moosmum

And its a good one. The problem is what is 'exaggerated' when judged only against whats there in front of you today? Pretty easy to exaggerate a trait over time with out noticing it that way. I imagine breeders of the past would notice a lot of exaggerated features from their time, though not as extreme as some other breeds.

Yes, there are two sides to all this mess, both valid. But, there is only one reality that embraces both and the separation of the two is by the choice ANKCs made in their formation to separate their being from any other. The use of Pedigrees to bring improvement to Dog Breeds should have been a demonstration of the value in doing so. The results, speaking for the value of understanding what you are using, and the traits they are used to support. Ideally, the benefits of a Pedigree system should have increased awareness of the benefits. It did that anyway, for quite a while after formation. 150 years ago the culture ANKC was 'born' into was very different. The norms were different and few would have had serious opposition to breeders working outside of a pedigree system that was new or recently formed. The separation included in the statement of intent is not completed at once- Its interpreted differently (subjectively) by membership, and the culture its members are drawn from. What were normal expectations at the time. What it did though was direct the value of Dogs in their environment, to the pedigree instead. The value in using a pedigree system should have been self evident, and remained inclusive of any Dog breeding enterprise. It would have. Even with out a written pedigree, the value of understanding what is behind a dog that it may or may not bring to the table is self evident. At least to anyone with the most basic understanding of genetics. That would have been encouraged through the establishment of a pedigree system, and the influence of that system on its environment. That was never going to happen with the separation of the then Kennel Clubs separation from its environment. Its evolution would be independent of what occurred beyond their own domain and shaped by its own internal workings and expectations. Not by the expectations and demands of an environment deemed inferior and not worthy even of recognition. Membership could have been self selected by a persons ability to make use of the system, and the value they could get from having that system in place. Instead membership is limited. To those who can't see the value in a DOG, unless it has a pedigree to verify its 'standard' or state of being. Regardless of weather an individual member has that faith or belief in the Pedigree, that is a directing principle of the organization that all members support in becoming a signed member, and has guided its evolution. Its not based in fact or science, its faith and not even faith in Dogs, but in the pedigree alone to provide better dogs. Even when the evidence contradicts that belief. The pedigree system would have assumed independence of those not making use of it. It lost the independence when those not making use of it were brought in through the statement of intent decreeing the relationship to be oppositional. Peta was not the cause of this. They make full use of the conditions put in place through that opposition. ANKC just responded to an environmental threat by decreasing the states available to its membership. Take no responsibility for the state of the environment they operate in, instead attempting to reduce the environment they have internally to exclude the threat. As most of the expectations and environmental demands are and will be met. So we get limited register and desexed babies to discourage poor breeding choices, instead of promoting the value and knowledge needed to make informed and valued adding decisions. With holding knowledge, with holding dogs. With holding open discussion and the once universal value of dogs from an environment seen to be in opposition to the values of a pedigree system. Even then, there is no recognition of Pedigree systems that still can. ie: working dog registries with open stud books- where dogs are selected based on working abilities and what they can bring to the table, rather than just what its parents did. The K.Cs, by dint of their collective objective has had more influence on the course and evolution of Dog Breeding than anyone else. They did a great thing, in creating an environment of great benefit to Dog breeders any where, then, with the use of a secondary objective, turned that environment into an oppositional identity to dog breeders instead.

