moosmum

How to simplify this? IMO, and borne out on Dol forums. Human beings are subject to natural law. When we create a sub group,ie ANKC, we create a "population". That population is also subject to natural law. Our constitution and rules set out the behaviour of that population. You are NOT dealing with rational individuals. The behaviour of the group is dictated by those rules and WILL reflect them. To the population, those rules ARE natural law. Members are defined by them. The K.Cs made a very sensible decision to be a registry ONLY. To work towards a specific goal and that was their charter. The problems came about when the the K.Cs made rulings that step out side of that charter. 1st in ruling that no member can breed a dog that will be ineligible for registration. 2nd in ruling that no member breed primarily for profit. There may be more, but these are the 2 obvious ones. When you rule out side of your charter, its no longer a self sufficient population. The charter alone is not what sustains the population any more. The directive influence is changed. It now has effect on, and is influenced by, outside forces.In this case, negatively since they are both negative rulings. What is happening in the "Dog world" could be a text book example for teachers of constitutional law. Its no longer enough to foster a community relationship with dogs, well bred.You have introduced an antagonist to be kept out.- In this case, whats outside of the registry. The environment. So what sets pedigree dogs apart from their environment? The Unfamiliar,Diverse,the unknown, chance?. Now you have to struggle to define yourself against whats outside, in order to keep it out. The definition will continue to narrow. The 2nd ruling is an example of that.The more stress on the population,the more they will struggle against their antagonist. There will be an equal and opposite reaction from the out side.The familiar here becomes the unfamiliar there. Dogs natural environment is their human community. Take them out and put them in K.Cs " preserve" and they lose relevence and familiarity in their "natural" environment. According to natural law, The K.Cs are attacking their foundation. Its seen as undesirable. If we foster an appreciation of dogs with out judgement,THEN people can appreciate the benefits of breeding BETTER dogs.They have to learn to appreciate dogs before they can learn to appreciate a pedigree. The K.Cs rulings mean that none are worthy of nurture out side of the K.Cs charter. When people come here for advise,we see the results. If dogs are not ANKC registered, their owners are scorned and rarely given the knowledge they seek. We are attacking our roots. Cut flowers are beautiful, but don't last long. The 2nd ruling, against profit as a motive for breeding. In todays world, to make a profit you must cater to demand. This ruling ensures that the demands of the people will only be met by accident, not design.The demands are met only within ANKC. ANKC demands give us predictability,yes. But when we aknowledge demands from with out as well, thats what brings reliability. According to natural (ANKC) law,Its no longer a requirement that dogs can meet the demands of their environment.Only that they are predictable and "known". Commercial breeders are the new species on the block,guaranteed to meet the demands of their environment, the community. What ever thats become. Within ANKC, diversity of opinion results in split lines,because diversity is not supported otherwise.Diversity is "out side". This does not support research and development as I understand it. Check it out. I think its repairable. For now. I think if this argument is born out, it has far reaching implications for humanity itself. If we can't remember natural law to save our 1st true companion species,what mistakes have we made for humanity itself? The relationship between man and dog could provide a constant reminder that as a species, we will alway be subject to natural law. Edited for clarity.

So to buck the trend we should accept our foundations. Appreciate them, nurture and mentor them. So they can be understood and valued by every one. We will all make fewer mistakes. Strong foundations would invigorate pedigree dogs again. If generic cross breeds are the foundation of pedigree dogs, their owners are the foundation for new breeders.If its realy whats best for the dogs, surely thats a strong foundation.

