That they are not working at policing laws already at their disposal and that they dont do enough work on prevention. Amost daily on this forum people are upset about not being able to walk their dogs because of dogs off leash and at large - its a huge problem that not many of us havent been touched by.Its a bit stupid to believe that all of those dogs are desexed or Vic dogs regsitered.

Well I read somewhere that council only allows those with a permit (or whatever they called it) to breeding, so they have the right so long that they are legit within their own council...I would have to try & find the article, but remember finding it quite interesting considering the amount of pups popping out every where. Queensland doesnt discrimminate. All breeders are treated equally.

We have someone who has put their hand up for the Cav Ive put them in touch with each other so will wait and see if its suitable first. If not Ill give her a yell. Thanks Julie

The only issue here is that if one group has rights then all groups have rights. If the tables were turned and the gardener and the current pressure escalates what do we do if they say no one can breed purebreds/ Its a rights issue. Full stop.