moosmum

I think they might have to start enforcing their own rules if various governments are just going to wave a magic wand and shut down an entire industry because some are treating animals badly. Just look at all the puppy farms... I'm sure the RSPCA would shut more down if they could prove there was a problem and when they did there were sufficient sanctions to stop repeat offences. There's a double whammy - proving what looks obvious to us - isn't so easy with the current law, and when they do successfully prosecute the most appalling cases - the offenders get slapped with a tiny fine as if animal cruelty doesn't matter. NSW and other governments are using the wrong fix for the wrong problem - similar to BSL applied in Victoria - not dealing with the source of the problem or preventing dog bites etc. Will end up like Italy with 95 different dog breeds banned or declared dangerous? It is no longer the job of the government to fix the problem. It is the job of industry to fix it. Government has been extricating itself from regulatory roles for quite some time now, none of this should be a surprise. If an industry cannot show it self able to self regulate it is not considered a viable indsutry any more. Its NOT the job of Govt. and its not the job of ANKC or any other group. Its an individual responsibility to the community. Not to a group you identify with. Where the K.Cs fall down is in promoting the group ( pedigree breeders) as the solution. Instead of the practices and knowledge that provide solutions. Theres an inability to demonstrate the proof of them while the pedigree itself is required 1st, for recognition of good practice to be aknowledged. The group identity supercedes community expectations. If pedigree certification is needed before a K.Cs can aknowledge good practice or results, they are not taking or promoting responsibility for good practice and results. Only for a group identity defined by a pedigree. A breed will eventualy fail to meet community expectations while its identity is decided by groups in specified isolation from that community. No self appointed "group" identity can better its environment from the perspective of that group alone. The environment/community as a whole will decide direction and validity. But it MUST be given the ability to respond effectively, thru promotion of SHARED values and demonstrations of their benefits. A single, isolated group identity can only operate on beliefs, truth from its own perspective. Other environments face different realities. Their relevance can't be ignored with out risking chaos. World politics ATM. attests to that. A group can not replace personal responsibility with group beliefs. Individuals respond for change to occur. Groups can only provide an environment to encourage it. A 1st group identity divides us into group identities, based on beliefs, not realities.

Seems to me Zero tolerance is fine, but only when every one understands why so are practicing it at an individual level. Information on how to achieve best results with least cost ( not just financial ) means poor practices are more likely to be shunned. Because people have expectations and people have an understanding why poor practices don't support those expectations. So we all need to start talking about what we should be expecting from those who breed dogs,what we should expect from dogs, and why. That is the only way people CAN be responsible. When they can see the value and benefits brought by GOOD practices. If they SEE and understand how certain practices add value, they will look for that. Or be shunned in favor of those who do. Shunned or favored as a group, if thats how they identify themselves . If the group identity comes 1st, then that group identity will decide the value of those benefits to itself before it allows them to gain favor within. Individuals must benefit their fixed group identity to gain favor in that group. But the ultimate judgement comes from outside the group, from the community. If breeders are going to say they know better and should be allowed to do things as they have always been done, then they better be demonstrating the success and value of those methods to the community. By Community standards, not just their own group identity standards. Its community standards and expectations they they depend on. So they had better be showing that what they do makes the community better. That there are benefits to the community in supporting breeders. And that means making sure breeders understand what the community expects of them and the dogs they breed, beyond their group identity. All dog breeders ARE in the same basket. It is a single species and the expectations of the community will apply to any breeder. Registered or not. Zero tolerance in the present climate is not aimed at people who do the wrong thing. Its aimed at group identities whos separate group status isolates them from common expectations. By their own group environment. Identity politics. They will not be meeting expectations, Because the group identity refuses to recognize that all breeders are in the same basket. Because you share a group identity, that doesn't confer the right to ignore broader community expectation, or to enforce that 'group' expectation on the broader community. Responsibility doesn't put a single group identity 1st, and still expect broader support. That just absolves individuals of responsibility to the community, for a group identity they have little ability to influence. Because a group identity is founded on what separates it from the community, as long as it comes 1st. Ultimate responsibility is to the community. The environment that supports them and demands value in return. That value needs to be demonstrated. Not just the costs the community or environment should not have to pay. A group identity as 1st priority can't respond to community demands with out 1st reaching a consensus AS a group identity. Their values( or 'standards' ) as an identity come 1st, so are pretty much fixed in time, instead of responding to the demands and expectations set by the environment that supports it. That would require new standards that conflict with the group identity as its been set and accepted. So a shared identity apart from the general community must actively include the community in POSITIVE, demonstrated and shared values. Or it will ultimately be pressured by demands and expectations it can't meet. A victim of its own separatist ideals that do not benefit the environment it exists in. Until people recognize all breeders are in the same basket, start talking about what expectations we ALL as a community share, how can you possibly insist a single group identity offers more value than any other to the community and have people believe that? By whos criteria? I guess the Greyhound industry thought the values they demonstrated brought benefits too. To the Greyhound industries. The Grey hound industry is in strife because the shared identity, distinct from other community dog interest groups, did not allow for adaptation and change to suit more modern community expectations. It was not offering value worth supporting to any one other than the Greyhound industry. The costs of carrying that BY the community are seen as too high. There are an awful lot of other identity groups failing the community because they are doing just fine, thank you very much, under the standards and values their group understands better than any outsider ever can. To place personal identity with a distinct group 1st, fails to contribute value to the HUMAN community. Group identity as 1st identity is unable to adapt and take responsibility for how that group is perceived, and respond to that. It responds to the group, not the environment or community that holds it. So pressures to meet demands will be seen as group persecution. They are victims of their environment, not a force to improve it through their own actions as individuals demonstrating improvement.

