moosmum

Yeah, I should know better. People want dogs. its breed thing. Why would they expect more?

You are right, irresponsible. Standards can only reduce a dogs ability to successfully 'respond' to its environment. Physically as well as mentally Its not a purpose, its a condition a pedigree tries to fix in time and space. Unchanging. A 'fixed' condition is in entropy. Trying to maintain a fixed condition against the demands placed on it, can only reduce it. Purpose gives a direction to move towards. A condition is the end result. Finished. We see the results in the overall decline in health, both physical and mental. And I'm feeling that loss now. Just back from the vets having lost my beautiful Coda to bloat. Rushed her in, but there there was already torsion and signs of damage by the time we could get a vet on Sunday and her to town. Not a pure bred, but the problems we are told are 'just a breed thing' transcend breed. Rip Coda. 6 years old..... The cost of that is almost too much now. How long will people support THAT!!? Bad luck? Yeah, being bred in as we speak. Tonight, I don't feel so optimistic. 50 years ago, to get a dog that didn't die of accident or old age was rare bad luck. Today it would be rare good luck to achieve that. Sounds like maybe you've got it too? We are doing it all backwards.

@asal You got it! Scary alright. When anti fascism has become fascism, and anti hate promotes hatred. When bigotry is rightious, And racists the ones who don't want to see any difference.

Nope. Thats not responsibility in my eyes. The opposite. Breeders offer value to their environment (community) in the form of the dogs they breed. The community (environment) supports breeders through the dogs they choose. The community (or environment) places high demand on good welfare outcomes. If breeders, are going to discredit the value of breeders, ( on welfare grounds) their value is null and void. The demands aren't being met. The welfare costs of supporting breeders is eventually going to be seen as too much for the dogs they get in return. Like the lady who clutches the pup you bred to her chest and asks how you can live with yourself. She wants a pup, For now she will take what you've provided. But shes not going to recognise a job well done for the privilege. Given enough time at the rate we are going, and eventually it won't be just worthless breeders but worthless dogs as well. We discredit Dogs too, depending on where they come from. You've never sounded dumb to me. I appreciate you have enough interest to ask for clarity when I haven't done better. Hope tomorrow is a better day.

I agree. Much of the information we are getting is cherry picked to suit the agendas of self interest groups who have the means to promote any research that supports their narrative, or statistics with out context. Part of the reason I think only a more broadly representative and all inclusive organisation could counter act that. To be founded on a basis of purpose and responsibility, free flow of information and research would be an essential part of its mission. You can't take responsibility with out it.

Absolutely! If environment is a space, then it has rules or laws that allow predictions. We learn those rules in school, but not how they apply to human behaviour, in a human environment. Some how believing human intelligence over rides them. No, it doesn't. Not if we ignore them. The problems in the U.S and around the world play into this too. We can't change the past, but we can start recognising we have the present conditions to work with for a better future with out making the same mistakes all over again, where some parts are seen to be not worth the space they occupy. Take away that space and the platforms they stand on, and you leave them no choice but to claim their own. Opposition brings only opposition. = and opposite reaction. You don't like some ones perspective? you can avoid sharing the same space, learn to accept thats their perspective and you don't have to share it, or give them a better one, because its all they have got. If breeders can't recognise their environment, they will be taken out of their environment. We have less time than you think to get it right, because its taken 150 years to shape the expectations we are left with today, that its too costly to support breeders for the value offered in return. We need to STOP promoting the failures and expecting that to result in improvement. I think it may be too late with out a registry specifically based on Purpose, and free flow of information to promote responsibility. I don't see any other way to counteract the effects of what was begun.

Thanks Scratch, I know I haven't been able to express this well. That makes it very frustrating. I think the problem is that once you have grasped this concept, it alters the language you use. The meanings of words are not different, but take on new dimensions. Quite literally, The dimension of Space. Its not easy to shift perceptions to take that in. But If it can't be falsified, it has huge repercussions so is important to try. Your comments remind me its not useless until I give up..

