moosmum

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.

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.