Not to mention a lot of families where no one is home most of the time, and a lot of kids who would rather be in front of a screen than behind a leash. And very little active/social promotion of dog ownership aimed at the general population, or out side of a dwindling K.C membership. Here in Aus. anyway.

I've got a Cassandra complex here. While breeding organizations actively discourage the breeding of dogs out side a registered pedigree system, Breed specific legislation is a logical conclusion, and the only option left open. This news is the 2nd confirming this in the last 12 months or so. There will more, and more. It gains momentum. And each time, there will be found genuine and (moral or ethical) support for the action. Because the 'standards' applied to keeping, owning and breeding dogs are not universaly promoted or accepted ideals for the whole of the environment that wishes to support dogs in the community. They are specific to individual breeds, and the individual environments that support breed specific standards. This has little to do with A.R activists and much more to do with an increased concern for welfare in general, along with an errosion of purpose for dogs, and the roles they fill in the lives of the people who keep them. Pet ownership is at all time lows in Australia. This trend will continue while pedigrees and individual standards are promoted over universal standards promoting purpose for dogs, and the values that support and add to that purpose. This is able to be simply ( tho' actively, with intent ) corrected, but is nearly at the point of no return. But don't blame A.R. Blame a precursor of 'Identity' politics, and its general acceptance. Where responsibility is a lost concept. Response is limmited to chosen or forced identity and not the demands or expectatations of here and now. Pedigree Breeders Identity says care is taken to not contribute anything to what takes place out side the pedigree system. To remain apart and distinct in time. Not place. To accept no responsibility for the shape the world is, here and now. Cassandra.

We need demonstrations of success to respond TO ..... And take responsibility for. As long as the pedigree is 1st consideration to responsible breeding and the only one allowed by a breeding Org., Any success can only be measured against the pedigree. No other values can contribute. That is a physical law. The environment, or Market if you like, Has no responsibility to the pedigree. They/it can only respond to the dog in front of them. And all anyone can demonstrate is failure. Under a ruling that tells its members "ethics" (or values) put a pedigree above all other considerations of value, those demonstrations of failure are assured. The O.P is just one. Either its the environment/Market pointing out K.C failures, or the K.Cs members and supporters pointing out some other 'Groups' failures. Because "Ethics" MUST divide them. Conflict is written and will continue until theres nothing left to contend over. So two or more sides, assuring no other side can put forward a better example and without knocking it down. That rule means the K.Cs alone can't meet the market/environments needs ...Not ever alone. All I see is that rule has shaped the destiny of domestic dogs to be what it is. Governed by physics. The effects it has had, even if it is no longer written, can only be reversed by a formal recognition that bias on the grounds of pedigree ALONE is not acceptable. Its membership can not discriminate against another member breeder on grounds of breeding out side the pedigree system. The purpose of the dog and the values that enhance that MUST be promoted above all else. Or there is nothing for the environment/Market to support. The market, or environment, WILL support what ever is most successful, as long as its value is demonstrated. But it has to be shown for all to see. With out someone thinking they have to knock it down. Thats not going to happen while we are all divided on lines of where we CAN find value.

