moosmum

Agreed. I wouldn't say prey drive is widely used as a training tool, but much more accepted for the purpose in many breeds and sports for the very sharp and showy response that drive can give and the greater availability of people/video able to teach how to make use of it. especially in its more extreme forms, I do believe it was much more quickly 'culled' from dogs in the past, with sociability and impulse control expected more often as individual traits rather than specific to handler control. And strong prey being a drive I expect is quick to resurface without being actively selected against. No training at all....quite likely. Dog parks have their problems and I don't see that a dog beach would be much different.

I would not risk riding on a dog beach these days. Not many dogs could be expected to be 'socialised' to horses, and prey drive/defence/pack drives could all easily come into play. 1st with a strange beast rushing towards then galloping away. Prey drives, I believe, are much more utilised and accepted today than in the past as a training tool. Not to excuse those attacks, but I do think high drives in dogs intended as pets are much more prevalent than say 50 years ago, when dogs were less confined and sociability/trustworthy was part of their 'environmental selection'. A higher degree of selection for response to unpredictable environments and triggers was at play. Even dogs used to horses will often want to run with those when they are having a good gallop, and take a mixed group of dogs unfamiliar with horses and throwing them together with horses at speed, IMO is not worth the risk. I don't think many owners could say they would be well prepared for that situation.

Nah, not the same thing, but I watched my sisters Dingo X GSD do the same. Sister on the phone, Dog stands over the rubbish bin and waits till she looks before grabbing a mouth full and bolting. Sis tried to cure counter surfing with chilli in meat. Dog takes one and gives sister a 'look' then deliberately takes the rest. A hand full that girl, with brains I loved!

I 'm pretty sure there is a genetic component as well. Other research I've read says storm phobias in particular generally occurr around 6 yrs. I think it can be genetic or environmental, both or neither. Not sure if gun shy would be the same but I do know I would avoid a dog if either parent had noise phobia, and especially a young dog showing signs. Behaviour isn't some thing I would be willing to compromise for type. You loose an ability for the dogs bred to respond to their purpose.

I also think the study was too narrow with only 2 breeds. With my own dogs, (livestock and personal protection) We kept mostly females over a long period . The male was just as sensitive to emotion but handled it very differently. A female was provided with a dark box in the lounge during a thunderstorm. Her phobia stemmed from a lightning strike at home while we were away. Two other females in contact with her during storms also developed storm phobias. ( I keep storm phobic dogs away from others when distressed now) Our boy did not. This day he lay at the entrance to the box offering comfort and would get up now and again to go outside and watch the storm before going back to comfort and guard. We had a woman visiting who was terrified of dogs after an attack as a child. She was visibly cowering. I was about to put the boy away for her when he approached the woman with the most submissive and loose posture he had ever displayed and lifted her hand with his head. He was allowed to stay, the woman was not afraid of him though he was a huge boy. It was beautiful watching her smile, reach out to him and her tension just melt away.( shes since got a dog!) This was not a submissive dog ever. The same dog I watched sitting a burley near 7 ft man down after I'd told him to wait and he leaped up out of his seat to follow me, and who kept a hatchet carrying intruder from the yard.

So sorry Sandgrubber. The size of the hole they leave can be overwhelming. Run free Jarrah. A lovely name. Be kind to yourself.

The op came here asking help in navigating their legal and ethical responsibilities. Not how to 'ethically' avoid them. I'm sure that advise was appreciated, as an option given, but the op has no obligation legally or ethically to accept that option. Judgement on outcomes is very premature. By assuming the worst of possible out comes is a given, The 'education of the public' thats so badly needed to avoid those is not given, its taken away. If you take away the rights of people to make decisions on the welfare of their own animals, they will understand less of how to do that, or why some things are done as they are. The problems get worse, not better. When the idea is promoted that pups be 'ethically' desexed before sale, because people can't be trusted to care for their their own companion animals, thats not addressing the problem. It does however feed the A.R agenda. Big time. Weather or not a profit is made should be irrelevant. Choosing the best homes for the resulting pups is not, though I doubt the members here will have the chance to assist in that outcome . The chance for education through this forum has been lost. Again. Because ANKC members and supporters don't support education of the environment thats needed to support them, as breeders. They believe, somehow, that shrinking that breeders environment to ANKC alone will some how leave them an environment worth having at all. So easy to argue that any environment left is incapable of responding favourably to Dogs as a species, or that keeping them serves any real purpose.

