Steve

there are several studies which show a greater risk of HD in males which are desexed I cant dig out the references as my computer blew up and this one has none of my research data on it. http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHea...euterInDogs.pdf Orthopedic Disorders In a study of beagles, surgical removal of the ovaries (as happens in spaying) caused an increase in the rate of remodeling of the ilium (pelvic bone)48, suggesting an increased risk of hip dysplasia with spaying. Spaying was also found to cause a net loss of bone mass in the spine 49. Spay/neuter of immature dogs delays the closure of the growth plates in bones that are still growing, causing those bones to end up significantly longer than in intact dogs or those spay/neutered after maturity50. Since the growth plates in various bones close at different times, spay/neuter that is done after some growth plates have closed but before other growth plates have closed might result in a dog with unnatural proportions, possibly impacting performance and long term durability of the joints. Spay/neuter is associated with a two fold increased risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture51. Perhaps this is associated with the increased risk of obesity30. Spay/neuter before 5 ½ months of age is associated with a 70% increased aged-adjusted risk of hip dysplasia compared to dogs spayed/neutered after 5 ½ months of age, though there were some indications that the former may have had a lower severity manifestation of the disease42. The researchers suggest “it is possible that the increase in bone length that results from early-age gonadectomy results in changes in joint conformation, which could lead to a diagnosis of hip dysplasia.” Page 9 of 12 In a breed health survey study of Airedales, spay/neuter dogs were significantly more likely to suffer hip dysplasia as well as “any musculoskeletal disorder”, compared to intact dogs52, however possible confounding factors were not controlled for, such as the possibility that some dogs might have been spayed/neutered because they had hip dysplasia or other musculoskeletal disorders. Compared to intact dogs, another study found that dogs neutered six months prior to a diagnosis of hip dysplasia were 1.5 times as likely to develop clinical hip dysplasia.53 Compared to intact dogs, spayed/neutered dogs were found to have a 3.1 fold higher risk of patellar luxation.54

What we like and we think is the best dog doesnt mean thats all it should be. If I have the right to breed the dogs and type of my choice then everyone should.Personally I would always consider them to be an inferior product and the breeders misguded but if its good for one it should be good for everyone.

I just wanted to tell part of our elderly lady's story so none think its a huge ask. The lady has a Japanese spitz and its her whole life .Until last Christmas she assumed if anything happened to her that her daughter who lives in the newcastle area would ensure the dog was safe and well looked after.She went home to the daughters house for Christmas with her dog and the dog was attacked by her daughters dog.As a result the son in law has told them that under no condition is any other dog ever allowed on the property. She is afraid that unless someone else can be contacted in an emergency that her dog will be PTS or surrendered to the pound . She is elderly but is stilll very much self sufficient so its not an ask for someone to be there for her on a daily basis etc - All we are looking for is for someone who understand the human animal bond who can go and meet her and leave her their contact details so they can be contacted if something goes wrong until we can be sure the dog stays safe for her. This is a huge stress for this lady and its keeping her awake and worrying so please all we need is someone to be a contact person not to do anything unless its an emergency.

There is already a move to have the Pet Breeders Association (or similar) officially recognised so mandatory desexing wil not impact the breeding of cross breds. The Pet Breeders Association will and should get recognition - the former because cross breeds/non-closed-pedigree dogs are regarded by the rspca as being better for animal wefare, and the later because if people wish to breed a cross breds, imo they should have the right to do so. I also agree that there should be equality in the law which is not based on breed. When they wake up that its not about the dogs but rather about the people life will be much simpler.

The MDBA approached the Victorian Government to have exemptions for our members. Some of our members breed and own animals which are not recognised as breeds with the ANKC and some are working toward breed recognition but have a way to go yet. The legislation has a clause in it which only allows exemption for registries for the dogs not for the people.As we dont keep a regsitry of our members dogs we dont qualify. But it goes further than that - EVERYone should have equal rights in our society and if someone wants to breed their dog or if they want to keep it entire that should be their choice.Its disgraceful that an owner only has the right to choose if its a purebred which has come from a registered breeder. Many of our pet owner members own dogs which are not purebred but they have agreed to a code of conduct which is an acknowledgment that they know the issues and that they will ensure their dogs dont wander .Given that desexing a male dog especially before he is 12 months old increases the risks of HD by 73% and a whole bunch of other stuff caused by no testosterone or estrogen affects dogs for the rest of their lives it shouldnt come down to whether or not its registered as a breedding dog with Vicdogs before an owner has the right to choose whats best for their dog. You cant have it both ways. You cant educate people on being responsible and their animals not being at large and upsetting people but not on being knowledgeable about desexing issues. This is basic Magna Carter stuff - Basic property right .We own our dogs and as long as they are being well treated and not causing a problem we should have the right to decide on whether we want to yank out their organs.That should not rely on whether they were bred by registered purebred breeders and especially not as to whether they are registered in the owners name on Vic Dogs registry.

We are currently looking for one or two Foster Carers in Brisbane for a couple of Huskys .This would be for a couple of months and expenses covered due to a marriage break up. We also need someoen in the ACT Braddon area to take in a Cav for a couple of months while a house which has been burnt down is rebuilt as the owner has to stay in accommodation which doesnt allow the dog to be there.Expenses will be covered. Im also after someone in the Taree area who can make contact with an elderly lady in her mid 80's who owns a medium sized well behaved dog to let her know that someone in her area is able to be contacted if she falls ill or has an accident to watch out for it until PACERS can get in as she is concerned her family will not do the right thing by the dog. If anyone is able to give us a hand on these please phone me asap 0269276707 Julie

Cats have a different life cycle and they dont pose the same issues as dogs when they wander and unless someone is breeding cats in my opinion they should be desexed. However, I dont think people sholud have no choices in whether they want to desex. I dont think the council should drum up business for Vic dogs and I think the solution is to fine them. First time if the dog is chipped and registered give them a free ride home and counsel them about what they need to do to ensure it doesnt happen again. If it does happen again fine them. If the dog isnt chipped and registered either return them with a fine and counsel them about what to do to prevent it happening again including recommend desexing or if its unclaimed rehome desexed. If council warned people they were coming and then paid 2 Rangers to go house to house to check dogs making sure they were registered and chipped and that the fencing was adequate for the type of dog they owned and spoke with them about what they need to know to put their act together life would be much better for all dogs.Thats a much better preventative approach. Desexing DOES have side efects and taking away an animals hormones which CAN lead to health issues should be a decision a person gets to make about their own dog based on what they feel is right for that dog in conjunction with their vet REGARDLESS of what breed or part thereof and definitely regardless of whether they are registered with Vic dogs!

