moosmum

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard. Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions. 16% in a survey is not too many. moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose. Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool. Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog. But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away. It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin. Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing. Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity. The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs. So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job. As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today. That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow. No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs. Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only. Is that it? It THAT the rule you constantly reference and push about it being the root cause of the problems? Yes. I have been quite clear on that from the start.

The point is that every breed standard for every breed calls for healthy dogs with no breathing/conformation problems which can do whatever their job is. Where things go wrong can be the INTERPRETATION of that standard. Dog_fan - it has nothing to do with the health or quality of purebred or otherwise dogs. The dogs will be banned in due course. Cavaliers have already been banned in Holland (too unhealthy) but supporters and the Cavalier Club managed to have the bans lifted so next time there is a ban, AR will ensure there is no so much support. It should amaze everyone that governments, university departments etc are interested in interfering in the breeding of dogs - yet allow thousands to be bred in poor conditions with poor health in puppy farms - providing that they don't really care, they are being pushed in these decisions. 16% in a survey is not too many. moosemum - the point of the pedigree is so the breeder can see the ancestors - if I know the mother and father and grandparents had BOAS, I can breed away from it - or I can breed for better layback of shoulder that the grandfather had. Perhaps I will use a cousin with the same good layback. Without knowing the ancestors, it's all shooting blind. If I don't have any names, I can't do much except cross my fingers. That is the purpose of the pedigree - and the only valid purpose. Breeders are not forced to take notice of it, but it is a very useful tool. Yes Jed, I know what the pedigree is for, and it is and always will be a very useful tool. But thats ALL it is...A tool towards a goal. A dog. But the point is, some dogs with very valuable, sought after traits might NOT HAVE a pedigree. It doesn't make them less a dog, or have less to contribute IF there is a genuine goal in mind. A purpose. And buyers who will support what ever that purpose is. Its clear many support cross breeds and find value there anyway. They won't be going away. It CAN be done ethicaly with exactly the same values pedigree breeders hold and promote. And if it were, we would not be having such problems with over breeding of BYB dogs or puppy mills enjoying the support they currently do. Because those same values would be promoted universaly. But instead the public becomes ever more ineffective and random in their breeding, ownership and management choices, while the K.Cs become ever tighter in controls. They are 2 sides of one coin. Opposite environments instead of a single one. Opposing. Cross breeding will always be less predictable, and pedigree will always offer greater predictability. The pedigree doesn't loose value because cross breeds are being bred. But cross breeds can be better bred, with goals in mind and pedigrees can be bred with out such a narrow focus. The 2 sick opposing environments can be a single healthy one if the common values are recognized. The dogs. The dogs ARE the value. Their purpose is for Humanity. The show ring is 1 purpose of many. Its no less valid than any other. Its no greater value than any other. Interpretation of the standards is the problem, I agree. So allow more interpretation of those standards by allowing other interpretaions to have relevance to the people who show them. Not JUST the show ring, but what people and communities are asking for. Dogs that can also serve THEIR needs. So success AS a breeder doesn't always depend on how many championships are accrued, but also by demand for pups that non-show people rave over because they have confident out going temperaments, long and healthy lives, obedient and responsive to the homes they go to as pets and companions or dogs with a job. As you yourself noted, that is success even with out the show championships. Let it be recognized as such and maybe further down the line their progeny WILL be champions again. Possibly of a much higher standard than can be found in the show ring today. So pedigrees on average offer much more value to non- show people and they WILL seek them out more often than they do today. That can't be done ATM because of the rule forbidding members to recognize value in a dog ineligible to show.The show ring is the only value that CAN gain recognition for a breeders success. So too often they simply don't live up to other expectations. Focus of purpose is too narrow. No pedigree doesn't mean NO ancestors can be known or that no attempt to know them could be made where thats possible. Thats a valuable contribution FOR THE DOGS right there from pedigree breeders that should be able to influence breeders of non pedigree dogs. Even if that ancestry can't be traced at all, There may be overiding value in the DOG (not its pedigree) that could contribute to the species. A lot more risk, Yeah. But if that dog has valued traits that can't be found else where, it could eventualy Contribute to a new purpose and breed to join the K.Cs and contribute to a new kind of predictability available. If it doesn't, well its a line unlikely to last long. But historicaly, thats how the breeds were created and what the K.Cs grew out of. The ability of the environments to select values for themselves where they find them. Not have those values dictated by whats available in one place only.

