asal

AS for the oft repeated to be ethical you shouldn't breed and price to make a profit? how many of the people who want a puppy will work for nothing? Where are they going to get the money to buy a puppy if they too work for free or at a loss? let alone pay for its food and vet bill. as well as food for themselves? Many years ago the ANKC did a survey and discovered the majority of new members remained members 5 years or less.the majority of members were pensioners, they cant afford to breed if they cant make enough to buy feed for themselves and their dogs, pensions don't stretch very far. The dairy farmers would have to be the most ethical in australia at the moment. they are not only working for nothing, they lose money for every litre they milk because they are getting less thanit costs to produce it. 6,000 cattle went to the sales last week 77% of them dairy cows their owners cant afford to feed. That is where ethical gets anyone if profit is unethical your only allowed one litter per year, two in a row but cant breed another for minimum 12 months or is it longer now? either way that means a chi that has 1 pup per "litter' can only produce about 5 to six pups in her breeding life. Lucky for me I managed a 7th before she was too old and finally had the long awaited bitch pup. so 7 litters for a great dane and 70 odd pups to choose from. no wonder the toy breeds numbers bred are falling though the floor in the bad old days a bitch had her 4 or five litters to select from before she was 4 or 5. many had their replacement daughter and were pet homed by 3 1/2 to 4 and there was great demand for then as they still had a long life as a pet ahead of them. now if you had bad luck until the 7th try, (pretty sure now you cant have a 7th try anymore)they are too old to rehome but keep too many to live out their lives with you is going to get you branded as a "collector/hoarder" last I heard they are pushing for legislation to have the threshold changed from 10 to 5 and any over that can be seized so not too many oldies will shove u over the limit fast. lets not forget now a newbie even if they find a main register pup or even worse a main register adult cannot apply for a prefix until they have been a member for 18 months. How many are going to wait 18 months without throwing in the towel and become a backyard breeder instead. Whatever happened to welcoming, educating and mentoring newbies instead of setting up an obstacle course to weed out the impatient? I know how many once I explain the waiting time chuck it in to the too hard basket. one has three outstanding dogs and to my knowledge became a member 2 years ago so happily went in to apply for a prefix, except turns out when applied for membership was told if your only showing you only need to be an associate member. guess what, 2 years as an associate member doesnt count, have to be a full member for 18 months. and yes has given up. so 3 lovely dogs lost to be breed and one once enthusiastic potential addition to the rapidly thinning ranks

I agree - its supply and demand. People want them so if the registered breeders dont want to rise to the occasion someone will take up the option. In fact why dont registered breeders who have the best for the breed at heart increase their production a bit to get in on the action ? They dont have to do it solely for the pet market but can also have more choices for the show ring and the gene pool. In some apartment buildings you can only have a dog where you can carry it off and on the premises so demand for small dogs suitable for small spaces that can be carried will be more in demand anyway. By the way they dont have anywhere near the problems that many brachy head breeds have - yet. dont know if its true but a lady whose puppies i chip said there are moves afoot to bring in a maximum number of litters bred per year any one breeder is allowed (to discourage puppy farm members) and after that is reached no puppies over the limit can be registered . Cant remember if she said there would be fines or membership suspended. but as it is many members keep a check on fellow breeders and any they dont like make complaints to the animal welfare groups to harass and hopefully drive them out, been done for decades. so little incentive to increase production, to be "ethical"and stay under the radar for elimination, stick to producing a litter for a keep puppy and surplus in the litter limit registerd only. Just read the adds here. its not impossible down the track if someone wants a dog if the animals rights group continue to succeed in branding all who dont keep what they bred as "puppy farmers" some will find it so hard to find a puppy they will turn to the cloning companies for their pet to be cloned instead? Sci-fi? time will tell the crash is already documented. just check the ANKC registrations dating back to the 80's our population increases, puppies bred steady decline ANKC trying to distance themselves from what happens out side their membership and the accusations of 'being in it for the money' brought in the rule that "No breeder shall breed primarily for profit". A mistake I believe, since in a market driven world those who can earn biggest profits are those who best meet demands. But now those who earn biggest profits are open to the sort of harassment you mention. The K.Cs are not designed to meet the needs of their environment, but to remain distinctly separate. This rule is a reflection of that and came about because of that. A reaction typical to a biological organism that does not recognize its environment. If the environment for dogs was considered as the single environment it is, that accusation would have likely been taken as a more general one, with a different response aimed more at demonstrating/educating the benefits of NOT buying from a breeder whos primary goal is profit. And not opened the gates to breeders whos ONLY concern is meeting demand, for profit. curious isnt it. like your comment " A reaction typical to a biological organism that does not recognize its environment." in this instance the "organism" seems intent on self destruction, once continually reducing numbers reach critical figures extinction is inevitable