While I understand the concerns of people on this forum, I agree with Asal and see the mental health comments as unhelpful, at best. And a poor example of discrediting those you disagree with out having to resort to logic or fact. The O.P has shown concern for the welfare of mother and pups, a desire to achieve best outcomes, and operate with responsibility and within the law. If those without the experience and familiarity of potential problems feel they can come back for advise, many of those can be avoided. The education of your customer base is a responsibility of breeders that increases with knowledge and experience,. It doesn't decrease. Its not void when that assistance is to a non ANKC member. If that were true, ANKC would serve no real purpose to its environment or support base. ANKC purpose would not be to dogs, only to pedigrees. ANKC will continue to decline with no purpose beyond its 'self'. This attitude of censure for what ocurrs outside of ANKC rules and protocols, assuming the worst possible outcomes, ensures they will continue. It ensures that breeders will continue to desex babies unformed, instead of addressing the cause. If the public that supports registered breeders are so irresponsible such actions are 'needed', I think ANKC and other registering bodies need to look to their own responsibilities to a healthier environment before they supply it. I would simply not sell a dog to a person who I felt was unable to make important decisions on its welfare and follow through. When the public are unfit to make those decisions why breed indeed.

Yes. The K.C documents purpose was to define the K.C identity. The space it would occupy in the dog breeder environment. The conditions members of that space sign up to support. In defining that space by what it is not, Its been included by definition. Their conditions tied together in opposition and reduction.

"Dog breeding" Is a space in the environment where its conditions are supported by the values brought to that purpose. Its a space. As such, Its defined by its own definition. It can't be measured by any measure other than the confines of its own space. The K.Cs are defining that space based on its condition. The measure of a condition is reduced by definition. Its conditional. It depends on supporting conditions to manifest. The measures used to support the K.Cs are opposing , Both its space and its support, due a statement that a) Removes definition of that space, (It does the opposite) And b) to removes support for conditions because they are not recognised in that space. Opposing measures are being used to support the K.Cs and the space given dog breeding in the environment . Its physics. If the K.Cs realy want to ignore that, its on them. And on the future of dog breeding. Because The K.Cs have included all dog breeders space in their own definition.

Its too late @asal. There is no organisation set up to define the target groups responsibilities, or to represent them. They have no identity in an environment that promotes group identity . Hobby breeders need representation in their own right, independent of exclusive identity. This may not succeed now, but we can see where its headed as the public is being taught domestic animal husbandry is something the public can't be responsible for. In the end, Hobby Breeders will be sacrificed to Identity politics,. No one will be willing to claim an identified target group in exclusive group Identities. They are not required for the standard. The only way out now is representation of the Publics rights and responsibilities to learn Companion Animal husbandry. Or loose the rights to Domestic Animal husbandry. Representation and promotion of Purpose and Value in Companion Animals to create a positive counter movement.

Yes. It is a waste of time. At least I can say I tried and I believe it was the right thing to do. For Pedigree Dogs. And all Dog owners . Ignorance won't be an acceptable excuse for the future. Arrogance? Thanks Troy. And Asal, Mingaling and others . This account can be closed.

In the end, Commercial, BYBer or pedigree are all Dogs. If you want to push for conditions and limitations on breeders as the means of ensuring better welfare out comes, all will be held to the same standard. Because its those standards the community are taught as correct and 'ethical'. The values you are promoting are limitations and conditions. That its the environment that has value, its got nothing to do with what people do or do not do, nothing to do with what response is brought to over come conditions and limitations. So failures should be attributed to the environment and its condition, not to the the values individuals bring to it. There is no personal responsibility. That can't help but backfire on the ANKC environment. If you are going to legislate whats 'required Practices' for the breeding of Dogs there will be a public expectation that it is best practice. Why would anyone be excused from following it? If they are considered 'needed conditions' for the purpose? Open your eyes people. You are forcing these conditions on your selves to get rid of BYBers. They are the foundation you stand on......Dogs raised in the home, exposed and tested in a family environment, with plenty of time spent on socialization. If thats not being done responsibly, thats a breeders fault for not supporting the practices and values that make a breeders environment a healthy and appreciated one. Not taking responsibility for your environment, but limiting it instead. Never mind. Too late, and too blind. Its not a Pedigree or Standard that makes all the difference between a responsible breeder and an irresponsible one. Its the values brought to that environment. And if you can't support those values for breeders outside a Pedigree system they won't be there... to support a Pedigree system. Its not up to ANKC to do that, its up to the members. Who represent Breeders. Even more so if you are Pedigree breeders. How else do you demonstrate the superior benefits of being one? You won't do it by de-valuing practices on the basis of where they occur, or weather the results carry a pedigree or not. Because there will always be examples in your own ranks of failure to uphold community values But it is up to ANKC to give recognition to that environment, since it was actively withheld from its membership. You can't attack and discredit the practices of breeders based on the environment they work in, without also discrediting any practices you share. You share the breeding of dogs. The only practice that stands between you is the keeping and verification of Pedigree standards. Every thing else is the value brought to that purpose by the individual. The environment he works in doesn't hold any value in itself. Its simply a condition. A breeder is responsible for promoting the values that bring best results in the conditions he has. By attacking conditions, you lose them. Promoting values instead demonstrates how to bring value to those conditions, and how to respond to them.....what delivers greatest value will be fostered, what doesn't bring value will decline because the values are understood and promoted.

