WoofnHoof

Everyone does have the right to a drivers L but I don't have my right removed because someone else shows they are not capable of the responsibility. You assume that the other 80% had enough information and evidence to do something about it or that if THEY did try to do something about it that the governing body would respond. I can front up right now to the ANKC and tell them someone is breeding dogs with conformation so bad that their dogs are suffering and they will laugh at me.i can say this here on this forum and I will be told that its O.K. because the breed wasn't meant to run around the block. You can place this type of evaluation onto any group which has little or no or little outside accountability. Actually it does happen with licenses, Ls and Ps are placed on restrictions, they can't have I think it's 8 cylinder vehicles in some states, the same rules don't apply, so yes their rights are restricted by the actions of a few which amounted to a critical mass, not every P plater can't handle the power of a V8 but enough of them couldn't that it was decided they all shouldn't drive one until they have sufficient experience. As a group they behave and as a group they are judged, as they say, no one ever said that life was fair. And it's as a group we have the power, the 80% can and do have the power to change things. I see it all the time in dressage, high level riders yanking and kicking and basically showing off the worst of the sport for the world to see, and the rest of us tut tut and say "what can we do?", they are at the top we are at the bottom, but without us paying our fees and supporting our little comps and buying the products with their names on them they are nothing, nobodies. We do have power.

I'm not a fan of industry self regulation, I think it would be exponentially better to have an independent external regulatory body, but the reality is that it isn't going to happen. The public aren't interested in paying for regulation and the government has no interest in regulation of industry, and I don't see any way forward from there. Personally I do what I can in my sphere of influence and ability, I'm working in an area of animal welfare research, I promote good ethical breeders and breeding practices, I call out unethical practices where I see them and I support the development of inclusive industry bodies which are working towards development of codes of practice and industry wide policies on welfare. For example the horse industry council which seeks to unite the fragmented horse industry (even more fragmented than companion animals IMO). Is it perfect? No but it's what we currently have and all we really have to work with. It is bloody hard trying to unite a very diverse industry, akin to herding cats, especially when some have more power and influence than others, and some have more ethical behaviour than others, but as far as I can tell it MUST be done if any of us are to survive in the future.

It only takes a heartbeat to take away people's rights - people who have never shown any sign of being party to any of this - thats 80% of them and how do you justify them having the right to find them new homes or sell them interstate rather than killing them as better for the dogs? can only wonder if its a case of don't care, as long is its not your rights that have been signed away. Then the fat would fly but same scenario here, those unaffected will just look on and say hey they brought it on themselves then too. As someone who owns and loves animals I do care very much, and I worry that my right to own them wil be taken away, but that doesn't negate the reality, nor does it make it ok for others to abuse animals while I sat back. I do what I can but it takes a majority, so I try to convince people that this is all our responsibility. Each of us every time we hear about someone doing the wrong thing but are afraid to speak up because they are more powerful, they are more respected, but they are the ones who will bring us all down so now is the time to act against them.

80% of people doing the right thing leaves 20% of people doing the wrong thing and not enough being done by anyone to fix that, I don't justify anything but to me if a problem is so endemic that to effectively address it would decimate the industry to a point that it is no longer viable as an industry (as indicated by the report) then it's not really surprising that it was decided they are not capable of self regulation. Clearly the public and the community has decided that the industry's actions (or lack thereof) are unjustifiable, so to them at least 20% of participants doing the wrong thing is the line in the sand. Said it before and I will say it again, the writing has been on the wall for a long time, for ALL animal industries. When you are part of a community you have rights taken away all the time, everyone has the right to apply for a drivers license, they lose that right when they show they are not capable of the responsibility. Same thing is now happening at an industry level. The question is not, why should good people have their rights taken away, but why should good people keep their rights when they do nothing about the bad ones? Everyone in the industry knew about the "bad eggs", as a whole they had the power to stop it but didn't.

Given their reputation for behaving ethically I can see why you'd want to give them the benefit of the doubt... The reality is that any industry which does not behave ethically as a whole unit will have its rights taken away. No it's not fair for those who do the right thing but in this day and age lack of decisive action against those who do the wrong thing is viewed as complicity. It's all well and good to say that it takes time to change but how long should they be given? How many lives must be lost in cruel circumstances before it's too many? How much suffering is acceptable during the "transition period"? You are braver and wiser than I if you can quantify such things.

Well Im not outraged but why is it better for the RSPCA to take them and put them down when the breeders are perfectly capable of taking them to their own vets and doing the same thing? Apparently many aren't since the discovery of mass graves etc. A bullet is only humane if it's well aimed, and a bludgeoning certainly isn't humane.

