Jump to content

moosmum

Community Members
  • Content count

    1,526
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

About moosmum

  • Rank
    Forum Regular
  • Birthday 11/02/1960

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

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

Extra Info

  • Location
    NSW

Recent Profile Visitors

5,479 profile views
  1. Tragedy at Zoo Krefeld on new year's eve

    Read about this. Just
  2. Goodbye Dozer

    So hard to feel, the decision is for them when the heart can only say NO! Be good to yourself.
  3. Last Goodbye 14/12/19

    So sorry for your loss. What a sweetheart!
  4. Inquiry into animal cruelty laws in New South Wales

    Yes. Without the legal /prosecution powers they have been tasked with, that is the logical direction the organisation should have headed. Ensuring public awareness of animals physical and mental needs does more to improve animal welfare than laws dictating HOW those are to be met, As we see with some of the legislation thats been introduced. Legislation dictating 'How' does not inform anyone of why its expected, why those practices are an improvement, or considered improvement over what? Bitches whelping in a family home? Legislation does not allow alternative environments or conditions that could be more beneficial, or alternative methods of meeting needs of the animals that work better in the conditions faced by their keepers. So reduces people and environments able to meet those needs, or understand the purpose of the legislation being adopted. They might understand this is the environment you must provide before you can keep an animal, But less of the reason behind it.(ignoring those already experienced) If they don't understand the needs they should be meeting, or why meeting them is a good thing, they are more likely to make mistakes out of ignorance. And we need more legislation/restrictions on who and how to keep animals. Eroding familiarity with their needs and your responsibilities even more. There should be legislation to ensure people provide for the needs of the animals in their care. I don't think How thats to be done should be part of it. It does not take into account the conditions dealt with by individual animals or people, or how they could deal with their conditions more or as effectively than legislation allows. Nor does it allow for evolution of needs to be considered or developed. People are more likely to do things well when they understand the purpose of doing it. The types of Legislation being pushed doesn't foster that understanding, but does hinder it.
  5. Inquiry into animal cruelty laws in New South Wales

    When you think on it, it was a bad idea from the start. Prevention of animal cruelty ,Tied to a duty of prosecution- pretty much dictates the 'method' of prevention that must be relied on as a legal responsibility. It limits those orgs. to a prosecutorial and legislative role to achieve the intent of prevention. Through punishment after the fact. That actually corrupts the ideal of ' prevention of cruelty to animals' . To something more like 'punishment and limitation of animal husbandry'. It must do that if punishment and limitation are are the legal responsibility of 'prevention'. The legal responsibility precedes their own intent.
  6. Inquiry into animal cruelty laws in New South Wales

    I've done one, didn't notice where others could be read. I think this is very under publicised. The petition linked over the seized cattle should reference it!
  7. Dual purposes have been good to the breed. I hope it stays that way. Its a worry though when show lines start to take a clearly different direction. As the difference between working/show lines becomes more clear, that can cause show breeders to reject that advantage/diversity in favour of what will excel in the show ring- Its no longer the same criteria. Different environmental expectations, or acceptable standards. What is recognisable as an acceptable representative of the breed comes to be defined in the show ring and the qualities that give the breed its versatility are incidental. Most often lost very quickly. Because ANKC standards, are verified in the show ring. The show ring sets ANKCs environmental expectation. Other environments are not recognised to contribute value to that standard. The GSD and Doberman had similar advantage, once. Some breeders tried to keep the best of both worlds. And today both breeds are almost completely gone in a working capacity. The need for standardised training methods, testing and demonstration in what is an industry has lead to behavioural extremes, and an ignorance of diversity and 'responsibility' that rivals the show ring.
  8. Daschund Killed in Park in Pakenham, VIC

    Terrible for all concerned. Poor people. Poor Dogs. I won't speculate as to what was going on. Or through peoples heads. It would have been extremely traumatic for every one and its not clear what was happening or how it started from the bits I've seen. I do think that screaming, frightened child/owners and multiple unknown dogs in the confusion makes it a lot more more complicated than a fight between 2 dogs with the victor going beyond 'acceptable' defence. A lot of mistakes made for sure, by all parties but without knowing full facts, the only one clear to me is 3 unattended dogs. The owners have paid a horrible price for that. And I hope who ever is in charge of investigating this is very well versed in canine behaviour and psychology because even the owners of the Staffy are likely to view that dog with a measure of horror now, that may or may not be deserved.
  9. Goodbye Zephy Man