Guaranteed ancestry. What a dog looks like may not be what a dog is. A pedigree is not just a piece of paper. Family trees matter. They don't matter just in pedigrees though. They matter in any dog. Steve, I believe this addresses your post also. The same things matter weather you are breeding to a pedigree or not. You may believe otherwise, but we are not talking about you the individual, who has a choice in your beliefs. We ARE talking about a culture, bound by that rule in its constitution and the cumulative effects of how that rule will be interpreted at any given point in time, and applied to any problem in any given point in time. By the culture. The same values, knowledge of ancestral history, apply to ANY deliberate breeding. Those values don't depend on a certificate of pedigree to validate them. Not in reality. The belief they DO require a certificate of validation is why pedigree breders don't teach those values outside of the K.C environment though, and why those values are being lost. WITHOUT that rule, a pedigree would represent the knowledge and ancestry behind a breed. With that rule, all it can be is a certificate of validation. It can NEVER guarantee those values are there or fully appreciated by the breeder. Putting forward arguments af natural law are not 'pointless' when any species depends on those same laws for survival and viability. Despite artificial selection. The sciences of Physics, psychology, language, Evolution and biology are not irrelevant because you select a dog rather than take it. All those subjects are relevant and seem to support this theory. The 'Its not us' and 'show us the proof' responses to the problems are BECAUSE of that rule. It doesn't allow members to see there is problem and respond to address it. To ask, 'How can we add and demonstrate better value so those traits are no longer seen as a problem?' The problem is seen in other terms. "How do we eliminate those problems and who/what dogs will be the target?' We sure as hell wont eliminate those problems by pushing for that rule to be removed because right up until there is no life left that rule will stay. If there is an acknowledgment of that and discussion can move on to finding REALISTIC solutions to help ensure we do what is best for the dogs we may make a small step forward. You have to know which battles you can win and right or wrong no drum banging is going to change that rule. But based on what I see here - there is a hell of long way before strategies are actually developed that will see the breeds still exist into the next century. Until its clear you speak for all K.C Orgs. then, I will trust the silence means they are waiting for the RIGHT answer, when and if that becomes clear. If its about the dogs. Maybe thinking of some of the enormous positive implications of change, if it turns out to be correct, as I have no doubts it will. Physics governs life. Human cultures mimic and repeat 'Laws' laid down at the cellular and genetic level. This ties together various 'human'science disciplines that appear to reinforce this theory. We are talking cultural evolution. A cultural imperative, as much as any genetic imperative. I don't see you getting any where with out changing physics. You do realize I am not promoting the opening of stud books, I hope? Because I believe this solution in most cases would mean an end to increasing 'red tape' and restrictions, as well as increasing genetic variability without that. It does not ask the K.cs to be any more than the registry they set out to be. It does not force them into a greater role. Or to 'police' anyone more than current rules allow. It doesn't COST them anything. It only brings value, unless they believe a pedigree has MORE value than the dog it represents and I prefer to hope thats not a reasoned position. You want realistic solutions based on faith? Right up until theres no life left? Be careful what you ask for. I don't believe you can health test, "experimental breed", blame or even out cross your way out of this. Not with out addressing the cause. Yeah, you have to know which battles you can win. And which will cost most. And what the prize is. Then take responsibility for your choices.

Guaranteed ancestry. What a dog looks like may not be what a dog is. A pedigree is not just a piece of paper. Family trees matter. They don't matter just in pedigrees though. They matter in any dog. Steve, I believe this addresses your post also. The same things matter weather you are breeding to a pedigree or not. You may believe otherwise, but we are not talking about you the individual, who has a choice in your beliefs. We ARE talking about a culture, bound by that rule in its constitution and the cumulative effects of how that rule will be interpreted at any given point in time, and applied to any problem in any given point in time. By the culture. The same values, knowledge of ancestral history, apply to ANY deliberate breeding. Those values don't depend on a certificate of pedigree to validate them. Not in reality. The belief they DO require a certificate of validation is why pedigree breders don't teach those values outside of the K.C environment though, and why those values are being lost. WITHOUT that rule, a pedigree would represent the knowledge and ancestry behind a breed. With that rule, all it can be is a certificate of validation. It can NEVER guarantee those values are there or fully appreciated by the breeder. Putting forward arguments af natural law are not 'pointless' when any species depends on those same laws for survival and viability. Despite artificial selection. The sciences of Physics, psychology, language, Evolution and biology are not irrelevant because you select a dog rather than take it. All those subjects are relevant and seem to support this theory. The 'Its not us' and 'show us the proof' responses to the problems are BECAUSE of that rule. It doesn't allow members to see there is problem and respond to address it. To ask, 'How can we add and demonstrate better value so those traits are no longer seen as a problem?' The problem is seen in other terms. "How do we eliminate those problems and who/what dogs will be the target?'

