Steve

I nag and give examples and beg them to please come back to me before they race off to the vet especially if they are first time dog owners who are just ripe for being bled dry. Some of the things that they have done to puppy buyers over the years is pretty crook. One of my sons did work experience once with a local vet and they had been called out to a property to examine a horse. It had been raining. On the way the vet told my son that because it was muddy, if they wore gum boots and if the horse was standing in mud that they could make much more money because the owner wouldnt want to supervise the examination because she would get her pretty shoes muddy. she was charged for a bunch of things - meds and ointment applications which never happened and he laughed about it on the way back to the surgery!

You can just see it cant you.It looks like a beagle so its recorded as a beagle and even though its a cav cross beagle bred by some disgusting commercial puppy farm we get pinged for the problems.

I wonder if all the cross-breds that pass through the RSPCA doors will be subject to similar testing before rehoming .. to give a clear indication if the problem is really a 'purebred' dog problem, or just a 'dog' problem in general .. bet they won't be ... Hope they are aiming at working with breeders too while they are in the putting it together phase as unless they also collect data to say who bred them and what group those breeders belong to their figure will mean zip anyway.

MDBA PTY LTD Trading as Master Dog Breeders' Academy and Master Dog Breeders & Associates ACN 120900656 P.O. Box 31 Ganmain NSW Australia 2702 Ph: (02) 6927-6707 Email: [email protected] PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE BREEDING, PET OWNERSHIP AND STANDARDS IN CANINE CARE MEDIA RELEASE Friday 15th of January 2010 MDBA Response to UK Enquiry into Dog Breeding The Master Dog Breeders and Associates has welcomed Professor Sir Patrick Bateson's 'Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding' in the UK, which has recommended that steps be taken to tackle irresponsible breeders and to change the way the public think about buying dogs. Julie Nelson CEO of the MDBA says "We believe that there is a danger in accepting that the issues facing the welfare of dogs is the same in Australia as it is in its entirety in the U.K. However, the MDBA is happy that the report recognises the need for a 'robustly policed and well respected quality assurance scheme', consisting of breeders that buyers can trust to look after their puppies' health and welfare. " "The MDBA felt this was needed and we have been setting a precedent in this area for over 6 years. We feel that our system of accepting members and keeping checks on them is doing exactly what this report calls for. In fact the suggested framework for the group set out in the report describes what the MDBA does almost exactly. We are independent and not associated with the Kennel Clubs and our members are rewarded for their focus on health and welfare issues over and above any other, though most of our Breeder members are also members of their state's Canine Associations." She said "We welcome the principle of an advisory council whose members will work with breeders to advise on decisions about breeding and health. We feel that ALL breeders should be well represented by breeders within any group of this kind to ensure open communication, knowledge sharing, and the variables between breeder groups are taken into consideration to minimise the risks of un intended negative consequences. We need to ensure we move forward in preventing any dog from suffering due to poor breeding practices." Ms Nelson said "We also very much welcome the acknowledgement that there needs to be evidenced based decisions made and a great need to develop methods and studies to collect data on prevalence and incidence of health and welfare related issues. The MDBA survey on health issues where thousands of every day dog owners, breeders and canine rescue workers have logged their dog's diagnosed health issues is clearly showing that there may be a vast difference between that which has been stated in the media as incidence in Australian bred dogs and those which in fact are. This is most definitely an area which needs to be addressed" she said "Its also disappointing that the brief for the report was about the health and welfare of pedigreed purebred dogs, and that more focus was not able to be placed on problems, methods and possible solutions to address issues relating to how small casual breeders and large commercial breeders could be held more accountable, better educated and regulated. This is especially important considering that pedigreed purebred breeders in Australia only breed about 3% of the puppies sold each year." 'There are many Breeders who are breeding purebred and cross bred dogs in appalling conditions, with no health checks and little regard for more than making a profit and who will carry on regardless that this report doesn't go anywhere near addressing." She said. Further information can be obtained from the MDBA website at http://www.mdba.net.au or by phoning (02) 6927-6707. Ends Media Contact: Julie Nelson (02) 6927-6707 or email [email protected]

The benefit of being an oodle breeder is that you have no paper trail, and can disrobe and mingle if accused of something. easier to track registered puppies rather than unregistered, so we won't be seeing any of the puppy farmers prosecuted. Sad thing is the told you so will be hollow when the registered breeders are forced into extinction and people then find that their crossbreds still have health issues and at higher rates as parents aren't health tested. That is why I think it would be good if there was a permanent section on the microchip form for the breeders details and that it was a legal requirement that the breeders details be filled in. Someone suggested this a while ago and seemed to get a fair amount of negative feedback about it but I don't understand why. We have been writing letters and talking to politicians about it for years.It would also allow accurate statistics to be kept as well but the bases are loaded with PIAA and they have a vested interest in keeping breeders who supply pet shops etc under wraps.

