Steve

My link Dog breeding kennel owner sues RSPA over Longwood raid THE owner of a pedigree breeding kennel is suing the RSPCA after it effectively shut down the business in one of Victoria's largest animal cruelty raids earlier this year. Heather Healey, who runs Kethran Kennels in Longwood, has lodged a writ in the County Court alleging there was no reason to raid her property, in which 52 of her pedigree Chihuahua and Tibetan spaniel show dogs and puppies were seized and about 30 dogs were left behind. Ms Healey also claims the raid was illegal because the warrant had not been properly authorised, did not disclose sufficient grounds for the raid and did not fully identify those who took part in the raid. "They've taken all my (registration) papers so I can't even sell a dog," Ms Healey told the Herald Sun yesterday. "Nine out of 10 dogs I give away to people to show. "I've had over 200 Australian champions." After the raid on Kethran Kennels and a neighbourinbreeder's premises in June, the RSPCA issued an urgent call for towels and blankets for the almost 120 dogs and six puppies rescued. The RSPCA said the dogs had been stuck in small cages and in rancid conditions until their rescue, with authorities investigating puppy farmlinks to the show dog industry. The RSPCA said multiple tip-offs led to its Special Investigations Unit and police and council officers raiding two properties simultaneously as part of ongoing investigations into show dog enthusiasts whowere also breeders. Animal Liberation Victoria is among those who say they tipped off the RSPCA after ­covertly filming dogs in overcrowded cages at one of the properties in 2010. But Ms Healey's statement of claim says her dogs were not"abandoned, diseased, distressed or disabled", and were kept according to the industry's code of practice. "The dogs were under the care and surveillance of­ veterinarians." Her statement says there have been no adverse reports from prior inspections and no prior breaches of the Prevention to Cruelty to Animals Act. She is seeking the return of her dogs, damages, costs and adeclaration that the warrant was invalid and seizures unlawful. Ms Healey also wants a restraining order preventing the RSPCA from destroying or disposing of any of her dogs. Victorian RSPCA CEO Dr Liz Walker said legal advice wasbeing sought in relation to the writ.

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies? I imagine this would be highly unlikely for 2 reasons that I can think of, the first being they cost too much to get on the ground, they would rather sell and recoup some of their costs than waste money and the second they wouldn't risk drowning a good dog. Yep.

Dogs NSW has a policy of inspections for anyone who breeds more than average number of litters, Vicdogs is not fighting against the 10 fertile dog limit and now Dogs Queensland have a new one to register puppies price goes up to 43 dollars but after the 6th litter price per puppy goes up to 86 dollars. It just feeds into the crap that its preferable to only have a litter or two per year and any breeder who is in a position to breed more than a couple of litters a year is scum. They are supposed to represent their members and help to protect the breeds ! Suckers.