Or delete the rule that misdirects breeders from the dog to the pedigree. Even logic alone should point out the fault in that rule. The insinuation is that there is some danger inherent in dogs with out a pedigree that must be defended against, If a ruling against breeding any dog ineligible for a pedigree is required. That is an assumption all pedigree breeders, under that rule, must work with. So what separates a dog with a pedigree from a dog with out one? Thats a question the K.Cs must constantly strive to answer and define. But the answer is : NOTHING but the pedigree itself! So the dog goes, bit by bit. What lies outside a pedigree is a dog. And that is Hendrik Gommers Theory in a nut shell. It works.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice. Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are likely pretty ignorant as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again. Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another. The people doing these kind of crosses are not generally "pedigree breeders". I've seen quite a few claims of "improving breeds" made for new "breeds". From what i've heard the much hyped Australian Bulldog has succeeded in raising levels of dog aggression above what you'd find in BBs. Is that an improvement? You don't just get the 'good' genes from the breeds you use. You get the lot. There have certainly been authorised outcrosses over the years. Use of Golden Retrievers to solve the problem of a minute gene pool in Flatcoats is one example. English and Gordon Setter crosses were authorised in Scandanavia some years back again due to lack of numbers. In sighthounds, the only "new" breed in recent years has health issues completely unknown in other sighthound breeds. Reason? The use of Shetland Sheepdogs to put coat on the Silken Windhound. If you can't test for conditions (as you couldn't for MDR1 at the time) outcrossing doesn't always improve anything. I agree. I think its often a better option to allow availability of demonstration examples for some time before inclusion into a pedigree. This would allow for observation and testing before selection of individuals who bring best value to the mix. When you are artificially selecting animals you get what you select for - you lose things you don't select for .Its virtually impossible to be able to work on more than one thing at a time and get the desired results. Asking a breeder or a group of breeders to eliminate dogs which have extreme health issues due to the way the head is shaped AND also focus on hips, elbows, colour, temperament recessive polygenic and reproductive issues all at once is really a bit of a joke. it wont work effectively if there isn't an understanding of the possible risks and patience to see it through, Any purebred breeding program requires a breeder to identify the goals for each litter ,fix what they are after and then go back and fix up what they may have lost while they took their eye off it. If in fact the temperament or anything else has slipped while they are working on what they have considered the major goal then once they have achieved the goal they can begin to keep what they now have and fix anything they have to in order to finish the project. So at the end they have the good bits and not the bad bits.But it takes time and knowledge. It certainly takes a pedigree breeder who gets it and sadly there are few who really get it but to suggest that dogs being used in such a project should not be included in a pedigree before the availability of demonstration examples completely ignores why a pedigree system is used in the first place. Without a pedigree record with every dog that is used for breeding identified via a pedigree , the person or people working on anything can't determine where it went right or where it went wrong to use the info to move them forward in ther goals Edited to add there are issues relating to the system that will prevent much progress. For example in order to protect the breed the system doesn't enable a handful of breeders who don't agree with the breed club to get approval for an experimental breeding program. Good reason for this but it also very much restricts anything being done to one philosophy and anyone seen to be aiming at one goal which doesn't fit with the mob mentality with focus producing a champion is bullied and ostracized It is difficult to believe that this subject can be truly examined on this forum. Man has been selecting dogs for centuries with out a pedigree system and it worked well enough to bring us distinct types and unofficial 'breeds'. Much more slowly, yes. But steady improvement and reliability was achieved because the dogs allowed to thrive were those selected by the environment that supported them- Based on Values demonstrated. Those dogs who brought best value were most sought for breeding. Those with less value were not.It was a value adding system. It allowed for INDIVIDUALS to focus on their own priorities and add value to the whole as it applied to their own situation and specific purpose/environment. Domestic Dogs only environment is humanities communities and society. Thats what governed the selection process to give rise to the species. There was nothing artificial about that selection process. Its wasn't perfect, 'Mistakes' occurred. But because of the broader selection allowed, and the value seeking nature of environment, those mistakes were 'mostly' short lived. Thats where a pedigree realy shows its benefits and value.In tracing both negative and positive values to speed up and make more efficient that NATURAL selection process. Great value to be had from a pedigree, no doubt about that. When applied to specific groups of dogs classed now as pure breeds, a pedigree has incredible potential to add to the values for purpose of that pure breed. Those values for purpose are ALWAYS decided by environment, and will depend on what values the ENVIRONMENT can recognize as worthy of support. The only successful response of a species is to make sure it adds value to its environment to earn that support and favor that will allow it to thrive. Value adding. It becomes UN-NATURAL only when environment is excluded from that process. As happened when K.Cs ruled members must not breed a dog ineligible for registration. That took pedigree dogs OUT of their natural environment and placed them into an un-natural environment we call the K.Cs. The K.Cs become a distinct environment of their own with that rule in play. Purpose of the breeds is no longer to serve the environment that grew them, and MUST support them for viability, but to serve the K.C 'Owning' that pedigree. Independent of the environment that supports the species as a whole. Where ever the current K.C cultural priorities lie is where the focus will take the breed in any given time period. Disregarding environmental priorities which are always individualy specific to allow for the whole range of environmental values. The species purpose to mankind, his environment, will always be secondary to those priorities. So yes. It is a joke to expect Pedigrees breeders under the current rules to be able to work on more than one thing at a time, when current trends in the show ring replace environmental values for purpose. Yes it has worked well enough to bring us distinct types and official and unofficial breeds but this is 2016 and we are talking purebred dogs and what is required to improve their health and welfare .No breeder then or now could ever work on more than one thing at a time and get as good a result as timely toward their goal. Appologies Steve, my post was incomplete at the time of your response. Has been Edited because it takes me time to formulate my thoughts. Should be much clearer now, but I am limited in eloquence. No individual breeder can do it faster, I agree. Its the cumulative effects though of MANY individual priorities ( or environments) all at once that drive direction of the whole. This is not allowed under present rules of constitution, where only a single environment at any one time is able to be recognized. The overall needs and demands will be the same, but that environment is only able to have limited focus at any given time.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice. Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are likely pretty ignorant as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again. Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another. The people doing these kind of crosses are not generally "pedigree breeders". I've seen quite a few claims of "improving breeds" made for new "breeds". From what i've heard the much hyped Australian Bulldog has succeeded in raising levels of dog aggression above what you'd find in BBs. Is that an improvement? You don't just get the 'good' genes from the breeds you use. You get the lot. There have certainly been authorised outcrosses over the years. Use of Golden Retrievers to solve the problem of a minute gene pool in Flatcoats is one example. English and Gordon Setter crosses were authorised in Scandanavia some years back again due to lack of numbers. In sighthounds, the only "new" breed in recent years has health issues completely unknown in other sighthound breeds. Reason? The use of Shetland Sheepdogs to put coat on the Silken Windhound. If you can't test for conditions (as you couldn't for MDR1 at the time) outcrossing doesn't always improve anything. I agree. I think its often a better option to allow availability of demonstration examples for some time before inclusion into a pedigree. This would allow for observation and testing before selection of individuals who bring best value to the mix. When you are artificially selecting animals you get what you select for - you lose things you don't select for .Its virtually impossible to be able to work on more than one thing at a time and get the desired results. Asking a breeder or a group of breeders to eliminate dogs which have extreme health issues due to the way the head is shaped AND also focus on hips, elbows, colour, temperament recessive polygenic and reproductive issues all at once is really a bit of a joke. it wont work effectively if there isn't an understanding