She is about 13 weeks old and she is going to a working home.The vet is picking her up when she comes through here attending a sheep sale. Her Mum and Dad both work with sheep and they are helping her get the message.We are expecting new lambs in the next day or two so she will get to have a go at that too. I had an offer yesterday for $5000 each for her Mum and Dad. Some guy who has 2000 sheep due to lamb in February who is desperate to have something to keep the foxes and the crows off while they are lambing.Lost half his lambs last time. He was begging and when I said no he offered me half the money to rent them for 3 months. Nup.

The actual fertile period of the bitch is only 2 to 3 days long and it begins 4 or 5 days after the LH surge (2 or 3 days after ovulation),and regardless of how many matings you get over what time frame the due dates [according to the dog's cycle ]are still the same as they are if you only do one or two matings or do an AI.Male sperm is viable over a slightly longer time but the sperm cant penetrate the egg until its within that 2 -3 days for the bitch.They only ovulate once. Angelsun I dont see how allowing a pair of dogs to do what they want in the sex department is interfering - in fact I think its exactly the opposite. Male dogs cant just get it up and have sex all day and given the choice without us interfering the bitch would have multiple males each day. With one male and one bitch its no big deal. I dont think its a terrible thing for them they seem to me to be very driven to get it and it seems to be an enjoyable experience for them .It certainly shuts them up for several hours after its done. 8 bitches per week is only one and a bit a day and if the humans werent watching whether he was eating or in good nick before allowing him in with the girls you can hardly blame having sex on him having a heart attack. My male dogs dont have continual sex for 4 months.Ive never seen a male dog which can hardly walk from having sex and none of mine have ever had a heart attack either. Im not against AI however, it does concern me that in some breeds there have been few natural matings done for a long period of time. Natural matings fail if either of the dogs has bad hips or a bunch of other things that may not be in evidence with an AI. One of my beagle boys about 15 years ago was having a hard time hitting the spot so I went after and AI and the vet picked up he had a deformity in his penis which would have prevented him having sex as it wouldnt be able to penetrate. She was still prepared to go ahead but I was concerned that this may be something I would breed in so he was desexed.It takes a lot of experience on the part of the person doing the AI to pick up that sort of thing. Some breeds CANT mate naturally any more and I dont see that as a good thing. So there is a difference between an AI where the dogs could have had sex and one where its a substitute because they couldnt.

Well, we have had some members who have had to move house to be able to own their dogs and keep them entire. Not all breeders are breeding ANKC recognised breeds and the fact that a local government is telling people they have to be registered with a non state purebred org in order to be able to make decisions on what they want to do with their dogs is pretty out there isnt it? How can they discrimminate with members of a community based on whether their dogs are recognised papered purebreds? The MDBA applied to be able to be one of their recognised orgs so we could get an exemption for our members dogs as Vic dog members do and the reqirement became the dogs had to be registered with an approved org. We dont register dogs. I wonder if Vic dogs is paying them a commission on dog registrations?In Victoria to date most people who bought registered puppies never joined Vic dogs or changed over the owner details now if you want to keep your dog entire you have to pay Vic dogs to change the details. Its no wonder the cross bred breeders are putting together a group which will register dogs to be able to apply for an approved org. That should make them a pack of money too. Sounds like restriction of trade and discrimmination to me.

Is this run by council or is it privately run? Please inform Russ Dickens that the MDBA are happy to offer him support. Julie

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/20/...enetic-disease/ Rabbits could be milked on a mass scale if a pioneering medical treatment gets the go-ahead. The animals have been genetically engineered to produce C1 inhibitor, a protein that occurs naturally in the human body, according to National Geographic. People who suffer from the genetic disorder hereditary angioedema (HAE) do not produce enough of the protein and suffer from attacks of painful swelling in their soft tissues. They can even die from asphyxiation if the swelling affects their throat. Although the protein can be harvested from donor blood, stocks are limited and can carry the risk of a viral infection, according to biotech company Pharming, which is behind the project. Rhucin, its treatment derived from the rabbit milk, has undergone trials and is now awaiting approval from European drug regulators. If the drug is approved, the Netherlands-based company is said to be ready to milk a herd of 1,000 rabbits using mini-pumping machines attached to their teats. Researchers would then extract the protein in a lab. Pharming says one benefit Rhucin offers is that it "does not carry the risk of transmission of human infectious agents, as it is not isolated from human blood sources." But the RSPCA said it was concerned over "this use of animals to produce human medicines." Dr Nikki Osbourne, the animal welfare charity's research animals scientific officer, said: "Our major welfare concerns in this particular case are that the creation of genetically altered animals can cause pain, suffering and distress to all animals involved." "The techniques involved are inherently inefficient, with large numbers of animals used to create just a few animals with the desired genetic alteration." She added that "the RSPCA is concerned at the use of animals as 'bioreactors' as part of the pharmaceutical production process." "The use of animals in this way increases the perception of animals as 'units of production' for human benefit, rather than sentient individuals."