@Lhok No, Its not because of Breed Standards. I have tried very hard to say that over and over again. But it is because the idea has been pushed, for a long , long time, that that only a single set of uniform standards can be acceptable. Only one environment is suited to dog breeding, and its not in peoples back yards. Its some thing that should be left to experts and not tried at home because only one environment will be recognized. Only one environment can or will support breeders to do the job as well as it can be done. Dog breeding should not be supported in the community. It hasn't been for a long time, and the results speak for them selves. Its a mess. ANKC says its Practices are acceptable and no other. Its not breed standards that are the problem, its membership standards of practice. So yeah, it is easier to rubber stamp and police large facilities and ensure expert care. To enforce breeding for health and other environmental demands from the community that hasn't the support to meet their own demands. Dog breeding won't be supported as a community interest, so the community in their ignorance of the practices involved, are almost willing to agree. Guess what? ANKC members are community members! ANKC membership gives support unavailable to the rest of the community (in general terms) but can't ensure or even agree on what 'standards' of practice are universal to its membership alone. Though they try very hard to do that by holding up examples of poor practices mostly occurring else where, Policing their own members is almost impossible and the environment will intrude into their space. So they will never be able to guarantee better, from all members. ANKC alone can't meet community demands. ANKC doesn't recognize community demands unless they are set by ANKCs own standards. People do care about dogs, or they wouldn't support suppliers of them by buying. But its been drummed into them that universal standards are very important and community members haven't the expertise to be trusted to uphold them. They certainly don't have the support needed to familiarize themselves with what what those standards involve. I haven't even read the link. It might not get through this time, but it will eventually because ANKC won't recognize an environment beyond ANKC and the community demands dogs for the community, not just ANKC members and ANKC expectations of what they must be. I'm not saying you have to like it or agree. Thats how it is. ANKC was set up for the practice of keeping pedigrees. ANKC does not recognize any other practice as having value to dogs independent of Pedigrees.. So no practice used in the breeding of dogs can have any value for it own merits. Any value is in the Pedigree. And any practices operating independently of Pedigrees will be discredited so the value is lost. Pedigrees might be, but Dogs aren't independent of those practices. So once you have discredited all practices that aren't dependent on K.Cs, you have no dogs. Yet that is the course the K.C identity has been directed to. To take dog breeders (and so dogs) out of the environment, because its not recognized as fit for breeding dogs. Commercial factories are the only logical alternative for an environment/ community that still wants dogs. You get good results by supporting them when they are demonstrated. That happens to a degree within ANKC. Not as much as it should. Members must support ANKC standards to a highly critical group consensus of interpretation. Or risk being identified as 'outsiders' to the ANKC identity. That takes a huge toll on membership, mostly on those not breeding solely for the show ring where standards are verified. That has a huge impact on the possibilities and effectiveness of any attempt at reform. NO practice taking place outside ANKC membership receives even that limited support. The worst cases are brought forward as examples of failure. And the ANKC further self limits its own membership to remove any intrusion of those practices on the ANKC identity. The available responses to ANKC standards can only become more limited. There is no support for effective practice beyond ANKC standards of membership. Instead support is withdrawn from members, as their environment with draws support for discredited practices.

Well. What a surprise.