This idea does need discussion and will crop up more and more as time goes by and effects of current influences increase. These ideas are the logical conclusion of, and supported by, current NKCs constitution and rules. The proposal put forward by Angeluca would speed the process by forcing it on all society, rather than just "the specialists". If you look at cause and effect, this proposal would finaly take domestic dogs out of the public domain and public interest and knowledge. Any rules demanded of breeders of cross breed dogs will also be be demanded of pedigree breeders. Including your panel to approve of a mating,for the simple reason that dogs will still be dogs and people to be people and "The Specialists" put forward the idea. Breeders would be held solely accountable for the actions of dogs and their welfare,since they alone claim to have the knowledge and skill to "produce" dogs that won't cause those problems. Not only that, but its the ultimate precedent supporting "BSL" .If generic dogs can be the cause of so many problems,if the problems still exsist on their eradication,it must surely be the fault of the breed(s) who are so much more predictable? Angeluca, Your idea removes personal responsibility from the general public and places it squarely on the producers. Dogs finaly become just another commodity subject to supply and demand and no need for the buyer to understand anything more than their wash and wear instructions. Dissatisfaction at fault of the producer,( ie: fault after all instructions followed ) will become more prevelant and result in greater licensing restrictions, protocols and eligibility restrictions. Dog breeding as a specialist field would require study,with course material being expanded. Specialist facilities and capital to be assessed with your business plan. . Welfare and animal rights won't have to fight against society to eliminate companion animals, only against organizations far out side any thing familiar to the general public. Breeders become an easy target to gain public sympathy for Ar. If the public is not required to understand breeding principles or life cycles? "Those nasty dog breeders, the mother was only 2 yrs old with 6 babies/not enough teats for pups/ fed raw meat" could all sound nasty to the ignorant. A species whos success was shaped by the societies they thrived best in would now be shaped to a formula agreed by a few. A breeder would be a licensed producer of a product for the masses,subject to strict quality control. Bred for the people, but not by the people. Not even for the people realy, because although breeders breed to preserve and improve according to a set, written standard, Breeding is Specificaly NOT for profit (or demand). Breeders will pretty much have doomed themselves and our pure breeds to extiction, because average Joe will have no idea of the common history between man and dog that used to be taken for granted and gave these pedigree dogs their purpose and value. They will chose a model and follow instruction and over time very few people will see much point in the extra work breeders have to instruct them in for guaranteed success. When buyers are unfamiliar, the set of instructions provided will grow to keep pace with ignorance. The breeds would stagnate and decline. An organisation needs room to grow to be viable. If you eliminate the foundation of your breeds, you can't grow.

Still haven't found my short-haired lapphund equivalent breed, or my long-legged Vallhund breed. You do realise breeds were developed from crossbreeding, right? Some breeds are only a few decades old. Some are still in development now. And there are some really amazing dogs out there that came from reasonably random crosses. For some people, a pedigree is not that meaningful and may not even be what they want. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to get what they want in a dog? Furthermore, registered breeders don't breed enough dogs to meet demand. Why should owner screening be a breeder's job if that's truly what would make a big difference? I've tried 3 times tonight to reply to you I'm sorry but every time my laptop reverts to the previous page loosing about half an hour of typing. basically breed development if done properly is fine, as they may try random breeds but the dogs they use should be tested for health and temperament. And only someone very knowledgeable in breeds and handling should be doing this. And due to a modern age recording should be done therefore still presenting a parentage. in my Idea this would be approved in the panel idea and puppies certified as a legal breeding. what I'd like to stop is the people who have 2 dogs and breed them. Sometimes this is done for greed, sometimes by accident, sometimes it is done for the love of dogs but if they love dogs then they should go about it properly with good stock that is tested, an understanding of the breed being used. I know a person who loves animals and spends every cent on them, her breed shar pei, from a backyard breeder cause their cheaper, watches these dogs grow, taking them to the vet every month for skin allergies and arthritis (at the age of 9 mths) yet still believes it's a good idea to breed those 2 dogs. Does cute puppies sells them, 2 months later crying on facebook because the sire died aged 2 due to massive spinal infection from repeated abscesses. Gets another boy this time a bull arab and going to do it all again. These people need to be FINED or arrested or bloody something!!!! 9 people out there with puppies from this sort of breeding. these Puppies will either die young, get dump due to the horrid small of allergies or be the heartbreak of a real good person who spends thousands to make them comfortable. This person takes care of their animals fed socialized, health care so under current laws, legally they have done nothing wrong. So... You think if they were only permitted to breed pedigree dogs, they would do it right?

I am convinced that dogs can love,and you can be a dogs heart person and I doubt very much that anyone could convince me any different. I don't think all dogs do love, or have this ( at least not in the way I have seen demonstrated ) but I have had several and known of many others where nothing else explains it to my satisfaction. Bonds,affection,high reward etc come into it,but realy if your going to be pendantic these things could just as easily explain human to human love. How do you define love? Edited to add: the very best dogs I have had, and will always seek out or try to accomodate if they find me, will be those who love and try so hard never to disapoint.If a higher order of thinking is needed, maybe these dogs just have that. They have been the easiest and most reliable of dogs. Am I rewarding that behaviour? Of course!