Clare, thank you for posting to clarify your position. You are right that the first thing for any academic paper, is to define the terms which will be used. And it is customary to link those terms/definitions with what is commonly used in that particular field of study. You appear to be using 'caretakership' to cover whatever someone who has an animal in their care (for whatever reason) does, to care for that animal's health & welfare. However, in another field, the legal system, the terms used for 'pets' have huge significance in what determines who has the power to intervene in their care. Read the link to the article by the counsel for the US Animal Health Institute which is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medicine Association. Any terms that appear to leap over 'ownership' raise alarm bells for both pet owners & veterinarians. Which has happened in this thread. (BTW I have no problem with the term 'companion dog' to describe the role that dog plays in people's lives. It's on a par with 'working dog' IMO. It's benign in suggesting anything about 'ownership' or 'guardianship' or 'caretakership'.) I'd say (just my opinion) that an academic survey which is looking at the relationship of people with their pet dogs, cannot overlook the fact that a significant part of that relationship is how the person sees they 'own' that dog. With a huge sense of personal responsibility coming from that. So how the terms are defined in the legal process are of great significance to pet dog owners. While 'caretakership' in one academic discipline, might just be concerned with actual caring actions.... in the legal system, it can say something else of great importance about the relationship between pets & people. Best wishes with your study. Excellent point. Certainly many people would see themselves as caretakers AND owners in the sense that they both own and care for their pets, but the terminology here is important because, as we have seen, when viewed through the perspective of animal rights, the term has a completely different implication, given the long term plan for PETA is the elimination of all human-animal relationships it is no real surprise that people here are loathe to associate themselves with it. I'm not really sure why the term pet has gone out of fashion, I think the term companion animal originally was coined to differentiate a pet from a working animal or livestock, probably as mita says, for legal reasons and to perhaps give them more weight/value. And certainly it is easy to see how the term caretaker has come about as not all people who care for animals are the owners, for example agistment and kennel owners care for animals and have obligations under the law regarding that so that is why the term more broadly applies to those who care for animals and is appropriate in an academic context, doesn't negate the social and philosophical context though. Might be easier to just chuck in every term and cover all bases although it's not very scientific :laugh:

No breeder I know and respect considers what they do "work". As for blaming the ills of the dog world on the ANKC. The issue is bigger than that. The causes are myriad and a simplistic finger-pointing response that lays all blame at the door of registered breeders is a nonsense. The rise of the double income family, 450 sq m blocks and higher density living, changes to the cultural demographic and yes, animal rights campaigning are all shaping changes in attitudes to dogs. The amount of misinformation about dogs, dog breeds and dog raising is rife. I think that is the space where the ANKC best operates but when you have little money and the press prints what it wishes to, its a tough ask I'd like less finger pointing and more solutions that go beyond "they should". As I've already said, "they" should be "we". This is a very good point, however in the beginning PETA had bugger all money too, just a bunch of zealots. So how did they get so prominent and wealthy? They were very clever in their advertising in the beginning, still are in many ways. They knew that sex sells so they got people to strut around in the nude, the news will report that so free advertising that reaches millions. Easy peasy. Next they appealed to celebrities, celebs want to be seen to have a social conscience so they will join a cause, every time a celeb speaks people listen and the media report it, again free advertising. I think if the brains trust of DOL can put away their cynicism (I am guilty of this as well) we could change the narrative on animal ownership in this country. Everyone here is at least 10x as smart as any of the PETA loonies so I am sure we could come up with some super marketing ideas to promote pure breed dogs and responsible ownership, and work on implementing some effective and lasting welfare practices. Yep. But I realy think the emphasis has to come off promoting PEDIGREE dogs, and promoting dogs with out the constant reference to pedigree. If an appreciation for the species can be taught, the pedigree is a logical conclusion or peak of the values and foundations learned to support the species. A dedication to the species will almost always lead to a breed. I think that to a point it has to come from a pedigree/pure breed point of reference because even with the bad rap pures get they are still respected as a "brand". That's why so many crossbreeders still try to market a dog with "papers" and make up registries to stick their dogs into, because the brand of a pedigree dog still has value. A pure breed dog is a dog with a known history and that is an ideal when people need a dog that fits their needs. While lots of people say they like variety and difference the reality is that if the dog doesn't fit their life they aren't likely to change their lifestyle to fit the dog, they are more likely to get rid of it. They don't always link the concept of pure with matching their lifestyle but that is the lack of communication and marketing more than anything else. As is the perception that pure breeds are for dog snobs.

Re Rebanne's post: It's sad but not really surprising given the greyhound people who came out straight after the announcement running their mouths off to the media about shooting all their dogs. Not sure what they thought that would achieve. Doesn't give the public a lot of confidence that they are capable of rehoming their greyhounds ethically or putting them down humanely.

