moosmum

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.

It would be useful to forward this, and the picture/info. of the calf left for days more recently to some one involved with the enquiry. Visual evidence is going to be most useful to demonstrate failures.

Wolves have been persecuted for centuries now. It makes sense that interest or curiosity of Man has been systematically culled over that time, so remnants of that trait might still occur, though less often. I can attest to that, and the results, 55 yrs ago when the result was wiping out the pack. Unless its a fake story, Russia uses wolf dogs for border patrol. Their attempts at breeding suitable dogs for this were not successful until they found the 'right' wolf, with a liking for human companionship Other examples are cropping up, now that the persecution is lessened.

Read about this. Just

So hard to feel, the decision is for them when the heart can only say NO! Be good to yourself.

So sorry for your loss. What a sweetheart!

Yes. Without the legal /prosecution powers they have been tasked with, that is the logical direction the organisation should have headed. Ensuring public awareness of animals physical and mental needs does more to improve animal welfare than laws dictating HOW those are to be met, As we see with some of the legislation thats been introduced. Legislation dictating 'How' does not inform anyone of why its expected, why those practices are an improvement, or considered improvement over what? Bitches whelping in a family home? Legislation does not allow alternative environments or conditions that could be more beneficial, or alternative methods of meeting needs of the animals that work better in the conditions faced by their keepers. So reduces people and environments able to meet those needs, or understand the purpose of the legislation being adopted. They might understand this is the environment you must provide before you can keep an animal, But less of the reason behind it.(ignoring those already experienced) If they don't understand the needs they should be meeting, or why meeting them is a good thing, they are more likely to make mistakes out of ignorance. And we need more legislation/restrictions on who and how to keep animals. Eroding familiarity with their needs and your responsibilities even more. There should be legislation to ensure people provide for the needs of the animals in their care. I don't think How thats to be done should be part of it. It does not take into account the conditions dealt with by individual animals or people, or how they could deal with their conditions more or as effectively than legislation allows. Nor does it allow for evolution of needs to be considered or developed. People are more likely to do things well when they understand the purpose of doing it. The types of Legislation being pushed doesn't foster that understanding, but does hinder it.

When you think on it, it was a bad idea from the start. Prevention of animal cruelty ,Tied to a duty of prosecution- pretty much dictates the 'method' of prevention that must be relied on as a legal responsibility. It limits those orgs. to a prosecutorial and legislative role to achieve the intent of prevention. Through punishment after the fact. That actually corrupts the ideal of ' prevention of cruelty to animals' . To something more like 'punishment and limitation of animal husbandry'. It must do that if punishment and limitation are are the legal responsibility of 'prevention'. The legal responsibility precedes their own intent.

I've done one, didn't notice where others could be read. I think this is very under publicised. The petition linked over the seized cattle should reference it!

Dual purposes have been good to the breed. I hope it stays that way. Its a worry though when show lines start to take a clearly different direction. As the difference between working/show lines becomes more clear, that can cause show breeders to reject that advantage/diversity in favour of what will excel in the show ring- Its no longer the same criteria. Different environmental expectations, or acceptable standards. What is recognisable as an acceptable representative of the breed comes to be defined in the show ring and the qualities that give the breed its versatility are incidental. Most often lost very quickly. Because ANKC standards, are verified in the show ring. The show ring sets ANKCs environmental expectation. Other environments are not recognised to contribute value to that standard. The GSD and Doberman had similar advantage, once. Some breeders tried to keep the best of both worlds. And today both breeds are almost completely gone in a working capacity. The need for standardised training methods, testing and demonstration in what is an industry has lead to behavioural extremes, and an ignorance of diversity and 'responsibility' that rivals the show ring.

@grumpette I love hearing of your dogs and the joy they bring to their owners and other people. Great ambassadors for their breed and dog ownership. Thank you Zephy, for Being so much to so many.

Yes. Seems to be the new 'responsible'. Can't have dogs capable of reproducing in the hands of the public. They might actually need to learn some things. That would be promoting an expectation of responsibility. I suppose no outrage because its encouraged as 'compliance and accountablility' with 'responsible' practice. Backward logic. I am out raged, and have been beating my head against a wall. Likely too late now to change. I hope not, but it does need a lot more outrage to do that. Stop 'promoting' expectations based on the lowest common denominator. Start show casing what can be accomplished without allowing that to be constantly discredited. Celebrate efforts to do better to promote positive expectations. Stop expecting perfection to a single set of standards because they will never been agreed, only further defined. That can never accomodate multiple environments. Only eliminate them till nothings left to stand on.. In short, If any of us want dogs as HUMANS we have to believe Humans can be responsible for them. Not governments, corporations or Registries. They can only be responsible for their own 'bodies' Attacking them for not doing enough only takes away our own abilities to make judgements based on our own individual conditions, and what, in those circumstances, is best for the dogs and ourselves. Allow recognition of a dog fit for purpose even if we don't personally approve of where it came from. The 'Standard' of a doberman I need to work, in the conditions I live with, might not be the same 'Standard' that 'works' in the show ring or even security. Different purposes. But the breed is richer for that, not poorer. No less valid.