I think the Kennel Clubs have aided and abetted and in some things have done more damage than animal rights.I think they gave animal rights the methods for fighting us. I think they made several changes based on PR and little else. I dont know who started it and who has contributed to it but hey didnt do it without help. How is it that in any other species we study their reproductive systems and accept they are different and work within what they have evolved to do and yet with dogs we do exactly the opposite ? We all know Canine Reproductive specialists are saying we should ensure they are fit and healthy and breed em young and breed them often.That its no better for them to be rested but even trying to discuss this will bring out a bunch of people who want to tell you to shut up. 30 years ago a registered breeder had the right to make decisions based on what was going on in their yard with their dogs but someone decided it would be a good PR exercise to write in no breeding before a certain age, no back to back litter, no breeding after a certain age. None of us are able to test this or speak with people who have experience with this because its only what filthy puppy farmers do. We cant blame animal rights when this has been a requirement for the Canine Councils for around 20 years and they are only just getting to putting it into GUIDLEINES in state laws for people other than registered breeders who are breeding dogs. the Kennel Clubs have used this as some trophy to prove they have raised the bar. Some breeds have a necessity to have hip scores done before they are registered. That hasnt helped them eradicate HD and the fact is even if its the worst score ever they can still breed their dogs - and so they should because hips arent the only problems - but how is this anything other than a PR exercise which lines the pockets of vets and costs the breeder more money to make a puppy. 30 years ago you could buy a good purebred bitch and have access to a champion healthy dog without a problem and make beautiful healthy babies and never go near the show ring.Try that now. Once we could sell dogs without papers.We could give the buyers a copy but if they didnt want breeding papers they didnt get any registered pedigrees. We didnt have to register these dogs 30 years ago. How has the introduction of limited registration papers helped the dogs or the breeds or breeders. Its a good PR decision because it gives us another thing to say we are better with.But the reality is that now people who want to breed those limited register dogs can do up their own pedigrees which are as much value to anyone wanting to bred a dog as a limited regsiter paper and all its done is make more money for the CCs and cost breeders more to make a puppy.You dont need to register the dog which isnt going to breed to know its parentage and record that on your health notes just as you do now with limited.The limited registration was introduced because the CCs had gone after money by making it compulsory for us to register all of our puppies and then worked out we were unhappy that the ones we didnt think should be used for breeding and export were being used that way. Its about money and it doesnt do a thing to lift the welfare of any dog but we have used it as a sales pitch to promote what we do over other breeders. Many breeders back then bred puppies as pets and never went near a show ring - though they used show dogs for studs and purchased show bred puppies for their breeding programs but then we introduce regs to say you cant breed for the pet market and first and foremost you are pushed toward showing. But it's O.K to sell them to pet shops and export agents We get this on anti puppy farm sites A good breeder is involved in showing, obedience and their local breed club, with breeding being a 'side project' to them being active dog lovers. A person who lives a doggy life and demonstrates all these things with their own dogs, will likely go on to produce great puppies. Ask their vet how often they breed. Contact a member of their breed club and ask how often they compete. Well that lets me out I dont show,do obedience or belong to my local breed club.If my vet told anyone my private info Id be ticked off and the breed club would bag me out because I dont show. Dogs are my whole life and somehow thats wrong The ONLY thing that registered breeders can do which other breeders cant is issue rego papers and for as long as I can remember laws and guidelines for all breeders has been more strict than any CC code of conduct. So the gene pool has been depleted by less main register and more limited registered puppies,breeding dogs which used to be sold to people who didnt want to show have become a thing of the past - better arguments for too much inbreeding. Higher percentage breeding for the showring because thats what the code says they have to do with less breeding registered dogs because they do want to breed pet pups and they dont want to show.They are still there just not registered. So yes Animal rights are in there but the CCs havent done us or our dogs many favours either because they have played politics and gone after the money. Small things make big unintended consequences.

Here she is - Just in from her training session with the sheep. She goes home on the second of Feb. Might keep her yet myself - I love her. She's housetrained and when she goes out to play with the sheep she brings me back loverly bundles of poo and presents them to me as a gift

From what I've seen they usually mate first thing in the morning, then rest for the majority of the day and then they start to get a bit randy again in the afternoon. I've seen them mate sooner after a feed of fresh meat. On the topic of meat I've watched a dog that I thought was a bit of a lazy stud and someone said to me, " chuck him a feed of red meat and then watch him " , I was a bit sceptical at first but sure enough a couple of hours later they'd tied. You can get that effect from Aloe Vera Juice too. Red meat and Aloe have arginine in it and it makes the blood vessles pump and its a natural viagra for dogs. Mine mate twice a day - morning as the sun comes up and afternoon after red meat.Ive only ever seen one young man do the deed three times in one day but thats unusual.

Ive had Beagles for 34 years, Pembroke Corgis since I was born and Maremmas for 16 years.Mum bred Pembroke Corgis for 54 years and I inherited her dogs when she died.When I married my second husband he had boxers which I helped breed for 15 or so years. I worked in a breeding kennel when I was a kid and they had foxies. Ive watched,all of them mate without human help and along the way Ive seen Australian Terriers,St Bernards,Staffies and Cattle dogs carry on without help.The only ones who bombed were Bassets and they were happy to stick it up a nose or put it in an ear but didnt have a hope of even getting the right end without help. Ooops forgot a couple of Labs too and a hand ful of cavs which I didnt own but helped out with. Ive got a couple of Maremmas who mate in a missionary position.

Oh well at least then they wont need to blame chemicals and pollution or climate change for in breeding depressions.

Sandgrubber. I enjoy your posts. You will fit in well on DOL then!! I too have a range of publications in internationally peer reviewed journals as well as some published book chapters. Like Dr B none of them touch on canine genetics. We know not all PhDs are equal. The proof is in the publication record. Here is what an expert in genetics looks like.. Steve Jones Well if thats the case why are we being bombarded with the opinions of people LESS expert and LESS experienced than Dr B ?

Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia Carmen was given his first dog by his grandfather when he was five years old. That was the beginning of a lifelong fascination with all aspects of dog behavior, breeding, training, and showing. He has personally bred and finished several Champions, Select Dogs, Futurity and Maturity winners. Today, Dr. Battaglia is considered an expert as well as a highly respected AKC Judge of more than 40 breeds. By education, (holding the Masters and Doctorate from Florida State University), he is a researcher, lecturer and author. His articles have appeared in the "AKC Gazette", "Dog World", "Dog News", "Canadian Shepherd Journal", "South African Dog Magazine", as well as dog publications in Australia and Ireland. Being very active in the dog world, Dr. Battaglia is a Director of the American Kennel Club and has served as Chairman of such important committees as: National Genetics Committee (German Shepherd Dog Club of America), the American Kennel Club Committee for the Future, the Operations and Planning Committee, as well as the Health and Education Delegates Committee. The AKC called upon his expertise in genetics to create and develop their DNA program. He is also a much sought after speaker on this topic for television and radio talk shows. Author of several different books on dog breeding, Dr. Battaglia has gained worldwide recognition, most notably for the program he developed - "Breeding Better Dogs". Popular demand has prompted the creation of a seminar for dog clubs which mirrors his book and a video of this method which has been presented across the country and is considered an imperative foundation to any successful breeding program.

So what would you say defines an expert?