This sort of regulation for starts. And the sort that gives us higher Rego. fees for entire dogs. Most of it realy, except what relates directly to clear welfare breaches and identification. Promoting practices that AVOID problems works. Promoting an idea that you can eliminate the chance of problems doesn't. Until you eliminate dogs.

About what? I think regulation is having a huge impact and not always beneficial. Making it harder to keep pets under conditions we don't approve of, or to do things that cause disadvantage to others doesn't = more responsible people keeping pets. All it does is make pets more inconvenient for more people, and fewer familiar with the requirements and expectations of personal responsibility. Transfers responsibility from owners to authority. With an assumption 'we' are not fit and able to take responsibility. Not every one is a responsible parent, but we don't regulate that because just about every one is familiar with the expectations of parents. Advise or help is as close as the next person when we do have problems Pets though are fair game and it seems should be invisible, so familiarity with management issues is much harder to find. Instead of demonstrations of how to get maximum value from them, methods to avoid conflict, or fostering communal expectations, we tend to legislate the problems away.

I used to use butter on goats udders if they became cracked and DRY. I wouldn't put it on tho' unless it IS dry, and just till vets.

Jasper was a re-home and castrated when we got him, so we never had to bother about my darling Coco conceiving. Similarly, after Coco passed it wasn't a consideration in getting a new dog, but as it turns out Chloe was also neutered. But, hypothetically, what would we have done if the RSPCA had given us a choice? I'll say this, knowing what I know now there is no way I would ever allow another dog to be castrated. Maybe I would not have made the same decision back then, but there's nothing wrong with LEARNING. Short answer now, is that if I were certain he would never be wanted for breeding, I would get the dog a vasectomy. Yep. (Nothing wrong with learning) The wrong sort of legislation says there is only one possible response to avoid problems in that area. And nothing to learn about management. So Its not something you can learn from, or about to shape an environmentaly appropriate response- This fixed reaction means no need to understand, Or respond. It absolves us of responsibility, or an ability to respond. In exchange for a fixed action. Nothing to understand. Just do it. I can agree that spey or neuter is the responsible choice for the majority of Australian Dog owners today. But it doesn't make them the MORE responsible owners any more than leaving the dog entire would. Understanding the dogs in your care and managing them appropriately, whatever that means to your own situation is taking responsibility. Dictating what actions are acceptable puts the final responsibility with who ever is doing the dictating. So should we expect people to be responsible for their own choices or not? Dogdragon, your legislation won't encourage understanding or knowing the the dogs in your care. It takes away an expectation we should understand the dog, so long as our reactions are predictable and fixed.

Ahhh! That makes more sense! :)

Other research/discoveries put domestication down as even earlier, about 30,000 years or more. About the time Modern Man separated from Neanderthal Man, possibly allowing for the split. I don't think it would have been difficult, Once wolves started to hang around human settlements. There would have been individuals that distinguished themselves for being less fearful more curious and eventualy willing to co-operate for mutualy beneficial purposes. Even now, after centuries of being persecuted and effectively culled for the trait, once in a while an individual will come to attention for its willingness to interact with humans.

