Steve

No doubt about it some lines and some breeds have some big issues to deal with but this is about selection not in breeding. It wont be magically fixed for consecutive generations if we just start outcrossing - in fact in may give us more grief than we have now Absolutely Steve, and I wasn't suggesting outcrossing. I still prefer the predictability of living with purebred dogs. I more meant that my own dog is, sadly, not a great example to use in arguments about the health of pedigree vs the 'hybrid vigour' of crossbreds. I wish it was different. Yep I got that was what you were saying but there is a big push on for us to outcross and crossbreed - there is a good argument for that in some breeds but its not something that can just be done with no science if its going to help and still leave us with individual breeds.

No doubt about it some lines and some breeds have some big issues to deal with but this is about selection not in breeding. It wont be magically fixed for consecutive generations if we just start outcrossing - in fact in may give us more grief than we have now

How much do you want ? There is a difference in how a good purebred modern dog breeder uses in breeding as a tool and random population studies for a start. Profiling a pedigree which can identify recessives,mutations, diseases etc before a mate is chosen can have a huge impact. Then of course we have all the modern technologies and resources too such as DNA X rays, scans and specialist testing we can use. We're not considering animals which are inbred from a natural occurrence due to isolation etc which is usual in studies with population genetics but we are manipulating which mates to use. Without manipulating the matings things such as environmental factors [ such as loss of habitat] deficiencies in soils which lead to nutritional deficiencies etc have to also be considered as to how they may affect the study results. Usually when a scientist goes after an answer only one variable is looked atwhen in fact their study results may have been impacted by many others Next - not only are we talking about breeding animals of the same species but many of the genetic issues modern purebred breeders have to contend with are not recessive issues. Polygenic genes cause us more grief than most others and the contributing factors are in all dogs .So outcrossing doesn't eliminate the potentials for seeing genes which are affected by things other than recessives BECAUSE we are still breeding the same species. If the unrelated strains share common genes for genetic disorders, no amount of hybrid vigour will over ride the risk of the disorder showing up. Hybrid Vigour only applies to the animals that are the direct offspring of the crossing of the unrelated strains. In other words if you continue to breed animals of different strains there generally will not be any additional increase in hybrid vigour. Out-crossing can also cause problems . Short answer is that there is nothing "wrong" with breeding any two animals of any degree of relatedness, as long as the breeder realizes the potential risks and benefits of the mating. Any level of inbreeding does carry some risk (the risk that one or more formerly hidden recessive traits will be expressed in the homozygous offspring), but there is also the potential for benefits . Each breeder has to weigh the potential costs and benefits and assess which strategy best fits his or her long term goals and interests and they shouldn't be frightened off making those decisions by propaganda spread by those trying to discredit what a purebred breeder does in order to promote crossbreeds. There are also new developments in the science field which may show that not enough emphasis has been put on the nutrition and environment of consecutive generations in studies to date on inbreeding and population genetics – what grandma ate is now being found to have an impact on the health and longevity of the granddaughters .This may prove to impact on what has been blamed and namedas an inbreeding depression. Nutrigenomics is another science to be considered. Take a different perspective on how you look at nature and you will see Animals striving everywhere to produce homozygosity - They don't have any Instinctive safeguard against incestuous mating? Nup. Reproduction in rats, mice,rabbits and other rodents, takes place without any regard for relationship, and these animals are notorious for their fertility and vigour. Among antelopes incestuous matings are the rule. The African reedbuck, for instance, has two young at a birth, male and female, which mate together when mature. Only when one happens to die by accident does out- or cross-breeding occur and this is true of the smaller antelopes too, it's the same with red deer. Brother and sister tigers mate as the norm and among African buffaloes, breeding occurs mainly among the immediate offspring of the same cow. The cattle from La Plata in the Falkland Islands, not only quickly multiplied from just a few , but they also broke up into smaller herds according to colour, and the close inbreeding became more intensive because of the cattle's own instincts. Many animals do chase off