of the possible risks and patience to see it through, Any purebred breeding program requires a breeder to identify the goals for each litter ,fix what they are after and then go back and fix up what they may have lost while they took their eye off it. If in fact the temperament or anything else has slipped while they are working on what they have considered the major goal then once they have achieved the goal they can begin to keep what they now have and fix anything they have to in order to finish the project. So at the end they have the good bits and not the bad bits.But it takes time and knowledge. It certainly takes a pedigree breeder who gets it and sadly there are few who really get it but to suggest that dogs being used in such a project should not be included in a pedigree before the availability of demonstration examples completely ignores why a pedigree system is used in the first place. Without a pedigree record with every dog that is used for breeding identified via a pedigree , the person or people working on anything can't determine where it went right or where it went wrong to use the info to move them forward in ther goals Edited to add there are issues relating to the system that will prevent much progress. For example in order to protect the breed the system doesn't enable a handful of breeders who don't agree with the breed club to get approval for an experimental breeding program. Good reason for this but it also very much restricts anything being done to one philosophy and anyone seen to be aiming at one goal which doesn't fit with the mob mentality with focus producing a champion is bullied and ostracized It is difficult to believe that this subject can be truly examined on this forum. Man has been selecting dogs for centuries with out a pedigree system and it worked well enough to bring us distinct types and unofficial 'breeds'. Steady improvement and reliability was achieved because the dogs allowed to thrive were those selected by the environment that supported them- Based on Values demonstrated. Those dogs who brought best value were most sought for breeding. Those with less value were not. It was a value adding system. It allowed for INDIVIDUALS to focus on their own priorities and add value to the whole as it applied to their own situation and specific purpose/environment. Domestic Dogs only environment is humanities communities and society. Thats what governed the selection process to give rise to the species. There was nothing artificial about that selection process. I was driven by environment. Its demands for demonstrated value. Its wasn't perfect, 'Mistakes' occurred. But because of the broader selection allowed, and the value seeking nature of environment, those mistakes were 'mostly' short lived. A pedigree has great potential to show its benefits and value in tracing both negative and positive values to speed up and make more efficient that NATURAL selection process. Great value to be had from a pedigree, no doubt about that. When applied to specific groups of dogs classed now as pure breeds, a pedigree has incredible potential to add to the values for purpose of that dog. Those values for purpose are ALWAYS decided by environment, and will depend on what values the ENVIRONMENT can recognize as worthy of support. The only successful response of a species is to make sure it adds value to its environment to earn that support and favor that will allow it to thrive. Value adding. It becomes UN-NATURAL only when environment is excluded from that process. As happened when K.Cs ruled members must not breed a dog ineligible for registration. That took pedigree dogs out of their NATURAL environment and placed them into an un-natural environment we call the K.Cs. The K.Cs become a distinct environment of their own with that rule in play. Not just a natural variable in the many different environments available and supportive to domestic dogs. Purpose of the breeds is no longer to serve the varied environments that grew them, and MUST support them for viability, but to serve the K.C 'Owning' that pedigree. Independent of the environment that supports the species as a whole. Its a SEPARATION of values and purpose. Where ever the current K.C cultural priorities lie is where the focus will take the breed in any given time period. Disregarding environmental priorities which are always individual specific to allow for the whole range of environmental values at any one time. The species purpose to mankind, his environment, will always be secondary to the K.Cs own purpose and priorities. So yes. It is a joke to expect Pedigrees breeders under the current rules to be able to work on more than one thing at a time, when current trends in the show ring replace environmental values for purpose. For a tiny groups priorities to replace the purpose dog fill in their environment.To replace variable environmental selection with one of variable timing. A dog either has a pedigree, or it doesn't. The ruling that forbids recognition of any value in dogs with out a pedigree is superfluous to that system and draws a line of separation in/of environment. Be careful what you ask for. Its no longer 'just' a closed system. Its an encapsulated system with out that recognition of value for species before 'breed'. Whats out side of that line- is to be kept out. Its a system that defines itself BY that separation of values. So instead of a value adding system it becomes a value reduction system. A negative instruction can only limit value.It can never add value. That instruction limits values to those contained in the K.C specific environment. So apart from a pedigree, what are they? Those values CAN"T be about the dog 1st. Not while its pedigrees alone that represent membership to that encapsulated environment. Not while K.C values must be held distinct from the common values inherent in the species to its natural environment. K.C member breeds under that rule are forced to constantly redefine what its own environment, membership and values DO include, to keep that unwelcome environmental influence at bay. An impossibility. There is no pedigree with out species. There are no pedigree dogs with out an environment to hold them.. It narrows priorities (and knowledge) in breeding to what IS already contained in a pedigree, known and recorded. Demands are timing variable, rather than environment variable. The more time passes, the fewer values available to select from to meet current demands. If the only values recognized must be in pedigrees to begin with, "Improvement" must be through elimination of fault or imperfection. Its a closed system. Nothing CAN be added. Protocols may be there, but the culture is set, 'fixed' on value reduction, not value adding. Its a culture programed to define its purpose (the pedigree) by what is excluded. The only thing that can be excluded from environment must be more environment or parts of it. No matter how you logicaly CHOOSE to look at it, the reality of the language in that instruction means the purpose of the K.Cs is Pedigree. NOT dogs. Its not dogs that define them. Its pedigree. The problems faced by the K.Cs in adapting to demands are less to do with the closed stud books than they are with the closed culture that holds them. That rule closes the culture to influence from the whole of their environment, restricting it to only those who value the pedigree above the species itself. The environment that holds that culture is unable to influence direction and choices. Does not matter if you tell me YOU believe other wise. The truth is in the language of the instruction, for the CULTURE. To make that a positive instruction, You would say 'We will protect pedigrees from dogs'. Positive instruction gives a clear direction of purpose that make implications easy to predict. A negative instruction gives NO direction or purpose. You aren't choosing a direction. Its the opposite of direction. It can only limit into the mirror image of a direction. By giving implication. Its harder to see the direction an implication will take you. Any signator is bound by that instruction, to that culture. That is a signators choice. K.C members are NOT victim to the world or environment they inherited. Only a victim of the environment they choose to separate from it. That culture COULD choose to respond. Removal of that rule allows response. If it chooses not to, it WILL suffer the environmental attrition of not being able to do so, by the environment IT exists in. That rule is what allows and even encourages the attrition of signators who attempt change. Those who do try to change can not be favored in a K.C environment. Not under a rule that restricts environment to what is known to be there, yet improve on it.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice. Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are likely pretty ignorant as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again. Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another. The people doing these kind of crosses are not generally "pedigree breeders". I've seen quite a few claims of "improving breeds" made for new "breeds". From what i've heard the much hyped Australian Bulldog has succeeded in raising levels of dog aggression above what you'd find in BBs. Is that an improvement? You don't just get the 'good' genes from the breeds you use. You get the lot. There have certainly been authorised outcrosses over the years. Use of Golden Retrievers to solve the problem of a minute gene pool in Flatcoats is one example. English and Gordon Setter crosses were authorised in Scandanavia some years back again due to lack of numbers. In sighthounds, the only "new" breed in recent years has health issues completely unknown in other sighthound breeds. Reason? The use of Shetland Sheepdogs to put coat on the Silken Windhound. If you can't test for conditions (as you couldn't for MDR1 at the time) outcrossing doesn't always improve anything. I agree. I think its often a better option to allow availability of demonstration examples for some time before inclusion into a pedigree. This would allow for observation and testing before selection of individuals who bring best value to the mix.