When you tell me you want a puppy I listen to what you have to say about what you would like but I also listen to things about your lifestyle and what you expect from an adult dog.The show home wouldn't get preference because its first come first served but I always keep the best for last in case someone does want a show pup or I get no takers and get to keep it.

Yes but Rappie - You are a cut above and thats due in at least some small part to your participation in this forum.Its why you have been nominated and won Vet of the Year in the dog Owners choice Awards. You allowed us to talk to you and I can remember some pretty good debates where we educated each other. My vet is pretty good too and thats because she specialised in dogs, she did a fair stint in the show ring and breeds purebred Rotties. She has a large number of registered breeder clientele - some of which travel hundreds of kilometres and drive past many other vets to get to her. There are still some areas that I think she knows less than me which because Ive named her Im not going to talk about But when you get down to a situation where vets and people who have never had any breeding experience dictate the rules of engagement for legislation pertaining to breeding and breeders are deliberately left out surely considering all vets are not equal we have to see there's something wrong with this.Obviously all breeders are not created equal either but we're working pretty hard to educate them and that would be much easier if more vets were interested in what we do the way you have been and give us a hand.

same as above Me too.

Wonder who should have told the oodle breeders they could go to gaol if they breed a carrier?

I also note the recommendations for how this advisory council should be set up and its specific that some positions should be held by people who have not bred dogs. I wonder how it would go if an advisory council for preschools specifically said two seats should be people who have never had kids? A Vet advisory panel which had two spots where they can not have ever been vets, an acedemic advisory council where two spots were filled by people who had only limited education, an endagered species board where two couldnt have experience in zoolology.

Another thing in the report is a call for more evidence and all of us regardless of what side or position we are in are saying the same thing. There are some issues with this. The unis need funds to do the research and if the unis dont do the studies and someone else does its not counted anyway because the scientific community wants initials supervising the studies. When they do their studies and research they have tight reference points and things are done slowly with many variables left out and not considered. Decades ago a guy called Pottinger did a longditudinal study on cat diets and over some 5 generations some of the cats fed on certain diets had died out and developed what to date [ and still ] are considered to be genetic illnesses.His findings were that diet caused animals to have all the things which are noted as in breeding depressions etc over several generations so when we look at studies on in breeding how do we know whether what is considered to be caused by in breeding isnt caused by a particular diet or environmental factor unless we have a control group which experiences everything else in an identical situation other than its inbreeding status. For a uni to set that up in a controlled study this would take at least 10 years and hundreds of dogs - The MDBA has already done a lot of work toward this - the entire program is written up and ready to go and we could get through it self funded. Or we could survey breeders to ask them questions relating to the health and longevity of their dogs in relation to how in bred they were. The point is would anyone in the scientific community take any notice of the results and by then it will be too late because it will be illegal anyway and we will never really know.

Attitude is a bit of a problem and some do come out with assumptions and judgements which can cause some issues. No one likes to have their experience and knowledge seen as trash, after all I was in the top 2% of the state too and Ive put in a hell of a lot of years of study and it can be a great relationship with a bit of mutual respect. Years ago I had a pain in my neck due to a higher than average number of c sections.[ about 1 in 2] I discussed this with my vet and we worked out strategies to try to bring it down together. I havent had a C section for around 5 years.I probably would have done it without her but she was a great sounding board and was only interested in me achieving my goal for the welfare of the dogs not because she thought all ends should aim at a champion.

Im not one bit worried about vets charge.Its a supply and demand issue like all other services.if they can get more they would be mugs not to. Top 2% of the state to get in 5 + years of study - Its all good by me.

This is a term used to describe health issues which can arise in animals which have been closely inbred especially over a period of time which can lead to a decreased fitness of a population, inbreeding depression.