"Pet owners were already very unhappy with the changes happening" Yes. The Doco. only brought into the open that Dogs were being bred for success in the show ring and increasing extremes of their standards, before other traits that ensured their success else where. For the Environment of the Show ring rather than the environments beyond that existence. There have been so many changes since then, some better, some a lot worse. There has been a genuine attempt to fix the problems by a majority and health testing has become an expectation quickly from it. The causes of why its happening has never been properly explored or accepted though. Until it is, we are only working around the problem. Its effects are not limited to the pedigree system. I had not seen PDE before I joined DOL. I joined to try to figure out the root cause of the problems I was experiencing myself with my chosen breed, and the absolute crap thrown my way by Registered breeders for putting my own standards before ANKCs. I had always understood that the Pedigree system was un sustainable with out recognition of cross breeds. I thought as as long that system was supplying the dogs I wanted and had come to expect, none of my business. Then they couldn't. I researched. Extensively. Beyond Australia. And The advise from professionals who had historically used these dogs for their intended purpose was to pick another breed. After 7 long years, I fluked 1 back yard bred I came close to refusing, because she was BYB. Then 3 years later another for my son, a cross breed. Both better performing (in our situation/environment) than any I had had previously. I bred, ignorantly thinking their qualities were worth keeping and an 'improvement' breed loyalists would appreciate, though we bred for ourselves to save such long waits for what we needed now. I used my daughters pedigree male. He was not what I wanted, but the closest we had found in a Pedigree and was working lines. My pure bred refused to breed naturally by the time she was 3 yo., so pups were cross. Advertising brought out the nastiest trolling from Pedigree breeders. I was totally unprepared for that, to such an extent. Discrediting myself and my dogs by people who had absolutely no idea who or what I was, or what my dogs were like, what they had to offer, or the lengths I went to ensure both a good start and a good future. And that harms DOGS. regardless of their pedigree or lack of one. So I came here to see If I could find where that problem originated. Another commentator banned way back then was on the same mission. She said in one of her posts " If there is a problem with the culture, look to the constitution" Made sense and backed by science, so thats what I did. I have done it extensively, researching constitutional theory etc. and and searching for evidence to support the relevant theory. There is an abundance. Hasn't got me anywhere yet, and thats scary as, since the model prediction is for the end of Domestic dogs and the momentum of the process increases exponentially as expectations are altered to support that end. Any window we might have left to fix this almost gone, and maybe already too late. I had incredible feed back from buyers, ( and trainers in protection) with requests to repeat. I also have a standing offer (I won't be accepting) from one to pay for any dog I can find to resurrect this line. Gone, because dogs of known and tested lines are unavailable to improve Dogs. Only Pedigrees.

IMO this sort of thing just illustrates the very poor relationship between breeders and their market. The organization, and the environment they depend on to support their 'mission;. And people argue breeders are not 'elitist' or exclusive. Wonder what they think that means? The market is far from perfect, but what other result could be expected from an exclusive statement of intent ? Yes, of course breeders want to ensure, to the best of their abilities, that their dogs go to homes where they will be loved, appreciated and live the lives intended by their breeding. Thats getting harder, not easier. Legislation is clearly not working. Not for Breeders other than commercial. They are in a crap position, no doubt. So sad to read the stories posted to illustrate. More legislation won't do better. All it its doing is solidifying the barriers between breeders and their market. Breeders clearly are not breeding 'for their market' to meet its demands. Of course their success is going to be severely limited in that market, and value seen or recognized is going suffer. Rather, they are breeding to 'protect and preserve' the statehood of the Pedigree system as some thing separate or 'apart' from the Objective environment of "Dog Breeders". It is, and always will have that separation of being. They are pedigree, or they are not. Thats not a problem. What made it a problem was the statement of The K.Cs that they don't recognize cross breeds. Thats known as a double negative in the writing of a constituition. It re-enforces the separation, and puts the value of Dogs bred squarely into the pedigrees, not the dog. Split values. Pedigree dogs have value, non -pedigrees don't. Pedigree breeders give value, non pedigrees can't. A double negative does the opposite of whats intended, negative values are acted on, rather than positive value. Its exclusive. It excludes. What it excludes is environment of the objective, which is to breed dogs. Its doing its job very admirably. Non recognition of breeders outside the pedigree system legitimized a negative bias to Dog breeders in drawing up that division of Pedigrees from their objective environment. You can't have the one with out the other. Form follows function. Function does not happen with out the form work, but thats what is being thrown out with exclusivity. Responsibility to environment is lost, when it isn't recognized, and its not, while there is no recognition of the objective beyond the organization Responsibility can be defined as meeting the needs and demands of your environment, providing means for its health and well being. Delivering and demonstrating Positive values that, when recognized, lead to emulation. Few taught to recognize positive values of Dog breeding will settle for less than expected from those lessons. Pretty hard to give that sort of ability of response, while there is such clear contempt for the environment into which the dogs are going. Its a hard place for breeders after 150 yrs or so this process has had, to take the form dog breeding has today, but there is only one solution to saving our domestic dogs and thats by returning them to their rightful environment in common with Humanity, End the exclusive branding of breeders into objective groups because object they will, theres no other choice. Work together for the common objective of providing the best dogs we can to show case their value, and the practices that can deliver it. Subjectively. Then we might actually see breeders judged the same way and rewarded for their efforts instead of being eliminated or discredited based on arbitrary objectives, and buyers too.

