moosmum

Community Members
  • Content count

    1,375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About moosmum

  • Rank
    Forum Regular
  • Birthday 11/02/60

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Interests
    Anthropology,medical,natural sciences,animal behaviour,
    biophysics

Extra Info

  • Location
    NSW

Recent Profile Visitors

3,433 profile views

Display Name History

  1. I agree to point. When the K.Cs were new, there was a lot more variation in type. The standards would likely have been written with an ideal of the type best suited to its purpose, or in the case of lap dog types, to its appeal. With shows, the type that best conformed to that ideal was the winner. Acting like an illustration of the ideal to other breeders. Promoting Popular Sires and females too. But for most breeds, we reached a stage long ago where pretty much every dog of a breed 'matched' the ideal of the written standard. At least to the the stage that was envisioned when it was written. Now the illustration has been done so many times people need to put new stamps on it. The illustration itself has sort of over taken the ideal of a Dog.. That would also have been the start of a new type of Dog owner/breeder, Whos interest was fostered in the show Ring, rather than in the field or home. I believe the combination of those 2 things would would have been the beginning of the extremes we see today. " Who said thats an" improvement" ? Not the Kennel clubs, the Standard or the constitution" If the winner is a representation of the ideal then its kind of all three, more so than any individual persons input. Unless they happen to be the breeder favored with the win. I agree the K.Cs were never set up to be more than keepers of the Pedigree records and are not equipt to do more. I don't blame their Constitution for being inadequate to that task and would prefer if they were only asked to uphold the same regulations as apply to anyone else But its natural that its expected of them to become regulators of their own members when community expectations and demands won't be met otherwise. It will be expected of them when they promote themselves as all that should be required to meet our needs and demands, and they are clearly not doing that. And they are promoting that idea if nothing else but pedigree standards are deemed worthy of recognition. But I don't think any of us should be giving up on our breeds or on the ANKC. Just fighting for them to be a good as they were intended and can be.
  2. Of course not. But ANKC breeders are easy targets mostly because of their self imposed isolation.. And I don't see this as laying it all at the door of ANKC breeders. Rather I see them as victims of a faulty constitution drawn up long before anyone now was alive. The same mistake many other organizations, religions and Govts. have made in many areas. But some thing that can be corrected. Not instantly. But awareness and discussion is a big start. Maybe some one will disprove my whole theory. But I doubt it.
  3. As a distinct Identity, not inclusive of the general community or breeders in general, I think thats another symptom of exclusivity- trying to define just what is excluded to create a distinct identity. What will that identity accept? That must contribute to the attrition rate of good breeders. The obstacles to doing anything differently. Responses are blocked. Not completely, but enough to guide members collectively into other directions. It realy is very similar to how genetics work in an organism. Cell cultures have to recognize the whole environment, not just their own specialized cell culture. Or the whole organism suffers and won't function to its ability.
  4. Yes. It is there, and more should should be doing just that. Taking personal responsibility. I'm not saying none do. There are many different representations of the K.C member and they are all individuals. Some better than others, like any group culture that exists. But the Organization is ONE individual, by its own singular identity. Its members direct it collectively, and as a collective that will be according to the blue print laid down. Despite the individuals who go against the grain of the messages sent by that blue print. They can do that. But its not easy.There are obstacles and most will take the easiest course. The biggest obstacle as I see it can be traced to that statement that what lies outside is not recognized. Thats the barrier to change that makes it so hard and slow. That is the statement that makes ANKC an identity independent of the community. Its environment. Instead of an organization that serves the community and could be seen to do that. Valued for its contribution. In signing up for that constitution, a member becomes responsible to the Organization.Their response, collectively, must be from the perspective of the C.C member. And by its own statement, the Organization can't be responsible for meeting community expectations, because it refuses to recognize them. It recognizes Pedigrees only, and the standards that define them. The ANKC is a members environment. The one they are responding to. And the ANKC does not recognize what lies outside their own pedigree standards. That is a generalization. But it must also define the membership as a whole. Thats what a constitution is designed to do, and it does.
  5. Actualy, no responsibility has got us to this point. The breeders can't be responsible for a standard created before they were breeders, or how they are forced to respond to it, if nothing outside of the standards has any bearing on how thats to be done. Individuals haven't been given responsibility. Not to the community and its expectations any way.Their responsibility is only to the standards of the C.C. I'm not going to get the chance to explain that better and doubt I can yet any way. Some regulation is always going to be needed, but it can become another way of enforcing 'standards'. Another way of reduction, if identity is divided into singularities. Another way of trying to create an environment in your own image. Carried too far, it assumes every one works from the same set of conditions But roughly, Accepting a complete identity ie: a breeder of Dogs is a just a Dog Breeder, whatever affiliations they might have- Makes it easier to get responsibility. Because each person has to take responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions. For their own integrity, not the integrity of the organization. There is more likely to be explanation of why some thing was done the way it was, and what its supposed to accomplish- Aiding education. And its in the interest of every breeder to see they can, and do. Its a community responsibility, because its community demands that must be met 1st. Not organizational ones. They no longer take precedence. Environment demands and breeders respond, as its meant to happen in stable system. With sharing of information across the board that enables greater responsibility and understanding of what that means. What is expected to achieve it. People can only be responsible for their own actions. But acceptance of a singular group identity replaces personal responsibility to the community, with responsibility to an identity distinct from that community.. Getting into it now would get too off track tho'. and I will likely just confuse every one trying.
  6. There must be a concious recognition in any C.Cs constitution that Dogs are a species, not a set of standards with no variation based on environmental demands before any changes with in the C.Cs can be be effective. Not just for the C.Cs, but for Dogs and the people who would own them, anywhere. I try.