Part 2 <H2 class=title>A Gathering Storm Part 2</H2>A Gathering Storm Bring New Measures By Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia This is a continuation of last month’s discussion of the gathering storm and how it has already begun to impact the world of purebred dogs. The winds that are fueling this storm were identified as the undefined labels that are used by the animal rights movement. As stated in Part I, their efforts have gained wide-spread acceptance among the breeders which in turn have impacted AKC registrations and the gene pools of thirty-five breeds some of which may soon be facing extinction. Related to all of this is the fact that hardly anyone is noticing how effective and dangerous this storm has become. As discussed in Part I, there are many examples that show how, through the use of undefined labels, the animal rights movement has negatively impacted breeding and registrations. Sociologists who study social change and the use of labels to impact events call this discipline the "labeling process". When epidemiologists study their causes they look for three common denominators. First, whether the labels are defined. Secondly, their underlying purpose or intended target. Thirdly, the strategy that has been linked to the label which later can be grown into something large with varying consequences. In the dog world the use of undefined labels (responsible breeder, dangerous dogs, viscous dog, puppy mill etc.)has already been demonstrated to be an effective way to negatively impact breeding, ownership and the sport (see Part I). Many believe that the animal rights movement has been successful only because most breeders are so busy with their jobs, families and other things that they fail to notice the implications hidden within the labels they accept and use. What lingers in the background are their intentions and a general lack of awareness. This problem is not limited to just undefined labels; it extends into many other areas. For example, it was not so long ago that three important announcements were widely published in the dog world. The first occurred in 2003, when the AKC reported the introduction of a new Superplex G panel of 13 DNA markers that were designed to improve the quality of parentage testing. This announcement changed the AKC compliance audit program as well as the voluntary testing of puppies and adults. At the same time, the AKC announced that a fourteenth marker had been added to identify the gender of each individual tested. The third announcement came when the AKC Canine Health Foundation (CHF) reported that 25 DNA health tests were available for the screening of breeding stock. Today, no one would question the importance of these announcements even though most breeders are still unaware of their existence. Scenarios like these have led the animal rights activists to believe that the dog world is asleep at the wheel. They believe we are uninformed and therefore vulnerable. This of course works to their advantage. Consider how they effectively were able to link their ideas to the undefined labels called: "puppy mill", "vicious dogs", "dangerous dogs", "over-population" and "responsible dog owners". Each label played an important role in reducing registrations, zoning, breeding rights, ownership and the number of breeders. Now after more than ten years these same labels continue to impact the sport even though they are all still undefined. This has only encouraged the animal rights groups to move forward with their expectations for the label called "the responsible breeder". It is even more dangerous than the earlier labels mentioned because this label has more closely been linked to the breeders, their pups and the use of clinical protocols such as x-rays, health certifications and DNA testing. These protocols will become the mechanisms by which they intend to measure breeders. The animal rights movement believes that all breeders should screen and test all of their breeding stock as the first step to producing the pups they will sell. While most breeders´ support being labeled a "responsible breeder" they fail to see that they will be expected to screen and test all their pups. Since the AKC has already collected DNA on more than 350,000 dogs, one would think that the breeders would have learned more about how the parentage tests works and how the DNA health tests can be used in their breeding program. The truth is that very few breeders can explain the DNA parentage test or how it is being used to preserve the integrity of the stud book. One would also expect that because of the widespread support for DNA health testing more breeders would be using the 35 plus DNA health tests that are already available for screening diseases. The record shows just the opposite. Most breeders do not use the DNA parentage test unless it is required and only a small percentage are using the DNA health tests, x-rays or other clinical protocols as a way to eliminate or manage the carriers in their pedigrees. The under-utilization of these technologies in an environment of widespread acceptance confirms that indeed the dog world "may be asleep at the wheel". This encourages the animal rights groups with their strategy to change breeding practices. To better understand the dynamics of this gathering storm, one must ask why there is such widespread support for DNA testing and the other health protocols given the small fraction of the breeder’s who actually use them. This has yet to be explained but it seems fair to say that the animal rights movement will continue to ask that all breeding stock be screened and tested. In time they will demand health and parentage testing of every litter. As their agenda begins to unfold nothing short of a massive educational program will be able to slow down the effect it will have on the dog world. Notice in Figure 1 how AKC registrations have slowly been reduced. In 2004, of those who purchased an AKC registerable pup only 44% registered them. Experts agree that the reason for this decline is not simple; but the facts show that this has been a nine-year steady decline and it expected to continue. FIGURE 1. To understand this dilemma and the use of undefined labels we need to examine events that had already emerged by the early 1990’s when the high volume breeders were thought to be out of control. In response, DNA technology was offered as the savior of the AKC studbook. As a new technology it was considered the tool by which those suspected of cheating would be caught and punished. It was also during this period that the animal rights movement linked their ideas to several undefined labels which the breeders had made popular. Their strategy has worked only because undefined labels can mean many things to different individuals. Most importantly, they make everyone feel good about their own beliefs. Over the past 15 years the breeders and the pubic have been conditioned to accept this approach. What was not anticipated was how the animal rights movement would create two problems for the "responsible breeder" to solve. The first problem they called "pet overpopulation" which they linked to limited registrations (Figure 2). At the same time they also encouraged the use of spay/neuter contracts. Both ideas were immediately popular and both produced a negative impact on purebred dogs, particularly the gene pools of the 35 breeds seen in Table 1. FIGURE 2. LIMITED REGISTRATIONS A brief analysis of the nine year downward trend in registrations (Figure 1) shows that it is inversely related to the steady increase in limited registrations. Breeders are selling pups on limited registrations and/or spay/neuter contracts in the belief they will help to control the problem that we know does not exist (Strand). Patience on the part of the animal rights movement coupled with the encouragement from the breeders and their clubs has more then tripled the number of dogs removed from the stud book since 1995. The subtle strategy underlying the use of these undefined labels should not be under-estimated because the important question has been overlooked. Why would breeders want to remove their pups from the gene pool of their own breeds if nothing was wrong with them? What can not be ignored is the fact that the animal rights movement and its critic groups have leveraged their position among the breeders. Most breeders have not noticed how testing has been linked to a way to measure breeding's and the quality of the pups produced. The second problem for the "responsible breeder" to solve involves the use of DNA technology, x-rays and other clinical protocols. The goal is to require widespread testing of those saved for breeding. Theoretically this would produce the better individuals. The problem with their logic is that the pups saved may not be the better specimens of their breed based on the