Predictability! The reason for breeds in the first place. We choose purebreds because we have a far greater certainty of getting desired features and characteristics - size, coat, temperament, bite inhibition, bite threshold etc etc I agree. If predictability includes reliability. Reliably predictable isn't the same as predictably reliable.

Except your example ignores the fact that the phrase includes the word primarily. If a breeder is breeding for the purpose of bettering the breed then their primary focus has to be on nothing else as their first priority in their breeding program - nothing within that constitution puts greater importance on anything else. If the primary focus for ANKC breeders has to be what is best for the breeds then how can it be possible for them to have making a profit as a primary focus? Like it or not this is the defining difference between a purebred breeder and any other - no matter what they have to consider future generations and not just the one litter they are producing today. There is a definite need to consider how someone interprets and defines what is better for the breed and I think many have it wrong but its still about that higher goal and always will be. Yes. I agree. I said it was superfluous for the same reason. What I did not have time to add is that while profit is not the primary motivation for a pedigree breeder, If the registering body is viewed as an organism, profit IS a source of energy and vitality. The organization may be vital enough to do with out that source,or it may not. I have modified post 126 as I'd run out of time when it was posted

Very nicely said. Your emphasis is more on public relations and education.... rather than marketing. And I think you're spot on... in that the whole point of purebred breeding is that it's not commercial. And marketing is designed to fit the commercial world. In fact, the evidence appears to be that it's the very non-commercial nature of purebred dog breeding, that allows the best of that world to show thro'. For the dogs themselves in terms of welfare, for the pet -buying public in terms of likely better socialised companion dogs & breeder support, and for the the breeders themselves who become involved in a highly professional & passionate hobby alongside like-minded people. All that determines the goals of breeding purebreds, not commercial interests. Disclaimer.... by saying p/breeding is not commercial (at its best), I'm not saying that the breeders shouldn't practise good business skills in what they do. I agree with this view.

I am looking for supportive information and having dificulties finding it,but I have seen it,its there if you know where to look. 1st, There is a theory advanced by Hendrick Gommer, A biological theory of law:natural law theory revisited. He postulates that an organization is an entity that obeys natural law.The constitution rules behaviour of the organization/organism.Negative instruction imposes limits and stricture that will impact on adaptive ability, vitality and its ability to multiply or grow. This is an analogy I have used often and it it does seem to hold up to scrutiny.look him up if you can't follow.Its very interesting,and realy quite simple when you have an understanding of biological law. Then you have the psychology of organisations.This is set in place by your constitution. I have been looking for a piece I have read,origins unknown. The subject was writing constitutions. It explained simply and concisely how a constitution affects the mentality of its constituents. It listed some rules of writing a sound and stable constitution. Two of those rules were: 1)DO NOT use negative commands or instruction. ie: A member shall not.... unless there is no alternative,in which case the reasons for the negative should be spelled out. Rules well written should negate the need for negative instruction in most cases. I think they called it a introducing "double negative" due to the unplanned negative effects in organizational psychology. 2) DO NOT use superfluous instruction. The piece went on to give demonstration of how disregarding these 2 rules corrupt and change the message by reinforcing priorities or giving them false values.Introducing outside influences that can destabilize the organization.I can not remember where I saw this, but the information is there for anyone who has better access to it than I have. It ties in very nicely with Hendrik Gommers theory. IMO both these mistakes were made with the K.Cs central, common constitution and the effects are being demonstrated in the problems faced by ANKC breeders. I don't have to tell you which rules,you can see for your selves if you care to look at your constitution with an open mind, but will give an easier (for you to look at) example. Your rules state that breeders will always breed for the purpose of bettering the breeds. Later, this was amended to include: a breeder shall not breed primarily for profit. This was superfluous instruction if the goal is betterment of the breed. It introduced judgment on profit. Making a profit can be seen as negative, and can be seen to undermine your goals. It has introduced an influence irrelevent to your charter. The subject "profit" will now have a negative affect on your charter.It was a negative instruction. It will affect how you market, how you perceive fellow members. Part of the problem is that negative instruction tells you that a certain area is NOT to be looked at or considered. A breeder DOES NOT consider profit in their planning. Breaking those 2 rules has demonstrable effect that can be explained. I doubt this rule would have ever been seen as needed, but for previous,similar mistakes made in the writing of the constitution which had already introduced instability. If you look at your organization as an organism, those previous mistakes served to reduce the ability to multiply (or gain new blood) with an instruction to not move out side of your charter,but instead made it self contained,which is unsustainable.An organism must interact with its environment. Out of time again.

