moosmum

These days, Thai Ridgeback and Kangal.

Kangals are out of the question at my age, have way too much hair and neither breed at all suited to the environment I could provide. Way too risky!

There have been so many other breeds I have liked at various stages though, from Lakeland Terriers to Akitas  Airerdales and  Giant Schnauzer or Black Russian terriers.

2 hours ago, Rebanne said:

what tdierikx said. I'd be arguing about the fees. Let them fine the previous owner for not doing the right thing

 As above. Argue you have not had duty of care for an entire Dog in this instance.

The fee you are being asked to pay is for an entire dog, and thats not what you took delivery of, nor should you be responsible for a late fee if that duty of care was undertaken in a reasonable time frame of accepting delivery.

On 19/01/2024 at 2:37 PM, tdierikx said:

 

Maybe if more people joined and participated we could all help each other? Worth considering, don't you think? Supporter membership is only $10 a year... and you can access the Facebook groups to participate in and get updates on upcoming stuff.

 

T.

Happy to say 'Done' T.

Happy to do that, Thanks T.

Enjoyed your link too.

While they do represent all stake holders, there needs to be clearer incentive or direction for people to support that. At the moment, most pet owners are happy to sign these petitions in support of legislation they have no real understanding of, under the impression its not going to impact them, only improve practices. Blissfully unaware of broader repercussions. 

But there  still needs to be not only provision, but an expectation on,  all owners to support a genuinely representative body. Tying to a national data base/chip org. creates that expectation, and that those services and knowledge provided be used as part of responsible pet ownership.

If the information provided by Embark (or similar, if shown to be more useful)  is expected for all entire dogs and provided as a matter of course, those unplanned litters with unknown parentage and no real purpose are  going to be far less appealing. Esp. when people doing the right thing are made aware of things they never knew they should.

We are closer than most realize. I think the changes I have proposed are essential, asap,  if we are to have any chance of avoiding that future.

With changes being proposed and enacted, the quality of the dogs we have to select from as pet owners is going to be so impacted any value to had will be in terminal decline.

Embark provides COI, breed breakdown and tests for over 200 genetic conditions and more and more as they become available. Maybe not always 100% accurate, but the best available atm.

So called solutions so far are all restrictive/constrictive. They don't provide better abilities of response.

4 hours ago, tdierikx said:

 

I agree that our animal welfare legislation should be constantly reviewed and adjusted to meet better practices in animal welfare.

 

The problem arises when politicians react/legislate in response to what they call "community expectations".

 

Most of the pet owning public are completely unaware of the political processes that happen at regular intervals relating to animal related legislation. Consultation processes are not widely advertised generally, and it's usually only those who are politically active that take part in such consultations... and given that the AR (Animal Rights) movement are politically active in large numbers, their agendas are usually the loudest "voice" that is being heard.

 

 

 

Never in our history have pet owners and carers been more directly affected by the political process with regard to animal welfare legislation. Our parliaments have been infiltrated by AR ideologies - not only AJP, but the Greens as well - and these people are looking to change animal ownership in ways that none of us want, so please, please get involved when the opportunity arises, OK?

 

T.

I don't think that will change until there is a body to represent the general pet owning public, made up of same. Seems we pay for registration, but get little benefit ourselves from the processes. I believe if we are to pay for registration fees that assist with animal management, that must in fairness include real and informed (and Informing) representation of just what these fees are supporting. A portion of any fees collected should be used to support inform and educate the public on such matters, and encourage participation for real effective ability of response by the pet owning public. Responsibility can't be effective while its not presented either to or by those its expected from.

Much more effective solutions to problems are out there- But as you have pointed out,  their isn't effectively representation.

Ie, I believe instead of discouraging breeding  through high fees for entire dogs, they could include genetic testing of all entires through Embark( for the extensive and inclusive range of genetic conditions tested for, and the research it funds) this automatically fosters greater understanding of risks or benefits associated with breeding that animal, and the responsibilities that might go with it.

The results could be tied to microchip details and  be made available to any purchaser of pups/dogs. 

I have 100% confidence that such a move would  revolutionize responsible dog breeding,  management and community responsibility.

Fees could also fund the running of a site similar to DOL, but for all pet owners and interests where links to upcoming legislative debates, research results etc must be posted, and can be effectively debated before enactment.

