moosmum

Community Members
  • Content count

    1,388
  • 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

3,599 profile views

Display Name History

  1. Some thing missed ? I am saying that working dogs, or the purpose for any dog should have far more prominence in the pedigree system and how we talk about and define them. Recognition that their purpose isn't only to fit a standard mold as decided by others. I woulds love to see more of your dogs.
  2. If the dogs must be pedigreed to be competing in the sport or working aspects, then the pedigree and its standards are already an integral part of the working aptitude. The dog doesn't need to be judged in the show ring to to compete because its already part of the accepted standard. By its inclusion in the pedigree system. The pedigree standard is recognized as a needed component before that dog can compete. In those instances, the standards have a huge impact on working ability because there is a compromise expected. In some cases that is already resulting in a reduced ability to respond to the purpose, for the dogs, or the handlers to respond to the dogs. The same is not true in reverse. A working ability is irrelevant to the standards of the Pedigree system. Which is judged and confirmed in the show ring. With out compromise to any other environment. The sport or trials have a different environment governing selection in addition to the standard. The standards are set, unless a consensus votes to change them. The pedigree is set, by the rules and regulations for registration. The breeds stay 'pure' of anything that could take away from them by the rules of the registration system, unless a consensus votes for change. What non -recognition does is to set the culture that governs what does happen as well. In time and place/space. Entropy.
  3. But it is the venue to decide the best representative of the Standard on a given day. That includes traits that are not physical. Yet no other event is designed to do that, so members should be forgiven for the confusion. I have no problem with people choosing to show their dogs. It is one purpose people have to keep dogs- To compete in conformation events that bring recognition as good ANKC breeders. It may not be intended as an all round accolade, but its natural that that will be the result when un- papered dogs are not 'recognized' and the merits of pedigree standards are decided in the show ring with nothing else influencing a members or judges decisions. Almost all reason for that attitude is that what happens to or with dogs out side of those ANKC pedigree standards is not recognized. And what lies outside of those is the environment ANKC has to deal with. You can not achieve 'improvement' without recognition of the environment. Improvement is evolution. Environment defines improvement in evolution. Not the entity. Even if if it does keep pedigrees. No matter who keeps records or to what purpose, improvement is defined by environment. Not records. It would not affect Pedigrees or their breeders to change that, but would open the way to bring the changes they profess to need. Seems from the out side that need and want are not the same because without that change, the cultural barriers are still there. Its fine and dandy to have protocols, but if the barriers to using them are too great, use of them will be too rare a thing to be much use. Why would people use protocols, if the results of that will be refusal to recognize the benefits ( or the members responsible) by a large proportion of member breeders, who are supported by the ANKCs own opening statements? Any such challenge to the pedigree and its standard condition, as it stands today is a challenge to the cultural direction laid down by the ANKC itself. Regardless of what may have been lost along the way. Like maybe an ability to process uric acid. Or work. Or breathe. A standard is just a condition, as its been set out. Its recognized by its familiarity, as it is. Not as it might be or could be. As its accepted to be, in the show ring. Weather you can understand that or not.
  4. Are they recognized in the show ring when deciding best of breed?
  5. Or were judged definitively as the best runner, gymnast or swimmer based on physical appearance in a line up?
  6. Yes! And that transfers responsibility of personal choice away from the individual, doing their bit for whats important to them , to the ANKC. Who can't be responsible for personal choice, or what is valued in other environments. The only environment that ANKC experience in common with their members is the show ring. So it now directs personal choices before they can be found acceptable.
  7. Speaking more of security and personal protection dogs here, where pedigree has heavily influenced the ring sports developed to test and train ability, and trait selection of breeding stock to suit standardized training methods and conditions. All geared more to measurement and standardization than response ability to genuine working environments and their variation. Its not as convoluted as you think. Its your perception that needs tweaking. Learning to look from a different angle. Its basic cellular biology translated from cell culture, to human culture because the same physical laws govern both. We learn through repeated patterns, and demonstration. We expect people to be responsible, yet restrict patterns and demonstration to specific, standardized environments where they are not easily accessable and are often not translated successfully to other