the younger males and don't let any new comers in sothe, males mate with their own daughters. in nature among some monkeys constant matings between the head of the horde and his daughters, sisters and other close relations,happen. Among most animals, including elephants , the leading male mates with his daughters, grand-daughters, and great-grand-daughters, as long as he is able to keep other males away. Even when he isn't strong any more that doesn't stop the incest because usually it will be one of his sons which take his place. Have a look at the rabbits and foxes of Australia and these are all theoffspring of just a few individuals In New Zealand the red deer began as 3 and were introduced in the 1800's from England and last count about ten years ago the herd numbered over 5,000. They show no signs of disease and they are superior in vigour and health to the original parent stock. A fellow called Kronacher, starting with one male and three females (a mother and two daughters) of ordinary goats, and in bred for eight generations, without any loss of size, physical development, milking capacity, fertility or vitality. In fact their fertility tended to increase.And he declared that in this case he practiced no selection whatever. In 1916 Professor Castle stated that he had successfully bred Drosophila, brother and sister, for 59 generations, without obtaining any diminution in either vigour or fertility. Moenkhaus crossed the same fly, brother and sister, for 75 generations, without harmful consequences.Hyde and Schultze achieved the same result with mice. Castle tried rats, and Popenoe guinea-pigs, and both concluded that no deleterious effects could be ascribed to the in bred system of mating. King experimented with white rats,mating brother and sister regularly for 22 generations, and among these inbred rats some were obtained which proved actually superior to the stock rats from which they had sprung. The males were 15 per cent. heavier, and the females 3 per cent., while the fertility was nearly 8 per cent. Higher. In old Egypt,national law didn't allow mixing with foreigners, incest was common both among the people and within the ruler groups. Cleopatra, famous for her wit, beauty and intelligence, was the daughter of a brother and sister,great-grand-daughter of another brother and sister, and a great-great-grand-daughter of Berenice who was both cousin and sister to her husband. In Britain,as late as fifth century, Vortigern married his own daughter. Nor could the practice have been condemned, since the son of this sinful union was none other than St. Faustus. The ancient Irish married without distinction their mothers and sisters, and it was customary for the ancient Germans to marry their sisters. There is overwhelming evidence that the Peruvians were strictly inbred . The Incas, refused to mix their blood and married their sisters; More modern studies in human population genetics are The Pitcairn islanders, theKisar Hybrids, the Bastards of Rehoboth, and the people of the island of Batz, all of whom are examples of human breeding with close inbreeding without harmful results. Even in tribes and races where incest is illegal, often the rulers or chiefs deliberately breach laws to keep their blood pure. For instance in several countries, marriage with half-sisters is forbidden, but the King always marries his half-sister. may marry his sister and his daughter. Eg.Cambodia, the chiefs of the Marianne and Ladrone Islands,in Hawaii, Nukuhiva, Tahiti and Madagascar, and it was also true of the Northern American Indians of New England. Nor are the people who do inbreed degenerate or diseased, and travellers comment on their great vigour and beauty. With the Fijians — those stocks which have adhered to the ancestral custom requiring first-cousin marriages, are very much the superiors from every physical point of view of those who no longer practice or else forbid,first-cousin marriages, and the latter are even said to be dying out, while the former have a higher birth rate and greater vitality. The Bataks of Sumatra, who also habitually marry their first-cousins, are some of the healthiest people in the Indian Archipelago. The chiefs in Polynesia and New Zealand have all been noticed for their superior height, looks and vigour. And throughout Polynesia the closest inbreeding in mating is among the chiefs. Therefore, humans are just as capable as some of the animals of thriving on close inbred matings. Fact is that it isnt about how closely in bred an animal is but rather what it has been selected for . You get what you focus on and loose what you dont - so unless fertility and health is one of the priority goals it may be diminished - the major point is we in breed in order to be able to have predictable animals and a good breeder will breed for health , vigour,longevity and fertility as well as whatever else they are selecting for. Its still about the breeder and its still about the ability to ensure that future generations have predictability to enable better responsible choices about which dogs suit a person's lifestyle. Its still about the breeder Its still about the breeder Its still about the breeder