A single national microchip data base, community forum and information hub, plus mandatory D.N.A testing of entire dogs where results are made available to prospective buyers could combine with sales pages for buyers and assist with financing. 

The community must be more involved. This gives them the tools to take responsibility. Not just for breeding that takes place, but for buyers as well.

There is always risk, those who can demonstrate they have done all they can humanly do to avoid it, should not be penalized.

Hybrid vigor is a real thing. Its effects are only in 1st crosses, not subsequent mates  and won't help much if both are carriers or positive for the same issues. Many genetic ailments  these days are found across multiple  breeds so health testing would still be required. That was not always the case,  more so as time passes with out addressing the issues effectively.   I see no reason why it should be discouraged.

The poor results in examples cited are not simply because they are cross breeds, more that the pure breeds used were not effectively screened for those faults.

You can not with hold quality health screened pure breeds, then condemn breeders for not using them. 

A good example of crying  'Irresponsible!'  while the ability to respond any better is withheld.

I do agree with both @sandgrubber and @tdierikx though, that 'hybrid vigor' is not a cure for most genetic conditions with out proper health screening.

it can be of great use though to reclaim traits lost, give new ones, modify extremes,   increase diversity or modes of  inheritance for those maybe tied to faults in one breed, but maybe not in another.

Yes, I think we are on the same page. 

People seem to have a poor understanding of what environment is, and how it applies to either an Organization or an Organism.

One breed can thrive in many different environments/situations, and  gain support for that enhanced response ability. Increased diversity follows, with breeders  able to focus on the traits they value for their purpose, or elimination of faults/disease that interfere with their effectiveness.

Labs are in a unique place where K.Cs Standards as defined in the show ring are not such absolute arbiters of the dogs worth. Its easy to censure individuals who put their own purpose before breed standards, Not so easy to discredit  breeders with the backing of organizations with broader representation than show line Lab breeders. Labs are in a better place for it.  

Motor vehicles evolve for performance,  efficiency and safety. They are not stuck with the limitations of their original templates or split into different classes based on color.  The Form limits function and value to be had from it. Which is why function dictates form and not the other way around.

Homozygosity is the inevitable result of breeding to type or standard in systems where deviation from the recognized  (ie, what is  familiarly seen) is discouraged.

As it will be when a standard is imposed before other considerations can be met. The refusal of K.Cs to recognize cross breeds or non-pedigreed Dogs simply speeds up the process, But also ensures it.

The early days of the breed standards included much more diversity. Differences  were seen, and recognized as some thing not foreign to to the standard set. The less they are seen, the more they are regarded as foreign. There was more room for breeders to focus on their own priorities. Line breeding increases, not decreases the homozygosity of breed standards because its inevitable that lines will mix over time. You are right though that whats lost is very hard to get back....Impossible in a closed system, since you  only have access to whats left.

Domestic Dogs were selected in a natural process for the purposes they served their Human environments, and their abilities to respond to its demands.

Dogs evolved according to the purposes they were bred for, and types emerged to suit. Form follows function. Breeds were recognized from those types, with much diversity from both individual preference and priority, and local conditions.

Standards take precedence over individual preference and priority. Over Environment. You have a Pedigree system in decline or entropy because it has put all its value into a state, rather than purpose. A breeds Statehood has become the purpose, and all states are in entropy when maintenance of the state succeeds its purpose.

Problems arising from this are difficult to address when there is no recognition of alternatives within the recognized 'Standard" or state of the breeds.

When environment is recognized, problems can be readily addressed as recognized at the individual level.

When Environment is not, problems tend to remain unrecognized until they are near universal to the Standard, and then a universal strategy is employed or imposed across the state, while other problems gain traction. To top that off, the only avenues available to address the problems are to reduce the state of the breed  or adherents in question to disclude the problem.

A viable state, standard or Objective is one that serves a purpose to its environment, and responds to its demands. Evolves and alters to meet them.

One that values its own statehood above the demands of Environment can't do that. 

The Objective has no value. Negative Value.

All value is subjective. 

When the value is put into the Objective, It can only manifest in the negative. Thats the reality.