breed standard. Saving those who have been tested for health and parentage is not the same as saving those who are the better specimens based on their conformation and temperament. Shifting emphasis to one area is not in the best interests of purebred dogs. While most breeders seem to agree with the concept of screening and testing, many do not realize how it can be used to obligate them to sell more pups on limited registrations and spay/neuter contracts as proof of their being a responsible breeder. The scenarios they are offering lead to the pathway by which breeders and their pups can be quantitatively measured. The good news for the animal rights movement is that the number of pups sold on limited registrations and spay/neuter contracts can be compared with previous litters. Thus, a determination can be made as to whether the breeder is being responsible or not. This is an important objective to appreciate because it shows how the breeders and their litters will be measured by the numbers. The logic for making the breeder and their pups the next victim and target has been carefully crafted. Unfortunately, it embraces a strategy that already has widespread support. http://' target="_blank"> Table 1. Declining Gene Pools Registrations (1997-2001)2001 RankBreeds20012000199919981987112Salukis8479806367113Belgian Tervuren84847889106114Belgian Sheepdogs83808085101115Retrievers (Flat-Coated)82100759884116Petits Bassets Griffons Vendeens75837210092117Bedlington Terriers6654575657118Spaniels (Welsh Springer)6163585760119Wirehaired pointing Griffons5566443741120Briards5161576058121Spaniels (American Water)4945576268122Lowchen4944372435123Spaniels (Clumber)4760435146124Black and Tan Coonhounds4747485557125Anatolian Shepherds4248494145126Pulik4036483646127Polish Lowland Sheepdogs40382800128Miniature Bull Terriers4042494244129Kuvaszok3548495984130Spinone Italiano336 131Finnish Spitz3027302739132Scottish Deerhounds2828272733133Retrievers (Curly-Coated)2725253128134Komondorok2623323140135Canaan Dogs2625201811136Spaniels (Field)2528283629137Spaniels ( Irish Water)2523332221138Greyhounds2530243229139Sealyham Terriers2418211728140Skye Terriers2423253831141Pharaoh Hounds2319162019142German Pinschers23 143Spaniels (Sussex)2016212216144Dandie Dinmont Terriers2033383033145Ibizan Hounds1812131719146Plotts18353080147Foxhounds (American)1814141513148Harriers11661011149Otterhounds8724915 0Foxhounds (English)785762001 RankBreeds20012000199919981987 Total for all 150 breeds461,863506,727527,023555,964564,165Who would have suspected that in just nine years, the blind acceptance of undefined labels would have significantly reduced the size of the AKC stud book and the gene pools of 35 breeds (Table 1). There are no accurate figures on the number of pups sold on limited registrations that were not registered but some estimates suggest the number may be at least another 100,000 per year. When the effects of both are taken as a whole, no one can question their impact on declining registrations, gene pool size and genetic diversity. It has been astonishing. The unintended consequences of these efforts have no equal. The impact of this storm can be viewed in yet another way. In 1981, AKC derived 96% of its income from dog registrations. By 2003, income from registrations had fallen to 61%. These declines represent a significant loss in revenues and future earnings. What makes this all so important is that AKC has been forced to find alternative sources of income to support its 18,000 dog events, its one-of-kind library, health research grants, veterinary scholarships etc. During the past decade twenty- three for-profit registries have emerged to compete with the AKC. In time, they could diminish AKC´s position of influence if they continue to grow at their current pace. Of equal concern is the growth and effectiveness of the animal rights agenda. The growing number of breeders that seek to wear the label "responsible breeder" should serve as the foundation for this concern. While no definition exists for this label, the negative effect it has already produced is clear. The critic groups are prepared, poised and ready to propose legislation that will further define and measure breeders by what they produce and sell. They have crafted a strategy that carefully identifies the breeder and their pups as both the victim and the target. Given the events described, no one should wonder if there is a gathering storm. The howling winds are everywhere and with them come a new and different kind of thinking. In retrospect, this might be a good time to ask where we do we stand after ten years of undefined labels and the blind acceptance of DNA. In the rush to be first, some clubs have already begun to implement mandatory DNA programs. Acceptance of such a requirement without understanding is certain to produce unrealistic goals with unintended consequences. In the midst of what seems to be more confusion, we must find the time to step back and ask the big question. Where do we stand after ten years of undefined labels and the announcement that DNA testing would be used to rid the studbook of errors and clean out the cheaters? Many are beginning to question if the strategy may have been deeply inadequate especially in light of the fact that no one has defined the problems to be solved or their intended solutions. Perhaps out of fear and confusion we have failed to define the means by which we would know when we have solved the perceived problems. We should also remind ourselves that today, breeding is no longer an "elitist" hobby and its rewards as either a pastime or a profession are no longer a well-kept secrete. Anyone can become a breeder. There are no entrances examines, no rules and no penalties. No organization serves to punish those who make mistakes or those who produce poor quality pups. Anyone of our neighbors can claim to be a breeder. This dilemma will continue to worsen if the breeders, veterinary schools, shelters and others continue to accept and use undefined labels. Selling pups as a hobby and breeding has already been stigmatized and many believe this is only the first inning. By the fifth, they will be asking for a higher standard and acceptance of the principles that will produce a new kind of animal husbandry. In their world, fewer dogs and fewer litters are better. While the options to the future are still open, a massive educational program begs to be ignited. At the end of the day, the clubs their breeders, vet schools and shelters must settle on a definition for the "puppy mill", "responsible breeder", "responsible dog owner", "viscous dog", "dangerous dog" etc. They must also articulate the vision, goals and objectives. These efforts must become the centerpiece of their educational programs. Conclusion History´s judgment will not wait to see what actions the dog world chooses to take. The polarization of the sport is well underway. The efforts made to date have largely focused on the use of seminars held annually which have not been sufficient enough to reach the fancy and the growing number of new breeders spread across America. Programs that are fresh, brisk and focused must be designed with the help of experienced leaders in the dog world and the research community. The subject matter must, as a minimum, define the undefined labels and address the utilization of DNA technology, the better breeding methods, pedigree analysis and selection techniques, modes of inheritance, the management of carriers, formula breeding and legislation. The time we have is slipping away. The storm has arrived. Boarding up the windows and the doors will no longer be good enough as a way to survive it. The future should not be left to chance, the novice or the animal rights movement. If you would care to express your ideas on this subject, forward them to me in care of the editor at [email protected] References: AKC Gazette, "AKC DNA Tests", New York, New York, January 2003. Battaglia, Carmen, Table 2. "Breed Dilemmas and Extinction", Canine Chronicle, August 2003, pg. 104-108 Holt, James, Key note address entitled "Puppy Protection Act" AKC Forum Long Beach, CA, 2003. Katz, Jack, "Deviance, Charisma, and Rule-Defined Behavior", Social Problems, Vol. 20, no.2, Fall, 1972, pg 186-202 Ostrander, Elaine, Presentation at a Workshop for the AKC Directors December 13, 2004, NY, NY. Spector, Malcolm, Labeling Theory in Social Problems: a Young journal Launches a New Theory, Social Problems, Vol. 24, No 1., October 1976, pg 69-75. Strand, Patti, Willis, Malcomb, "Breeding Dogs" Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine health Conference, Oct. 15-17, 1999. St. Louis, MO. Willis, Malcomb, "Breeding Dogs" Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine health Conference, Oct. 15-17, 1999. St. Louis, MO. Wilson, Craig, "Moredoggerel", USA Today, March 26, 2004, pg.2/a.