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-05/shelter-removes-dogs-after-rscpa-inspection/4611888?&section=news The operator of the Moorook Animal Shelter says she has been forced to move some of its animals after the RSPCA threatened to remove them. The RSPCA removed seven animals from the shelter last month after complaints about conditions at the facility. RSPCA inspectors were due back at the shelter later this month but returned for a random inspection yesterday. Shelter operator Lola McLachlan says they marked the cages of four dogs and indicated they would be back to take them away. "They just walked in and started inspecting everything and put dots on some of the animals' cages and said they were coming back to take them," she said. "Well I've got news for them and it's not good." She says she will not let the dogs be taken. "There's nothing wrong with my dogs, there's no reason for them to be here let alone put stickers on cages ...it's not going to happen," she said. "I think they would have had a lovely battle on their hands if they had of." The RSPCA says yesterday's inspection was a routine visit to monitor the progress of the shelter. It says its investigations are ongoing.

I dont think you can blame some people for being concerned that if someone is breeding that they may take a rescue dog and use it to breed with. Fact is this happens and I personally know many examples of this - though some rescue groups who maintain they dont breed do this as well. I know this as a fact not gossip or suspicion. But, to make statements that breeders shouldn't rescue because they breed and are therefore part of the problem makes no sense to me and it steps into the world of the crazies. Im happy for any rescue person or group to have their own policies that fit them whether I agree with those policies or how they came to have those policies or not - as long as those policies are out there for anyone applying for a dog , taking a dog, handing over a dog or volunteering or donating to see. If Dogmad's policy is that she wont rehome a desexed dog to a home with an entire dog and everyone can see that before they apply if they have an entire dog they dont apply or if they do it simple - its Dogmad's policy - its not personal and it doesn't change depending on who you are. Some rescue groups have a policy that they wont return a dog or a dog which is entire to a breeder - then they don't need to worry about determining whether its a good breeder or a bad breeder and any decisions which are made are policy not personal. The rescue doesn't have to stress over making a new decision each time, they don't have to argue the point and the breeder can be mad at the policy or the group but cant take it personally as a slight against them over any other breeder. If a person or group has a policy of sometimes breeding the dogs they "rescue" then that too should be out in the open for everyone to see so they know this - and that way everyone can know its not a pup that's mum has been rescued pregnant but rather a dog that the rescue has made a decision to breed after they have purchased it to rescue it or after they have saved it from some other source. Anyone being involved in any way can therefore decide if that fits with what they feel is an acceptable thing. A rescue group which produces over 250 puppies a year from dogs they have rescued and deliberately mate to pretend that they have rescued the dogs pregnant - who takes donations as a charity is seen as more qualified to rescue dogs that some one who is known to be a breeder because they are part of the problem????? Give me a break.

The lack of shock absorbency in concrete flooring affects feet first, causing the soles and heels to ache. Feet take the brunt of the hard impact, as the muscles in the feet absorb the impact to protect the legs, back and rest of the body. Muscles can become sore,and over time, bones may even weaken as a result, leading to susceptibility to fracture. They may develop lower-leg pain as the feet fail to absorb the full shock of concrete to the joints. The muscles in the calves can become sore as they endure more impact than usual from the hard concrete, and knees may begin to ache. Over time, the joints in the knees can become permanently damaged and arthritis may develop. Hip Degeneration - Constantly walking on concrete floors is extremely hard on hip sockets. The hard landing on the concrete jars the joints in the hips, causing long-term damage such as arthritis or degeneration of the hip bone, and may necessitate hip-replacement surgery. Frequent contact with cement residue can cause skin irritation which can cause rashes or irritation on the soles of the feet. Dogs that have been studied in a noise environment were found to have increased pulse rates, faster respiration and tenser muscles. Noise can require considerably more oxygen consumption by dogs and cause expenditure of fully 25 per cent more energy even when the dog himself is not exercising.