3 hours ago, Podgus said:

The problem I see is the dogged pursuit of ‘purity’. That can only ever go one way. To the bottom of the ever shallowing gene pool. Close a gene pool, keep breeding within that closed gene pool. Problems arise. Health Test the shit out of everything. Chuck out anything flagged in a health test depleting the gene pool more. More problems. More advanced health testing….more genes lost. All the while insisting everything that’s not deemed ‘suitable’ at 12 weeks is desexed….

that’s the other side of bringing back heath with out crossing…..there not much left out there due to the mindset of desexing. 
The saying ‘for the betterment of the breed’. Wtf does that even mean. It’s like people need to see incremental forward movement in everything these days. Somehow can’t be happy that something is great the way it was and work on keeping it that way. 
ughh I could go on and on. But for me, while I appreciate a ‘breed’ a ‘pedigree’ it is not the future for dogs. The whole show scene, the locked in standards, it’s almost run it’s course. It’s a blip in time. I just hope dogs can claw their way out of the mess.

There are as many great dogs outside the pedigree arena as there are inside of it. We just need to see past, outside.

 

and thanks @moosmum for taking the time to post. I always enjoy your critical thinking. Another thing disappearing …..

I have a clumsy way of expressing myself but I love reading critical thought. 
 

You manage better than I do. Good to see you back!

The dogged pursuit of purity, and the statement that that nothing 'less' be recognized.

An 'Objective' with a negative bias, is a negative objective.

It destroys the foundations Domestic Dogs were built upon, and undermines their foundations leaving them nothing to stand on.

Like it or not, Domestic Dogs were developed by back yard Breeders, Selecting for their own needs, in their own back yards, to complement their own values and objectives. Thats what gave us the 'pure' breeds we love, and kept them 'working' reliably for their intended purpose(s), in multiple environments.

No other singular objective can viably replace that.

3 hours ago, asal said:

 

 

yet the ankc can and has opened the register.   Remember when it had classification days and accepted classified Australian stumpy tailed cattledogs into the "development register" and ultimately full pedigree of their descendants.   so they have proven this can be done.

 

 

I expect this will become the case down the track for many breeds facing extinction within the register.  As the Stumpies proved, there are tens of thousands being bred outside the ankc to replace the gene pool within the ankc.

 

Certainly if the ankc wants to continue to exist.

 

Yes. So its in their interests not to eliminate 'backyard breeders'.

When they could encourage them instead to make use of the knowledge and tools out there to do it better.

It would provide a healthier environment to draw these dogs from. And a more informed/responsible customer base.

On 16/04/2023 at 9:05 AM, Adrienne said:

 

I am finding this a bit hard to follow. 

Its not easy, and I have a hard time finding how to express it so it is.

Basically, we can promote the expectation  dogs welfare needs be met. That would mean people need to understand what those needs are, and how meeting them effectively  gives better out comes for dogs, their owners and the community. It means recognition of the value dogs bring, and how we can maximize on that. Understanding breed and individual behaviors  temperament and needs.

How its done  evolves, with the dogs themselves, and along with Humanity. Varies situationally, or with the environment in which they are kept.Always has. There is nothing artificial about the Domestication of dogs. Their environment is Humanity and faces the same environmental interplay as other species, in their environments.

Or we can take the attitude being promoted by most, and lay out in minute detail exactly how those needs are to be met. But that assumes all dogs will always have the same requirements and all breeding environments are identical. Only dogs that thrive in those 'standardized' breeding environments will contribute to the  evolution of Dogs.

The conditions set out must be achieved  before a dog is selected for breeding, and takes long enough to set up that an individual dogs breeding potential will most likely be lost by the time it is. At least if a person is only considering breeding because they recognize they have some thing really special, worth breeding. It benefits a commercial motive above any other and directs breeding to that end. Other purpose for breeding  will be steadily lost over time, because a return on investment becomes essential 

A majority of people will find the conditions set out beyond their capabilities for financial reasons, space, zoning etc. Regardless of their actual capabilities  to meet the needs of the dogs in their care. So we have far fewer breeders, and far less variation in the dogs. The conditions are far more favorable to some than others, taking into account individual temperaments and behaviors and costs other than financial.

Also, and most importantly as far as I see, There is no expectation promoted, that breeders understand the dogs needs, the value of what they are doing, or why its done. The standards adhered to replace that need. As long as they provide the specified conditions, they're deemed 'responsible'. But its not to the dogs, its to the 'standard' or objective state of care. Weather its the one that best suits the individual dog or not. They don't need to have a clue about Dogs, so long as they understand the code.