  7. If you accept the integrity of being known as a 'Dog Breeder', depends on a C.C membership (and pedigree standards) as seems to be implied by the 2nd link in Asals post, then isn't there also an implied duty as a C.C breeder, to recreate a breeders environment in that, your own image? To subsume or discredit ( to cause rejection) what lies outside of your own image? A bit of a paradox, that, when its failing because the integrity of a 'breeder' depends on its retreat to a singular culture. If the integrity of your identity depends on adherence to a singular cultural influence, thats the only way to ( attempt) expand that cultural influence. Subsume or discredit until whats left is your own image. If you can do neither, or realy in spite of either, the end result must be entropy, because evolution is a deviation from the specified singularity. Responsibility isn't just about regulation. Its about recognition. Recognition of all you have to respond to. Only that can give you any ability to respond. There has got to be a dog some where in that Pedigree. A dog doesn't start and stop with a pedigree but thats the belief being promoted without recognition of the species beyond a pedigree.
  8. With spey and neuter done as early as they are being done, Judicious culling doesn't even have have to mean 'killed'. Though I would prefer that for more extreme faults that would impact on the quality of life for owners as well as the dog . About the only excuse I could accept for such early desexing.
  9. I am not against selecting for moderate traits at all. It needs doing. But it does nothing to tackle the central issues to Pedigree dogs and the culture of limited perception of predictability over responsibility. Where does the reduction stop? How can it ever stop? And what will be the end result of endless reduction? The limited register does pedigree dogs no favors. If it were used only for dogs that had actual congenital defects it would have a useful purpose. I can't see people giving up the idea of the show ring to rate their dogs, but think it would have less of an impact re popular sires, and which those are. I think it would be much easier for people to learn the 'standard' has no inherent value on its own, but that any value it has is brought to it by the people who follow it, by their own interpretation- If the K.Cs could only understand how their exclusivity is their greatest downfall. Exclusivity excludes. It can do nothing else. It will continue to exclude until there is nothing left. Like my breed. Yep, Greys are in relatively good shape, for their selection to a purpose. For now. The popular sires will likely have an impact there in future. And their purpose is on the way out because it can not keep pace with the demands and expectations of the community, or environment. I think it would far easier for members to tackle the issues in their breeds without being censured from within their own organization and trial out crosses where those are in the best interests of the dogs. The organization 'says' the protocols are there for out crossing- But by their own statement, They are not recognized. Any wonder there is resistance? The Pedigree is a terrific tool for improvement. But exclusivity turns it from a tool that any one can make use of, to a belief that nothing else has any value. That the value is in the pedigree, not the dog its bestowed on.
  10. My breed? Likely gone, According to the Institute of Canine Biology. If the problems continue at the present rate, In 20 years 100% of them will be affected by a chronic heart condition. Thats only one of many conditions affecting the breed. And this a breed relatively safe from some the worst extremes of appearance, so far. As for working ability, Standardization of trials, traits and training - the push for predictable rather than responsive, has seen the breeds original purpose almost extinct. On the whole, It hasn't adapted to modern demands and Man has not been encouraged to explore how it could. With out 'environmental' input into breeding, the original purpose(s) of the breeds have a way of eroding away. Even the purpose becomes some thing not for the 'common' man. Heavily regulated professionals only. Until the costs of breeding animals that don't respond to their environment and its demands are too great for the environment to continue to bear. IMO,this is what we are seeing. As for selecting for less extreme types, that can't be done now with out reducing the gene pools available even more. Much more for some. Which will reduce available response of the breed to environmental factors even further. Increasing cancers, disease, immune disorders etc. While there is no recognition of 'environment' , no challenge can be met with out reduction.
  11. Imagine taking the modern version back with you! I think some breeds would be raved about for appearance, but horrify for their lack of any real 'ability' for their original purpose. And others would plain horrify. If only we could, and change the course of history. I believe who ever could do it would also be horrified at we have lost, in other attributes besides the physical ones. The things we do not even see to know any more.
  12. I think experienced and dedicated breeders for the most part are doing their best, but the culture created with the formation of the Kennel Clubs constitution has them trapped. There is tremendous pressure within the breed clubs to hold to a single perspective of their breed and what it should be- And judges are expected to uphold that to be a 'good' judge of the dog. Any going against that consensus of perspective is likely to feel that pressure and be made very unwelcome. That would contribute to to the attrition rate of breeders. ( I think most breed for only around 10 years give or take, just when their experience could be of most use to them and their breed) I doubt many, if any, of the modern alternatives to show bred dogs would be 'recognized' as their named breeds. There are no doubt a lot of issues that breeders try to address. But the pressures to 'see' the breed from a single perspective means that its very hard for any individual breeder to address the ones they see as most urgent. The focus is always going to be narrow at any given time. Thats far too slow to tackle issues as they are recognized by individuals.. And needed as a form of environmental selection.
  13. I think some were mentioned in the 'credits' at the end of the film. They did mention the breeders of the Bassets at least. Not sure if other 'alternate' breeders were credited.
  14. Surprised there aren't more people contributing to this thread. Agree with your last comment. I don't think dogs ( or any animal) should be treated as furry people, but I think too many underestimate them as well. There is a lot more capacity for communication than most give credit for or are willing to see. We don't breed for that any more, or even promote that ideal. We used to. Re my parents, pretty much, except they had accepted it as inevitable.
  15. I can imagine the tongue lashing! That dog was pretty unique in his language skills and I used to brag I could teach him to do anything in 10 minutes. Lots of stories with him. He would lead the horses if we dropped the reins while riding. herd goats sheep or chooks, took part in parades on the float. There was a tip next to our property where we would catch feral kittens. I would meow till they came out of hiding and he would keep them rounded up in place while I scooped them up.