This whole thing started with the RSPCA,AWL and AR wanting breeders to be licenced. They put in a Pilot program on the Gold Coast and it FAILED and in fact NOTHING about anything in that Pilot program was successful. They wanted chip numbers or breeder licence numbers in ads. That didn't happen and it wasn't and couldn't be policed. They were so confident that when the new laws came in and everyone who owned an entire dog would crowd in and apply for a licence that they would need two rangers who's only job would be to do inspections and grant or knock back licences. When I spoke to the ranger after the Pilot program had been run he told me that it failed because no one applied for a licence, they were still only finding out who had a litter if someone reported them for smell or noise etc just as it had always been. The Rangers who had been allocated to managing the program were taken off that job and returned to what rangers usually do, everything else including following up dog related issues and complaints. Every where else in the world where breeder licensing has been bought in it has FAILED. For numerous reasons in Victoria the laws for breeding dogs and the over regulation has CREATED the situation where the large scale kennels have been established. We told them this would be a consequence of their crazy codes and government interference in areas they have no right or need to be but every year they add a bit more . If any group had a strategy to stop the breeding of all dogs bit by bit what you see happening would be a good way for them to go. First you divide them by elevating one group over another so they actually work with you to knock out the competition .Cross bred breeders, breeders who breed dogs for money, are the scum of the earth and heaven forbid the dreaded back yard breeder must be annihilated. Because one group has been selected as being the only ones who should breed dogs for now get them to agree to anything regardless of whether its best for dogs or not with exemptions for now. How dare someone who breeds and sells cross bred dogs ask such high prices ,how dare someone breed purebred dogs and not want to be a member of an elite group of bullies and show dog people. How dare someone want to breed their dog and place healthy pets in someone's arm. We have been watching as they helped promote registered breeders as the preferred place to purchase a puppy. Of course if these breeders dont also show their dogs then they dont care about the standard or the breed etc. They are just registered puppy farmers and only breed for filthy lucre.They health test ? Well some do but most don't and health testing doesn't mean you automatically get a healthier dog. Then we start to hear they inbreed, they breed to extremes they use popular sires. The dreaded back yard breeder actually may do LESS damage to the breed. Just look at the scum of the earth who advertise their puppies for sale! Unless of course its dogzonline. Gumtree has the most deprived people advertising there and it ll must be stopped. There isnt any point in going on but this is all crap. What the hell is the problem that they are constantly trying to fix ? Why do the ignorant mindless public need such protection from this epidemic of horrible people who breed puppies? If someone chooses to allow their dog to have a litter without government approval they want to treat them like criminals, take their property. All Breeders need knowledge in genetics , animal husbandry blah blah blah to be able to allow their dog to have puppies ? Why? Who says that only one goal is the only goal someone should have ,where is the EVIDENCE that so many puppies from one source or another is sick or bad tempered or causing what ever the hell problem it is they are trying to fix? The whole world took a small study that said registered breeders puppies are better socialised so this became the big deal of the century, people couldn't possibly be able to socialise their puppies if they had more than one litter at a time, what a load of crap! So just lets look at the special group and see where it stands now. Best place to buy a puppy is a purebred registered breeder who shows their dogs, who health tests, who lets the public come and inspect them and their homes, who takes back their dogs if the new owner doesn't want them anymore, who guarantees them for things that its not possible to guarantee them for, who is knowledgeable in genetics and animal husbandry, who only breeds a litter or two a year. We wont mention that the knowledge they think they need in genetics and husbandry is fed to them by idiots. It has become the only hobby or occupation that Ive ever heard of where the less you do it you are more respected and more recommended you become. Where I come from purebred breeders who had more rather than less dogs and who bred more than an average number of litters are the ones that left the greatest mark on the breeds. These days even the boards of the CCs are condemning any breeder who has more than a couple of litters a year because its become politically correct .Not anything to do with what is best for the breeds or the dogs just what it needs to shut down the bullies. Best wait the best is yet to come after you get all of the crap through, and you have divided all of the different people who commit the sin of allowing their dog to remain entire and the ultimate sin of having a litter - just take away their exemptions and make them breed dogs they knew was a shit way to breed dogs but as long as it wasn't them it didn't matter, then dada start telling the world about breed standards and brachy heads and breeding to extremes - well come in suckers.

There is nothing wrong with breeding several liters out of one bitch in the hope of getting anything as long as the dog is in good health.

Maddy if you are so sure that some know that some others are drowning puppies ,how do you think they know this and how many breeders that you know drown puppies have you reported? You cant just rock up and say I think they are routinely drowning puppies and its not something that a breeder brags about. You can say that s not that sire and its easily proven via DNA so if you know its happened then have you reported it ?.How do you know someone else is aware of it or that its not just gossip? If you know these things and dont report them then why are you less guilty of someone else who you think may know something .Why would a greyhound breeder drown puppies?

Maddy I just don't believe that its possible to know how many if any, knew that didn't report them . If we are talking NSW you don't know how many DID report them.Im just not happy marking everyone in any group with the assumption they are all guilty of animal cruelty or of covering it up.