They are not trying to improve the health and soundness of greyhounds, they are only trying to improve the health and soundness of a breed of mastiff and chose the greyhound to cross them with. There were other breeds of mastiff's they could have used. Breeding 80 plus kilo dogs to 30 -35 kilos dogs is not what I call sound practice. Pedigree breeders specialize in breeding "pure" or closed lines. Their own rules against cross breeding mean they are unlikely to be familiar as to what IS sound practice in cross breeding. But I generalize again. Personaly, If it were my breed I think I might be flattered the predictability of that breed was deemed to have values worth contributing to improvement of another.

Then Rebanne I respectfully apologize for what I thought was clear sarcasm in defense of breeders in general and Greyhound breeders more specificaly. Apologies to every one else who might be offended by my generalized defense of same. I wait with baited breath to see if the GSD breeders learn before its their turn. Who else does it wrong? Ah yes Greyhound breeders! Then theres Dachies. Shar Pei. Hmmm. Puppy farmers. In the end, no one can be trusted to do the right thing. If we out law the keeping of dogs, no welfare problem at all.

What am I doing wrong? Rebanne, I Don't say you are doing any thing wrong. I don't know that you are and chances are, absolutely nothing. Ditto with the other mentions. No doubt some are. Its human nature that we are an imperfect lot. There are welfare issues associated with the breeds that are increasingly becoming a focus. That will continue while people prefer to identify with a distinct group that draws a line between itself and the communities that hold them. Promoting the idea of distinct and separate values ensures those values can't be shared coopperatively - and in a shared environment thats an essential outcome to avoid rejection.