Agreed! Though if a Dobe is more acceptable, It maybe worth looking into lines known to be animal friendly. Possibly a close second.

Would you be looking for a pup specifically, or would you consider a young rehome? They come up fairly often in breeds being mentioned, and some times after a good start in similar conditions as you would provide. You haven't mentioned Dobes. Same issues as the other guardian breeds?

Your lab sounds like a great dog. If it comes to looking at pups for myself, I look for low prey drive, very confident curious and not easily startled or intimidated. Not aggressive with litter mates but managing to avoid conflict with the bullies of the litter. Not the pup who dominates littermates, or the one who backs down. Just stands his/her ground and seems to have that respected. Friendly and interested in you, but even more so when you communicate. Ask some thing of the pup, and reward him for his understanding, see if he appreciates instruction and comes back for more. Its not easy assessing pups on one visit, so ask plenty of questions of the breeder concerning what you are looking for, look to the parents. And its still pot luck. If you pull up and see a pup run to stand in front of the owner or other pups to bark, hes worth checking out for the rest, though if they are used to visitors, thats not the go to reaction either! My daughter used to visit and would stomp around with arms raised making weird zombie noises to get their reactions Not advised around unfamiliar parent dogs.

Agree with Rebanne. Personal protection is a lost cause for most breeders these days. Security personnel look for entirely different traits in their dogs and breed specifically for those- High prey drive being one of the most important for that training, and even then, its no guarantee the dog will work i n real life situations. Those traits make the working bred dogs very unsuited to farm life and are beyond the abilities of most owners who want a companion 1st( or those who expect such a high drive dog to be happy doing its job in a tiny back yard with out having to put any work in) This back ground is likely a lot of your reason for distrusting those breeds. Maybe have a good look around at other breeders, get to know more dogs of those breeds. Most breeders selling to the public are aiming for much more social dogs with little potential for aggression and avoid buyers after the dogs for for primarily guarding purposes. As a result, a dog that is capable of being a companion 1st, but not be fazed by an aggressive, threatening person are next to impossible to find. It takes an extremely stable dog to blend those tasks, and Dogs are not generally being bred for that combination. Rotties seem the most reliable choice for that combo today, in general. Security personnel almost always insist these dogs will not step up with out training. I disagree, IF you can find the right one. I had my own line going for a number of years, but it took me 7 years just to find the 1st. I looked for a female after hearing they were much less likely to step up, but did it better if you could find one, on the assumption that she would pass the traits needed more reliably. It worked, but the lines gone since finding a male suitable to carry on was impossible. People had unrealistic ideas of how the traits needed manifest in their dogs and/or registered breeders are not open to allowing stud service of their tested pedigrees to dogs not contributing to that system. Or to the idea dogs bred out side a pedigree system could possibly have a purpose of any value. A huge loss IMO I am still struggling with as these dogs filled multiple roles here and in homes they were sold into. The individual dog is more important than its breed. The dogs you mistrust, you are not seeing from their owners perspective, but from the perspective of an out sider to their duties. my dogs would alert until I got to the gate, keeping people out but once admitted they would be greeted with wagging tails, being asked for pats. They were safe at kids/adult parties, jam sessions, bonfires and bush trails and so outwardly friendly we had to give 'Demos' to teen visitors to teach them not to assume harmlessness. These dogs always stepped up- not always when people expected it. They assess the threat. A good working dog does the job naturally. My job was to ensure they did it how and when I wanted. I had final say and dogs whos intention was not aggression, just protection. When they needed to show aggression, it was always proportionate- so never had a bite or even a nip. Jumping in front of me with a warning bark was most usual. Instances when the job was done include sitting a huge man down when jumped from his seat to follow me after being asked to sit. Having an intruder huddled into a fetal position till my son got to him, A man jumping the front fence and running towards me while I working in the paddock was greeted by my dog running straight towards him full pelt until he stopped, then escorted him to me at a walk, and alerting me to man outside our yard with a tomahawk at dusk then staying with us while we spoke to the man and kept him from his attempts to come in. Same dog was about to be put away for a visitor who was terrified of dogs and he was a giant! He didn't get put away, because he sensed her fear and just about crawled to her feet where he practically melted to show her he was not a threat, shoving his huge head under her hand.( she got a dog soon after!) My point is I guess, is that these dogs are not easy to find, require far more stability than your average pet, and may be more than you are prepared for. If you can find what you are after tho', they are unbeatable dogs to have in your life. I have a standing offer to buy me any dog I find, money no object, if I can replicate it again. I am not hopeful. There is thread titled 'a girl and her dog" where I posted pics of my last girl with my grand daughter. Might ease your fears of the guardian breeds seeing how they do their job with children. Visiting children were even protected from their angry parents, if they over stepped discipline. ie an angry father yelling at his kids who were piled on the floor with the dog at the time. She stayed down while he yelled. And yelled, and yelled. Then she got up slowly, gave a gentle growl, and laid back down with the kids when he turned away and said "I've been told". Aloof would not have been as safe, more suspicion wasn't what I needed.