I don't think the ANKC is at fault, but I do think that there is a need for a stronger, louder and more positive voice for dogs in the public space to combat that of AR. And I think the ANKC are well placed to fill that space, or a collaboration between a number of groups.

Not when you rescue... You get to deal with the kind of people who should never have been sold the dog. True, rescue is also the bottom end, it's why rescuers and vets have high burnout rates, not sure about rescue but vets also have one of the highest suicide rates of any profession.

Yes that is indeed the question! I think people like to think they are doing research when they are just looking at websites, and their assessment comes down to how well that site has marketed it's POV, not necessarily whether it's actually factual. To be competitive in this world in this day and age it is about selling yourself, your brand etc.

Sorry but that is quite frankly, a huge generalisation. I can show you a study that says for Greyhounds in racing condition, it is virtually impossible to feed sufficient bulk of raw food to meet their protein requirements. It recommends hight quality, high protein kibble AND raw. And guess what I feed my Whippets. After changing from a fully raw diet to a mixed one, my Toy Poodle's anal gland issues disappeared. I have researched the issue and tried a few diets. I feed what works for my dogs. Yes it's a generalisation, that's kind of the point :) I am on the fence with food, mine get a variation of all types and whatever works for them, but I was responding to Jed's point that vets direct puppy owners to a general formula which is not necessarily the ideal but is a basic guide for the middle of the road, it may not be best practice but it's better than what a lot of vets see quite often since they are often at the coal face of all dog owners, whereas registered breeders can pick and choose the kind of owner they deal with.

No breeder I know and respect considers what they do "work". As for blaming the ills of the dog world on the ANKC. The issue is bigger than that. The causes are myriad and a simplistic finger-pointing response that lays all blame at the door of registered breeders is a nonsense. The rise of the double income family, 450 sq m blocks and higher density living, changes to the cultural demographic and yes, animal rights campaigning are all shaping changes in attitudes to dogs. The amount of misinformation about dogs, dog breeds and dog raising is rife. I think that is the space where the ANKC best operates but when you have little money and the press prints what it wishes to, its a tough ask I'd like less finger pointing and more solutions that go beyond "they should". As I've already said, "they" should be "we". This is a very good point, however in the beginning PETA had bugger all money too, just a bunch of zealots. So how did they get so prominent and wealthy? They were very clever in their advertising in the beginning, still are in many ways. They knew that sex sells so they got people to strut around in the nude, the news will report that so free advertising that reaches millions. Easy peasy. Next they appealed to celebrities, celebs want to be seen to have a social conscience so they will join a cause, every time a celeb speaks people listen and the media report it, again free advertising. I think if the brains trust of DOL can put away their cynicism (I am guilty of this as well) we could change the narrative on animal ownership in this country. Everyone here is at least 10x as smart as any of the PETA loonies so I am sure we could come up with some super marketing ideas to promote pure breed dogs and responsible ownership, and work on implementing some effective and lasting welfare practices.

Jed sadly so many vets see the worst of dog owners. Those owners who research know that raw food is better than dry food but vets figure it's still better than chum for a dog owner who isn't going to prepare a balanced raw diet anyway. They figure it's better to get the dog desexed early than have oops litters because they know a lot of owners won't contain their dog effectively. They figure it's best to get vaccinations done because if they tell some owners it's fine they won't bring the dog back even if it's sick so they figure it's better to do the dog every year so at least they see a problem developing. It's sad accounting for the lowest common denominator but it doesn't mean we can't work to change the narrative. It is a difficult environment at the moment but we can just work to keep educating and train puppy buyers :) Just scrolled back up and saw this - that is a really cool idea!!! Can't see the relevance to dog breeding myself.............smacks of voyeurism anyway, can't acgirl have some peace and dignity......what would it prove? Peace? A webcam isn't intrusive. Dignity? I would be surprised if the dog cares that people are watching it on the internet but you can ask her :) What would it prove? That good breeders are open and honest about breeding, that the dog is well cared for and not giving birth in a concrete cage, that people can see how much work goes into breeding. And finally and most importantly IMO, that the public can feel connected to breeders and the dogs, see that they aren't just some distant cloistered group trotting around the show ring with their noses in the air. We have seen from other threads here now and in the past that often times communication between the public and registered breeders can be difficult to establish, Fostering and improving the relationship between breeders and the general public IMO is a good start to addressing that disconnect.

Lovely lovely rotties!