Dr. Battaglia holds the Ph.D. and Masters degree from Florida State University. He is a breeder, author, researcher and lecturer and has worked at Emory University, Florida State University, DeKalb College and the University of Tennessee Space Institute. He has authored many books and articles which have appeared in the AKC Gazette, Canine Chronicle, Dog World, Dog News and in publications throughout Canada, Hungary, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com/articles...storm_pt_1.html Big things often come from small beginnings By Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia Over the years one can find many examples of an event which at the time seemed small and unimportant only to be later learned that it had grown large with unintended consequences. It was the repeated occurrence of these scenarios that eventually led to the expression, big things often-times come from small beginnings. In this regard, there is now within the dog world a chain of events that has been defined as more than just an annoyance. These are a series of small events that can be described as a gathering storm but, unlike those of the past, this storm is being driven by forces that are connected in unusual ways. At its center is the repeated and effective use of several undefined labels. They have become the primary tool that fuels these turbulent winds. The storm is being driven by the fundamental idea that breeders should do the right thing. The motivating argument for this comes from the Animal Rights Movement which identifies the expectation that a responsible breeder would analyze his/her pedigrees for problems using DNA technology and the other certifications, tests and protocols that are available (OFA, CERF, PENN HIP etc). The idea, of course, is popular, but for those who study these events and how they are used to influence the future, it seems clear that the conditions are now right for a disaster. Unfortunately, there is no authority in the dog world who can say with any certainty how much damage this storm will cause. What is certain is that it has now reached a level that makes it a clear and present danger. Storms in a sport, like those in society, are always risky because they usually bring with them unwanted damage. What has gone unnoticed about this storm is how the animal rights movement has used a series of undefined labels to drive the winds that have already altered and changed the dog world. Until now, most of these changes have gathered little national interest. Now however, through the use of well crafted-labels they are able to describe a person, thing or event in either a positive or negative light. Over the years they have learned how to use the power of the undefined label to capture the interests and attention of the public, the clubs and the breeders. The use of labels to drive ideas is not new in an industrialized society. Advertising agencies and political campaigns use them to influence policy, regulations and elections. The hotter the issue, the more dramatic the pitch and the more clever the strategy. When the issue is ideological, labels are used to energize supporters. They are also used on web sites to announce the issues and promote the problems. When combined, they become the important vehicles for influencing opinions and changing perceptions. Sociologists call this the "labeling process". Their studies focus on the groups and organizations that use the labels to exploit a situation, target a group or identify a victim. In this regard, the "labeling process" is best known as an applied method. Studying how they are used to achieve certain goals involves a search for the motive and the desired objective. Many times the goal is subtle and not easily noticeable. Understanding how the change agents use the "labeling process" is key to understanding how they are able to drive their programs. This is important in today's climate because the breeders seem to enjoy using the undefined labels without ever knowing their meaning or purpose and more importantly who will become their next victim. One of the newest labels gaining in popularity has been designed to make the breeder its victim and their pups the target. It's called the "responsible breeder". What makes this label so dangerous is the attention it calls to the quality of the pups produced. What makes it politically correct is the fact that it has many meanings and interpretations and most importantly, it offers everyone who "does the right thing" the opportunity to label themselves a breeder. Underneath its exterior however, is the special emphasis it brings to the quality of the pups being produced and sold. It assumes that if a pup is of poor quality, unhealthy or has something wrong, it should not be bred. Most breeders agree with this notion and respond by selling their pups without AKC registration papers, or with a limited registration or perhaps a spay/neuter contract. The underlying assumption is that they are being "responsible breeders" and would not want to continue to produce low quality pups given the technology and protocols that are available. The latter point is key to the strategy. The notion that the unsound and unhealthy should not be sold for breeding is fundamental to this label and with that logic the best indicator of whether a breeder is being responsible or not can be tested by what they produce and how they register it. This method identifies some breeders as better then other breeders. This scenario salutes those who breed to produce better quality. In the background however, there are some important and very fundamental questions. For example, why do so many breeders endorse the use of DNA but have little or no understanding of its uses or benefits and why have only a small fraction of the breeders actually used it? Why are so many breeders not trained in the use of DNA testing or the techniques available for managing the normal's, carriers or affected when they occur in their pedigrees? The animal rights strategy sees this as opportunity. Their logic suggests that because there is widespread support for a technology they do not understand or use, the quality of their litters is not likely to improve. Thus, over time, a determination can be made as to whether a breed and its breeders are making progress and thus, being "responsible breeders". Said another way, if quality pups are the goal, a responsible breeder can be measured by how they sells their pups. In retrospect, there is a lesson to be learned from this simple logic and how, through the use of undefined labels, the animal rights movement has been able to create havoc in the world of pure-bred dogs. In the past, the most popular use of the undefined label was to describe the commercial or high volume breeders as "puppy mills". Other labels were then linked to it. They were called "overpopulation", "vicious dogs", "dangerous dogs", "responsible dog owner", etc. While each of these labels enjoyed wide-spread acceptance, none were ever defined. In each case, the fancy and the public accepted them without any understanding of what they meant or what they were intended to do. Now, after more than ten years of use, they are still undefined. For these reasons, it is important to appreciate who creates the labels (change agents), why they are using them and what affect they are having on the AKC, veterinary schools, dog clubs, registrations (stud book), and ultimately the breeders. By design, most of these labels are left vague or never defined. This reduces the chances for resistance. When catchy words and phrases are linked to them, many ideas can be pushed to support their agenda. It is not just the general description given them that gathers attention, it the success they have had convincing breeders, their clubs and the writers to use undefined labels. Whether this new label will follow in the footsteps of the others is yet to be determined. But based on the past, it is safe to say that we should take this opportunity to understand its potential. History shows that one of the earliest undefined labels targeted breeders by calling them "puppy mills". Catchy phrases were added to describe them as irresponsible individuals who owned dirty kennels and carried out careless breeding's. This label was then linked to a negative form of animal husbandry as a way to grow the idea into something bigger. Some of the first uses of this label focused on the breeders in certain states and cities. It resulted in changes in policies, zoning, regulations and even legislation. The strategy being used today closely parallels this scenario. It focuses on issues the Animal Rights Movement believes need to be changed. Their current strategy begins with the fancy (breeders/writers) they push for acceptance in conversation, at meetings and on web