Sorry I should have said I wasn't referring to the comments on social media, but to emails I have received regarding the strategies that were/had been used in the 'fight' to oppose the ban. Most of the time when I mentioned the changes in this thread regarding the 50%reduction of dogs being bred, the rules regarding the transparency regarding the fate of the dogs was being used as an example of the fact that the industry could change, but as WM says achieving this in only 12 mths is not fast enough for the general public. The reforms I mentioned that had been taken off the table were only proposed reforms not actual reforms, pity they weren't made to uphold them before Baird changed his mind. I do understand this and while I also have had similar experiences to those that you have mentioned I also have friends at this moment who have as many dogs in their kennels waiting to go into GAP as you mentioned that you have rescued in 10 yrs. Some of them have been there over 12 mths and the 4 they have kept pets, I have shared a couch with and they have done this for many years, it's these people who have a passion for their hobby but above all a love of dogs that I feel for and my friends aren't the only ones that I know of. The purebred breeders are feeling annoyed that the powers that be feel they need to pay for their hobby, this is how my friends feel plus the whole country believes just because they have a hobby that's been ruined, they are scumbags like the participants that everyone hears about and have judged them without knowing them. Ultimately, remaining silent is condoning the behaviour of those doing the wrong thing. If enough of the good trainers were willing to come forward, name names, be honest about what goes on, maybe the scum could be cleaned away and things could change. But they don't. In doing nothing, they've made a choice. Back when I was stuck running GAP down here (a short, horrible period that I'd rather forget), I was made to sign an agreement stating that I would never say anything to anyone that would bring the sport into disrepute. This included speaking to the media (besides statements approved by them), it also included not reporting things I'd seen to the RSPCA. A similar clause exists under GAR. A rule that basically prohibits anyone from speaking out if it might damage the image of the sport. A lot of the AR nuts like to grasp at some of the much less common issues while right there, in front of their noses, is the industry enforcing corruption and a culture of secrecy, in a way that can be proven without any effort at all. Go figure. But that assumes that the good trainers even know what they get up to and what they were doing and from what Im hearing thats just not true. Its hardly something that is advertised and chatted about to anyone who they dont trust. You place EVERYONE who wants to own and train greys in the same basket .They are either animal abusers or they are complicent in it without consideration for how many did really know enough to be able to report it. The second part of your post is about self management and self policing which is always open to corruption and bias and why Vicdogs would be better to advocate for reasonable conditions for everyone who wants to breed dogs rather than sit back and help stick it to everyone else and bathe in the glow that their exemptions won't be removed and they don't become just like the riff raff who choose not to be their members. It attracts dead beats who only join for the exemptions and sets them up for failure sooner rather than later and always makes them a shinier target and open to accusations of corruption,secrecy and bias for AR loonies. If you are going to expect enforcement you have to have a third party arms length party that can accept complaints and have nothing to gain by hushing things up and that includes the RSPCA. In my experience, many are like teenage girls in that they like to gossip. One person falls out with another, they have a good bitch to anyone who'll listen. There are cliques and certain people go in and out of fashion. In small states like Tasmania, everyone knows everyone elses' business. In places like NSW, I suppose it'd be more of a regional thing, not that it makes a great deal of difference. You're also assuming that those doing the wrong thing are actually going to some sort of effort to hide it and again, from my experience, that's not really true. I've had trainers admit to me that baiting happened on their property (not by them, of course, but a mysterious "someone"). I know of trainers who go through huge numbers of dogs and it's no secret. Then there are the things that happen that aren't against any rule but the public would likely not be comfortable with- dogs being destroyed at the track because of relatively minor injuries (in terms of their health) that are likely to mean they'll never race successfully again. People breeding several litters out of one bitch in the hopes of getting that elusive big winner, etc, etc. Maybe a few very sheltered trainers could claim ignorance of what goes on but they'd be a tiny minority. What remains and those who do the wrong thing and those who watch the wrong thing happen. This is not saying they are the same- but those who stand by and do nothing cannot complain when the sport does eventually get taken away from them. Regarding the second part of my post, you could not be more incorrect. In no way was I suggesting self management because that is what is already in place and already very obviously failing. What I was saying was that participants need to take some responsibility, instead of claiming that because it was not them, they shouldn't have to worry about it. This is like witnessing a murder and instead of calling the police, shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Well, I didn't murder anyone so it's not my business and not my problem." It seems obvious to me that if the industry is under threat because of a systemic issue, then all parties concerned should be looking at how to solve the problem. Instead, they're just trying to sweep it back under the rug. I knew you were not suggesting self management and I knew you were saying exactly the opposite and I was agreeing with you. I'm sorry but I refuse to accept that every person who was not doing the wrong thing is responsible for what was going on with others.I will not accept that everyone in a group should be judged by the actions of a few. If its more than a feww then where are they and why havent they been charged in huge numbers? I also refuse to accept that this new thing we seem to be calling the community and changing public opinion is about what the vast majority of people think and feel and not a noisy minority who have made it difficult for anyone who doesn't agree to say so in fear of not being politically correct and they will be beaten up and judged to be a bad person because they happen to have a different opinion.