I agree - its supply and demand. People want them so if the registered breeders dont want to rise to the occasion someone will take up the option. In fact why dont registered breeders who have the best for the breed at heart increase their production a bit to get in on the action ? They dont have to do it solely for the pet market but can also have more choices for the show ring and the gene pool. In some apartment buildings you can only have a dog where you can carry it off and on the premises so demand for small dogs suitable for small spaces that can be carried will be more in demand anyway. By the way they dont have anywhere near the problems that many brachy head breeds have - yet. dont know if its true but a lady whose puppies i chip said there are moves afoot to bring in a maximum number of litters bred per year any one breeder is allowed (to discourage puppy farm members) and after that is reached no puppies over the limit can be registered . Cant remember if she said there would be fines or membership suspended. but as it is many members keep a check on fellow breeders and any they dont like make complaints to the animal welfare groups to harass and hopefully drive them out, been done for decades. so little incentive to increase production, to be "ethical"and stay under the radar for elimination, stick to producing a litter for a keep puppy and surplus in the litter limit registerd only. Just read the adds here. its not impossible down the track if someone wants a dog if the animals rights group continue to succeed in branding all who dont keep what they bred as "puppy farmers" some will find it so hard to find a puppy they will turn to the cloning companies for their pet to be cloned instead? Sci-fi? time will tell the crash is already documented. just check the ANKC registrations dating back to the 80's our population increases, puppies bred steady decline ANKC trying to distance themselves from what happens out side their membership and the accusations of 'being in it for the money' brought in the rule that "No breeder shall breed primarily for profit". A mistake I believe, since in a market driven world those who can earn biggest profits are those who best meet demands. But now those who earn biggest profits are open to the sort of harassment you mention. The K.Cs are not designed to meet the needs of their environment, but to remain distinctly separate. This rule is a reflection of that and came about because of that. A reaction typical to a biological organism that does not recognize its environment. If the environment for dogs was considered as the single environment it is, that accusation would have likely been taken as a more general one, with a different response aimed more at demonstrating/educating the benefits of NOT buying from a breeder whos primary goal is profit. And not opened the gates to breeders whos ONLY concern is meeting demand, for profit. curious isnt it. like your comment " A reaction typical to a biological organism that does not recognize its environment." in this instance the "organism" seems intent on self destruction, once continually reducing numbers reach critical figures extinction is inevitable Yup. Conjuring a demon in a pentagram, drawn on its own navel. The more the environment tries to communicate its needs, The more the organism struggles to keep the environment out.

I agree - its supply and demand. People want them so if the registered breeders dont want to rise to the occasion someone will take up the option. In fact why dont registered breeders who have the best for the breed at heart increase their production a bit to get in on the action ? They dont have to do it solely for the pet market but can also have more choices for the show ring and the gene pool. In some apartment buildings you can only have a dog where you can carry it off and on the premises so demand for small dogs suitable for small spaces that can be carried will be more in demand anyway. By the way they dont have anywhere near the problems that many brachy head breeds have - yet. dont know if its true but a lady whose puppies i chip said there are moves afoot to bring in a maximum number of litters bred per year any one breeder is allowed (to discourage puppy farm members) and after that is reached no puppies over the limit can be registered . Cant remember if she said there would be fines or membership suspended. but as it is many members keep a check on fellow breeders and any they dont like make complaints to the animal welfare groups to harass and hopefully drive them out, been done for decades. so little incentive to increase production, to be "ethical"and stay under the radar for elimination, stick to producing a litter for a keep puppy and surplus in the litter limit registerd only. Just read the adds here. its not impossible down the track if someone wants a dog if the animals rights group continue to succeed in branding all who dont keep what they bred as "puppy farmers" some will find it so hard to find a puppy they will turn to the cloning companies for their pet to be cloned instead? Sci-fi? time will tell the crash is already documented. just check the ANKC registrations dating back to the 80's our population increases, puppies bred steady decline ANKC trying to distance themselves from what happens out side their membership and the accusations of 'being in it for the money' brought in the rule that "No breeder shall breed primarily for profit". A mistake I believe, since in a market driven world those who can earn biggest profits are those who best meet demands. But now those who earn biggest profits are open to the sort of harassment you mention. The K.Cs are not designed to meet the needs of their environment, but to remain distinctly separate. This rule is a reflection of that and came about because of that. A reaction typical to a biological organism that does not recognize its environment. If the environment for dogs was considered as the single environment it is, that accusation would have likely been taken as a more general one, with a different response aimed more at demonstrating/educating the benefits of NOT buying from a breeder whos primary goal is profit. And not opened the gates to breeders whos ONLY concern is meeting demand, for profit.

