moosmum

Yes, and Its good that you did. But Its also against rules to promote them. Hard for members to say anything positive, since it could be construed as promotion. I think it only fair to point that out. There would be few here, if any, actively involved in breeding cross breeds for the market. This site can't speak for them about what is or isn't available in that market. We are not representative of it. No criticism intended. Cross breeders shouldn't be the sole source of information on Pure Breeds either.

Bear this in mind. The points people are making are part of the picture, but advise would be more complete coming from those more familiar with cross breeds.

Central registration is the only option that can represent all stake holders as a unit. But not by Govt. Its a failure of current registries that Govt. has been forced to take on that role, and it will be ineffective. A government registering body gives no direction or responsibility to its membership. It does not represent its membership, only set their limitations. The term 'registered' was not misappropriated. It has a meaning that is being used entirely appropriately. I agree with Anne, that ANKC needs to change their language to avoid confusion. A 'Mongrel Pedigree' and central registering body "owned" and operated by its constituents would be far more effective tool to return Dogs to their rightful place as part of our communities, not organizations with distinct agendas and objectives. A member owned central register would be best placed to foster expectations and responsibility, with out the need for ever more restrictive legislation that is the only option without it. A Pedigree is pretty useful to breeders trying to achieve more than random dogs. Encouraging its application to Mongrels would seem a sensible way to vastly reduce the random misbegotten and encourage more thought and purpose. Instead of increasing the costs of registering entire dogs with council, it could be conditional on DNA testing for breed and health with results tied to microchip details and publicly available. Bottom line, a member owned central register is needed, to unite people under the common purpose of having Dogs in our lives, before we can properly formulate the expectations and responsibilities that come with that. It can only work though if its representative, not restrictive. Legislation does not cause responsibility, it can only limit our ability of response. Canine organizations with arbitrary objectives are the reason it can't be had without a central register now.

There is also this- Limited register serves to restrict what gets shown and bred, to what conforms most exactly to the Breed standards as written and expressed today, in the show ring. Reinforcing the existing statehood of Pedigree Dogs, not the need to redefine or discuss.

Likely the 'other' problems are what put them on the same banned list and their Brachycephaly was more incidental.... so breeders would be more inclined to take note.

Agree with the above posts, Worth mention too is that many livestock animals are considered "pure breed" after 4 to 6 generations of 'up' breeding to pure bred stock. The likelihood of traits in evidence from other breeds does drop significantly with mating to pedigree stock, but that reliability should not be expected for several generations.

Rest in peace and love, beautiful Genie. So very sorry for your loss of a beloved family member.

Agreed. What I can't agree with is that you can work effectively at prevention (as per the stated intent of the organization) when your reward and effectiveness is judged on successful prosecution. The monetary reward is not in prevention.

I don't know about other tests or their quality. Embark is available to Aussies. Postage is pretty steep.

I think its also a massive conflict of interest, for a charity formed on the stated purpose of Prevention, to then receive Government support and sanction to Punish animal cruelty. We have laws and Legal systems that should more appropriately handle matters of Justice. Accepting the responsibility of prosecutions, The Organizations success will be judged on successful prosecutions rather than Prevention of the need for them. Surely that is a massive conflict.

Nothing to feel guilty of. You sacrificed. Your feelings of loss, for her future. You will mourn her loss, but theres no guilt to that. Looking at might have beens now does not guarantee them, and with her, may have been put out of your reach anyway. Dealing with her issues to your changed circumstances would have been that stressful to you both. When I was in my early teens I found a lovely collie type cross I named and fed, hoping my parents would eventually notice her and let me keep her. I had her 2 weeks when she went missing. I looked for her at the local High school where I'd 1st found her after hours. 2 kids came out with her on lead and asked was I her owner as they were there with their parents looking to take her home. I explained what I had to do with her and they offered me the lead several times, not wanting to take her from me since she was clearly pulling to me. I told them my parents hadn't even noticed her, I already had a dog and If they could keep her with their parents consent I preferred she went with them. I still remember her being lead away, looking back at me all the way out of sight. They seemed like lovely kids with responsible parents. She might have had the same with me, but I couldn't guarantee my parents would even allow me a second dog. I did the right thing, though I've never forgotten her. You've done the best for her.

Very similar happened to me. Sold a pup to a home that sounded great. Daughter wanted to train her own dog, family were very experience with GSDs in Ob. and breeding but had no dogs currently. Mum offered her support. Pup was picked up one afternoon and I got a call early next morning asking to return. Pup got to her new home after a 3 hour car trip and refused to settle- Not crying, just wanted to play, all night. Daughter could not handle the sleepless nite and Mum said she was more than happy to help with training, but that did not extend to taking over in those situations. Pup was returned that day with a full refund. I was happy to give it knowing pup was safe, and buyers did the right thing in returning her. I was very proud watching them lead her up our long drive behaving so well and confidently on leash and treated it as a great socialization experience for her.