sites. Follow-up efforts are then used to identify the problem that fits their strategy. This step usually involves their critic groups who are developing court cases that will follow. Their use of the law and the courts has already resulted in a negative and financial impact on hundreds of breeders and their dog clubs. Their efforts have been effective only because they are able to create labels the community will accept. In the past, it was only the like-minded groups within the animal rights movement that were able to function as change agents. In the beginning they were forced to use negative incentives and the courts to push their agendas. But over the past 20 years they have effectively learned how to use legislation and the courts and the breeders to introduce new changes in zoning, ownership, breeding rights, care and conditions etc. Typically they use the argument of "raising the bar". Sometimes they call it "raising the standard". Today, when the term "puppy mill" is used, it quickly arouses a negative and emotional response. More importantly it demonstrates how one undefined label in the hands of a determined group can manipulate the masses. From the beginning, their goal was to control, limit and reduce the ownership and breeding rights of the breeders and those who exhibit purebred dogs. Thus far, they have successfully done both. What is best known about their efforts is the ripple effect they are having on the gene pools of many breeds. This is one of the most dangerous aspects of this new label. The cumulative effects they are having on registrations can not be ignored. Related to this problem is the impact they are having on the gene pools of the 35 breeds listed in Table 1. The unintended and cumulative consequence of their efforts continues to gather momentum only because there is acceptance without understanding. What must be learned from these experiences is that most of the undefined labels are used to suggest something good. Later they are used to fit an agenda that will produce a negative effect. The most dangerous part of the process is how well they are able to reach beyond the obvious. In the early stages of acceptance the critic groups remain in the background preparing to use the courts as opportunities present themselves. With this infrastructure in place, the animal rights groups are able to extend their reach. Their success can now be measured through declining registrations and the numbers of pups being sold on limited registrations or on spay/neuter contracts. The "responsible breeder" label is the vehicle being used to establish a new kind of husbandry, one that will eventually be guided by new and tougher quantative standards. During the initial stages of implementation their strategy only whispers about a better way. They do this by painting a picture of something that is good for everyone. At the center of their storm is the attention they are giving to DNA technology and health certifications which most breeders and their clubs endorse. In their words, a "responsible breeder" is expected to screen and test all of their stock before breeding. This idea sounds great on the surface but this is only the first step. As the breeders and their clubs continue to embrace this label the animal rights activist slowly begins to lobby for the required use of both DNA and health screening. This follow-up step is called "raising the bar". It is unfolding one step at a time. We already have heard their voices asking that more testing must be used on breeding stock. Next they will push for testing as a condition of breeding and then as a condition to register breeding stock and their pups. In some quarters they already are asking that it become a condition for entry in some AKC venues. As the popularity of the "responsible breeder" spreads they will attempt to further extend their reach into the AKC stud book and the registration system. To this end, the change agents and their critic groups have already taken the first step by raising the level of awareness. Some believe they are ahead of schedule. What is so interesting is how well the breeders have accepted their ideas. FIGURE 1. LIMITED REGISTRATIONS Notice in Figure 1 how quickly the breeders responded when they were told that in order to be a "responsible breeder" they should sell their pups on limited registrations or on spay/neuter contracts as a way to control "over-population" a problem that does not exist. Figure 1, also shows that after only nine years well over 100,000 dogs each year continue to be removed from the gene pools of all breeds. Not only have the animal rights movement been able to encourage breeders to reduce the size of the AKC stud book they have identified the "responsible breeder" as their next victim. Unfortunately, the dog world has not noticed the negative effect limited registrations and spay neuter contracts are having on registrations and the stud book. The strategy thus far has linked two ideas together. The first was to convince the breeders that they could reduce over-population. The second was to separate the breeders and the buyers from the AKC. More than half of all pups sold on limited registrations and spay/neuter contracts were not being registered. Both efforts shrink the number of breeders and litters. Unfortunately, the impact they continue to have on the stud book and particularly the 35 breeds listed in Table 1 should not be ignored. These breeds are now registering fewer than 100 litters per year. The greatest dilemma now comes if this trend continues because it currently is on schedule to collapse the diversity of several gene pools and their ability to maintain breed health (Ostrander). Table 1. AKC Litter Registrations (1997-2001)2001 RankBreeds2004 2003 200220012000199919981987112Salukis 8479806367113Belgian Tervuren 84847889106114Belgian Sheepdogs 83808085101115Retrievers (Flat-Coated) 82100759884116Petits Bassets Griffons Vendeens 75837210092117Bedlington Terriers 6654575657118Spaniels (Welsh Springer) 6163585760119Wirehaired pointing Griffons 5566443741120Briards 5161576058121Spaniels (American Water) 4945576268122Lowchen 4944372435123Spaniels (Clumber) 4760435146124Black and Tan Coonhounds 4747485557125Anatolian Shepherds 4248494145126Pulik 4036483646127Polish Lowland Sheepdogs 40382800128Miniature Bull Terriers 4042494244129Kuvaszok 3548495984130Spinone Italiano 336 131Finnish Spitz 3027302739132Scottish Deerhounds 2828272733133Retrievers (Curly-Coated) 2725253128134Komondorok 2623323140135Canaan Dogs 2625201811136Spaniels (Field) 2528283629137Spaniels ( Irish Water) 2523332221138Greyhounds 2530243229139Sealyham Terriers 2418211728140Skye Terriers 2423253831141Pharaoh Hounds 2319162019142German Pinschers 23 143Spaniels (Sussex) 2016212216144Dandie Dinmont Terriers 2033383033145Ibizan Hounds 1812131719146Plotts 18353080147Foxhounds (American) 1814141513148Harriers 11661011149Otterhounds 87249150Foxhounds (English) 785762001 RankBreeds2004 2003 200220012000199919981987 Total for all 150 breeds 461,863506,727527,023555,964564,165 Conclusion The strength of the winds that are pushing this storm has been marked and identified. It is heading toward the fancy with an unusual force. They have already unleashed a new kind of husbandry which is likely to have a qualitative and quantitative form of measurement. The plan and the mechanism that is driving this storm is intended to continue on its path of reshaping the dog world piece by piece. While these trends seem to be clear, hardly anyone seems to be noticing. In retrospect, we can now see the true meaning of the phrase, "big things often-times come from small beginnings". More will be said about the plan and the labeling process in the next article (Part II). If you would care to express your ideas on this subject, forward them to me in care of the editor at [email protected] References: AKC Gazette, "AKC DNA Tests", New York, New York, January 2003. Battaglia, Carmen, Table 2. "Breed Dilemmas and Extinction", Canine Chronicle, August 2003, pg. 104-108 Wilson, Craig, "Moredoggerel", USA Today, March 26, 2004, pg.2/a. Holt, James, Key note address entitled "Puppy Protection Act" AKC Forum Long Beach, CA, 2003. Ostrander, Elaine, Presentation at a Workshop for the AKC Directors December 13, 2004, NY, NY. Willis, Malcomb, "Breeding Dogs" Canine Health Conference, AKC Canine health Conference, Oct. 15-17, 1999. St. Louis, MO.

That would be great - as long as thats a compulsory desexing policy for the pound only which would bring them into line with other pounds and shelters in the state which also do this but I wont support mandatory desexing policy across the board.

Its is an issue with state laws and its time that one was given some attention.It should have been dealt with way before a push for an attempt at stopping pet shop sales.