Sure, but to whom? Is one customer as good as any other? Do those people think they are buying good produce from McDonalds? Are you the junk food of dog breeding or the gourmet kitchen? :laugh: :laugh: I think it can be the gourmet kitchen. MacDonalds or gourmet side by side...We won't always choose gourmet,but we know very well what the better choice is even with out the marketing and hype.

O.K. You're right please accept my apology - I must have misunderstood. So go slower. When you say quote I am saying they don't address the main, negative perceptions already out there,and that I firmly believe they are a direct result of those rules. That only changing those rules will remove those perceptions. When you say things like this what do you mean? What perceptions, what rules ? Thank you Steve, Accepted. I have it all in my head, but it is complicated. I will have to try and go slower, but I'm afraid its going to take longer than I hoped. I need to think carefully and remember it is likely confusing.. It does require change but NOT one harmful to pedigree dogs or breeders IMO. If my theory were put to the test, it wouldn't have to change how you do anything. I think it would change how you express the things you do - and how the things you do are expressed. It should remove a lot of barriers for you in your marketing and increase interest in your "product" with out a need to organize promotion groups or funding, or increase the role of the registries. I think it would result in a shift of perceptions on both sides, so that the average person is happy to listen, and the average breeder is ABLE to stand up and take pride. Does anyone follow what I said about how your constitution defines you? :laugh: I haven't forgotten your questions Steve.

Sorry Steve, You misunderstood me. I don't want to join your group. I don't want to join the "other" group. I do want to preserve and develop our pure breeds to their fullest potential. I do want to foster the human/dog relationship indiscriminately. To keep people aware and appreciative of that potential, understand and live with it comfortably. I hope then that fewer people will be making mistakes so we are more worthy of the gift. If thats incompatible with your philosophy I'm sorry,because I think you would have a lot to contribute. To me, its about the future of all dogs in our modern society,not my alliance with or the agenda of any group. :)

No matter which group you belong to you believe your group is the best or you wouldn't belong to it. There isn't anything wrong with having the division unless of course you are not able to be a member of the group you want to be because your values and philosophies are different. Thanks Steve, Your post has allowed me to sort this out in my own head a little better. My problem is that I feel we are FORCED by the division to choose sides and I guess I resent that. Because once you choose sides nothing is solved. We spend all our time trying to justify our selves,defend our selves, or attack the "other" side just to try and survive and it seems to me dogs are the losers on ALL sides. It would be nice we could be free to get on with the job of breeding the best dogs we can according to whats best for our own goals and needs. To open free and unbiased discussion and flow of information to benefit every one. I think in the long run, neither "side" can survive with out a balancing influence from the other. I don't want to chose sides.

Do you want to explain, with results of proper scientific research, what is the problem with line breeding? "Popular sires" is rather a myth in any case. If a dog is popular, his get are generally outcrossed, and continue to be outcrossed. Moosemum - have you read those ANKC rules you denigrate? What is it about them which you think causes problems? I have been breeding for a long time, and I have absolutely no interest in cross breeding dogs - which is exactly how my ethical peers feel. A pedigree is only a tool for the breeder, and it is a proof of ancestry for the owner. Reading the pedigree and working from there on any matings is crucial. Of course "the public" should have purebred pedigree dogs. They should not be exclusive to anyone. Dogs are workers, herders, hunters and pets. I feel great pride when I send off a potential champion with a little girl, or an older lady. I love it when they phone me to say that everytime they take the dog out anywhere, people stop them to admire the dog. I like it when their vets tell them it is a beautiful healthy dog. I have done my job. Problem with this is that there are not enough pedigree dogs to go around. People began buying FujitsuxMaltesers because they couldn't get the purebreds. 200 maltese were bred Australia wide last year and not many more shih tzu. I have "middle of the road" breeds - I am not a big time breeder - or a hugely winning exhibitor - but I receive 2 to 6 times more enquiry than I have pups available Ethical breeders need to breed more pups before the marketing begins - and they wont do that because AR told them 20 years ago it was very norty to breed unless they wanted to keep something, and they would be puppy farmers. Thanks Jed, I have no problem with how the K.Cs operate, their protocols for pedigree dogs or the running of the stud books. Only with their rules regarding those dogs who will not fall under their charter. I won't mention them again. I've done that in an earlier post and do realize its a sensitive topic. I think I've explained much of my rational already and my goal isn't to upset any one. I have read the thread on the low numbers of Maltese being bred by pedigree breeders and it bothers me a great deal to see whats happening. In many areas. I've been trying for a long time to get a handle on why these things are happening, rather than just asking what to do about them. Find the root cause. So far the best explanation I can come up with is the one I have put forward here and I have done so because I believe it could change what is happening. I intend to sum up in my next post,and leave it be. If others can't see what I think I see, then it serves no purpose other than to upset people. I have to say a huge thank you to the moderators of this forum for their patience in allowing this fair hearing. :)