    @grumpette I love hearing of your dogs and the joy they bring to their owners and other people. Great ambassadors for their breed and dog ownership. Thank you Zephy, for Being so much to so many.
  10. I'm perplexed

    Yes. Seems to be the new 'responsible'. Can't have dogs capable of reproducing in the hands of the public. They might actually need to learn some things. That would be promoting an expectation of responsibility. I suppose no outrage because its encouraged as 'compliance and accountablility' with 'responsible' practice. Backward logic. I am out raged, and have been beating my head against a wall. Likely too late now to change. I hope not, but it does need a lot more outrage to do that. Stop 'promoting' expectations based on the lowest common denominator. Start show casing what can be accomplished without allowing that to be constantly discredited. Celebrate efforts to do better to promote positive expectations. Stop expecting perfection to a single set of standards because they will never been agreed, only further defined. That can never accomodate multiple environments. Only eliminate them till nothings left to stand on.. In short, If any of us want dogs as HUMANS we have to believe Humans can be responsible for them. Not governments, corporations or Registries. They can only be responsible for their own 'bodies' Attacking them for not doing enough only takes away our own abilities to make judgements based on our own individual conditions, and what, in those circumstances, is best for the dogs and ourselves. Allow recognition of a dog fit for purpose even if we don't personally approve of where it came from. The 'Standard' of a doberman I need to work, in the conditions I live with, might not be the same 'Standard' that 'works' in the show ring or even security. Different purposes. But the breed is richer for that, not poorer. No less valid.
  11. I'm perplexed

    Not sure how it would improve things. You might see something I don't? It would increase costs of production for some breeds, and mean more profit for others, but not based on Demand. And I see no problem with getting rewarded for meeting demand ( tho' I don't mean volume demand) A breeder who sees a market for a breed not currently in Australia, who imports at great cost, has a lot of suitable buyers lined up, should be able to recoup costs. Same for a breeder who spends a fortune searching out and testing dogs to eliminate disease or defects. Or to 'work' in conditions or for a purpose not commonly bred for. Reward for going beyond expectations should be incentivised. Positive reinforcement. If people are willing to pay more for a dog bred away from cosmetic extremes, ( and not being torn apart for doing it!) that should influence whats winning conformation shows, eventually. There should be more reward to breeding for a specific purpose, well planned and researched, than for a dog bred with no planning, research or goal in mind. For our so called 'superior intelligence', it seems our learning methods aren't much different to other animals. Recognition of patterns. If i do this there are benefits and rewards. If I try to do this there is punishment. This, gives neither. We push positive training for dogs. For all our so called 'superior intelligence' it seems we learn best as any animal does.
  12. I'm perplexed

    Because they play on the emotions of people. Ignore the science that doesn't re-enforce their message and double down where it does. They find and display the worst examples of abuse, then call for laws to ban those environments where they have taken place. Like Greyhound racing. Live exports, etc. Yes, there are abuses. And yes we should end them. But I don't see that cancelling the environments where they have taken place is the answer. It always has unforseen effects. Especially when its so easy to manufacture abuse for a camera, if your narrative calls for that. A.R has such strong influence because people support banning things, rather than improving them because improvement is never fast enough to keep pace with expectation. It will always lag behind. In evolutionary terms, Demonstration of better, followed by Expectation to imitate that demonstration, then response to the new expectations that have been set. I've seen support for A.R agendas here. Who doesn't want to end abuse? It comes back to the same thing. Ban the environment instead of improving the responses to match expectation. Improvement is slower for sure. But works. Because it doesn't destroy diversity but adds to it. A ban is an attack on environments. Its irresponsible, because it does not require familiarity, recognition and response. Just get rid of it, and no need to think of it. It won't 'bother' you again. But it will cause other problems. The loss of environments cascades. We going to ban them all? Or start being responsible, by helping to fix what we can, where we can. So it works better for more people. Providing solutions for the cause.
  13. I'm perplexed

    One thing.... I do NOT think lobbying to tighten laws is the answer- just takes us further down this road. Rather, I think promoting the benefits of dogs bred in family/human/ home environments. Selected for how well they fit into and respond to the environments they are bred for. Selected for success and value to the environments they are bred in. And stop making it harder, for anyone. Just teach people that that if you want a companion/guardian for the farm to follow your kids around but leave the animals alone and get on with the sheep dogs , search for dogs doing just that, and bred because they are doing it effectively and happily because they were bred for that job.. A show dog? Predictable type pedigree as a pet/companion? Sport dog? Working dog? Ditto. Look for parent dogs successfully demonstrating those response abilities to purpose. If you want a dog that will happily wait all day, maybe with a canine companion and some toys, for you give it some attention when you get home and not be a bother when you are otherwise occupied, then a puppy farmed dog might actually be the ticket. But with responsibility for breeding ALL dogs for a genuine purpose and selecting based on success at that purpose, We demonstrate and promote higher expectations than puppy farm accessories. We create a demand, for more, than that. Puppy farmed dogs will be selected from stock that do well in confined areas with limited exposure to stimulus out side their living space. Might well suit modern dog owners, who have little time to spend with their pets. No so much those wanting a working dog, sports dog, service dog or any variation involving more than a companion for the home or lap.
  14. I'm perplexed