environments, restricting natural growth. An entity that does not recognize it environment looses responsibility and purpose to that environment. The environment can not actively support that entity, because it does not respond to its environment, other than trying to re-shape it into its own image, and rejecting or destroying what won't be reshaped. I am trying to illustrate ways that happens. ANKC does not recognize its environment. It is an entity distinct from its environment by its own statement. It does not evolve according to environmental demands, but by the demands of its membership who have accepted that standards be accepted before dogs can succeed. Physics says its the other way around. Dogs will flourish if they meet the standards demanded by diverse environments, that set their own standards dependent on prevailing conditions. Breeds and standards have a place, but its as part of a whole, not to be the whole or even direct it. Thats simply not going to work,says physics.
  8. I hope you don't think thats my attitude,. I don't see any response that does indicate that attitude. Yep, its an actual problem, actual people and actual breeders. We are actualy discussing it. My actual opinion is that if you want to have dogs in your life, and think its beneficial for people in society to have that right, Its your responsibility. If you have accepted dogs in your life in any capacity, responsibility lies with you. Its not some thing you pass off to another entity. Which brings us to ... If people understood and were more familiar with Dogs, They would understand the need to research from the start. They would understand more of the breeding process and nurturing that brings out the qualities bred for, They would know that asking a breeder what they are trying achieve is a pretty important question. They would have a better understanding that the process doesn't stop with selecting a breeder. They would have a better understanding of what is going to be expected of them, to get what they want out of that dog AND make sure their community doesn't pay a price for their actions, decisions and choices. THAT is responsibility. They would understand that a Pedigree is NOT definitive. It can't define a dog. It can only 'type' a dog. So research isn't just about a 'standard' that appeals, its about a species with genetic diversity even within breeds. They don't understand dogs, for the most part. So who is responsible for that? every damn one of us who says 'people are too dumb to learn' or 'You can't fix stupid,' for not trying. For refusing to even try making a tiny bit of difference or give help when they have an ability to respond to what they recognize as a problem, and don't. For not Increasing the ability of others to recognize what is a problem, and not helping them to respond as well as you think you can. The people who say 'Thats not my responsibility" When they actualy do have the ability, they just choose not to use it for the benefit of others. or 'share' it belittling the recipient . Thats not giving a positive view of whats on offer. THAT is responsibility. An ability to respond to dogs effectively, so the people around you aren't disadvantaged by.the fact you have accepted dogs. So the community doesn't pay a price because some members choose to keep dogs. In a way that benefits the community, That helps others to do the same so it becomes what is expected of a person who has accepted dogs. If you have an ability to make a difference and don't, to help people do things better, and don't you are irresponsible. If you think responsibility is some thing you owe your dogs and ends there, you are irresponsible. You are not enabling others to be responsible, you disable them, by rejecting their ability before they are familiar enough to learn and recognize the responses that give ability. If you want to decide who is responsible, its the one who has the ability to respond to a need or demand. Disregarding it once you recognize and understand it is irresponsible. Its not that complicated. Its the same system nature uses in cell cultures and governs survival of organisms. Is it perfect? No. Isn't it the same definition as a response-ability of cells in an organism?. When people are generaly more aware of and familiar with Dogs in their Diversity, Then they aren't so likely to mistake their desire for a type of dog with an ability to handle it and respond to it effectively. Different dogs, different functions, appeal to different homes. People can't understand the appeal of 'standards' or how to achieve them until they can understand diversity. Some working breeds are not only dying out in that role, but the breeders and trainers of those still working are a rapidly aging population with far too few replacements to meet demand. So Its a dying purpose anyway.