I notice in the report recently published on the welfare of breeding dogs that one recomendation is that breeders should seek advice from vets as to whether they should use a dog for breeding - raises lots of thoughts.

Our vet -Dr Lynne Bodell BVSc, MA.C.VSc [Canine Medicine] Veterinary advisor to Faculty and Board of Management MDBA. Specialises in dogs and we chat for hours educating each other. I go to a different vet for my sheep.

Come on lets be a bit fair about this. There are many side issues here. One is - Who should be responsible for ensuring information regarding legislations pertinent to breeding and owning dogs is delivered to the people who need to know it? Is this the responsibility of the vet and if so who should be delivering the info to the vet? Personally I think when new legislation is introduced part of the state's job should be to ensure the info is available and distributed to vets, petshops, breeder groups,etc .Apart from the obvious which is that people know about the legal issues they have to consider in breeding an animal it might make more people realise the laws which are being introduced sometimes are really stupid. The vet's job is to consider the health of the dog on their table not to be a legal advisor.

Yes I agree and I think a lot of what is in the report may be about England and not so much Australia. Unless it is managed properly and we have little evidence to make us feel it would be based on other advisory panels and outcomes I can see some pretty big unintended consequences and I have to ask if they really understand the whole culture and the issues. If you stop the CC registration of dogs for example which are closely line bred all I see that doing is less breeders registering some litters,false papers,less registered breeders, less registered dogs, more market for unregistered, more breeding unregistered, more puppy farms.Only those who were treating inbreeding as a tool with respect and knowledge will be stopped because they are the type of people who follow the rules and understand the importance of the integrity of the registry but those who were doing it without regard for the welfare aspects will continue to do it and find a way around it.Not to mention of course the only breeders who know what dog is closely related are registered breeders - no one would have a clue how closely related unregistered dogs are. There are several other things which concern me including the fine line between advisory and compulsory,how advice can lead to laws which the advisory panel may not have powers at law over but which would place some other body like the RSPCA having legislative power sooner or later over the 'advice'. Then what of the people who dont want advice - thanks anyway - or who prefer not to take the advice of this advisory council? Would this stop any dogs from suffering? I dont think so.

Actually as long as those who are on the advisory council are a good representative of the stakeholders and its not stacked I would support such a move regardless of who had to pay for it. On the whole I think this report was better than it might have been.

Actually based on what I know is going on behind the scenes I wouldnt be surprised if it happened here before it does there.

A couple of weeks ago I was at a local pub which has facilities for families with kids to enjoy a beer garden type thing and have a counter meal. Lots of people - half a dozen kids. All of a sudden a couple of kids started screaming and someone had walked through with what appeared to be a fairly well trained staffy - off leash.It stayed within a couple of feet of its owner but she allowed it to mingle among the people who were there for a couple of minutes while she spoke to one of the patrons.Mothers were soothing their kids and keeping them closer so they werent approached by the dog and even though I think the owner had no idea many people who were there were pretty ticked off about the dog being there and especially about it being there with the owner holding a leash which wasnt attached to the dog. A couple of people fed it small pieces off their plates and clearly werent bothered by it being there but most were obviously worried about it asking for their food and others asked her to get it out of there. Someone from the management came over and asked her to take the dog out explaining health regs etc but she defended what she was doing as the dog was harmless and in control.I watched her after she left the pub until she got out of sight. She slowly left and continued to walk up the main drag with the dog a few feet ahead of her -every now and then the dog stopped to sniff something and she kept walking and the dog caught up. People coming toward her crossed the street as she approached.One couple not only crossed the street but they carried their small dog as she drew near and after she passed. No doubt she loved the dog and was well bonded with it, she had trained it and was confident it wouldnt move out onto the road or not respond when needed and she wouldnt be able to understand why anyone would have a problem with what she had done but there werent that many people there that day who felt her actions were responsible. Sometimes bonding with a dog makes you blind to how it may impact on other people and their dogs. You may feed it better food, give it better health care and accommodations but thats only part of the story. Same thing here with a guy who allows a pair of boxers race around off leash in a public park .he's happy , the dog act lik ethey are happy but not many families want bouncing strange dogs stomping all over their picnic blanket or chasing after their kids playing cricket.The owner thinks its cute and his poor dogs need somewhere to run free.Tell him people dont like it and its the people who have a problem because his dogs wouldnt hurt anyone and I doubt they would.Trying to explain is like talking to a brick wall because he feels that he is being a responsible dog owner.

