moosmum

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.

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.

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.

I agree with this too. I guess "surprisingly little" was a poor word choice. Better to say , The effects of closed stud books would be mitigated by a wide margin, If breed choices were influenced more by what is successful in environments beyond the show ring and the registries own rules and conditions. As they could be, if recognition of those were acceptable to membership identity. They are not, because of an unneeded statement that serves NO purpose, except to favour those who put faith and belief before science and logic. Believing that the singular perspective of their own position is the only legitimate position to hold. Because "We do not recognise"- another. Thats what makes it gnarly. And will affect how well the resulting dogs bred from open stud books will be accepted. No recognition of what takes place beyond your own conditions of membership means, no recognition of the environment that sustains you, or enabled your being. I believe country of origin for the Dalmation has recently refused to accept dogs that carry the pointer cross from some 40 years ago. Not recognised. Delivering the promise.

What should be good news, is that closed stud books have surprisingly little to do with the problems facing breeders of Pedigree Dogs. The main problems are the closed minds tasked with interpreting the instructions laid out by the standards. .Because they are instructed to be closed to what they don't see already there. Conformation showing isn't even such a problem without that instruction. The show ring tells them what they should see best, in a good example of a breed standard. Its the faulty instruction that means the show winner is the only demonstration of a breed standard that quantifies its value.

Yes. I agree thats true for most closed stud book registries due the wording of introduction to their mission statements . But I don't see ANKC or FCI have left themselves any other other options that can be utilised effectively by their membership. Health testing has become the expected solution to increasing incidence of disease because alternatives are beyond what is acceptable to the 'standards' that members will uphold to identify as an acceptable member breeder. Popular sire syndrome is not much a problem else where for dogs. And It seems to me this is no longer about just the survival of Pedigree Dogs, but about the benefits for dogs, in continuing to be bred as they are. From an engineering perspective, the design and its components are not to have any additions, and input from external sources that could add to the machines effectiveness is mostly rejected, because the results often don't match the standard as presented and expected in the show ring. There needs to be recognition: that dogs can't continue to be bred solely for how well they conform to a design, Once set, by its blueprint. (or internal standards of conditions) rather than influenced by the demands of its environment. The environment is demanding health, and transparency of choice in what it will favour. While breed registries bicker over the 'ethics' of choices that allow that without strictly conforming to verified design and components 1st. Nature just doesn't work that way. It doesn't allow evolution. Its not working that way. It can't. The fact that this would work elsewhere should prove the fault is in the system, not the solution. That the fault is in a disability to recognise anything 'different' to whats there. The fault is in an inability to quantify value that could possibly equal the K.Cs own show ring. Agree again, Testing though will improve as more make use of it, and its value becomes a recognised environmental expectation.Transparency too, when the benefits of including and utilising more information becomes obvious. Pedigrees as we know them have have a huge role to play in breeding better, but recognition of values beyond what is there right now, has to be recognised before thats possible.

I think the simple transparency of comprehensive DNA test results, publicly accessible, puts responsibility solidly where it belongs. For all involved parties to make informed decisions on transparent information, and take full responsibility for the results of those choices once made.

Then there are accusations of bias, and an assumption the vet has intimate knowledge of a breeders program, goals and health history of dogs not in front of them. Some dogs seldom see a vet, apart from vaccinations and chips. It gives the expectation of a duty beyond the purpose Vets train for. A healthy dog has no reason to be seen by a vet.(edited to say little reason to see a vet) I Could see a lot of potential problems, but Its easy to see why Vets would want to help promote breeders who they do see as doing every thing right for the health of the dogs they produce, when they deal with the opposite so much.

Yes. But I can understand their reservations. I think my idea could overcome those drawbacks, and reinforce the idea that breeders and buyers share responsibility for the dogs that are being supported by their choices. It would also bring back the more obvious missing elements of the natural selection processes that gave us domestic dogs, and eventually breeds, enhanced by the available science and its communication. A better familiarity with whats being utilised, why and to what purpose.

There are now comprehensive DNA tests available, improving all the time. The Embark tests for multiple factors across breeds that could easily become compulsory for dogs used for breeding and tied into the dogs microchip on a publicly accessed data base. I believe it also tests for inbreeding levels and funds ongoing research into genetics and behaviour. Registration fees for entire dogs could be reduced for inclusion as part of the breeders program and transparency of practices. It could also be tied to veterinary interventions . I would expect such a system would serve to train both breeders and buyers to research more effectively, and understand the risks and limitations of any breeding program, while illustrating the importance of having one with genuine goals that look beyond the breeders immediate purpose. (show ring wins, profit work or whatever) I think its most beneficial effect would be in educating the public, on how and what to look for getting a dog, and would result in more effective breeders. Because breeders are only as good as the public that supplies and supports them.

I had a similar problem with my boy. Feet and belly were always worst affected, and nothing seemed to help. I began to suspect a grass allergy. I had people telling me No, it would not be that. But after trying everything I kept coming back to the Kikuyu lawn I had started. Got rid of my lawn and hey presto, never again!. It took awhile to get rid of. It was very obvious I had found the culprit though because he would find a small patch and it would flare again. I would get rid of that patch and it was all good til another managed to sprout. Might be worth a trial to keep him off Kikuyu for a while and see what happens.

Brings back horrible memories!The sloppiest cow dug available used to be a rinse and repeat treat. Its also made me realise.... NONE of my dogs have done this that I can recall for the last 30 years!?!

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.