1: A breeder licensing system should be established and the Companion Animals Register should be updated to capture breeder license information for each animal record. (CA Report p.6). There is no need to introduce a licencing system for breeders to be able to accomplish this outcome. Micro chip laws state the animal has to be chipped when it is sold or when it is 12 weeks old.All you need to do is ensure the animal has to be chipped first and foremost into the breeders name and address with no exemptions. All that takes is a simple small admission to the chip forms. The system is already in place why not tweak it rather than complicate it and make it harder to police and more costly? Recommendation 2: The Animal Welfare Code of Practice - Breeding Dogs and Cats should be revised to ensure that the existing guidelines it contains become enforceable standards. (CA Report p.8) Not only are many of the guidelines not based on science, they are impossible to police.Many of them are not suited to small hobby breeders and or some breeds. This would advantage large scale commercial breeders and disadvantage small hobby breeders - with those who keep animals is poor conditions even more likely to go underground to avoid detection. People who own a few dogs which live as part of the family which they occasionally breed cannot be expected to treat their animals under the same conditions as someone who has 100 dogs. You end up with small breeders finding it all too hard because they are motivated by love of a breed and their dogs or passion not money ,and with more people investing more money needing to breed more dogs to pay for it . Until you make a distinction between a hobby breeder and a large scale commercial breeder you will continue to advantage large scale breeders with over regulation and all you do is create more scoff laws. Recommendation 3: Relevant animal welfare codes of practice should be amended to require the sellers of cats and dogs to display an animal's microchip number (or the license number of the breeder of an animal) in all advertisements, and at point of sale in the case of pet shops, markets and fairs. (CA Report p.9) Small scale breeders need to advertise their individual puppies more than large scale breeders as large scale breeders advertise their businesses where it is known puppies are available or they sell in bulk to pet shops and dealers. Small scale breeders also need to advertise their puppies when they are born- weeks before home time to ensure they find homes for the pups.If we have to have a chip number to advertise this means we cant advertise until the puppies are older and have been chipped.It increases the risk that puppies will not be sold until much later than is ideal for them to be in their new homes. Larger scale commercial breeders are advantaged over small hobby breeders as they can more readily afford any licences and later or no advertising of individual puppies. Also there is no evidence that this system is working in Victoria or the Gold Coast where it has already been introduced. Breeders are still advertising with no numbers and no one is policing it - because its virtually impossible to police. Current laws say all puppies have to be chipped at point of sale.Police the laws we have. Recommendation 8: The Companion Animals Act should be amended to require cats and dogs to be registered on an annual basis. (CA Report p.16) The number of animals which are currently registered is due in part to breeders who follow the current laws and microchip their puppies and change them into the new owner's name.Council are then able to follow up to ensure they are registered at 6 months. Information on the data base which is out of date is largely due to people who move and don't update their details which they can do for free. If they don't change their details for free and without fear that they will have to pay a fee yearly they will be less likely to do so when changing their details means council knows where they are and they have to pay a yearly fee which they may avoid if they don't change them? I'm assuming that yearly registrations will be less than they are now and in line with other states which have a yearly fee.With extra administration costs,and more costs required to police them surely its a much more viable solution to simply put up the current fees a little,and police the laws and issue fines for the laws we already have. Yearly registrations have not proven in states where these exist to cut down on dangerous dogs or to give a greater compliance or impound numbers. Many people now have dogs which they made decisions on owning based on a once only registration fee if this becomes a yearly fee there is an increased probability that some of these dogs will be surrendered as the families may not be able to find the yearly fees.

The diaries are pretty shocking - begs the question who wrote what and when and how did they get them. .

Submissions are now open for this http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/eventregistration/eventstaskforce/TaskForceRegister.asp?mi=25&ml=1&AreaIndex=FB2 Clearly when they called for submissions before many many more animal welfare/ animal rights responded than did breeders Go now and read really well the submissions and answer the survey as this IS your last chance to have your input . Gather your friends and neighbours and recruit them into answering - dont leave this alone.