I wasnt interested in the case or whether or not she was guilty. I was looking at the fact that here in Australia people FEEL they have no way to challenge decisions made about their animals.It wasnt a demonstration that SHE was vindicated - just that she had rights to sue whether she wins or not. Here,your animals can be taken without the owner understanding why.They can be placed somewhere which the owner doesnt have to be informed about. They can be kept,examined, treated and held as long as they like and then returned in worse condition than when they were seized without any charges being laid. They can be PTS without consultation or a second opinion from an outside vet and the body [ the evidence] destroyed so someone cant have what they might have to defend themselves or make decisions about their animals. As in Asal's case she had done NOTHING wrong but she had no way to resolve her feelings of being treated so poorly and having her animal placed at risk when there was no need to. So the discussion isnt about that particular case - its about anyone having the option of being able to have a method of taking it further if they need to.

Report recommends tighter dog breeding regulations http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/pe...ns-1867832.html All puppies should be microchipped and new owners should insist on seeing them with their mothers as part of efforts to crackdown on bad breeding practices including dog "farming", a report recommended today. The independent inquiry by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson called for changes in the law to include a requirement for all puppies to be microchipped before sale, which could help trace bad breeders. And he called for changes in the Dangerous Dogs Act - which only focuses on certain breeds - to allow authorities to take action on all dangerous individual animals to stop dogs being bred and reared as "weapons". The inquiry, funded by the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, looked at the issue of dog breeding in the wake of a BBC documentary which claimed pedigree dogs bred for shows were suffering a high degree of genetic illness. Prof Bateson said inbreeding in pure breeds, breeding dogs for specific looks or extreme characteristics such as wrinkly skin and negligent management of "puppy farms" were all major welfare issues for dogs. He warned that inbreeding among pedigree animals led to inherited diseases, made it harder for them to reproduce and lowered their immune system - making it more likely they would develop diseases such as cancer. His inquiry called for a non-statutory advisory council on dog breeding which would look at the problems of inherited diseases and inbreeding, and produce advice on breeding strategies and priorities for scientific research. The study also said a computer system should be developed to collect anonymous diagnoses of inherited diseases from vet surgeries to see how prevalent different conditions were in various breeds. The report urged changes in the law to make microchipping all new puppies a requirement under the Animal Welfare Act and to bring in a statutory code of practice for breeders. And Prof Bateson called for a more robust "accredited breeder scheme", which Crufts organisers the Kennel Club already runs, under which breeders have to run tests on parent dogs to make sure their offspring will not be at risk of inherited diseases. The accredited breeder scheme would also enable prospective owners to view their new dog with its mother before buying. Prof Bateson said there should be a public awareness programme - which he suggested could be fronted by a celebrity such as Joanna Lumley - to help the six million dog-owning households in the UK use their purchasing power to improve welfare for dogs. Prof Bateson's inquiry took written evidence from breed clubs, breeders, vets, animal welfare charities and pet owners, interviewed more than 50 people and visited four dog shows. The Cambridge University professor and president of the Zoological Society of London said there was widespread concern about so-called puppy farming, in which dogs are treated as commodities and are mass-bred for sale, often online. In Ireland, there are puppy farms selling to the UK market which can produce 5,000 young dogs a year, while the industry in Britain is centred in Wales. The problems associated with these puppy farms include poor care of the mothers, poor hygiene and health standards, puppies not being vaccinated, cared for or socialised properly and being sold too young, the report said. Many breeders requiring a licence - those which breed more than five litters a year - are not inspected properly because local authorities "don't have the expertise or resources to do the job properly", he said. He urged the British Veterinary Association to compile a list of vet practices which were prepared to carry out inspections. He said: "I must stress many dog breeders exercise high standards of welfare, are passionate about breeding dogs properly and take great care to make sure they go to good homes." But he said many breeders were receiving poor or no advice on breeding, dogs were being bred with relatives too closely related and animals were being sold to members of the public whose lifestyle did not suit that type of dog. And he said there were some breeders of "questionable status", prompting the need for an upgraded accredited breeders scheme to be implemented quickly. He said the ID number of microchips should be recorded on registration documents, health test certificates