All this means that the diverse environments dogs thrive in today, are reduced. They loose environment, because they are not being selected for response  to those. Just the cash they can bring at any given time while other contributions fade away from reduced opportunity.

On 16/04/2023 at 9:05 AM, Adrienne said:

 

On 16/04/2023 at 10:41 AM, coneye said:

Think you hit on something there ,, my current dog was fro the pound ,  previous dogs all been pedigrees from breeders , but like i said when looking for another shepard i gave up ,  the breeders dogs i looked at has far as i;m concerned were all ugly , unhealthy looking   jackel faced hunched backed  , short legged ,  BAD EXAMPLES  , that  cost an absolute fortune  and i think the only gaurantee i would of got is i'm gonna get huge vet bills ,, However   the one or two i did see   that were good looking dogs came from European stock  and were very very expensive and being bred more for security  , price   was out of my reach ,, But if jane up the road who had a nice one , decided she was going to mate her bitch with  peters  nice dog ,  provided both parents had a good temperment i would'nt hesitate to buy and could'nt care less if they were so called BYB  , 9 times out of 10 its them owners proud of there dogs and want to see some offspring , course there are exceptions ,, but the thing is they are breeding there dogs to  there   expectations of what  the breed is , not some show standard that keeps changing largely depending on who in power shouts the loudest    and wants change to suit there own dogs

This is why breeding out side of the registries should be recognized  and continue. Those breeders are the interface between the org. and its environment, whos needs and demands can't be met if they are not recognized.

I don't think this is off topic at all, when the O.P was pretty much about getting all steak holders to realize they have a part to play if any thing is to change.

I am not breeding ATM and haven't for nearly 10 years now, but was a similar situation to to yourself @Adrienne(Type @symbol followed by the name you are tagging, a list using the letters you type will pop up and by clicking the name you want it will embed). Looks like I have a good chance of resurrecting my line so so may be doing a last litter depending on the dams D.N.A results. Test just arrived, and litter all spoken for unless its much bigger than usual.

Fully agree buyers could (and should) be the biggest drivers if we expect support for the results. Breeders for their part need to stop protecting buyers from their own ignorance by trying to legislate responsibility. All thats doing is restrict it.  Its gone  beyond stating what should be provided. ie Sufficient clean food and water, shelter, daily  social and physical opportunities etc that should be subjectively assessed, to laying out an objective state that can only represent responsibility. Not real, because its not subjective. Not inclusive of environment, objective to.

Responsibilitys not a 'state' that can be maintained. The more 'fixed' a state is (thru' legislation in this case) the faster it will decay.  its a response, to expectations and demands of the environment. A fixed state can't effectively respond to those in any reasonable time frame to effect long term viability.

ANKC is a state 'fixed' to disregard and with hold free flow of information between the org. and its environment. Its not recognized.

ANKC is caught or trapped in their own state, in trying to re-enforce its separation from its environment. The 'rest of us'.

Maybe different because theirs was founded by Hunters, using the system to breed more effectively for performance/responsibility rather than presentation.

From what I've just researched on them, I'm impressed. Not  what I still want- What is the organizational attitude to breeding of dogs out side of any registry system?

Are these people discouraged from breeding at all, Or encouraged to make use of the same tools and knowledge?

Any shift  effective long term is going to depend on improving breeding practices beyond the registries in tandem. That population will prove essential to maintain in healthy condition for dogs to remain accessible and versatile in our communities. 

Responsibility is  ability to respond. If people are going to take it, Providing the tools for getting it right gives it. 

Demonstrates the value of getting it right by intention. 

Demonstrates the value of Breeders whos intent that is.

There is no other effective way to show the value of what breeders do, than to encourage them to know it.

Support for Breeders can't be expected if what people  are being offered is too far behind their requirements. The environment of the Organization is  the driver of its direction.

Or its not viable long term.

Like it or not.

Its reality, and biological/evolutionary law.

And I'm saying that no ones driving any more.

No one can or will take up that responsibility.

Instead, every one shrugs or points the finger at every one else as the car keeps on rolling into the abyss.