I have to say Im pretty used to it .Before I moved here I had a property very close to the local airport and we used to joke that the RAAF used to use the garden furniture in our front yard as their marker to start having the troops jump when they were training . Some of the smaller planes often buzzed us and could see anything I had in my yard. At this property - Every year when the local show is on they bring in a helicopter and give joy rides which just happen to go over my property a couple of dozen times a day . google earth have a pretty good shot taken last December of my property too. Ive nothing to hide either but there is a difference between having a plane fly over because that's where they are going, google earth for general info which shows up buildings roads etc and a drone coming in with an assumption that you are a criminal and trying to catch you out on something - getting close enough, quietly enough, to see if you have any pants on or what machinery,and equipment you have,where you keep it etc. I thought about this yesterday when we were moving sheep from one area to another,they were actually in one area in the morning for about half an hour without shelter and water .They had humans and dogs out there with them the whole time none of which had shelter or water and none were too hot or too thirsty but a drone flying over and taking photos doesn't qualify it was in the high teens temperature,nice comfortable autumn weather and they were only there for less than an hour either. Drones are so easy to get cheaply now that I doubt anyone is going to stop them doing what ever they want . While ever the TV stations and newspapers lap up what ever is handed to them and ruin people's lives before they are found guilty it will only get worse. Fascinates me that we have an Australian in England who has been accused of being involved in sexual assault but no one can name him for legal reasons - yet you can name a farmer or a dog breeder who is accused of throwing chicken frames out to feed the dogs or who doesn't have enough trees in their paddocks.

Would you care if you were being filmed without consent on your own property? I know I would... regardless if I were doing anything wrong or not. Then ask yourself, would you like Animal Lib filming YOU on YOUR property with YOUR animals - and making judgments about how YOU care for them? These are crazy people with an agenda... T. No I would not, however, I am not running a business from my property. I haven't said I think this is a good thing either, just playing devils advocate really, if they're running a business where animal welfare is involved, I would imagine they would want to showcase to everyone that the welfare of the animals is their highest priority and could use this as a way to bring their good practices to light. Or they could just threaten to shoot it. Any other business is able to have security, gates out front and certain areas which the general public don't get to see or enter including them.What other business has no choice but to have their homes and families filmed etc and assumed to be crimminal and have no rights left just in case? .There is a lot of valuable property and machinery and equipment on farms which most farmers dont want to advertise they own because they are miles and miles form anyone and they are vulnerable to theft. They wont highlight any good practices they find - that wont help their cause. Most of the activities they have said they are looking for take place in a bloody shearing shed anyway. Pig farmers ,chook farmers etc which is who they have targeted for factory farming keep their animals in sheds what is a drone to see of that? Surely to God you cant believe this is about them counting how many trees there are in a paddock for a sheep to sit under on a hot day? For them to actually have the thing on the spot on the few days that people are moving sheep or cattle is remote anyway. Crutching and muelsing and shearing are not things you can just spot every day of the year when you happen to buzz over you know. By the way all of these things are still legal anyway.

Before they all start banging on about how great it is to make breeders either have their breeder licence number or the dog's chip number in any ads they should just spend an hour or so and search gum tree and online ads for Victorian puppy sales and its only a very small minority that are doing it - so how is this working and who is policing it? In fact Id guess that those following the law were the ones that were chipping before the pups went home anyway. How will it be any different here than it is in Victoria or the Gold coast ?

Hard to get your head around some of the things they claim is or is not genetic - some breeds are known to have a higher than average incidence of it but as in most things 'genetic' not even the genetic professors can agree. Either way its a sadness that leaves a hole in your heart and Im thankful you and she had the pleasure of sharing and changing each other's life. RIP Sooki. .

Not very acceptable really is it?

You cant register them for free the chip details are on the registry and you dont register the dogs .Its not that you register them for free you just dont register them. Living on farmland doesnt give you an exemption from chipping your pups - no matter where you live no matter what you do with them every single dog in NSW has to be chipped - every single puppy anyone breeds has to be chipped at point of sale or at 12 weeks. Working breed dogs which are working dont need to be registered. I was told by the council that if the dogs live on zoned farmland or out on stations the pups don't have to be chipped. As I don't fall into that catergory I had to chip my pups. Also I register any dogs I keep but it costs me nothing to do so as they work. Sorry MUP you're right - thank you .I learned today that MY council dont know the laws either. http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/DLG/Documents/information/Dogs_in_Rural_Communities_-_Brochure.pdf

Very sad. You may be interested to know that when we did our health survey we had 72 responses for Maremma Sheepdog [whelped in Australia] and of them there were 7 deaths as a result of this. Might be a good idea to be entering this data into the mix for pedigree profiling.