I also have been a vet nurse who has seen the suffering 1st hand. I have not said its acceptable by any means and agree an animal should never be bred to suffer. Far too many do. There is absolutely no way I could blame BYBers for this..... These deformities have clearly been selected over many generations over healthier alternatives. Those calling for BSL to tackle this problem are left with little other choice. I have been saying for some time BSL was a logical result of current K.C rules of constitution. The problem as I see it is that it is not going to end there and instead of fixing problems we are left with little choice but to legislate against their possibility. BECAUSE they are forced to operate under a negative values system and teach the same. As do many, many other accepted Orgs. society works with or under. Breeders like Jed who genuinely care and strive to breed for health 1st, and could have much to teach are lost. So we have removed a great deal of value from the environment of domestic dogs when this move takes its course. Shrunk the environment able to hold and value dogs. I wait with baited breath to see if the GSD breeders learn before its their turn. Who else does it wrong? Ah yes Greyhound breeders! Then theres Dachies. Shar Pei. Hmmm. Puppy farmers. In the end, no one can be trusted to do the right thing. If we out law the keeping of dogs, no welfare problem at all. If you can't teach and practice value adding yet need change, you are left with no alternative but value removal. The culture enshrined in the K.Cs rules means real and LASTING change is nearly impossible to implement. And some very good breeders are victims of that culture more than they are of this legislation.There is a choice to change that culture. Not much chance of affecting the legislation with out doing that 1st. Steve, this move against Brachy breeders may be planned but is only a small part of a process that has been underway since the inception of the K.Cs and the blue print inadvertently set out for the species. Theres a lot more to come that hasn't hasn't even been a stray thought yet.

Well, yeah. But its no conscious plan. Its an acceptance of negative rather than positive value systems. Not looking to how we can ADD value for a friendlier environment, but finding fault in the environment instead, and rejecting it. We can all feel so moraly superior that way. Whoopeee! Who wouldn't jump at that chance? (till its their turn)

Personaly, I see no way this will /can be disproved and too many ways it is confirmed. Allowing such rules to stand in any constitution or ideology seems to alter and limit Mans perceptions of reality, science and our own responsibility to that. We want science based solutions, but can't act on them because we can no longer recognize concepts that were, not so long ago, much better understood. Biological science and evolution is ruled by physics just like every thing else in existence. Only an understanding of that and the mechanics of those physical laws gives us any ability to respond effectively. The Science is here. It can explain and provide solutions to the problems the K.Cs have in adapting to the needs and demands of the community to become a success story. Ignoring it because its not understood while trying to address the symptoms is only going to bring further deterioration. I think dogs have a role to play for recognition of this science that is critical for humanities evolution at this stage of world politics.

Bubs reward

Very gentle

Very biased, but I love watching these 2 together. We worked at this relationship. It is lovely to watch Bub feeding 'her' dog and calling her 1st thing when she arrives, playing catch me and kiss me in the hall, throwing toys for each other, and even watching doig place herself between Bub and any visitors she thinks might be getting rough with 'her' baby. Bubs whole limbs go into dogs mouth at times, but she is always incredibly gentle.( and yes, supervised at all times)

My old girl ( now gone) was not allowed on the beds. She would take up the whole thing! But had her own bed complete with blankets. If the kids lay on her bed, she would put her blankets on them. If she wanted to play and we ignored her, she would hold her squeaky toy against your ear and squeak it :laugh: Miss that girl.

Thank you. No, thats not what I mean. They should be permitted to be bred, BUT: Cross breeds should NOT be registered - Until and unless they become a recognizable type in demand, With enough following to support a breed club. They don't have to be predictable, As long as there is a purpose. If that purpose leads to a distinct type, with clear value to the purpose, that is how your breeds were formed. The ability to do that is the foundation on which the K.Cs stand. To not recognize that, is to undermine your own foundations. Pedigree breeders must have the option to breed dogs that WON'T be eligible for registration. Or showing. Just like every one else who hasn't signed up the the K.Cs constitution. For Biophysical reasons, they can't survive long term with out that. The SPECIES needs that change to survive. Pedigree dogs are interdependent with breeders who DON'T work under a pedigree system. When pedigree breeders suffer a blow, so do those who aren't. And It works the other way too. All BECAUSE of that rule. There needs to be recognition we are serving the same values. That is NOT the pedigree. Its the dogs, for the purpose we find in them. The pedigree has value as a tool. For its purpose. But it isn't THE purpose. Or else you are serving the pedigree, not the dogs. Any values we have for dogs and how we should be responding to them as a species is dependent on the purpose we as individuals get from the dogs. The pedigree is one way to access and possibly increase the value. Nothing more. It does not, in reality, divide the species into a value system Vs none, because any value is in the Dogs. That rule irrevocably divides the environment into two incompatible halves. It sends a message to divide what CAN'T be divided, so the only option is to divide again. And again. And again. Decreasing each time because the only way to put all the value into one environment is to decrease the environment able to hold those values. We lose our ability to respond to the species in the ONLY way that can see it evolve effectively AS a species. Under that rule. Take it away, and pedigree breeders AND those not in a breed registry, can BOTH become much more responsible and effective, with pedigree breeders representing the breeds much more effectively and EARNING a favored role in direction. The quality of membership would rise with the quality of the environment they come from. There is no such thing as a KC which does not have provision for allowing the stud books to be opened and for dogs to be entered which are not already registered with them. Right now in the UK every single breed's stud book is open. Yes there is a requirement for anyone to wants to use outside dogs to go through a process for permission and show cause as to why a particular dog which is not registered would benefit the breed but this serves the purpose and protects the breed. A KC may have as part of its rules that you cant breed other dogs if you are one of their members but they cannot restrict what a breeder does with dogs which are not registered as long as they don't breed them to dogs which are registered. They have 'provisions', yes. But they do not allow 'examples'. How is anyone encouraged to make use of these provisions if examples and possibilities are NOT recognized until after the fact? A person contemplating this has to choose the most effective choices based NOT on any values a particular cross has demonstrated, but only what they can guarantee before the fact? How are effective examples to be found by a person trying to discover the best choices when known ( healthy ) pedigrees are excluded from those examples he might encounter? It would take a very brave person, supported by a very brave committee and likely a lot more years than a single breeders has to risk to take responsibility for an out cross in the current climate of the K.Cs. And it IS a risk to their standing amongst their peers. Their show careers and even the breed. If K.C members were permitted to breed good, known dogs INeligible for registration, The choice of dogs used to outcross would be much easier. You aren't making a choice on paper. You have demonstrated values to choose from, not just in breeds, but in individuals. What to choose for an out cross? Lets see, what works? Whats brings most value to the table? Whats AVAILABLE for testing? They would not BE registered until their worth is demonstrated, so the breed itself is NOT at risk. It remains a pure breed until better value is demonstrated, agreed and enacted by the committee. With less risk because they have demonstrations of value to test and select from.