It doesn’t prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place. For example, terms such as ‘reasonable actions’, ‘reasonable access’ and ‘appropriate feed and water’ are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed. We must remember that the issue is much larger than a supply issue. The pet industry is worth billions of dollars a year to the Australian economy from vet services, pet insurance, grooming, pet food, pet toys and more. You can’t just shut puppy mills down without it having an effect on the economy. There has to be legislative changes to deal with this. What we are seeing now is • Serious health issues in dogs as a result of selective breeding for specific aesthetic traits. • Poor health and welfare for breeding dogs cause by high intensity commercial breeding operations and a lack of resources to ensure compliance. • High rates of impounding and euthanasia. • And more and are symptomatic of a system which allows for the treatment of companion animals as a perceived right rather than a responsibility. As identified in the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce in its 2012 report, companion animal welfare and management is a whole of community responsibility involving breeders, pet shops, pet owners, vets, law enforcers, local and state government, and animal shelters and holding facilities. No one group or entity can be looked at in isolation. There are so many things wrong with the current system and requires a holistic approach. The changes will happen eventually but it will take time and implementation of them will be gradual. For instance: • All dog breeders to be licensed • Breeder license number to be part of the microchipping information • Requirement for all pounds, shelters, vets and RSPCA facilities to report to ensure enforcement This type of reporting legislation is nothing new. It has already been implemented i n the financial services industry as part of the money laundering legislation. It covers the financial sector, gambling sector, bullion dealers and other professionals or businesses that provide services covered by the Act ...so the current desexing strategy is in place because it doesn't work thus protecting the sensible economy associated with the pet industry, while at the same time it gives the impression the authorities are doing something to address the pound issues and overpopulation? Nah, obviously the devils in the detail. No one can be trusted to be responsible. So we license and set out every last detail of breeder protocol to be followed. No more reasonable action, reasonable access or appropriate feed and water. Tell 'em how many litres per kilo over 24 hours. The details of any reasonable action, exactly what an approved enclosure looks like and punish any deviation. Make it a strictly regulated, licensed industry so puppy farms will be a thing of the past. (not) So we all know what responsibility looks like. We will finaly understand dogs. And none would dare to deviate. Sorry. I still say very short sighted. I can almost guarantee that within a single human generation 'pet' dogs would be almost non existent. Problem solved. Well meaning maybe, but very little understanding of any real value behind the partnership between man and dogs or how to preserve that. It is NOT by taking responsibility from Man and placing it with government, informed by 'industry leaders'. Yep. In many places there already are laws around all this stuff and they are not laws that make the lives of animals better overall, despite being well meaning. AND they can only be enforced for those that abide by them AND they aren't necessarily enforced even then. Punitive legislation for people making no attempt at responsibility is expected. But when you are telling people what responsibility MUST look like, all you are doing is taking it away. Reducing the ability to respond in any other manner. Because of personal beliefs and indoctrination, not science. Because an inability for variable response IS NOT response-ability. Its simply 'Fixing' a set response that is unable to adapt or evolve and unable to 'respond' to altered environment. Not responsibility- Just fixed reaction, with no need to understand or reason.