The conditions a breeder works with ARE the breeders environment. Responsibility is about responding to your environment, in ways that expand it. Deliver value/space. So more of the environment is open to you. If what you give is seen as some thing of value, That improves in some way the conditions around you (customers) and so your purpose is welcomed. You don't get to decide what that value will be. You are the organism, the breeders. The world as it is, is the environment. You don't get to make demands of the environment. It makes demands and you can either meet them or fail . Setting conditions or qualifications on the environment breeders accept before it has value to you, is rejecting your environment. Narrowing the sets of conditions accepted for valid membership as breeders doesn't allow evolution of breeder identity. The conditions set are all that will support you. Theres nothing left to evolve to. And breeders will only exist at all while they have environmental support.. So the product better be good. And appeal to wide range of people, for as many different purposes as they can find because their purpose is not qualified. It either finds acceptance or it doesn't. Not easy when the breeding stock selected from and for, is limited to 'qualifications" you set, mistaking that for responsibility. Responsibility is consistently meeting and exceeding expectations- And exceeding them will set higher expectations. Those who can't match them will fall. But there will always be some who can't. As breeders, responsibility means minimising the numbers who will fail and how badly. Not by eliminating those who possibly would. Minimise failure with information. Familiarity with the subject. The pitfalls of breeding, possible solutions, most of all, by teaching the benefits of doing it right by showing what can be had when it is. It doesn't have to hold appeal for everyone. The diverse values of any given dog should match the diverse values of its environment. Or its not evolving where it could, not expanding the available environment or contributing value where it could. The word value here is not only what you see in some thing you want, its also space or environment made available to dogs. Thats what marks a successful evolution to the environment we have got. You can't decide your own evolution without working with the conditions you've got. there. It just doesn't work to say you will reduce what you have, to what you want. because then you can work with nothing else. There is no responsibility to environment , if you can only be familiar/recognise or accept a narrow set of qualifying conditions for recognition as a breeder. With no room for evolution in any new or other direction. It does NOT mean we accept failure. It means we teach what success looks like, so people don't accept less .There will be mistakes. As long as their are dogs to make them with. We are not finished evolving as breeders. But there will less support given to failure when people have higher expectations, based on what success they've seen demonstrated. Not always to your own values. Its basic biology really. Its a matter of recognising the environment you have, and your subject, or identity, of dog breeders" within it. Not just limiting what you will accept. You will not be able to respond, as breeders, to anything you don't. You loose any control or influence you might have had. The community is your environment. Dog breeders are the subject. You don't get to demand what your environment will accept, without loosing environment!. You are not taking responsibility. You demonstrate, value given for that. To shape expectations. If you demonstrate failures, you shape expectation of failure. and reduce support given to the subject. Dog breeders. Not just the failures, because its a single subject. Failures aren't the environments. They are ours, as dog breeders.

By a) Promoting those breeders who are doing good things, with explanations of why its a good thing. B) Discouraging those who would discredit those good things with 'Yeah, but its a puppy farmer', Or BYBer, Or Pedigree 'show' dog. . Because they are all breeders, and its possible to breed poorly in any of those categories. Its not quantity that proves a poor job, or a backyard pet, or a pedigree but people have come to equate each of those things with a poor or unethical job/product. Every man (and his dog) have been told, constantly, any category of breeder is is associated with poor practices. What do poor practices look like? A Puppy Farm! A BYBer! A pedigree breeder! Breeders in general, in other words. Because we all know theres only one way to breed a dog well, don't we? We are told that constantly, that its dependent on environment. Not the individuals purpose and goals. But what does a good breeder look like? Because nobody can accept a breeder might be able to do something right, unless its done the way we believe it should be done. We teach that success should be qualified, by our own standards and conditions regardless of the goals or purpose behind the success. By allowing and promoting demonstrations of value, as survival of the species demands, with out the need for some self righteous persons to discredit it, where ever its found.'Cos if you are looking to fault some one, finding fault is easy. But thats not what any of us should be promoting. But that is exactly what we have been doing and why heavily regulated and qualified ( to the standards we insist must be universal) commercial breeders will be favoured in this little valued, discredited environment we are left with. And who will be left to contest their values, methods or purpose when those are the only conditions a breeder may work with? Who will be left to claim or show better could be had? If we are going to demand qualification for the product of sale or trade, the only qualification that will be able to achieve universal recognition will be commercial qualification. Or you can promote responsibility of breeders to their product and their environment by demonstrating how and why things can be done to achieve results that will be best received.