Welcome back Jelly it's great to hear you are ready for another dog :) I agree, word of mouth would be your best bet. Does the breed have fun days, gatherings etc? I'd try to get along to one and meet up with people "in the know". People here who followed your journey with Roo would understand the work you put in for her but it's hard to explain to someone who hasn't followed it so I probably wouldn't go into it unless you are able to have a good chat in person ideally. Just work on getting to know people in the breed and the lines and go from there. Best of luck finding your new friend!

Some horse studs have "mare stare" web streaming of foalings, a good way to include the public in the process without having them tramping through the place. :)

I mentioned this in the greyhound thread in news but I think it is useful here. Currently the narrative that much of the public sees is from AR groups, the RSPCA and others who basically have the greatest public presence and the loudest voices. In contrast the purebred dog world appears cloistered and disconnected from the public and the "real world" in a sense. It's time to change the narrative. Become the voice that people hear when it comes to dogs and companion animals in general. AR dominates because they are there, in public, as much as possible. But they are not the only ones who can do this, we can do it too, and become a voice for our breed, our sport, and our pets.

Some aren't converted. You can see it in posts here. The question is are they indicative of the general population? If so then that is what needs to be addressed. Currently the narrative that the general public is exposed to is largely AR, but AR doesn't weild the power to change, it's the public that does that. AR dominates the narrative because they are the loudest voice, and often times the only voice that the public hears. That is what needs to change. I'm working on projects that are the direct result of industry taking control of the research and the narrative on welfare, not waiting for the public ask "what are you doing to improve animal welfare?", but shouting from the rooftops "THIS is what we are doing". Adopt a culture of continuous improvement, change the narrative and become the dominant voice that the public hears.

It's not just education, it's about being proactive, and being seen to be so. No use preaching to the converted.

Sorry for your loss Caz

All wonderful ideals but in the current climate people outside of the industry do not understand why the industry does not deal with cruelty within its own ranks. We can make up all the excuses in the world but it doesn't absolve us of the responsibility.

Of course there is. It's the model followed in most American states that the anti-racing brigade would have you believe have banned it. No "commercial" racing. No professional trainers. Just hobby people racing the dogs they keep at home. And a whole bunch of regulation. Who regulates it over there? Our current government is very much a fan of the "user pays" school of thought, and privatising as many services as possible. I would love to see animal welfare regulation and enforcement wholly and solely in public hands, I think it would be the best option for animals and people. Unfortunately I don't think it will ever happen.

Better go and look at the figures the - ANKC is very much a minority group in fact in 2015 only 79 breeders in australia who were registered with the ANKC had 10 litters and defining the wrong - this is the tricky bit . Some people don't see any wrong in dogs being humanely PTS if they don't work or run fast enough - some call it wastage and animal cruelty but others call it life. There is nothing in the animal cruelty laws which defines culling dogs which don't cut the grade humanely a criminal or even a cruel act. Some people think killing a dog for any reason unacceptable - look at the thread re rescue dogs who are aggressive .So its O.K. to kill a dog because it has a temperament that doesn't fit requirements for quick and easy placement in a family but not O.K. to kill a dog that doesn't fit requirements for winning races or herding sheep and cant be quickly and appropriately rehomed? How do you expect that they the ANKC will act against those doing the wrong thing by ever growing community standards when they encourage it and actually have regs which govern maintaining. I can just see them going after a pug breeder and throwing them out because they have bred dogs with breathing problems. So in all seriousness what do you see as things which are wrong or some of their members are doing wrong that they should be acting against - that there is a reasonable expectation that they would act against? The figures the public sees are the figures that matter. Thousands of young animals euthanised for not being suitable, thousands of animals tortured for the sport. Societies which represent breeds and breeders hold the future in their hands. For example knowing the huge euthanasia rates in greys why does the association not restrict breeding to numbers that are more sustainable? We know why, because registration $ are important, but that just proves the point that money trumps welfare in the these bodies which have the power to enact change but refuse to do so. "It wasn't me" isn't going to be enough when the question is asked "why didn't you do anything?" You know what the issues are in the dog world just as I know what the issues are in the horse world, address those issues and be seen doing it. If someone's poor practices are tolerated by the governing bodies we need to ask why. If everything is perfect and no one ever does the wrong thing then show it. If someone does the wrong thing show how they are dealt with. Was listening to Temple Grandin speak the other day, she said "don't let bad become normal" "we can't escape the phone camera it's everywhere". She hammered the point that industry has to be open and honest and seen to be addressing the issues. It was in the context of production animals but it applies across the board I think. Essentially we need to address issues, zero tolerance, and be seen to be addressing them. If someone is breeding so many they need to cull a significant portion then that is not best practice and not sustainable. The public isn't going to care if it's only one person doing it they are going to ask why is that one person still allowed to do this. Why didn't anyone who knew about it put a stop to it? So why didn't we?