Yeah I know - pathetic really isnt it. When we agree to having a license to breed our dogs we agree to give over our ownership right to the licensing agency, which can at any time revoke our use rights. We grant them absolute control over our animals. They can come onto our real property, and remove or restrict our transitory property (dogs) without due process of law. The places which require licensing can refuse to issue further licenses, and revoke the privilege of breeding dogs. A license is a temporary revocable permit that allows the licensee to have something or to do something that would be illegal to have, or to do without the license. It makes dog breeding illegal. It turns over all ownership, and use rights to the licensing agency which can at any time, inspect, confiscate, suspend, revoke, or halt issuance of the license. It's a way of taking away your property and free use of your property without compensation. Say no to more laws.

And again they break the law and its why they are now bringing in laws which will make it harder for all of us.

You cant register them for free the chip details are on the registry and you dont register the dogs .Its not that you register them for free you just dont register them. Living on farmland doesnt give you an exemption from chipping your pups - no matter where you live no matter what you do with them every single dog in NSW has to be chipped - every single puppy anyone breeds has to be chipped at point of sale or at 12 weeks. Working breed dogs which are working dont need to be registered.

Every pup in NSW has to be chipped at time of sale or at 12 weeks which ever comes sooner. Working dogs need to be chipped but not registered.Working breed dogs dont get automatic exemption from being registered they have to actually be working. In this case the pup is a pet should have been chip by the person who bred it before it changed hands - assuming there were more in the litter which were not chipped this is a fairly hefty fine . Her pup has to be chipped and registered now or she is in breach of the law and if caught will be fined for owning a dog which is not chipped and not registered once its past 12 weeks old. This whole thing really ticks me off as there are hundreds of working breed dogs dumped in pounds with no chips and it makes every body think that bringing in harder tougher laws for us [registered breeders who do it all according to the law] will solve the problem these breeders create when they chip and then no one bothers to police the laws we have.

I just picked this up. Im so sorry Tralee - thinking of you.

if its a small hernia there is no risk of complications and its unlikely that it something thats heritable if you havent seen it before and only one has it out of a litter of 10 in my opinion. If she was good on all other counts Id breed her.

they could if they policed them - made sure everyone had paid their rego and fined them if they didnt ,made sure everyone changes their details and fine them if they dont , make sure every one has a dog on a leash and fine them if they dont ,make sure every dog bred has a chip as has been mandatory since 97 and fine them if they dont . One ranger doing a doork nock to check every house hold that has a dog is compliant and if they are not issuing fines and that every household has adequate fencing etc to contain the size and type of dog they had etc and prevent a dog issue before they have to be called out to them would make them millions.

I did it by phone and email, when I insisted on extra information being added to Stevie and Jodie's details. Canterbury Council seemed quite happy to work that way. They will accept further info via email and I can notify change of owner via mail but to register a dog or change address even after its already on the registry and chipped in your name you still have to attend council with updated ID - at least thats how it works around here.

http://www.goldcoast...code-practice(1).pdf Would appear there is no specification on when you intend to breed so this person was told if she ever intended to breed the bitch she required a permit now when she went to register her.,When she applied for the permit her residence was knocked back due to the size of her bitch and the property . Might depend on who you speak with I guess but the wording doesnt say you dont need a licence until you are ready to breed the bitch. Breeder Code of Practice In July 2009, the State Government introduced new legislation for all pet owners in Queensland. The changes include compulsory registration and micro-chipping of cats and dogs by the time they reach the age of 12 weeks. This legislation requires residents who own an entire cat or dog, and breed, or intend to breed, to hold a breeder permit. The permit requirements are designed to encourage keepers of cats and dogs to consider their responsibilities. This ensures the current oversupply of cats and dogs and euthanasia rates are kept to a minimum on the Gold Coast. Breeder permits are required for residents who breed from their pet, those who breed as hobby breeders and those who have commercial breeding establishments. If you breed or intend to breed your cat or dog, you are required to obtain a breeder permit from Council and comply with the Breeder Code of Practice. Compliance with the Breeder Code of Practice demonstrates your commitment to the responsible care and management of cats and dogs within our city. For further information, contact Council Animal Management on (07) 5581 6664.