Not sure how it would improve things. You might see something I don't? It would increase costs of production for some breeds, and mean more profit for others, but not based on Demand. And I see no problem with getting rewarded for meeting demand ( tho' I don't mean volume demand) A breeder who sees a market for a breed not currently in Australia, who imports at great cost, has a lot of suitable buyers lined up, should be able to recoup costs. Same for a breeder who spends a fortune searching out and testing dogs to eliminate disease or defects. Or to 'work' in conditions or for a purpose not commonly bred for. Reward for going beyond expectations should be incentivised. Positive reinforcement. If people are willing to pay more for a dog bred away from cosmetic extremes, ( and not being torn apart for doing it!) that should influence whats winning conformation shows, eventually. There should be more reward to breeding for a specific purpose, well planned and researched, than for a dog bred with no planning, research or goal in mind. For our so called 'superior intelligence', it seems our learning methods aren't much different to other animals. Recognition of patterns. If i do this there are benefits and rewards. If I try to do this there is punishment. This, gives neither. We push positive training for dogs. For all our so called 'superior intelligence' it seems we learn best as any animal does.

Because they play on the emotions of people. Ignore the science that doesn't re-enforce their message and double down where it does. They find and display the worst examples of abuse, then call for laws to ban those environments where they have taken place. Like Greyhound racing. Live exports, etc. Yes, there are abuses. And yes we should end them. But I don't see that cancelling the environments where they have taken place is the answer. It always has unforseen effects. Especially when its so easy to manufacture abuse for a camera, if your narrative calls for that. A.R has such strong influence because people support banning things, rather than improving them because improvement is never fast enough to keep pace with expectation. It will always lag behind. In evolutionary terms, Demonstration of better, followed by Expectation to imitate that demonstration, then response to the new expectations that have been set. I've seen support for A.R agendas here. Who doesn't want to end abuse? It comes back to the same thing. Ban the environment instead of improving the responses to match expectation. Improvement is slower for sure. But works. Because it doesn't destroy diversity but adds to it. A ban is an attack on environments. Its irresponsible, because it does not require familiarity, recognition and response. Just get rid of it, and no need to think of it. It won't 'bother' you again. But it will cause other problems. The loss of environments cascades. We going to ban them all? Or start being responsible, by helping to fix what we can, where we can. So it works better for more people. Providing solutions for the cause.

One thing.... I do NOT think lobbying to tighten laws is the answer- just takes us further down this road. Rather, I think promoting the benefits of dogs bred in family/human/ home environments. Selected for how well they fit into and respond to the environments they are bred for. Selected for success and value to the environments they are bred in. And stop making it harder, for anyone. Just teach people that that if you want a companion/guardian for the farm to follow your kids around but leave the animals alone and get on with the sheep dogs , search for dogs doing just that, and bred because they are doing it effectively and happily because they were bred for that job.. A show dog? Predictable type pedigree as a pet/companion? Sport dog? Working dog? Ditto. Look for parent dogs successfully demonstrating those response abilities to purpose. If you want a dog that will happily wait all day, maybe with a canine companion and some toys, for you give it some attention when you get home and not be a bother when you are otherwise occupied, then a puppy farmed dog might actually be the ticket. But with responsibility for breeding ALL dogs for a genuine purpose and selecting based on success at that purpose, We demonstrate and promote higher expectations than puppy farm accessories. We create a demand, for more, than that. Puppy farmed dogs will be selected from stock that do well in confined areas with limited exposure to stimulus out side their living space. Might well suit modern dog owners, who have little time to spend with their pets. No so much those wanting a working dog, sports dog, service dog or any variation involving more than a companion for the home or lap.

According to organisation as organism theory all countries face similar futures while the Pedigree fraternity refuse to 'recognise' non pedigree dogs or breeders. That amounts to a refusal to recognise environment and the result is to reduce environment. How, or how quickly depends on the culture that instruction is operating on. Australias attitude to dogs historically was more; keep them out of the house, they are for work, not pets. If pets, they are animals 1st. If you choose to keep them as 'pets' thats fine, so long as others aren't forced to treat them as any more than animals. So its been faster here than some other places. Some worse. I think our only hope now is to wake up other countries in hopes they can end this and provide a better example of what actually works. There is not much time though, the process increases fast after so much time shaping society to one that will support these moves .Incidentally, we see the same sort of things happening with the polarisation of politics. Organisation as Organism works, but is more 'culture' as organism. It has huge implications.