Look, I agree with with most of what you guys are saying. I do agree with the o.p. I'm not "against" accreditation systems or marketing plans. I am saying they don't address the main, negative perceptions already out there,and that I firmly believe they are a direct result of those rules. That only changing those rules will remove those perceptions. What benefits are they bringing to pedigree breeders? Are they needed? What are they doing FOR pedigree breeders? They are causing a lot of harm. There are good people who refuse to have any part of pedigree registries because those rules are in place. Others who have given up because of the effects they have on the membership and,IMO how they try define themselves within within a flawed logic. For example, it becomes more urgent to appease your peers than allow for differences in what people want. I repeat: The formation of the registries gave a thematic choice. The addition of those rules underlines the DIVISION. You are with us,or against us. I don't believe any thing you do other than removing the cause of the division will make enough difference. People would still have a thematic choice,but its a lot simpler. Its no longer pedigree.... or nothing. It becomes knowledge used for purpose,with fore thought and organisation.....or take your chances. IMO Pedigree or nothing is what those rules say to people. Thats the message you are sending,and your members are instructed in.If you don't agree, read that thread again on American Staffordshire Terriers. You want your symbol, the pedigree, to stand for your values. It would. If only you could move past the symbol itself to what it represents. You are unable to do that because the symbol itself has defined your difference in the constitution.. Not the knowledge it represents. Its become all or nothing. Introduces judgement. The criteria used to judge knowledge is the pedigree. There is the implication this knowledge doesn't exist out side of pedigrees. It restricts your knowledge to what can be learned within pedigrees and denies validity to any knowledge out side of pedigree dogs.It RESTRICTS your knowledge.IMO Its flawed logic that gives ammunition to anyone who takes offense to that stance,and will continue to do so. I believe pedigree breeders have much more than any other sector to contribute to the human/dog relationship in all areas, but the division is the focus. It isolates them and prevents their other messages from being given credence.

The fact that a significant number of DOLers neither own nor breed pedigree dogs is somewhat ironic in that context. Yes, it is. But I think thats how the public will see it.

Back to the thread on American Staffordshire terriers. Chris001 came to DOL for information and guidance.He left with our disgust. For what? He started with enough to appreciate what pedigree breeders had to offer. That information was selling pedigree breeders. It changed out comes for an unknown number of dogs from a welfare perspective. Thats 1 more person who is a little better informed. He learned that hes not ready to breed, That he needs to educate himself more before he considers it.He was going to desex his dog. He might give the same knowledge to some of his mates. I doubt he will recommend DOL or pedigree breeders to his mates.The message was tainted. When people come to Dol for advise and guidance, your replies represent pedigree dog breeders. Like it or not,you ARE marketing pedigree dogs. Your sending messages on their behalf. So if we are educating these people,collectively and with out judgement, They LEARN what makes a good breeder. We continue to learn from each other. We might not always agree,but facts are being shared so we can use our own judgement to make informed decisions. Why would you need a program to step in and do quality control? If people are discussing and debating, making informed decisions and pedigree breeders are guiding that, people have a far better idea of what a good breeder is. Based on facts given freely. You give your market the information. In the end, they will determine whos a good breeder for them. Its up to breeders to live up to the truths they promote. They can be judged on merit, not affiliation. And hopefully,that brings quality control. If a buyer is disapointed, he can't hold all pedigree breeders to blame. Its pedigree breeders telling him, all breeders are not the same.