Had a bit of a read up on his ideas and a look at the rough constitution draft. I think he has some great ideas and great vision. His intent is long over due but I don't think he has anymore hope of achieving it than the N.S.W version. Far too much focus on details that should be considered situational making it very complicated for the average person and trying too hard to please various groups that should be more concerned with actual welfare issues than legislation trying to make welfare issues impossible to occur. The bottomline is there will be welfare issues for people and Dogs as long as there are people and Dogs. Those issues can't be legislated away. We can only support better conditions that reduce the chances of them occurring. I'm convinced participation and involvement under common beliefs of greater potential for Dogs and Dog ownership is more important than regulating how thats to be achieved. Participation and involvement creates higher expectations through examples demonstrated. The best are emulated as the ones the ones that get most support and least effective examples don't get support. Education comes with participation and a stake in the outcomes. Examples are recognized for their value or lack of it if people are welcomed to participate and supported under a common belief. People respond to support that belief, and the environment favors the most effective responses. Again, there is an environment being set up that puts all the value in its self, and not the responses brought to it. because thats what we are taught to expect. That value is in the environment, not our own response to conditions. Keep it clear and simple. To promote purpose for dogs in the community and support value and purpose in the breeding of Dogs. Then thats what what will happen. I doubt he will get the level of participation needed to achieve his great intent while conditions are micro managed. A shame, since its badly needed to unify the purpose of breeding Dogs. He offers tremendous support for possibility and potential.....then limits the results to a set of conditions its very hard to exceed. It doesn't recognize diversity of situation or environment. The environment is the value, not its membership. The idea is to set up an environment to support a mission. The Mission has no where to go if the environment is limited to pre-set conditions. conditions

As for breed standards, i think they they are a great thing and have never said otherwise. I don't want to see breed standards go. Just get support from more diverse perspectives then the show ring. They fail over time because of what they they don't recognize as well. The needs and purpose of buyers out side the ANKC system. For them, the standards are there to support the purpose of the dogs, not as the end game of selection. There is more to a dog than its standard. Consistency of traits is there. Its what is brought to them that is diminishing. I've kept dogs for 47 years. Up to 7 a time. All are companions and house dogs and all are kept for a purpose. The dogs ability to respond to the purpose they have been bred for, in multiple environments, does diminish over time when the standards they are judged to and selected from are confined to a single environment. It took me 7 years to find one dog that could respond to its purpose in the environment I provide. Matching the written standard does not adversely affect that. The dog I found did. I doubt I can find another. My research included govt.agencies here and over seas who had traditionaly used these dogs for their original purpose and expanded it. All had given up. The dogs could no longer respond effectively to that purpose mentally or physically. There is less support for the breed because of that. The standard supports its own limitations, not the purpose of the dog if the standard is all that is recognized. Breeders who try to respond to the standard in any other way leave them selves open to censure from the pedigree fraternity. Sure, it can be done. But there are barriers to doing it great enough that fewer are left to try each year. I want my breed to have a future and a breed needs a standard to be a breed. But it needs an environment to be dog more. So tho', I support pedigrees, I can't support an org. if I can't see a future for dogs by doing so. I tried.

1st, I don't expect ANKC to accept anything it doesn't choose to. 2nd, pedigrees are NOT cross breeds so how are they damned by this ? And 3rd, I would expect people to support responsible practices instead of believing in responsible environments. Theres no such thing. The characteristics of breeds would still be there in breeds. Then don't encourage random, un -thought out breeding. Encourage planned, thoughtful breeding with a purpose in mind. None of them? Do you know this? But they can't, you know, if the 'best' specimens are kept out away from any one who might use them. And you know that ANKC breeders do? All of them? Its not the environment. Its the response a breeder brings to it, and the support a breeders gets to respond in ways that bring value to it. Not support for poor practices, but support for better ones. ANKC can't 'demonstrate' why random crosses are a lottery,. Its members can't even recognize them. And if they could, I would hope they would be demonstrating that it really doesn't need to be. The standards would still be there. unchanged. All this would do for standards, is to allow other qualities to be recognized for any value they have. No change to standards would take place without use of the protocols already there for that purpose. The thing is, Any identity can only exist with a belief in its 'self', its potential and ability to respond. ANKC was a concept for an identity. Dog breeders. That was the identity ANKCs potential was for. To make use of them, a person has to sign up for membership and agree to all conditions and codes of practice. That would not change. The belief was shifted from Dog breeders potential, to dog breeders limitations. There is no belief in Dog breeders. Only limitations. There is no potential. A dog breeder identity won't expand. it will contract, until there is nothing left. Thats exactly what it is doing .Its not a matter of what I want. its a matter of physics.

Of course not. Nor should it try to. I am asking that it be a registry only, as it was meant to be. it has no controll. It does have an effect. I keep hearing- 1) "Cross breeds have nothing to do with ANKC or Pedigrees. " and 2)"Why should ANKC recognize them?" A constitution can and will only directly affect conditions specifically mentioned. Thats why it should avoid mentioning conditions beyond its own. Cross breeds had nothing to do with ANKC. Until ANKC saw fit to state how that condition should be addressed. till then, the 2nd question wouldn't have even been asked.