and even a "contract of sale" that could be drawn up between the buyer and seller - although he said he was not sure whether such a contract could be binding. He warned that some dogs were being bred and reared as "weapons" and said the Dangerous Dogs Act was not currently working - with the number of injuries to humans on the rise. The Act was limited to a certain number of breeds, while other unlisted breeds were equally dangerous and individual animals within the listed breeds were not a threat. He said the law should be amended to focus on individual animals which had been shown to be dangerous, but admitted legal changes would be slow in coming in the face of a general election and the economic concerns of government. On the issue of pedigree dogs - which are found in three-quarters of dog-owning homes in the UK - he said current breeding practices imposed welfare costs on individual dogs. For example, some 90% of bulldogs cannot give birth without Caesarian section while King Charles' spaniels can suffer from syringomyelia, in which they have brains too big for their skulls causing them pain and fits. He said animals too closely related should not be bred, adding: "It's certainly unacceptable to breed parent and child, siblings or granddaughter and grandfather." Breed standards should be amended to avoid selection of extreme characteristics and judges in dog shows should focus on healthy dogs, he said, while the shows themselves could be use to educate the public. And, pointing to the well known slogan that "a dog is for life, not just for Christmas", he said: "Members of the public should be given as good advice as they can get on how to keep a dog. "They should take the trouble to get the right kind of advice, should insist on seeing the puppy with its mother, should insist on it being microchipped and make sure the parents have been properly health checked." And he said: "In many ways the public has been as responsible as anybody for allowing this to continue, they have bought puppies without thinking about it, and then dumped them in ways that are sometimes unspeakable." The report said that, if the Kennel Club was unable to upgrade its accredited breeder scheme promptly and no other body could step in, a new programme should be implemented under the auspices of the advisory council. The advisory council should also give guidance on breed standards revisions and, where a welfare problem already existed, the standards should be amended specifically to select physical features which will improve the dog's welfare. It is expected that the various organisations involved in dog breeding will have to contribute to funding the board, while pet insurance companies could help fund the computer system to monitor inherited disease, it was suggested. Caroline Kisko, spokeswoman for the Kennel Club, said the organisation welcomed the report's recognition that it had made a good start in its efforts to "unite responsible breeders" within its accreditation scheme. The club also said it had banned mating of close relatives and was developing a new database which would help breeders find suitable, healthy mating pairs and give a better picture of the health of pedigree dogs. Ms Kisko said: "The report recognises that 'dog showing and judging are a powerful lever for change' and the Kennel Club is dedicated to ensuring that only the healthiest dogs are rewarded at shows. "Public education is vital and all dog welfare organisations must continue to work together to ensure that people know what to look for when buying a dog," she added. The RSPCA said it was disappointed that Prof Bateson had not recommended the advisory council should be given powers to make it effective. The animal welfare charity also said it was already working with the University of Sydney and the Royal Veterinary College on a three-year research project to create a new electronic system for collecting, analysing and reporting data on inherited disorders in both dogs and cats, which would help monitor progress. Chief veterinary adviser Mark Evans said: "The world has woken up to the extremely unpalatable truth that the health and welfare of many pedigree dogs is seriously compromised as a result of the way they are bred. Pedigree dogs need our help and they need it now." And he said: "We agree with Professor Bateson that consumer pressure is the greatest lever for change. "The way to solve this is through people power. Changing the industry will take some time, but the public can start to demand better quality animals that are in good health right now." Richard Dixon, president of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, said: "Vets are at the forefront of advising potential dog owners and breeders about the health and welfare issues involved with breeding. "We hope that the public attention given to Professor Bateson's report will remind people to always seek advice from their vet before buying a puppy and never buy on impulse. "If the dog-buying public is properly educated to make the right welfare choices they will turn their backs on puppy farms and bad breeders."

So obviously you eventually intend to breed her? Is that right? What are you waiting for?

I have seen information written by someone who is telling us that they know these things better than us .That if they mate a beagle with a cav the resulting puppies are easier to live with .This isnt about a new breed its written as support of only F1 crosses. If anyone wants to start working on a new breed Id bend over backwards to help them - thats not what this is about.