It doesn’t prove anything of the sort. All it proves is that many of the current standards lack the detail necessary to be enforceable or are simply not there in the first place. For example, terms such as ‘reasonable actions’, ‘reasonable access’ and ‘appropriate feed and water’ are not defined in legislation. What do these terms mean? They are not defined so authorities are reluctant to proceed. We must remember that the issue is much larger than a supply issue. The pet industry is worth billions of dollars a year to the Australian economy from vet services, pet insurance, grooming, pet food, pet toys and more. You can’t just shut puppy mills down without it having an effect on the economy. There has to be legislative changes to deal with this. What we are seeing now is • Serious health issues in dogs as a result of selective breeding for specific aesthetic traits. • Poor health and welfare for breeding dogs cause by high intensity commercial breeding operations and a lack of resources to ensure compliance. • High rates of impounding and euthanasia. • And more and are symptomatic of a system which allows for the treatment of companion animals as a perceived right rather than a responsibility. As identified in the NSW Companion Animals Taskforce in its 2012 report, companion animal welfare and management is a whole of community responsibility involving breeders, pet shops, pet owners, vets, law enforcers, local and state government, and animal shelters and holding facilities. No one group or entity can be looked at in isolation. There are so many things wrong with the current system and requires a holistic approach. The changes will happen eventually but it will take time and implementation of them will be gradual. For instance: • All dog breeders to be licensed • Breeder license number to be part of the microchipping information • Requirement for all pounds, shelters, vets and RSPCA facilities to report to ensure enforcement This type of reporting legislation is nothing new. It has already been implemented i n the financial services industry as part of the money laundering legislation. It covers the financial sector, gambling sector, bullion dealers and other professionals or businesses that provide services covered by the Act ...so the current desexing strategy is in place because it doesn't work thus protecting the sensible economy associated with the pet industry, while at the same time it gives the impression the authorities are doing something to address the pound issues and overpopulation? Nah, obviously the devils in the detail. No one can be trusted to be responsible. So we license and set out every last detail of breeder protocol to be followed. No more reasonable action, reasonable access or appropriate feed and water. Tell 'em how many litres per kilo over 24 hours. The details of any reasonable action, exactly what an approved enclosure looks like and punish any deviation. Make it a strictly regulated, licensed industry so puppy farms will be a thing of the past. (not) So we all know what responsibility looks like. We will finaly understand dogs. And none would dare to deviate. Sorry. I still say very short sighted. I can almost guarantee that within a single human generation 'pet' dogs would be almost non existent. Problem solved. Well meaning maybe, but very little understanding of any real value behind the partnership between man and dogs or how to preserve that. It is NOT by taking responsibility from Man and placing it with government, informed by 'industry leaders'.

So sorry for his loss Ricey Only just noticed this post. But what an impact hes made. Re; Fostering Bull Breeds ....Thats a worthy legacy he leaves behind. His life makes a difference. Easy running Hobbes.

But we already have legislation around lots of things (microchipping, breeders permits, registration, age of sale) and it isn't fixing the issues because it isn't enforced. More unenforced legislation won't change anything either. Education and changing the attitudes and will of the majority works two fold - 1. in changing people's behaviours; and 2. in changing political will and pressure on governments to spend resources on enforcing the legislation we already have. Those two things are what changed things with regard to slavery and the rights of women, and are why rates of things like drink driving and smoking rates, and racism, actually have reduced, not just a dictatorial government putting in new legislation without the will of the majority behind it. Agree. There have been improvements and I think will that will continue. Peoples expectations change and further legislation is, I think, Short sighted when what we have now IS changing expectations ( clear from OP )

I agree. With their popularity, I'm sure it would be quite possible to select for dogs based on common expectations of good health and vitality. How to get breeders to recognize that favoring the standard 1st diminishes those values is the hard part. Common values Vs breed specific values. .....If it doesn't conform to a ridgid, accepted standard, its got no recognizable value worth contributing. Or so they are told. Hard to push against that. If it can't be accepted there should be common standards for all dogs before breed standards, we will drive dogs to become uncommon. Standard by standard.