My pick too, but I've never known a Black Russian Terrier. I'd like to, they sound pretty good too.

I agree theres enough legislation now to effect charges for most any act of cruelty or neglect we might be presented with now. Ignorance seems the cause of the worst welfare failures. Legislation tends to compound the ignorance. That gives rise to calls for more legislation and 'round and 'round we go. We keep asking for breeding to be taken out of the hands of people who don't do the things we think should be done. So we get micro management of what 'must' be done, regardless of whether is right for the situation to hand. Whole areas of expertise become meaningless or obsolete, the situations dealt with become based on routine rather than understanding of the reasoning behind them, and far fewer people have a broader based knowledge to inform their decisions. BYBers should not breed? Then heaven forbid we should assist them to do it better! Open discussion of what goals they might possibly have, what qualities they think their dog has worth passing on, possible defects, market for pups and costs associated with breeding, mate selection and the other information entailed for education. If education is needed it should come from those with the experience and results to back it up. Its not up to any of us to decide what value a person might bring to table, if they show an interest. If people are going to do some thing, far better for me to help them see the problems they might not have the knowledge to see. Maybe even help them do it right. In the current climate, this discussion is forbidden across interests. Breeders with hold information on the grounds others shouldn't be breeding. So dogs and information are with held. Each discredits the other, and we lose value to our environment. The people who support companion animals, by keeping them and some, breeding them. They don't value breeders, because we never hear anything good about them. As soon as some one publicly does have some thing nice to say, 100 more will jump in to discredit any good that could come from that source. We need a healthier and friendlier environment to bring dogs into, but no one wants to work at making it a healthier environment. If we don't make sure the body is working, disease is inevitable. So we just keep cutting away at the disease when it inevitably shows, while the body disappears underneath us. FFS Dog Breeders are anyone who breeds dogs. Their environment is what ever supports that to happen. One body, no communication. =disease. Because there no recognition thats its one unit, or objective. No community that recognizes that one objective, and takes responsibility to see that the environment its done in is going to support that goal, and see any value in it. We don't make it harder to have children, though its never done perfectly. We assist people to understand whats involved. We don't try to stop some groups of people having children because some in similar situations have welfare issues. We make sure they have the information needed to make informed decisions for themselves, and have an expectation they will make use of it, and there is support available when its needed. If we expect the same of people buying dogs, The information has to be just as accessible and freely given as child rearing advise, and as inoffensive in its delivery. Or its not going to be valued for what it gives. We don't gain anything by tearing down what exists. But it gives us a lot to work on if we just look at how we can best make use of it. Thats what responsibility is! How things evolve into some thing better. The only role govt. or other organizations should be playing to OUR objective, is where it can facilitate that Theres no single objective while its being pulled apart. If we can't function, theres nothing to form. Accept the form for what it is. Then we can understand its properties, and how we can alter them. if its not working, shutting it down is counter to logic. People support badly bred dogs because they have no better expectations. We need to create them , have all fallen into tearing them down instead.