Pedigree dog registries created a thematic choice. With the introduction of those rules the division was underscored. I think there needs to be an avenue left open for spontaneous,natural evolution in the way dog breeds 1st came about if societies are to take ownership of the results or stay connected to the proccess. In baring your own membership from taking part in that,you pass judgement. I believe a pedigree represents knowledge, so think marketing knowledge rather than pedigrees is the way to do it.The symbol isn't the product. Otherwise its kind of like telling people they need a degree to practice medicine,so they sign up for the hypocratic oath, receive one and its up to them to study. Will that get rid of charlatans and witch doctors? Could such a society ever agree on what makes a good doctor? If we want reliable quality meat on our tables, should we insist cattle breeders can't supply that by cross breeding? Or that a producer who doesn't use use pure lines only must have an inferior product,or lack integrity?

Thank you Corvus. I also think they are inexorably linked.

No Poodle X Labradors are not cobberdogs now . Cobberdogs are the result of breeders who are attempting to develop a new breed by using several breeds of dogs to achieve a large group of dogs which will be able to be recognised as a breed in its own right with predictable characteristics. They did this by using a pedigree system. The stud book is still open and they have the ability to infuse the breed with dogs which have no relation to their stud stock to include in their breeding program but they don't. They dont because they have been testing for,watching for all diseases known to occur in any of the foundation breeds and eliminating them from the breeding program. They have been selecting for animals which have particular temperament and personality suitable for assistance work which will not shed and which wont require the level of grooming which is usually required for non shedding dogs. They have been testing for 27 different genetic diseases and havent seen any of them for 7 generations. Every time they go out and introduce a cross breed they have to start again with no real knowledge of what they may bring to the gene pool - no knowledge until it turns up - of what they will need to test for and work to eliminate into the future. There are hundreds of people world wide working toward being able to show this is a predictable recognisable breed and if they all decided tomorrow to chuck in a cross breed without having to justify why they wanted to do that it takes the work done back generations. Breed clubs of any breed are in the same position. As a registry if the ANKC listened to individuals or splinter groups and simply stuck in new things into the breed standard or added to or took away registration requirements just because someone wanted to have it done a different way it would be anarchy and it's why they only listen to the breed club. Surely you're not suggesting that breeders should be able to cross breed without a good story about why they want to, what they hope to achieve and how it will be managed or criteria to fit ? Any breed club can approach the ANKC and have permission granted for them to open their stud book ,I am aware of two breeds with open ANKC stud books right now. Currently in the UK every breed has had its stud book opened and dogs are able to be entered if they fit a certain criteria and that is probably the future for the ANKC too. The ANKC allow stud books to be open, they allow crossbreeding, they accept new breeds into their registry but they dont allow you as an individual breeder to simply decide that you will take a different breed here or there and put it in the mix without having to tell them why and how. This is why the code of ethics is worded the way it is and why purebred breeders are against cross breeding in their breed unless it is sanctioned and goes through the system. Now why the ANKC haven't come out and said this when it is being slammed for closed stud books is beyond me but for anyone including the RSPCA or a Uni professor could believe that it would work by just willy nilly allowing every body to chuck in the neighbours dog rather than having a system in place to ensure it doesnt do more harm than good and that we are still left with specific breeds rather than generic dogs makes no sense either. Fact is the ANKC stud books are closed but the system is in place to allow the stud books to be open for any breed at any time. They could simply say all of their stud books are open if the dogs being added fit the criteria - same thing just sounds different. But thats not what I am suggesting at all. Only that the breeding of dogs that will not fall under the charter set for pedigree dogs, not be forbidden. To enable a bridge to public perceptions and their perceived needs and yours.A bridge that doesn't have to compromise your charter. I think a bridge is badly needed for both "sides" to work together. To encourage new blood into the ranks of dedicated breeders and a means of keeping them interested in what you do best. A ready tool for educating people on practices that are proven to benefit dogs as a whole.To stand more simply, for responsible breeding practices based on facts, welfare, and outcomes. Wouldn't that Influence their practices with uncompromised truth? Give Cred.? Brand name through integrity? I believe the pedigree 1st for legitimacy stance is compromising the truth of your message,it seems contradictory. You are to some extent governed by market and its the public that holds your success.If you refuse to aknowledge their their requirements at all, they will continue to turn away. If they continue to turn away ,you can't sustain your numbers. If your own numbers drop too low,your breeding lines do too. Our breeds suffer.