Sorry I should have said I wasn't referring to the comments on social media, but to emails I have received regarding the strategies that were/had been used in the 'fight' to oppose the ban. Most of the time when I mentioned the changes in this thread regarding the 50%reduction of dogs being bred, the rules regarding the transparency regarding the fate of the dogs was being used as an example of the fact that the industry could change, but as WM says achieving this in only 12 mths is not fast enough for the general public. The reforms I mentioned that had been taken off the table were only proposed reforms not actual reforms, pity they weren't made to uphold them before Baird changed his mind. I do understand this and while I also have had similar experiences to those that you have mentioned I also have friends at this moment who have as many dogs in their kennels waiting to go into GAP as you mentioned that you have rescued in 10 yrs. Some of them have been there over 12 mths and the 4 they have kept pets, I have shared a couch with and they have done this for many years, it's these people who have a passion for their hobby but above all a love of dogs that I feel for and my friends aren't the only ones that I know of. The purebred breeders are feeling annoyed that the powers that be feel they need to pay for their hobby, this is how my friends feel plus the whole country believes just because they have a hobby that's been ruined, they are scumbags like the participants that everyone hears about and have judged them without knowing them. Ultimately, remaining silent is condoning the behaviour of those doing the wrong thing. If enough of the good trainers were willing to come forward, name names, be honest about what goes on, maybe the scum could be cleaned away and things could change. But they don't. In doing nothing, they've made a choice. Back when I was stuck running GAP down here (a short, horrible period that I'd rather forget), I was made to sign an agreement stating that I would never say anything to anyone that would bring the sport into disrepute. This included speaking to the media (besides statements approved by them), it also included not reporting things I'd seen to the RSPCA. A similar clause exists under GAR. A rule that basically prohibits anyone from speaking out if it might damage the image of the sport. A lot of the AR nuts like to grasp at some of the much less common issues while right there, in front of their noses, is the industry enforcing corruption and a culture of secrecy, in a way that can be proven without any effort at all. Go figure. But that assumes that the good trainers even know what they get up to and what they were doing and from what Im hearing thats just not true. Its hardly something that is advertised and chatted about to anyone who they dont trust. You place EVERYONE who wants to own and train greys in the same basket .They are either animal abusers or they are complicent in it without consideration for how many did really know enough to be able to report it. The second part of your post is about self management and self policing which is always open to corruption and bias and why Vicdogs would be better to advocate for reasonable conditions for everyone who wants to breed dogs rather than sit back and help stick it to everyone else and bathe in the glow that their exemptions won't be removed and they don't become just like the riff raff who choose not to be their members. It attracts dead beats who only join for the exemptions and sets them up for failure sooner rather than later and always makes them a shinier target and open to accusations of corruption,secrecy and bias for AR loonies. If you are going to expect enforcement you have to have a third party arms length party that can accept complaints and have nothing to gain by hushing things up and that includes the RSPCA.

Yep.

Its not just the bill its the general attitude even to a point where it is stated in hansard that breeders should not have the same human rights as everyone else in the community. Have a good look at this and how they justify how anyone owning a fertile dog or three fertile cats should not be included under the charter for human rights! My link

My link new facebook policies

Well the ANKC and state Canine Orgs knew it was coming and the petition which clearly addresses the ANKC has now been out for over a week and I haven't heard a single whisper that they know what is going on and what they are doing about it. Here is the statement from the MDBA . My link

The RSPCA and Oscars Law have had a push for people who are breeding dogs regardless of how many they breed to be identified. Its not surprising that people who breed dogs see this as a threat. Why do they want to know who they are and where they are if they don't intend to do anything with that knowledge ? They complain that the only way they can detect a breeder who is doing the wrong thing is after a complaint so clearly they intend to do something about watching anyone who breeds a dog and checking on them without a complaint. Many breeders distrust current regulatory bodies and fear they have been infiltrated by radicals and they will be treated unfairly. Traditionally breeders have done everything they can to avoid coming under notice of such regulatory organisations and many believe that even if they do everything by the book that they may be threatened by having to give up their privacy to comply with licensing. Some breeders who comply with all regulations and laws now will stop complying in fear that on inspection a minor thing may cause them to lose their companions. Some will argue if they do it all right they have nothing to worry about but that doesn't convince them. This is endemic in the breeding area and it is a very common belief system with the potential for this to impact on the success of such a plan should not be underestimated. Breeders do all they can to stay under the radar not because they are doing anything wrong but through fear that they can loose their dogs. Whether that is a valid fear or not most breeders spend their lives trying not to be noticed by council and RSPCA because it is their animals, their family members at risk and what have they done to make breeders trust them to be fair ?

I'm sure I don't want to know The problem is that that their marketing is so slick and they work government networks and the public so well its going to be very hard to change. Do you reckon Oscars law animal lib and animals Australia are any different ?