yes that seems to be the intention But I don't think it WAS the intention, to begin with. Just asking for changes to meet community and welfare expectations. That has not happened, and can not happen fast enough. There has been at least one generation of breeders since PDE, as far as average ( human) breeder span. Show ring awarded examples of poor practice are still rife and in some cases, for some breeds, going backwards. Internationaly if not nationaly. It seems international trends trickle down universaly too. Peta and the like, yeah, no pretense there on their intentions. Thing is though, So far, People still want DOGS enough that these extreme animal rights types wouldn't have a hope in hell of banning dogs. While the majority of people find value and purpose in keeping them, they haven't a hope of banning that. They are NOT the threat as long as that holds true. Poor breeding ( and husbandry) practices ARE a threat. One that gives Peta and the like any clout they have. Poor practices don't meet needs or expectations. There is no value or purpose in a poorly bred dog. Unless of course its being rewarded in the show ring, or a pet living in a home with such lowered expectations of dogs its only asked to be quiet. Diseased, crippled, unable to breathe, move freely, short lived or not bred for an ACTIVE role in Mans communities = a dog with little purpose but human vanity. Status. A cause for animal rights activists. While these types of dogs are PROMOTED in show ring results as prime examples of quality breeding they are forming expectations of the acceptable and desirable in any who don't already expect better and more. PETA stated their intention to do away with ALL companion animals well before PDE was made. In fact PETA coined the term "companion animal" because it didn't sound as "touchy feely" as "pet" and it would be easier to ban a "companion animal". So really, in light of that, they ought to be banned, ought they not? I cannot see any reason why not, after reading this. No one can justify continuing with a breed which suffers. No. You can't. IF, as a breed, they continue to be bred to standards that demand such extremes and are awarded for such extremes that they do suffer. I'd rather see changes in the culture of pedigree breeders that can avoid that. Too many breeds are headed for a similar fate and once there is a precedent it won't stop there. I think we all need to stop focusing on 'Where' a dog comes from to either justify or condemn poor/better practices and start selling expectations and practices. Those can bring value whatever purpose a dog is to serve, no matter where it comes from or goes to. Instead of arguing about who is doing it wrong, promote ideals and expectations to live up to. DEMONSTRATE how better value is to be had. Allow that demonstration, encourage it, and the breeds are better able to follow. The public can start to cheer that on and have an avenue open to drive change. I think the breed clubs are too insular and caught up in promoting existing standards for any degree of support to initiate change. Within clubs that require international agreement, its near impossible to gain 'approval' for anything different to whats in front of every one now. The public is no position to influence that when breeders 1st loyalty is not to dogs, or those who might buy them, but to a standard. Necessity CAN drive change, But demonstration is needed before its value can be recognized. Seems to be physical law of biology, backed by psychological research.

Not very hopeful. I can see that going down hill fast. Again, I am convinced the insularity of pedigree breeders is the cause. Each generation only has whats in front of them to form values, and each generation will expect less, and have less to work with. Permitted to cross breed for a "pet" market, I could see thoughtfully planned, health tested litters competing with both BYBers and puppy farms to promote better practices and dogs. Informing buyer expectation in the general population. Supporting the idea purpose and value are just as relevant in non pedigree dogs. The ways these are achieved. About time. Dogs that might not win in the show ring but having great value for companion purposes being retained for breeding because of value else where being recognized. And in turn comparative and alternative values being recognized by pedigree breeders and judges alike. I realy don't think we have time for anything less. We have some wonderful breeders, putting their hearts and souls into improvement, but until the pedigree is better understood to be a tool for better practice and not the end goal for their unique difference, they are pi**ing into the wind.

yes that seems to be the intention But I don't think it WAS the intention, to begin with. Just asking for changes to meet community and welfare expectations. That has not happened, and can not happen fast enough. There has been at least one generation of breeders since PDE, as far as average ( human) breeder span. Show ring awarded examples of poor practice are still rife and in some cases, for some breeds, going backwards. Internationaly if not nationaly. It seems international trends trickle down universaly too. Peta and the like, yeah, no pretense there on their intentions. Thing is though, So far, People still want DOGS enough that these extreme animal rights types wouldn't have a hope in hell of banning dogs. While the majority of people find value and purpose in keeping them, they haven't a hope of banning that. They are NOT the threat as long as that holds true. Poor breeding ( and husbandry) practices ARE a threat. One that gives Peta and the like any clout they have. Poor practices don't meet needs or expectations. There is no value or purpose in a poorly bred dog. Unless of course its being rewarded in the show ring, or a pet living in a home with such lowered expectations of dogs its only asked to be quiet. Diseased, crippled, unable to breathe, move freely, short lived or not bred for an ACTIVE role in Mans communities = a dog with little purpose but human vanity. Status. A cause for animal rights activists. While these types of dogs are PROMOTED in show ring results as prime examples of quality breeding they are forming expectations of the acceptable and desirable in any who don't already expect better and more.