The problem really comes back to how we define 'Breeder'. The language is what directs the purpose or cause. In reality, if you breed a dog, you are a breeder. Thats the objective definition. There is no other. The objective is the same. Any values we apply to breeding are subjective, to that purpose. The values we apply to or as breeders dictate the directions and success of the whole. That objective body. Not just parts of it. What we collectively bring to the cause. The objective purpose doesn't exist without the values and support brought to it. When we start to define 'breeders' by any measure other than the breeding of Dogs, we are applying an objective where it does not belong. And it is objective. It can't be anything else applied that way. It objects. Its a double negative. It gives opposing values to a single space or objective where none belong, so corrupts the language of the 'whole' purpose into oppositional directions. It implies any value to dog breeding is inherent to the body, or environment we work in, rather than the values we bring to it, or any support given to practices delivering value. Both of those are essential to the objectives viability. Loose those, and you loose any purpose dog breeding might have had. So all breeders are discredited through their own opposition to the environment they share. Less concerned with delivering values that people want or choose to support subjectively, or to imitate, and more concerned with discrediting their opposition or 'other' objectives. They are all the same. Every thing else is environment of the objective body. We are throwing it out in pursuit of values that need to be brought in! And sever the feedback loop needed between breeders and their environment for a successful purpose/goal in trying to dictate where value can found, or its recognition when it is. We have created a double negative in the language that directs the purpose. Theres no value in the task, if the environment that allows it must always be cause for its faults. I can't know a 'good' breeder from a bad by whether they breed pets in their back yard, pedigrees to show, dogs to herd sheep or race, in commercial kennels or any other form their breeding takes. Thats subjective of the breeder, and my own needs or values. Not of any other objective I care to assign based on belief. The sooner thats understood, the sooner we can move on to what actually works to foster support instead of censure.

Then I better check them out, to see if there is a way I can contribute.

What a mess. Companion animal owners need decent representation for their own concerns- single issue bodies will never cut it and aren't in a position to represent us, or the real issues that lead to problems in the 1st place. They deal in effects, not causes.

My girl in the pics used hers very much as thumbs. After watching her dexterity with them, Now I would prefer they are left on any dogs I might have. She could use that grip really well to try and hold on to some thing if I tried to take it.

Oh, thats sad news. So sorry for this..... My Moss went the same way. Impossible to wrap your head around the knowing. Hugs to you both.

Macadamia nut poisoning ( I think) causes paralysis similar to this? I know it can take only a fraction of a nut to cause severe reaction in some.

I wonder if maybe that board for sale is incompatible with Aussie electrical out lets, or do they run on batteries? I think they look a great idea and I'd also like to try them out. My grand daughters dog would be a great candidate. A border collie cross, he is brilliant as a constant companion /therapy dog for her anxiety. My daughter is a hopeless trainer and GD too young for that responsibility, but this little guy amazes me with his ability to self train. He manages to not only cope with any new situation hes thrown into, but adapts quickly to fit in with dogs, people etc without being a problem for any one. This type of thing would help my G.D to understand his needs and communication much better than she does. He could not be a better dog for the job if he had been bred for it. He has claimed GD as his. He has taken the role of protector and companion to this little person very seriously. She needs to learn to read him better. I'm often accused of anthropmorphism. My own 1st dog was much the same. Its the kind of dog I have always sought out since. I will not change my ideas of the intelligence dogs are capable of. I've had far too many demonstrations of it. Not the same as Humans by any stretch, but intelligence still. Eg. My Coda learned best when I just asked her, "Do this" then put a name to it. She enjoyed it enough to keep at it after I'd gone, if she couldn't get it right 1st off. Turning on a light switch, she failed 3 times to flip the switch when nosing it so I moved on to some thing she could do before quitting. But the next 3 times I entered the same room, the switch was on. When I turned a full circle in front of her asking her to do this, she walked a full circle around me- not what I asked, but from her POV, Each side of my body had been visible to her and was again when when she circled me. 1st boy used to nose our hands if we were carrying some thing he wanted. Giving it, he tried watering the lawn with the hose, or carried my package home, leading the horses etc. He taught me to 'listen' and it would be interesting to have the tool of these boards to make that so much easier, or help teaching how to do that.

You are lucky! But then so is Clive. Nothing like a working bred dog, to find how to 'work' best with what they have. You give the opportunities, and he shows his good breeding and versatility. Worth his weight in gold. Good boy Clive!

So sorry Ricey, Nothing I say can change what you are going through, or what will come, but remember the love goes both ways, and the meaning of her life has been tied to you guys. If she could speak, I'm sure she would say she would want her life to have a positive impact on yours going forward, not a negative one. Hugs to all of you.