Neither can I. And thats IF the recommendations are enacted.

Not sure yet. But i'm reading it as... A recommendation to put legislation and prosecution under independent public oversight- And let RSPCA go back to being a preventative charity. i hope so!

Yep. And very expensive to have facilities approved to the increasing specifications of a "qualified" or even legal breeder.

Yep. Still caught in the trap. Instead of taking responsibility - teaching and promoting successes in breeding, we teach bigotry instead. Trying to decide conditions that identify a breeder, based on things other than than the act itself. To make 'Dog Breeding' a successful and valued occupation of humanity, by elimination of the irresponsible, as if responsibility can and must be made inherent to the conditions a breeder works with. Not a learned response the laws of selection demand. The price of pups will increase as breeder numbers decline in the elimination process. So long as demand remains stable. To demand qualification of what makes a breeder before the fact, and assuming the conditions they will inevitably work with is not being responsible to our dogs. Its being responsible to arbitrary conditions. It raises the profits to be made, but it also creates an incentive and value other than the dogs themselves or furthering their value to our communities. 'Conditions' of an environment are not stable or static with out entropy. Creating an environment (of dog breeders) where they must be stable, static and predictable come what may, is not responsibility to that environment as it exist now or the demands actually being made. Its an inability to recognise the environment you have, and respond to it accordingly. Rejection of environment is not an improvement , its a reduction, and a signal of entropy.

Some points regarding your post - I think there are better ways of promoting Pedigree Dogs than placing all the value of a dog in its documentation. This seems to re-enforce the idea that Pedigree breeders are elitist snobs and I don't think that does the the reputation of Pedigree breeders any favours. Breeding dogs 'for fun' or money with no thought to their health or future is irresponsible, no matter who does it , but 'documentation' is no guarantee of a better motive and posts like this imply otherwise. Then we have buyers running into problems with their new pups being dismissed for 'not doing their home work'- Assuming that a breed profile and registered breeder is all thats needed. You can not understand the motive of any breeder with out researching the individual, their animals, goals and methods of achieving them. A pedigree is far from a guarantee of health or behaviour. 2nd, breeding dogs can be done for for more immediate purposes than a future breed. ie: Breed standards place no importance on an individual dogs abilities to respond to its individual living environment- unless that is the show ring. So certain traits and abilities may be lacking for for the dogs intended purpose, or not in the best combinations to achieve the dogs purpose as effectively as possible. Today, not in 20 years when those trait combinations are no longer required by the breeder. And if those trait combinations can most reliably be found in Pedigree dogs, that shouldn't make a mockery of their use. Better for Pedigree dogs to recognise the strength and value of those traits to goals other than a 'standardised' design for its own sake. Otherwise, we risk limiting domestic dogs to increasingly fewer environments of Humanity.

I've seen similar sort of allergy to Kikuyu too. Only took a strand walked on and no other allergies showed later..

I've found K9-1's foundation style training and Leerburg useful.

Yeah Looks like our communities need dogs, to keep our humanity.

Yep. After their own mistake is not the time to be giving this woman more grief. Happy Birthday @asal

Great lessons being promoted there. Not. Seek treatment, or else. But if RSPCA delivers that poorly or in poor faith, and you complain, they will drum the message home. Seeking treatment there was a bad idea. If seeking treatment so easily turns into a nightmare how does that help in prevention. Regardless of the person seeking it. R.S.P.C.A made a mistake. If this woman has any history worth note it should have been 'noted' before their own mistake.

Both in my thoughts too. Sorry @sandgrubber

Yeah, fair call. Thing is, organisations are environments. Just sets of conditions set up by people to serve a purpose. For Pedigree dog breeders, an organisation to record a dogs history, to ensure its available to reference in breeding decisions. Membership to an organisation doesn't ensure responsibility. The rules a member is expected to follow are agreed by all membership and more generaly understood by buyers. But they don't replace responsibility as individuals and thats what tends to happen. You can't say an unaffliated breeder has no rules to follow or testing requirements. You can't know that with out doing your research on that individual. Asking the sort of questions that breeders keep telling us are so important when dealing with pedigree breeders. You need to understand the individual you are dealing with. A sign of a responsible buyer. Having rules to follow and the testing requirements of an organisation to reference takes some of the work out of that. Once you know the rules and testing requirements of the organisation you understand those are the same for all members of the organisation. And that assumption tends to reduce the responsibility of buyers to research the individual breeder they are dealing with. The organisation tends to replace the individual in peoples minds. When responsibility declines, the organisation is more likely to react by imposing more conditions on its membership. And over time in evolutionary terms, that results in even more decline in responsibility. Accepting a uniform set of conditions as 'standard' in a membership doesn't make people more responsible. It imposes conditions to substitute for responsibility . -