Thank you. No, thats not what I mean. They should be permitted to be bred, BUT: Cross breeds should NOT be registered - Until and unless they become a recognizable type in demand, With enough following to support a breed club. They don't have to be predictable, As long as there is a purpose. If that purpose leads to a distinct type, with clear value to the purpose, that is how your breeds were formed. The ability to do that is the foundation on which the K.Cs stand. To not recognize that, is to undermine your own foundations. Pedigree breeders must have the option to breed dogs that WON'T be eligible for registration. Or showing. Just like every one else who hasn't signed up the the K.Cs constitution. For Biophysical reasons, they can't survive long term with out that. The SPECIES needs that change to survive. Pedigree dogs are interdependent with breeders who DON'T work under a pedigree system. When pedigree breeders suffer a blow, so do those who aren't. And It works the other way too. All BECAUSE of that rule. There needs to be recognition we are serving the same values. That is NOT the pedigree. Its the dogs, for the purpose we find in them. The pedigree has value as a tool. For its purpose. But it isn't THE purpose. Or else you are serving the pedigree, not the dogs. Any values we have for dogs and how we should be responding to them as a species is dependent on the purpose we as individuals get from the dogs. The pedigree is one way to access and possibly increase the value. Nothing more. It does not, in reality, divide the species into a value system Vs none, because any value is in the Dogs. That rule irrevocably divides the environment into two incompatible halves. It sends a message to divide what CAN'T be divided, so the only option is to divide again. And again. And again. Decreasing each time because the only way to put all the value into one environment is to decrease the environment able to hold those values. We lose our ability to respond to the species in the ONLY way that can see it evolve effectively AS a species. Under that rule. Take it away, and pedigree breeders AND those not in a breed registry, can BOTH become much more responsible and effective, with pedigree breeders representing the breeds much more effectively and EARNING a favored role in direction. The quality of membership would rise with the quality of the environment they come from. Against my better judgement I will say this again. I believe that you do not understand the value of the pedigree . Any body breeding any dogs whether they be cross bred, purebred or otherwise can make better breeding decisions if they know the ancestry of the dogs they are breeding .Every single time you use a dog for breeding which you dont know whats in its pedigree there is a greater risk that you will bring puppies into the world which will break someone's heart .Not much point in a dog being a great worker if it develops Degenerative Myelopathy at 6 years and by then it has spread its genetic material to a couple of generations. I agree with the value of pedigrees and understanding the ancestry of a dog used for breeding. I understand that value better than most, in its broad applications. Now explain to the general public how this means the K.Cs BOB GSD can meet their needs better. How its a predictably better, less risky purchase.( Crufts 2016) How ONLY breeding pedigree dogs, with Pedigree dogs has made that so. Too many people using the pedigree DON'T understand that. Their understanding is that the pedigree makes it a better dog- Not any understanding of how to use it to bring real improvement or purpose to what they are doing. As long as the show scene and their peers bring rewards for that pedigree, its right.