But its the breeder support and knowledge that is missing. I don't see your example shows recognition of cross breeds intrinsic value at all. Not when its a requirement that those values won't be bred on, unless its within an ANKC recognized standard. All the value is in placed in ANKC. Not in the Dog. If the science is confusing, the language should be easier. The constitution sets up an identity. Its pretty much accepted that a constitution can and does only what its designed to do. So the wording and language used must be very carefully worked out. Every word in the constitution, its mission statement and the rules and regs. forms part of the instruction for for the orgs. membership. It acts like the genetic blue print for the organizational identity. Not the members so much. They're diverse in perspectives and opinions but their action are bound by it all the same. Forget conscious choice. Its a drive to behave and respond according to the genetics of the parent body. So We have an organization set up to keep records of pedigrees and their standards. The rules, regs. mission statement etc. all good. Its all about the Org. The things that set it apart and give it an identity. Its identity is set by what happens within. Not by what happens beyond that. There are rules written to guide the successful writing of that document and one says - 'Avoid ruling on what is beyond that identity' , Because thats the environment and doing so can have unintended consequence. Another is to avoid negative rulings or statements because they can only have negative consequence, again often unintended. because they don't give direction, they can only block direction in ways you can't foresee. ANKC, by that statement of what is not recognized has done both. So the language- ANKC does not recognize what is beyond its own remit. Its environment. To define what ANKC does recognize, what does it hold? BREED Standards. For BREEDERS.( forget pedigrees for the moment, they are how the standards are verified and explained) Standards are Conditions. Conditions are limitations. They are only good or bad depending on how well we have or can respond to them. ANKC will only recognize the limitations of a Breed or Breeder. Its members can only recognize limitations of a breed or breeder as a valid part of that identity. The only response left open to members is to limit conditions of breeds and breeders. With the idea they can be limited to optimal conditions or standards? Thats impossible! Because its our response that makes those standards either good or bad, and we are limiting standards and conditions to do it! The identity of the K.Cs stays the same with removal of that statement. It doesn't change how the pedigree system manages pedigree standards or include cross breeds. All it does is to recognize the value of response to Standards, conditions and limitation.. Or will we keep trying to reduce breeds and breeders to perfection?

Breeders need to support other breeders. No environment is bad for dogs by itself. Its how we respond to the challenges that make the difference between good and bad. There will be times and conditions when a certain environment is the only practical option for a specific purpose or situation. But if all breeders become commercial enterprise, and we are collectively driving it in that direction, then we have let them become no more than accessories. They are loosing purpose, and value with it. Just as any biological identity does when it refuses to recognize the environment and its demands. Environments in them selves aren't good or bad. Its about how we respond to their challenges. Breeder support is needed. The demonization isn't just from A.R. And if commercial breeders can weather it, so can small scale breeders. But only if they can recognize and support each other and thats not happening. In or out of the K.Cs. Because everyone is more concerned with not supporting environments.

Sorry guys, ran out out of time to answer this bit. Once people see what they think is an easy profit to be made they will try to cash in on it. The more people pay for dogs, the more people will try to cash in to get a slice of the pie. The trick is to educate people about breeding. 1st, that actually is the part of 'education' the public is missing to make more informed choices. If you aren't familiar with any of the process or what goes into it to produce a quality product, how are you to understand if you are likely to be getting that from from the seller? If a mass produced puppy comes from a clean, state of the art kennels with lots of staff and conducts education on breeding practices, how is person who has no understanding of what goes into breeding to see anything wrong with that? 2nd, Its not so easy as it looks when you don't know, what you don't know. If people understand up front that breeding quality pups requires careful selection of parents for complementary traits, (And a working knowledge of what those are ) sound temperament, health testing where relevant, 'round the clock care , socialization, vaccinations, preparation for veterinary intervention, Knowledge of breech birth and possible complications .....It doesn't look so attractive. Fewer try, and fewer still a 2nd time. Because Its harder to get away with offering any less. So at the moment yes, a lot of people are just cashing in. But the reason they are able to do that is due to low expectations. Thats where demonstration comes into it. A demonstration of possibilities has to be given. Experienced, before it can be expected. Environment needs that. It doesn't recognize value till its been shown. It requires familiarity. So recognition is essential before its even possible to give value. Psychology has shown thats true of people too, in market research. Thats why I say the breeders environment is not a healthy one. There is too little support for quality breeders because there is too little experience of them, or what quality can be. People aren't familiar with them. BYBers can't be blamed for that either. If pedigree breeders were doing so much better at meeting demands, there would be higher expectations of them. The numbers of K.Cs members would not be in decline. ANKC breeders aren't supporting The practices that bring improved results for buyers. They support The K.C that believes those practices are inherent in the standards and limitations. They are clearly not. Or we wouldn't talk about ANKCs responsibility to 'police' its members. And what are those members accused of? Being nothing better than whats out side. Of bringing the 'outside' , in. And how to limit whats outside, so it cant' get in. Limiting themselves further in the process. Limiting what value gets out too, with limited pedigrees etc. If they were doing much better at meeting expectations, their environment would give them more space.The numbers of Pedigree dogs represented in the population would be much higher. As for them wanting it to be a breed or not... doesn't matter. Breeds came about because people recognized some thing, some traits, they wanted to work on as a breed, after the fact. The dogs were there, being bred for some purpose that people valued. They proved themselves to have value 1st. With recognition and familiarity as something worth a space dedicated to it. They served a purpose in their environment. If the only purpose being recognized is as accessories, thats the fault of breeders for not demonstrating other purpose.