    According to organisation as organism theory all countries face similar futures while the Pedigree fraternity refuse to 'recognise' non pedigree dogs or breeders. That amounts to a refusal to recognise environment and the result is to reduce environment. How, or how quickly depends on the culture that instruction is operating on. Australias attitude to dogs historically was more; keep them out of the house, they are for work, not pets. If pets, they are animals 1st. If you choose to keep them as 'pets' thats fine, so long as others aren't forced to treat them as any more than animals. So its been faster here than some other places. Some worse. I think our only hope now is to wake up other countries in hopes they can end this and provide a better example of what actually works. There is not much time though, the process increases fast after so much time shaping society to one that will support these moves .Incidentally, we see the same sort of things happening with the polarisation of politics. Organisation as Organism works, but is more 'culture' as organism. It has huge implications.
  15. I'm perplexed

    Add to this the new affordability of spey and neuter at a time when 'Back yard breeding' came into focus and attack from ANKC . More people opting for the ease and peace of mind afforded, while those who didn't were discredited as irresponsible, regardless of weather there was a plan or purpose behind a mating. Irresponsibility of breeders in the headlines, be they pedigree (P.D.E) Puppy farms, Backyard breeders. Poor breeding practices were the focus, but No longer based on individual practices and results, but on the environment producing them. BYB , puppy farm or ANKC. Because ANKC drew the distiction. Based on environment, not value delivered .The environment is seen to be the value. It was no longer about what a person does to ensure value to the dogs and their market, or how effective or ineffective that was proving. Rather than discussion of responsible breeding practices and the purpose of producing dogs that should add value to their species and the people who own them, It became about which environments met the most stringent conditions. Not individuals who respond well, but what environments ensure they do so. ANKC hamstrung their membership, adding that a breeders goal should not be profit to avoid being tarred with the puppy farm brush, though it was already in their mission statement that the purpose of breeding was improvement. Keep the environments distinct and separate so ANKC is untainted. Again, not by practices of irresponsible individuals. But by environments seen to support irresponsible practices . All of them will. As long as people breed dogs, and people buy dogs without understanding the practices that maximise the potential value of ownership in any environment. That misunderstanding will increase, while environments are held to account. And the responsibility of breeders operating to provide recognisable value to broad and diverse environments of domestic dogs are discredited and diminished.Based on environment. All we are left to work with is which environment best enforces conditions and limitations that disallow other possibility. Disallow response. The longer this continues, the more support it gains because that is the expectation we are promoting- That environments have responsibility. An individual is only responsible for choosing the right one. A Commercial environment will win out, because as we keep defining the conditions of 'responsible breeder' environment, it a) becomes more costly to meet or provide those conditions. b) Doing so carries an expectation of regulation. Because response-ability requires familiarity, recognition and acceptance of those conditions. Only those meeting them could find 'value' in doing so. Its no longer an open and transparent environment influenced by demand, or open to evolutionary influence. because of those we have c) 'Domestic Dogs' are removed from their environment of humanity Its no longer shaped by humanity and their needs, demands or responses to it.. Its shaped by an alternate environment designed to suppress recognition of a dogs value, in favour of the environment/conditions that must be in place before any can can be recognised. It demands the environment respond and support a species, instead of environment accepting based on what responds to and supports it. Wrong way around. Bass akward thinking that will have the opposite effect to the desired outcome. It won't improve dogs or their environment, it will reduce both. You can't blame the buyers, the breeders or even the legislators while claiming the environment a dog comes from decides its value potential.There is no response-ability in that . If laws are being broken, there are grounds to remove this puppy farm. If not, people now unfamiliar with the realities of canine husbandry will will trust the regulation of an industry removed from familiarity and recognition. Public society has been deemed too irresponsible to breed dogs. So that ability of response is being removed to corporate bodies. Their regulation will be decided by the demands of a society unfamiliar with the practicalities of meeting them, but with expectations dependent on whats demonstrably available.
×