Its not a rule that demands the KCS be the only refuge of values and purpose for dogs.In fact in the year 2016 that's simply crazy. The KCS represent a minority group who breed a vast minority of dogs. Take a good look at state legislations , RSPCA AWL, AAPDB, the MDBA, working dog groups etc Hanging out here on this forum it may be easy to believe that they are pushing the values and purpose for dogs but best you get a better look around at the current environment. Last year in NSW there was a committee into the welfare of breeding dogs in NSW and Dogs NSW was one voice out of over 300 and as far as I can see NOTHING they wanted as values or purpose got anywhere. Perhaps because they keep insisting they are not a part of the environment they exist in- and hold completely different values? Either you are part of it, or you are not. If you are not, you will be excluded. If you are, you will be expected to promote the values you bring to be recognized as such. Promote those values SO OTHERS CAN RECOGNIZE THEM! If those aren't seen to have any value to the community(or the committees looking into these issues)You will NOT get recognition at these events. What the K.Cs ask for must be demonstrated to have purpose OUTSIDE of the K.Cs. if their input is to be to be valued outside them. You want to be part of the decision making, yet have people recognize you are not part of the problem? You are just outsiders giving advise? It is a paradoxical division that exists only in the rules of the K.Cs. Not in the reality of a single species and its adaptation/evolution with modern Man and his communities.. You must demonstrably contribute to the health of your environment to have a say in its health. Not hold it all to yourselves as a demonstration of superiority and demand favor on the basis of that. That does not meet environmental demands. Only K.C demands that must be in conflict with those. Influence your environment favorably to GET favor. The uproar over the GSD winning BOB at Crufts this year is a perfect example. WHY would people listen to organizations so clearly in conflict with the demands of the environment it exists in?! Who are the dogs being protected from apart from a broader base of breeders and selection? What does this system offer to the rest of US? The division is not of our making. It has been ruled by these organizations. There is a simple solution that rests on recognition of a single environment for a single species. It does not affect the pedigree system, or its values, purpose or any other such thing. ALL it does is recognize that all dog owners and breeders share responsibility for direction of the species by their own individual actions. Be they pedigree breeders or other. We have equal responsibility to the SPECIES. You can't accept responsibility to pedigrees but not accept that affects the species as a whole.

Ive read it MM I just dont get it and think its pointless to get involved in public conversation with people who are too smart for me to understand. Sorry Steve. I realy wish I knew how to explain better. You are so close. For myself, The stakes are too high. I have to keep trying to find what is missing in my explanations. The point that will allow this to click into place for others as completely as it has for me, or even some one who can show how me its wrong. It might be the concept of environment? Only environment can ultimately 'decide' the success or failure of a species. By favoring the values that species demonstrates to it. The species can't demand favor. It just doesn't work that way. Environment always controls selection. But a species CAN demonstrate the values it brings to make its environment more suitable and able to support the species. Those are the only values an environment CAN recognize. Or the lack of them. Kind of like your liver demonstrating its purpose to your body by keeping it healthy enough to support a liver. The concept of environment does not change just because its made up of humanity instead of geography. Its any medium things live in. A ruling against breeding outside of the pedigree system attempts to replace any form of natural selection with a representation of demands instead. A bit like your liver saying it works because its a liver, ( not for the purpose it serves, or its value to the body) If its ONLY a liver, it will work better. So it might stop releasing enzymes or filtering etc because those things interfere with its integrity as something 'other' and distinct from its environment in the body. It will still place demands on the body for its survival. It just won't give anything in return, or listen to messages from the body that tell it whats required. In the end the body dies and nothing is left to support the liver.

O.K. The answers to your questions are in this thread anyway. Not much point repeating it all again if you haven't read whats there.

Umm, Thats what I have been saying? Promote values , not fault? This isn't about apportioning blame. Its about trying to find answers and where things went wrong. You have remarked yourself that a constitution only does what is written into it. Steven Hawkings touched on this subject in his series. We are talking cultural evolution and the 'programing' of a culture to find fault in what lies out side its own jurisdiction. Having to constantly redefine what that jurisdiction does include, in pursuit of being 'Other'. Making it very difficult to fight differently in co-operation with all stake holders. Yes we are talking about cultural evolution and the need and desire for those within a culture to have to defend themselves and demonstrate that they are not part of what is being used to to have the will of the minority promoted,.... ************* They don't have to defend themselves. They have to show they have too much value for the common man to relinquish. They ARE part of what is being used to to have the will of the minority promoted. Because those issues are all a part of the environment the canine species lives in. As long as there are domestic dogs those same issues will affect them. To some degree or another. The K.Cs has no hope of ever saying that environment does not affect ITS members also to some degree. Added to my comments above....This 'not part of ' whats being used to have the will of the minority promoted is the problem. BE part of it, and maybe it won't BE the will of that particular minority any more. It will be less a minority for a start, and the K.Cs will have more influence on what values that larger group holds. It won't be that same minority anymore. To hold a K.C forever apart from its environment CAN NOT work!!

I will say though that people seem to have a very warped idea of how removal of that rule would affect the K.Cs. It does not take away any protections for the breeds at all. They would not measure success by any other ideal. Or reduce resources. It does not ask any one to do anything they don't agree with, or even demand out crossing in pedigree dogs. Though it WOULD make that easier to achieve when its deemed appropriate by breed clubs. It does not remove autonomy from breed clubs. The K.Cs would still operate under the rules and values they hold. All it would do is allow those members who choose to do so, to act independently of the K.Cs and enable values to be better promoted to ALL stake holders. Including and especialy K.C values. Removal of that rule makes no additional demands of the K.Cs at all. Its simply allows for the demands of the environment, or the world the K.Cs exists IN. That rule does not add anything to the K.Cs in the 1st place, or protect the breeds. It only restricts by demanding the K.Cs take nothing from and give nothing to the species out side the registry systems. All for the sake of being 'other'. The pedigrees themselves already distinguish the breeds from non papered dogs. They don't need to be seen as a different species entirely. They are not. Insisting on being 'other' you will BE seen as other, and judged on those differences. By what/any values they bring to the community.