From under 200 advertised on G.T to 3000 in N.S.W alone. Thats climbed higher than the average pre-covid. The market is saturated, and will take some time again with dogs bred before this point was reached, and others who will be completely unaware the marked has reached this point. They will breed on the assumption anything can be bred for quick sale and hefty profit as people are starting to rehome older dogs that were poorly considered. Breeders I think are going to cop another back lash for the result. If so, it will be the wrong target. again. The high prices brought about by trying to restrict breeders, instead of ensuring a well informed environment able to make the responsible choice to only support breeders who are as well informed as themselves. ie; A positive feedback loop, where one informs the other, instead of what we have. - A negative bias to all breeders and the environment that supports them, promoting declining expectations. A negative feed back loop. The subject of Dogs are inextricable from their environment, and can only be extracted from that equation by elimination.

Yes. I still have very clear memories of things that easily affect you long term. Multiply that over the long period of a vets working life and the stress has got to be bad. Apart from the long term clients you get to know, there are plenty of instances of people prolonging a miserable life as well the casual throwing away of of life from others. Holidays always brought in 1yo dogs to euth rather than pay boarding fees or in home care. I assume many of those would have replaced their pets when its more convenient. If I hadn't still lived at home with a parent I would have brought home a menagerie. I did manage to rehome some.

"Larger breeds that are undisciplined and fearful..." Many of the dogs presenting this way are also more likely to be out door dogs only, with little of the opportunity or expectation of being out in public, in crowds or tight spaces. People in general, including long time dog owners, have a lot less experience with dog behavior and 'reading' a dog even if they are well able to read their own. Bigger dogs are far less often allowed to be the companions they are capable of being. Which is a huge shame because traditionally, these dogs have been selected far more more rigorously than small dogs who can more easily get away with poor behavior. Poor vets, and poor big dogs

I don't disagree with any of the points you have raised. All very valid. I think its more complex than that though, and essential that its not made any more difficult to breed your own dogs with out joining a registry or doing it commercially. For the basic reason that breeding for your own 'backyard' (subjectively) is the foundation of the breeds and domestic dogs in general. If that foundations lost, we will loose Domestic dogs for all but t he most wealthy. No ifs, buts or maybes. Its inevitable with out that foundation to stand on. The near universal breeding of dogs to suit our own needs and environments, purposes etc is the only reason we have Domestic dogs that suit and can adapt to so many varied Human environments. We will lose that ability in our dogs, bit by bit, till theres nothing left and the costs and drawbacks of keeping dogs is too much to be a worth while consideration. 'Back yard' breeding absolutely needs to be done much better though, with much more thought and consideration. Rather than trying to stop byb we would all be better served in promoting the expectation that is done with thought and consideration. The last thing we need is a black market in dogs, yet legislation so far is increasing that likelyhood. Partly though the rising costs of dogs associated with meeting legislative demands. Reducing those able to breed makes commercialization of breeding inevitable to meet demand. Inevitable that those undertaking breeding will be far less likely to have any knowledge or real life experience of how to do it or what it entails. If the idea is greater responsibility taken, its not going to be achieved by reducing our abilities to respond. That can only cause the opposite. Rather than making it harder, any legislation should be to make it easier to do do better, and promote the expectation that it will. The best start would be to reduce the cost of registering entire dogs, but demanding publicly available genetic testing for entires. That means any one with an entire by choice dog has the means to understand the most basic basic requirement of breeding- Some understanding of they have in front of them. Buyers also have that available. Both would quickly understand the importance of using that information. We would be promoting that expectation. It would be the 1st step to promote real responsibility. The only thing we are promoting so far is reduction. If that doesn't stop there is only one end. And a likely gain for Pure bred Pedigrees as well, with that understanding. Win win instead of loose loose. The increasing costs of buying a dog are only going to encourage breeding as a profit venture with less experience and understanding to do it well.. You only have to look at the huge demand of 'covid' dogs and the fall out happening now on Gumtree with supply now rapidly out stripping demand. Not the fault of Gumtree, but poor and unknowledgable choices made. Gumtree just provides a good window to see what IS going on.

And is what began the foundation of the breeds we know today.

A single species that shares a single environment- Breeders just don't get that responsibility is a biological imperative for success or at least its biological definition. Attacking that environment to remove its perceived failures is not responsibility. Teaching how to deliver better value is, and its demonstration is all that can bring acceptance, the only way to increase both the species and its available environment . Value is always subjective. ANKC was founded on Objective values. Application of the wrong value creates a double negative and corrupts the language to convey the opposite message of that intended. Destroying the foundations of Domestic Dogs, can only leave them with no support.