@karen15 Yes the context of environment can be very confusing in all of this. I think Mingaling put it best- Every thing that is not the 'self' is environment. What makes that so confusing tho' is the subject you are referring to changes. What self or identity is being discussed in this instance? The environment of the K.Cs is humanity, but the environment of its members is only the K.C. The environment of dogs is humanity, but pedigrees is their registering body. Every thing beyond any identified subject is its environment- and its essential that it can recognize all parts it comes into regular contact with to respond effectively. The more it can recognize, the better it responds and more environment available to expand. Ie your body is the environment for your cells. They keep your body healthy by recognition of other cells, their states and conditions. So when some thing is wrong with human body/environment they recognize how to respond to correct it, and can attack viruses etc. or repell what doesn't belong. But even that is learned response through recognition. (This thing again!) So an Identity, of any type, is also an environment, of all it contains. To every cell or thing that enters your body, it behaves like an environment.It can only accept or reject. Attack, suppression, etc is an identities response to anything that does not belong in the body of its self identity, so even if its powerless to remove it, it can't thrive there. The K.Cs share their environment with Domestic dogs. Because thats what they are. But the only parts of that species the K.Cs can recognize are the pedigree ones. So a K.C environment tries to reject the conditions that support non Pedigree dogs and it doesn't work because over all pedigrees and other dogs depend on the same conditions to thrive. Like an over active immune system destroying its own body. An identity is an environment for all it contains, held together by common belief of 'self'. i think this is likely where a lot of the confusion comes from. I have always been able to jump from one environmental concept to another with no trouble. Theres a lot of that here.

They would not be accepting cross breds. Only recognizing them as dogs that may or may not have some thing to offer a breeder, or a person .Based on its own merits or lack of them, not by where it came from. As to what characteristics can be consistently applied to crossbreds- What ever characteristics a breeder has made the effort to find and develop.

Except a lack of support from their environment to do so. No. They don't. But if they want to succeed, and add value, they must find a way to prevent it being discredited by the part of their environment that does that. You say the K.Cs have had the job over seeing Pedigree dogs. I fully support that goal. But I am sorry. I can't support ANKC in that role as it stands in its present identity.. Its 'genetic blueprint' makes that task a physical impossibility while its programed to eliminate environment so that no value is recognized beyond its 'self'. You can call that an opinion if you like. But you risk a lot to assume it is when all evidence I have found supports that and you have not been able to provide any evidence to disprove it. I get that you don't like the evidence. That doesn't mean I do anymore. But your whole argument depends on a false belief that any value is in the environment. Its not. Thats a space you Occupy. It just IS. Any value is subjective. The environment or space only holds value to the subject by the potential it can realize there, through its own ability to respond to prevailing conditions. The K.Cs created conditions that Breeders could take advantage of to improve their responses to dogs and better support them.That created greater potential. The addition of the statement of non recognition removed it. By defining its response and conditions as an independent identity. Turning it inward towards a single space. No longer a response, its an environment, incapable of independent response and defined by what it holds. As a now self identified space, its only power to define its 'self' lies with what it will not hold. It can not hold 'other' conditions or spaces and still be self defining. Its only option is rejection of what it won't hold. Spaces or environments do not respond. They only accept or reject based on value offered. By giving space or refusing it.