Doesn't matter who is driving. It matters that people are encouraged to, with out being thrown out the window for the mess out side as soon as they take the wheel.

Never mind. I'm done here. Can't do it, too late.

5 hours ago, Diva said:

Wouldn’t matter what the show people did with French Bulldog selection now, they breed a small % of the breed  -  conformation, colours and coat types are way out of any influence from the show standard. Social influencers have more impact. 

 

Those non-ankc breeders could lengthen faces if they wanted, just as they breed long coats, merle etc.

But they breed what people want to buy, and part of the community want that extreme look even as others seek to condemn it. 
 

(not saying show breeders shouldn’t breed for health, but they are a small part of the dog world when it comes to the commercially popular breeds).

I think you under estimate the influence the oldest representative body for Dog Breeders has, and has had. If the 'ethical' experts see no need to address the problems, there is no expectation being set to do so. You can't hold the environment responsible for the failures of dogs and breeders by abdicating ANKCs own.

7 hours ago, Amazetl said:

What are they so afraid of if they outcross or use the healthiest least squished dogs as breeding to properly ‘better’ the breed health wise? 

 

Are they unsure if their dog breed will change who they are behaviour wise if they bring in another dog breed? Or is it about the public wanting the squishy look? They sure are popular despite all the warnings and how so many of them need thousands and thousands in surgery so they can breathe a little better. 

 

I know some of these dog breeds are very endearing in their characters and I’d guess they don’t want to change that too much. But in the past dogs have been brought back from near extinction by outcrossing and crossing back etc (don’t know the correct terms for it). So why not do more? I guess it seems too big to properly manage/police/keep records etc. 

 

It’s sad that some of the most loved dog breeds are being banned for health in some areas of the world and just are so sick. Poor things. 

The constitution of ANKC decided on its formation the make-up of its membership. Thats what a constitution is/does. It provides the objective purpose and properties of the organization or 'body' of its constituent membership. The constitution can only do what its directed to. Its the 'genetic' blue print for the body created.

The kennel Clubs were ostensibly created for the purpose of improving Dog Breeding,  using  pedigrees to increase the information available to breeders, to better understand the genetics and back ground of breeding stock used- To understand the foundations being built on in any mating. 

This should have been the creation of an environment where a service is provided to Dog breeders to make use of, and promote the value of doing so through demonstration.ie, the results should speak for themselves. You want the best dog possible for what you will invest in it? One bred with consistent deliberation of its content should afford you the best chance of meeting your expectations. If thats seen to be true, support will follow.

The closed stud books and standards have been a huge problem, but one that could and should have have been easily overcome long ago,by informed consensus of membership. What has made this  impossible to achieve in any effective way is the constitution of the body. That was  in-formed  with a belief or bias against the environment it was ostensibly to serve. Dogs and Breeders.

An effective constitution has a  clear objective set out to define (give margins and limitation to) its membership or property. It is only concerned with what takes place within the body of its membership, in service to the  objective. It must be that way, to have integrity and viability as a 'body'.

If its margins or definitions are not clear, there is no Objectivity. Objectivity is dependent on disregarding relationship, or there is there is bias.

The Kennel clubs were in-formed with the language of the constitution. Language is biological. Its what D.N.A operates with. When the K.Cs made the declaration on their founding documents that they do not recognize cross breed dogs, or dogs not bred according to the  rules and regulations set out in their constitution, The  Objective was corrupted and lost. No longer viable in the long term. The bodies definition is  reduced. Its no longer a clear objective. Its now dependent on a negative bias towards what takes place beyond its own body or definition. 

Its not reality. Value is ALWAYS subjective. The Objective has no value. Any value  found in the objective, is  subjective. The K.Cs  applied a value to their objective in a accepting a declaration  contradictory to their objective. It creates a double negative in the language they are founded on. It means the opposite of what was intended and its been operating on this false reality for over 150 years now. Well entrenched and only doing what its programed to do according the language used. An objective must be independent of value, beyond its 'being'. Any declaration or statement regarding what occurs beyond the objective body must corrupt its definition.