I disagree with this. Its subjective to the person breeding, not the organisations demands of how they should be doing it. For non affiliated breeders its up to the buyer to question testing and methodology of the breeder. The buyer must understand their own responsibility to ensure they are taking on a dog they feel confident they are equipt to manage. Its the breeders responsibility to ensure they have confidence in the buyers ability to manage the welfare of the dog. In the case of affiliated breeders, we have a problem with buyers encouraged to make assumptions of suitability based on the organisations P.R and mission statements, and not the individuals breeders ability or success in representing them in a way that is going to be meaningful to the buyer. Breeders too are more likely to make assumptions of buyers who support the conditions of their organisation in their choices. The responsibility to under stand the diversity of breeders and/or buyers does apply to every one breeding or buying. It has less to do with affiliation to an organisation than the personal responsibility of individuals. Organisations that promote conditions to achieve rather than direction to aim , tend to erode responsibility to Dogs by redirecting it to achieving and maintaining limited conditions that may or may not suit an individual perspective or value. The organisation has 'decided' the value lies the conditions they have set in place, and less from the perspective of the individual dog or breeder. When responsibility is directed towards maintaining conditions, instead of exceeding them, thats faith, not science. Responsibility is assigned to the organisation. You are no longer responding to the organisation as the environment it is, but as an entity/identity in its own right.

Yes. And there always will be because you can't legislate away fallibility or ignorance. You can't legislate that all people who breed will understand every situation they encounter. Or that standard legislative solutions are always the best practical ones. Dividing and splitting the breeds though doesn't contribute to their diversity or versatility. Its a mirror of the original problem. A different emphasis so a different manifestation. Ring sports become their show ring and pedigree is used to reduce genetic selection choices to the standard response. Predictable states. Forgetting that environment and expectations are NOT predictable or static without entropy. Aiming for predictability, or uniform standards of acceptability, reduces options of acceptable genetic response by people who must disregard their unique perspectives to achieve them. Predictability does not adapt to conditions, it depends on them, demands them against the laws of a healthy environment. It decreases modes of inheritance into a state or condition. Reliability on other hand, allows for the demands and expectations of environment. By providing a direction to move towards, rather than a state to achieve. It increases modes of inheritance towards a purpose, Regardless of the "states" or conditions endured. One is evolution, following a genetic direction. The other is entropy, fixed and unable to evolve in any direction not contained in its own state of being. No standard/state can be universally held and still allow diversity or response beyond that state.

It should come down to what you want in a dog, how easy it is to find what you want, and if you have found it, is it worth trying to keep and hopefully improve on. Would the results responsibly meet a demand, or are they already met better? Whats in it for the dogs? Will they love how they will live? Great questions in the O.P!

Yes. But the standard, as interpreted and represented in the show ring is often not based on the realities of a working life. I speak for myself, Not the majority of people on here. I see it that any dog bred should be bred with a purpose in mind, from dogs who respond well to that purpose, in the environments they will be meant to work in. In evolutionary terms, Dogs meeting the needs and expectations of their environment(s). So increasing environments where they have a place.. The dogs purpose might be the show ring, sheep trials or stock truck, agility, bite sports or apartment companion, personal protection kids companion or field trials. If there is an acceptable demand for for dogs that meet certain needs, and it can be met responsibly, then a good breeder does so to the best of their abilities, should be rewarded and encouraged to do better, If other breeders have insight into how they could. If its the only environment worth breeding for, The show/breed standards can only limit the diversity a dogs purpose can present. The dogs ability to respond to any other purpose (environmental expectations) will be reduced to that very limited measure of a dogs worth set out in its breed standard. Evolutionary biology demands that result. Adherence to the expectations of a pedigree breeders environment limits the potential of any direction other than that.