The manager at the Royal Guide Dogs who originally got the idea to cross Labs with Poodles, is on record years later, regretting bitterly what he did... & what it started. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/labradoodle-pioneer-regrets-fashioning-designer-dog/story-e6frg6n6-1225860829155 Even tho' the 'Labradoodle' has since been picked up in breeding for pets, the Guide Dogs reverted to Labradors. The 'popularity' of the 'Labradoodle', like the other designed crosses that followed, rested on statements about 'combining best of both breeds' (massive over-simplification) & cutesy labels. So the man who originated the Labradoodle is frowning on his 'mixing' experiment & others that followed, in retrospect. And just a caution about invoking 'evolution'. That term is scientifically specific...it does not refer to man-made interventions. Possibly a more accurate term for what you're trying to get across is 'development' (?) I 'm not sure. As a whole species, they may still be evolving ,abeit with human interference.Its not always premeditated?

1st para, I recognise that,and respect it.I think part of the reason the public can't is because of the insistence that the word pedigree is automaticalyattached to those goals and ideals. 2nd para, the idea is not to get pedigree breeders breeding cross breds. More so as not to be seen as standing in the way or affecting the autonomy of others. Your influence is more than you realise. I think being more aware of the publics concerns in "product" might have a flow on effect to give breeders more sense of autonomy in their choices.Decrease the perceived need to follow trends in the show ring.

Sorry, but you've lost me there. Why shouldn't pedigree dogs be for everyone? Sorry, I'm making mistakes and not helping myself by them. I should have said their BREEDING should not be up to just anyone.They should understand and believe in goals to be effective.

I think I have addressed your first 3 pargraphs in my reply to HDW. On deciding what message you want? No,you don't get to decide that. Your charter, contained within the constitution, rules and regulations should clearly set that out. It would have been self evident with out those rules I mentioned. They changed your charter. Without those rules,a pedigree represented knowledge to be used for the betterment of dogs. An excellent charter. Their inclusion says that to gain knowledge you 1st need a pedigree. Two threads came up while this debate was hot. One was BREEDING (breeding spitz) The other was American Staffordshire Terriers. When people were able to put aside their judgement regarding breeding with out a pedigree and simply focus on the knowledge they had to impart,the O.Ps were able to benefit from pedigree breeders and learn from them. They were able to take away some thing of value to them. You could show them that you had some thing for them. And thats marketing pure bred dogs.It was working to promote your ideals in the broader community. Its not marketing PEDIGREE dogs,addmittedly. But pedigree dogs should NOT be for everyone. Only for those who are dedicated to the goals of knowledge used for betterment.If they find they are,THEN they will have cause to sign up and reap maximum benefit from pedigree dogs. As soon as people brought in judgement based on pedigree they were lost to you. You had nothing to offer but condescension and a feeling of inferiority because they lacked that knowledge (pedigree). Running out of time again This could be much better explained by some one who specializes in the field.There are people who make a living from the examination of legislation,charters ,constitutions etc. and advising on the wording and such.How it it effects meaning, interpretation and results. RuralPug, I promise to address you other points when I have power again in the morning.

[quote name='Haredown Whippets The oldest breed of pedigreed dog in the world is one of the healthiest. That suggests to me that there is nothing inherently wrong with the system.of recording ancestry and only breeding to dogs of known ancestry.. but as more with how people operate WITHIN it. O.K, I didn't answer this well earlier,too rushed. I do agree with this... for established breeds with ANKC affiliation. Out side of that? Is beyond ANKC charter and should be. Very few developed breeds were created within any such charter, and fewer still should be developed within it. Its too cumbersome. It relies on whats already been done, whats already there. Predictable traits can't be relied on to develop new traits. We can only seize them when they occur, when they have recognizable value. Breeds have never been designed by committees. They evolve according to the values of the societies they spring from. The charter was not designed to develop new breeds but to consolidate whats been done and make it predictable Dogs developed to meet their respective communities needs and wants, became recognizable types with a following of enthusiasts THEN became breeds for the most part. Land race breeds were still to some extent shaped by their communities through culling of undesirable traits. Those rules can an effect on WHY breeds are developed. Poodles X Labradors for example. Aren't they Cobba dogs now? They proved popular before anyone considered making them a breed unto themselves. Then again, would anyone have thought to make this a breed at all if cross breeding were not so frowned on? It could have been a temporary fad. Should legitimacy be a valid need in evolution? IMHO evolution needs room for spontainious (sp?) adaptation. The value of an adaptation is proven by its success over time.