Disapoint? I don't see how you get a personal criticism from that. I don't care what your personal criteria is for dog or human, and of course they would be different. The point was, no matter what you know of back ground, pedigree or culture, The value is in the person, or dog in front of you. Or it isn't. What ever personal criteria or back ground info.you have. And that it SHOULD be personal. With room for it to be personal, as long as others aren't forced to pay a price for your personal choices. As for the rest, I think you underestimate the abilities of a culture to influence direction of the environment that holds it over time. I am not talking about a conscious 'plan' but an unconscious direction taken by introducing a form of 'doctrine' into constitution or rules that has no bearing on goals set. A cultural doctrine that favors elimination of imperfection to achieve a perfection that can never be universaly agreed. It can only ever appeal to an ever decreasing audience. Because individual, personal values can have no influence on long term direction.

No. I would advocate removal of that rule so that Pedigree breeders are not ruling against some thing outside of their jurisdiction, which is PEDIGREE dogs. A dog ineligible for a pedigree is outside a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against just about every thing NOT in a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against the environment the registry system itself needs to remain viable. The pedigree dog used might be jurisdiction of the registry, but surely its not bred FOR the registry alone, but for a human and a purpose. The purpose surely is dogs, not the registry itself. The registry alone can not meet the needs and expectations of Man. Dogs can. A 'Registry only' making a political statement can not be a 'registry only'. They invite an expectation and the pressure they will be more. IF breeders are free to meet the needs of Man 1st, I believe the culture will change to reflect those needs better. If that turns out to mean admitting other values/dogs into the pedigree system, it should be easier to accomplish with a culture willing to see values in other directions but inwards. I believe I have a similar situation with my kids. I couldn't care less what someone else's kid does or what some other parent allows their kids to do but I do what I can to control my kids . I couldn't careless if someone else's kid has sex with someone else kid but I sure as hell care if my kid has sex with someone else's kid that doesn't fit my criteria. That's not because I have or want jurisdiction over someone else kid but because I have jurisdiction over my own . Breeders are already free to meet the needs of man first and herein for me lies the answer. That criteria surely doesn't include the kid slept with must come from the same family or cultural doctrines for any value they bring to the family to be recognized. Surely a persons value as a human being is recognized before cultural doctrine or identity?

No. I would advocate removal of that rule so that Pedigree breeders are not ruling against some thing outside of their jurisdiction, which is PEDIGREE dogs. A dog ineligible for a pedigree is outside a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against just about every thing NOT in a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against the environment the registry system itself needs to remain viable. The pedigree dog used might be jurisdiction of the registry, but surely its not bred FOR the registry alone, but for a human and a purpose. The purpose surely is dogs, not the registry itself. The registry alone can not meet the needs and expectations of Man. Dogs can. A 'Registry only' making a political statement can not be a 'registry only'. They invite an expectation and the pressure they will be more. IF breeders are free to meet the needs of Man 1st, I believe the culture will change to reflect those needs better. If that turns out to mean admitting other values/dogs into the pedigree system, it should be easier to accomplish with a culture willing to see values in other directions but inwards. When you are a member of a state CC which has this ruling you agree that the state CC has jurisdiction over dogs you own which are registered with them. If you as a dog owner want to mate your dog with any other dog the CC has no jurisdiction over you or your dog but it does have jurisdiction over a members purebred dogs. They don't want to have any say over what a dog not their business is able to do. Breeders are already free to meet the needs of man first and herein for me lies the answer. I disagree. If a breeder is not free to choose a mating based purely on the value it offers, even if that dog will be ineligible for registration, then they are breeding to meet needs of the pedigree system 1st.

MonElites experience at the cultural festival is I think a good example of how this attitude of keeping dogs out of public awareness can encourage yet more fear and ignorance. Inapproporiate human behavior can also add to the risks and I think that increases when people are unfamiliar with dogs as part of our society. Creates a catch 22 where it becomes more likely for incidents to occur, and LESS access granted because of that. Maybe if there was an easily accessible, council run test/trial people could enroll themselves and their dogs in for a 'ticket' of canine and owner good citizenship that would ease people minds and encourage more responsible behavior all 'round? Businesses/rail etc could ask for that to be shown?