I would be quite happy to look into it regardless, If I had an interest in doing so. If the class action can be separated from the dodgy doings of some its supporters, I doubt any thing less than a class action will bring the accountability and recognition of wrong doing people are asking for. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. If they are too tangled.... You can't win.

Thanks for that link T, made it easy when I have other crap taking my resources. I hope a lot more people sign, share, and spread the word. This stuff is only helpful in reducing the benefits of Domestic animals in the lives of our communities. It does not improve welfare considerations for those animals still kept despite the legislation, or aid people to understand their responsibilities. It is the imposition of an objective set of standards where subjective values are the only viable application for the continuation of Domestic animals.

My Lou had a good sense of humor, but didn't like games to be too real. I found a very realistic rubber squeaky cat toy in Vinnies I brought home for her and she was delighted until she grabbed it. Its squeak was weird and very cat like. She dropped it and refused to touch it again. Not funny!

Yes. A good reason not to undercut yourself. No problem with that. If the market is supporting that price, its fair. A much reduced market too. The market would clearly support more responsible breeders, If overheads and 'accidents' were not such issues. I they remain issues, there will will less support. I and others like me will opt out and find alternatives.

I am always being accused of anthropmorphising. Don't care! I don't think of them as human in any way, but they are 'beings' and definitely share traits of beings. And I like great sense of humor !

I have to agree with this. I would not expect anyone to 'undercut' themselves on going prices if they have done due diligence, and breeders going above and beyond should be able to find buyers happy to pay for that . I understand accidents etc can easily add to the costs of breeding and a good breeder should be entitled to a profit for their genuine effort and to cover costs when things might not go as planned. But I personally would want more guarantees than a breeder could ethically give before prices over 2 to an absolute max of 3 thousand. If costs for producing the dogs normally require much higher prices to cover the breeder, thats not part of what I'm willing to buy into or support. I believe when I take on a dog, it becomes my responsibility alone. Such high prices create an expectation of guarantee that shouldn't (can't?) be applicable.

I understand your frustration, and agree its wrong that the cost of ownership is now so ridiculously high. But- Maybe you should have a look at the legislation and codes of practice people are required to meet these days to keep, breed, or even rescue. No difference between commercial breeders or hobby breeders makes it very expensive and time consuming with ongoing commitment and liability to buyers for the lifetime of dogs sold. The costs of setting up such an establishment can be in the 10s of thousands even before the 1st dog sets foot in it! Blame lies squarely on legislators and those who blindly sign petitions to 'ban or eliminate' this or that (rather than improving) with out looking into the consequences. Breeders are up against a wall and thats reflected in the prices.

ANKC could not ever have been geared to anything else once they accepted the belief that only pedigree pure bred dogs were worthy of recognition. Thats objective. To anything not of the object. But dogs are the subject. Of their Environment. So inseparable.

Value is always subjective. Applying it objectively is negative/subtractive of the value being measured. Those who promote or subscribe to Critical Theory need to understand this. It was the wrong measure of Humanity when we accepted oppression of some. Its the wrong measure to combat it now. The measure of Humanity, or Domestic Dogs, is ONE. With all parts being equal to that sum. There can't be a 'measure' of equality if it really is 'assumed' You can't measure what is equal with out fracturing its sum. An all inclusive registry would also allow us to present a powerful and unified voice to inform better and more realistic legislation.

The day after her arrival.

Though I would update on Toka after her 8/9 months with us. She has filled lots, much healthier. Her chest is not too narrow anymore. She has a natural attraction and love of children I'm very happy with. She seems to pick up very well on language/communication and is becoming much better at it herself. She likes that she make us laugh. Impulse control is ongoing, but she is very biddable otherwise. A good alert. Seems quite intelligent!. She has just about learned to open the front door Her old owners came to visit and watching them interact showed me where some of her worst habits came from! She is very mouthy- Likely from having fingers hooked behind her front teeth for a tug game. Jumping up was also encouraged, so still being worked on. She has great body awareness and is quite athletic. Her preferred toys are ones she can wrestle- An old motorbike tire, a traffic cone. Her tug toy was destroyed very quickly.

@sandgrubber I'm not as up to date on what Finland is doing atm, though I heard of some interesting developments from a few years back. Hope their new developments are avoiding the 'solutions' of some European countries ie Breed Wardens. IMO they are only further narrowing the selection pool to cater to those individuals personal priorities. There seems universal agreement that education is needed. The problem is most who agree think it should be up to some one else, or some specific body. A new registry based on function/purpose and responsibility would include that duty as part of its membership- because that is what responsibility is. Ensuring the knowledge and understanding to make informed choices. It would right away, with its formation, put a big dent in Petas claim there is no purpose to breeding. AND provoke more thought into personal choices in both ownership and breeding.

Yep. No doubt.