ANKC objective is not improvement of Dogs, or Breeding practices. According to the language given, its objective is to Standards or  'states' that are recognized by  content, as  present, and verified by certification to contain no 'less' than the content of its own state . An English Bulldog or Pug with a longer nose or healthier physique is no longer a bulldog.  Its an alteration of the state a member has agreed to recognize as one. It can't be rewarded in the ring without the judge facing a backlash supported by the constitution all members agreed to when signing up.  If the pedigree is 'broken' in achieving the healthier version, the backlash must be even worse. Its value or verification is null and void according to ANKC constitution.

I don't expect this explanation will make any more difference than than I have achieved in the past, and its damn frustrating to to keep trying when what you are up against is, essentially, Faith. Faith in the Pedigree system to be the only valid representation of a Dog or Breeder, as it stands today.

But I have repeated stated where this must inevitably lead, and how to correct it. And watched as it all comes to pass. I think its too late now to save dogs, unless there was immediate action and I see no sign of that. ANKCs constitution does not allow for recognition of whats beyond their own instruction.

Even when it ensures only destruction.

In short, reality depends on proper application of the Objective and Subjective in tandem. When its not correctly applied, The objective reality is not viable.

Its discredited. So Dogs and their Breeders are still going to be discredited to the point of non- existence. There is no clear definition between the objective and subjective values.

I like Embark because it  tests extensively for health and results/information provided assists in further research.

I'm Sorry for the loss of your pup @asal  

For your heart   

I'd be happy to have them keeping the 'roos down here, they are way 'over stocked' in our area where they tend to be fed and watered but rarely preyed on by either humans or anything else. A huge buck of over 7 ft is often in my yard and has to be watched for when I go out at night. Its not uncommon to see up to 50 'Roos grazing a 5 acre paddock.

Water access and feed issues in drought doesn't impact wild populations near as much while there are farms ensuring their stock have access.

Great new!

We have all been worried about you and your little family. We will be a lot happier giving advise now we have the all clear, and hope your stress levels are down more too. It is horribly stressful when things go wrong.  You haven't had an easy time for a 1st time breeder. Good for you coming here and asking /taking advise,  and for your dedication to seeing these little guys pull through.

You asked earlier was the tea given to mum or put on- pretty sure its given to mum. may syringe a little into her mouth at a time. In her water, she may just not drink. Hope we keep hearing how things are going. We are here to help where we can.

There are a lot of things that may help, but your vet is the only one who can decide what is needed. Yes, consult fee and injection might be all you need. You are not obligated to pay for more than you agree to. At least you will have a better idea that what you are already paying for is actually doing the job, and you have some thing at the end for your efforts

I hope mum has not retained a pup or placenta.

Vets/nurses will rarely recommend any treatment until they can see what they are treating.

23 hours ago, Mairead said:

Thanks for that, moosmum. Well below breed average, that's good isn't it?

Years ago I had to get X rays of my dog done as part of the contract for frozen semen from the USA. Vets here were surprised I was asking for it to be done. Here it was still the 0 - 106 (BVA?) scheme and there it was OFA which didn't have number scores, only word grades, so much discussion of translation of results from one scheme to the other.

 

I like how this is set out, very clear and knowing where it falls on the breed average is very useful too. Looks good to me, and the bitch scored even better.

One happy man keen to meet his dream dog, hes waited a long time and her breeder has put in a lot of effort to give a great foundation.

Thats a start, for the pup. Yes both will need  feeding but the tube should not be needed if they are suckling. Yes, take them all to the Vets. 

you can't deal with this on your own.

 
A crap situation to find yourself in. Sounds like you are doing all within your control  to save this pup,.

But we can't give any advise without knowing the cause, or what we are dealing with. There could be damage to his mouth, throat, or abdomen.  The pup needs a proper examination to rule out injuries or other causes, and to advise on the best plan of action and how to go about it. There is a reason he won't suckle.

Anything less relies on luck.

You are trying your luck on you tube. We can't help. We can't do better. Only a thorough vet examination can give reliable answers.

I genuinely do wish you the best of luck, but thats the best any of could do. And a Merry Christmas. Very sorry.

6 hours ago, Mairead said:

Can't help you with that. I had sighthounds. 

I would be interested to know more though.

Different countries and some breeds have their own systems. Some have number scores and some have words (eg Very Good) or letter scores.

For your interest then. This one is pretty straight forward. I don't think we can reasonably expect better.

I've been helping my son find his match.

Thanks guys for steering me right.