Dogs are always going to be property. If a dog is not my property then someone can come along take it out of my yard and use it at stud, use it to play with, kill it , race it, hunt with it,eat it etc. It was the basis of the Magna Carta where in medieval times people could literally simply take your cow or your bull your land etc and do what ever they wanted without any way of the person the animal lived with having any say etc. The AR would like them to be given the status of us being their guardians but do you want to have to clear it with the state to be able to make even the most base decisions on what you want to do for your dogs? I hand over some of my rights as a dog owner because I choose to belong to a group that tells me I cant allow it to breed with a dog they don't approve of ,that I cant sell it to a source they don't approve of etc but if I decide I want the right to do as I wish with my dog its a breach of their codes - so what ? Legally such things are my choice .If I decided that what is best for my dog is to go to God for a variety of possible reasons then that's not now nor will it ever be a criminal offence. It's O.K. To talk about changing community attitudes but the minute those changing community attitudes and law changes may impact on YOUR ability to own a dog of your choice and make choices with YOUR dogs,what activities you can participate in with them even if you always love it and never do it any harm the game changes. How do you define changing community attitudes? If you judge that based on the shouting banshees led by animal rights people how do you determine that what they say and want is representative of the community that doesn't shout and demand changes? Along the way someone has decided selling puppies in pet shops is a terrible thing based on who we are told supplies them and there is much drum banging and shouting about changing community attitudes etc but move outside of this forum and the real world where AR are not as obvious and there are still the vast majority of the whole community who do see it as a problem or an issue. Commercial breeders sell thousands of puppies each per year to members of the community who don't agree with the latest view of changing community attitudes quoted by AR. The whole world is jumping about what Oscar Laws told us was a changed community attitude where it is O.K. to restrict numbers and treat anyone who owns a fertile dog as a potential criminal. The greyhound laws in NSW have been turned around because the premier worked out that what AR present as changed community attitude is only one view of the snapshot.

My link The outright ban on all dog tail docking within Scotland has been lifted, Scottish Government has announced. Environment secretary, Roseanna Cunningham, said that ‘legislation will be changed to permit the shortening of the tails of spaniel and hunt point retriever puppies where a vet believes they are likely to be for use as a working dog and risk serious tail injury in later life.’ Ms Cunningham said: “Scotland is a nation of animal lovers and we take the welfare of our pets, animals and livestock very seriously. “We have seen evidence that some working dogs are suffering tail injuries so I have decided to allow vets to shorten the tails of Spaniel and Hunt Point Retriever puppies where they believe it will prevent future injuries amongst working dogs.” The Kennel Club welcomed the new changes. Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club secretary, said: “Whilst we support UK-wide bans on tail docking for aesthetic reasons alone, we have long been disappointed that, unlike in England and Wales, the Scottish Executive did not make any exemptions for working dogs when they banned tail docking under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act. “However we are heartened that our views, supported by the evidence on the tail injuries sustained by working dogs, have been taken on board by the Minister and that an exemption for working dogs will be introduced. This is undoubtedly the right decision and the Minister has the full support of the Kennel Club and Scottish Kennel Club.” There were mixed reviews from other members of the profession though. Paula Boyden, Dogs Trust veterinary director: “Dogs Trust is deeply concerned about the announcement that the Scottish Government will allow certain breeds of dogs to be docked. Amputating a puppy’s tail is a painful procedure but it is also unnecessary. Research by the Royal Veterinary College suggests that 500 dogs would need to have their tails docked to prevent one tail injury*. “Tail docking takes place when puppies are just a few days old and so we also question how it can be ensured that only puppies that will go on to be working dogs will have their tails docked.”

I agree that the problem will not be solved by concentrating on ANKC breeders or the ANKC. But to have a hope if they don't show they are accepting there is a problem and are seen to be doing something about the part they play in it they will not shrug off the focus that is on pedigreed dogs because the whole world blames the standards and the show ring. It wasn't BYB dogs or people's back yards that featured in PDE it was the show ring and in this country the ANKC have a monopoly on dog shows.

Well lets hope they can find something the Australians are doing that is in this arena.Better not mention how they wont accept breed standard amendments for the British Bulldog or that there are no mandatory testing or breeding strategies and protocols in place because so far the Australians haven't admitted there is a problem.