  9. Sorry JRG if that sounded like it was 'aimed' at you. Or anyone specificaly. It wasn't and I think its great that you are doing what you are. Your breed has more flexibility than mine. It should continue to have more as long as a good 'field dog' is not tested and trialed in a ring 1st, against only other 'Pedigree' dogs, to determine if it has the desired traits for its job. A standardized environment for a standardized breed only. Like Greys, and many of the ring sports. That too often don't translate to real life environments or scenarios.Or those that do, can't translate to the ring, so don't gain the recognition that might benefit the breed over all and contribute to genetic diversity. I becomes a 'working' dog suited to an 'expert' and limited environment, because it can't respond to any other. Non recognition does have a way of eroding or demeaning the purpose of a breed over time, and the ability of breeders to meet that need while it exists. Reduces even the purpose to a set of traits that complement a set scenario and the training methods that commonly work best for that combination. Which makes it even harder to breed away from the standard thats currently accepted in C.C cultures. Be that show ring or 'sport' ring. Because with out an ability to 'recognize' anything thats not currently contained within the Pedigrees that are recognized, we will continue to loose dogs. Alternative responses to the pedigree, as it stands today, should not be blocked so that it is made such a battle for people like you and TSD. Its much harder for others whos purpose is already eroded to the point of being almost gone, or whos purpose is discredited by no longer offering anything to the common man worth the costs. Like Greyhound racing. Refusal to recognize Dogs as a Whole species removes responsibility. The ability to respond . To conditions other than those currently perceived to be legitimate in the environment that is accepted. Its the physics of biology.
  10. Kajtek, I hope you don't leave. No. None of those things you listed is O.K, you do make sense, and I hope you find a dog that lives up to your expectations. As I have found mine. Not available in ANKC. And it damn well should be. That would be meeting community/environmental demands. It doesn't bother me that I have no ANKC pedigree. But it does bother me that there is refusal to recognize them. As a Dog that just might have some thing worth having. They work, in ways that even the 'accepted' pedigree working version doesn't commonly do. With as much instinct and 'responsibility' to the job as a good sheep dog should have. Yes there absolutely should be variation of type, to appeal to a broader fan base, and for specific conditions and environments. Did anyone read the last link Scrappy&Monty put up? The replies? Those are Dogs working in the field successfully. The Chairman of the Basset hound Club refused to recognize them. They are not Bassets, according to him. They are Mongrels. He judged the dogs on that, and dismissed them. Rejected. He said - (if he was quoted correctly)" How many breeds would you like us to introduce into our breed and still call it pedigree?" Does he mean Pedigree, or does he mean "Pure" Bred? Unbroken, undiluted line as far back as the pedigree goes? Because no ones asked him to introduce other breeds into his pedigrees. So none. But I don't think it would hurt him to recognize a Basset just because some one doesn't follow the accepted show standard, or ANKC rules to achieve their own standard of what a Basset should be. If pedigrees for those dogs have been kept, they are pedigree. Maybe not pure breed. But regardless, to me they are Bassets because thats that what they were bred to be. They are called Bassets. Pedigree or pure bred doesn't come into it. Yes JRG, Its hard to go against the fashion.Maybe thats a good thing and shouldn't be so damn hard it drives people away? So good dogs aren't recognized? I don't think the stud books should just be opened either. But I sure do think a good dog should be 'recognized' even if it was bred in an environment other than the C.Cs, and to the C.Cs current Standards of Condition.. I think maybe if they were, the C.Cs would have better chance of changing the 'Pedigree breeds' for the better. Improvement. " Opening the stud Book will not solve the problem because people will still breed what they like to see be it bandy legs or squashed faces, and what I consider to be undesirable others might applaud" Yes. They might. But when thats the new fashion in the show ring for your breed, its much easier for people to go against the grain and stick with what they believe is the better dog, if they can at least recognize what their own personal version of their breed can look like. Instead of just the version they are permitted to consider when making that call. It would be easier for you to reject the trends you don't believe are for the best, and for you to work against them. If you are free to recognize other examples in the culture of a C.C member. Recognition is not the same as acceptance. You only accept what you are willing to encompass. If the C.Cs don't want to encompass The Albany Bassets, no one should be able to make them. But simple recognition of other versions would go a long way. If there was a refusal to recognize them as Bassets because because they were unfit for the work of a Basset, Or for health reasons, or temperament even, I could understand. No one should be able to force 'acceptance' of any dog not already an accepted part of their pedigrees. But as a culture, recognition of alternatives to the standard you accept when you become a member of your C.C, As it stands at that time....in the show ring where its judged..is needed to move anywhere.
  11. 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 but pedigree standards are deemed worthy of recognition. .I agree common standards should be enforced, for the common people by the people, and not up to ANKC. The general public, dog fraternity and Govts. are only demanding standards that meet the needs of the community, from an organization that perceives its identity as not part of the general community. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.