Add to this the new affordability of spey and neuter at a time when 'Back yard breeding' came into focus and attack from ANKC . More people opting for the ease and peace of mind afforded, while those who didn't were discredited as irresponsible, regardless of weather there was a plan or purpose behind a mating. Irresponsibility of breeders in the headlines, be they pedigree (P.D.E) Puppy farms, Backyard breeders. Poor breeding practices were the focus, but No longer based on individual practices and results, but on the environment producing them. BYB , puppy farm or ANKC. Because ANKC drew the distiction. Based on environment, not value delivered .The environment is seen to be the value. It was no longer about what a person does to ensure value to the dogs and their market, or how effective or ineffective that was proving. Rather than discussion of responsible breeding practices and the purpose of producing dogs that should add value to their species and the people who own them, It became about which environments met the most stringent conditions. Not individuals who respond well, but what environments ensure they do so. ANKC hamstrung their membership, adding that a breeders goal should not be profit to avoid being tarred with the puppy farm brush, though it was already in their mission statement that the purpose of breeding was improvement. Keep the environments distinct and separate so ANKC is untainted. Again, not by practices of irresponsible individuals. But by environments seen to support irresponsible practices . All of them will. As long as people breed dogs, and people buy dogs without understanding the practices that maximise the potential value of ownership in any environment. That misunderstanding will increase, while environments are held to account. And the responsibility of breeders operating to provide recognisable value to broad and diverse environments of domestic dogs are discredited and diminished.Based on environment. All we are left to work with is which environment best enforces conditions and limitations that disallow other possibility. Disallow response. The longer this continues, the more support it gains because that is the expectation we are promoting- That environments have responsibility. An individual is only responsible for choosing the right one. A Commercial environment will win out, because as we keep defining the conditions of 'responsible breeder' environment, it a) becomes more costly to meet or provide those conditions. b) Doing so carries an expectation of regulation. Because response-ability requires familiarity, recognition and acceptance of those conditions. Only those meeting them could find 'value' in doing so. Its no longer an open and transparent environment influenced by demand, or open to evolutionary influence. because of those we have c) 'Domestic Dogs' are removed from their environment of humanity Its no longer shaped by humanity and their needs, demands or responses to it.. Its shaped by an alternate environment designed to suppress recognition of a dogs value, in favour of the environment/conditions that must be in place before any can can be recognised. It demands the environment respond and support a species, instead of environment accepting based on what responds to and supports it. Wrong way around. Bass akward thinking that will have the opposite effect to the desired outcome. It won't improve dogs or their environment, it will reduce both. You can't blame the buyers, the breeders or even the legislators while claiming the environment a dog comes from decides its value potential.There is no response-ability in that . If laws are being broken, there are grounds to remove this puppy farm. If not, people now unfamiliar with the realities of canine husbandry will will trust the regulation of an industry removed from familiarity and recognition. Public society has been deemed too irresponsible to breed dogs. So that ability of response is being removed to corporate bodies. Their regulation will be decided by the demands of a society unfamiliar with the practicalities of meeting them, but with expectations dependent on whats demonstrably available.

I agree with this too. I guess "surprisingly little" was a poor word choice. Better to say , The effects of closed stud books would be mitigated by a wide margin, If breed choices were influenced more by what is successful in environments beyond the show ring and the registries own rules and conditions. As they could be, if recognition of those were acceptable to membership identity. They are not, because of an unneeded statement that serves NO purpose, except to favour those who put faith and belief before science and logic. Believing that the singular perspective of their own position is the only legitimate position to hold. Because "We do not recognise"- another. Thats what makes it gnarly. And will affect how well the resulting dogs bred from open stud books will be accepted. No recognition of what takes place beyond your own conditions of membership means, no recognition of the environment that sustains you, or enabled your being. I believe country of origin for the Dalmation has recently refused to accept dogs that carry the pointer cross from some 40 years ago. Not recognised. Delivering the promise.

What should be good news, is that closed stud books have surprisingly little to do with the problems facing breeders of Pedigree Dogs. The main problems are the closed minds tasked with interpreting the instructions laid out by the standards. .Because they are instructed to be closed to what they don't see already there. Conformation showing isn't even such a problem without that instruction. The show ring tells them what they should see best, in a good example of a breed standard. Its the faulty instruction that means the show winner is the only demonstration of a breed standard that quantifies its value.