Where was that survey published? And did it constitute self-reporting of problems? Any further information on this? You've reached a conclusion, from your survey, that up to 'around' 80% of dogs in a 'couple' of bracchy breeds were suffering AND had been bred by registered breeders. While those from non-registered breeders registered 'less'' effect (% not specified). It's not 'the' stats'.... it's stats you've gathered in your particular survey. So a reader looking for evidence needs to know: which breeds, what was your survey method, how was the data gathered about the nature & extent of 'suffering', how were participants recruited, how many were there? If you publicly give your conclusions, the survey context also needs to be made available. I clearly said it was the stats we gathered in our health survey however I will edit that one part where I said the - the surveys have not been published yet for a number of reasons which I'm not prepared to go into here. The health surveys were run over three years and there was an individual survey for every pure breed. The data was gathered by asking australian participants if their dogs had been diagnosed with any health issues with lists of all known canine health issues. The participants were recruited from this site, social media, our website word of mouth , google, our membership etc. As each response came in individually per breed I can't tell you how many overall respondents there were but I can say the brachy head breeds respondents were between 30 and 1200 depending on breed. Breeders and owners participated and those who were bred by registered breeders were identified as a separate group to those who purchased their puppy from other breeders. To be specific the breed I was referring to statistics in our survey for reported as being affected by brachy head syndrome was 78.3% registered and 61% non registered. With or without this survey or any other whether there is evidence that one type of breeder is or is not as responsible as any other the fact that registered breeders do breed dogs with Brachy head syndrome is as plain as the nose on their faces and they are going through vet surgeries in numbers that are too high to deny if this is going to turn into a denial that some purebred dog breeders are just as responsible as any other then we may as well simply give up now. They will not be interested in the same excuses and the same denials that have been going on now for years.Even if they are true - they will not listen and will not agree . The ONLY defence is to say we get it we accept we are a part of the problem even if its only a small part and this is what we will do about it. What will it take for people to see that world wide they have dumped the responsibility for this on the Show ring and the breed standards and continuing on in denial is why we are where we are.

I think badly bred pet brachys are most likely in the majority since the crosses became fashionable and the pure bred but badly bred (yes, some pedigreed) frenchies, cavaliers, bulldogs, pekes, pugs, shih tzus and bostons etc etc. Their popularity as pets has led to this situation. So this is a reason to bar them all? Do bear in mind that there are many brachy breeds that DO NOT have a majority of their members with extreme brachy syndrome - Do you associate Amstaffs with Brachy Syndrome for instance? And yet they are categorised as Brachycephalic. This is one example of tossing the baby with the bathwater. I believe that all of the sighthounds are categorised as dolichocephalic, the other "extreme" in head shape. "Normal" head shape for a canine is categorised as mesocephalic. I believe that pointing the finger at a single head type is just a foot in the door, and I will resist ANY legislation that is breed-centered or type-centered. It would make more sense to institute a fitness test for ANY dog or bitch of ANY breed or mix that must be passed before any puppies from them can be sold. Accidental litters where a fitness test has not been passed should be disallowed from sale, and the offspring handed over to rescue to rehome with full disclosure. The MDBA ran a health survey on all breeds which collected data for 3 years and separated the dogs to enable us to identify those who were bred by registered breeders. Some bracy head breeds are not doing THAT bad but there are a couple where those suffering and bred by registered breeders were up around the high 80% .Its hard to see there is much reality in blaming the pet breeders who are not registered as the stats simply don't show that . Less affected % of dogs were bred by non registered breeders. However, who is mainly responsible isn't the real issue. Its an acceptance that there is a problem and making sure we are part of the solution and not refusing to accept our part it it - or it WILL be deemed cruel and unable to be fixed by breeders and the right to breed them will be removed.

Not trying to pick RuralPug, But I think they have been trying for some time. It looks like the agenda here IS how to encourage healthier breeding. Its pretty hard going when there is a belief promoted by C.Cs that its the pedigree Standard that makes the dog, rather than a value used to support a particular type of dog. agreed.

This website has just been launched - I guess they couldn't wait until November I hate to say I told you so but when you hit the button to help - its a petition addressed the the ANKC . So much for their assurances that its O.K. as they will be the ones they send them to for buying puppies. My link

If the ANKC think they are going to dodge a bullet on Brachy heads - I reckon they are pretty overly optimistic Take a look at the speakers and the program My link

darn it - subscription only. Must I drive 70 km return for a copy of the Herald Sun or will some kind soul copy and paster here for me? Pretty please?? I actually paid the money so I could see it and have a go