I agree - its supply and demand. People want them so if the registered breeders dont want to rise to the occasion someone will take up the option. In fact why dont registered breeders who have the best for the breed at heart increase their production a bit to get in on the action ? They dont have to do it solely for the pet market but can also have more choices for the show ring and the gene pool. In some apartment buildings you can only have a dog where you can carry it off and on the premises so demand for small dogs suitable for small spaces that can be carried will be more in demand anyway. By the way they dont have anywhere near the problems that many brachy head breeds have - yet. dont know if its true but a lady whose puppies i chip said there are moves afoot to bring in a maximum number of litters bred per year any one breeder is allowed (to discourage puppy farm members) and after that is reached no puppies over the limit can be registered . Cant remember if she said there would be fines or membership suspended. but as it is many members keep a check on fellow breeders and any they dont like make complaints to the animal welfare groups to harass and hopefully drive them out, been done for decades. so little incentive to increase production, to be "ethical"and stay under the radar for elimination, stick to producing a litter for a keep puppy and surplus in the litter limit registerd only. Just read the adds here. its not impossible down the track if someone wants a dog if the animals rights group continue to succeed in branding all who dont keep what they bred as "puppy farmers" some will find it so hard to find a puppy they will turn to the cloning companies for their pet to be cloned instead? Sci-fi? time will tell the crash is already documented. just check the ANKC registrations dating back to the 80's our population increases, puppies bred steady decline

But we already have legislation around lots of things (microchipping, breeders permits, registration, age of sale) and it isn't fixing the issues because it isn't enforced. More unenforced legislation won't change anything either. Education and changing the attitudes and will of the majority works two fold - 1. in changing people's behaviours; and 2. in changing political will and pressure on governments to spend resources on enforcing the legislation we already have. Those two things are what changed things with regard to slavery and the rights of women, and are why rates of things like drink driving and smoking rates, and racism, actually have reduced, not just a dictatorial government putting in new legislation without the will of the majority behind it. Your mistaken, it is in force. the problem is the target is the only tracable people,registered breeders. Its been very successful less and less bred every year. get rid of the real supply and don't think you can find a puppy from a registered breeder. there aren't enough bred Australia wide to supply even one state.

That's a fair point. An example recently for me personally was an ad on Dogzonline and said "As an ethical responsible breeder all puppies leave here desexed"... Personally I wouldn't hold that as the most ethical due to those hormones being good for growth, but unfortunately the world we live in means that everyone else has to pick up after those who can't be responsible for their dogs & get them desexed/manage them entire. So true, was reading adds recently for a friend who wants a french bulldog, some adds had "ethical" repeated add nausium, yet the vast majority were advertising either blue or chocolate or carriers at additional price some even asking $15,000 for these 'rare' colours. cough, banned according to the breed standard. to me 'ethical' is a word everyone seems to need to feel they have tightly wrapped around themselves as you would a cloak of respectability. as a rather famous professor used to say, "WHY! is it so?" Because today, thanks to the vilification of dog breeders, ANYONE who has bred a litter of puppies can discover they will be viewed by a significant proportion of the population as having put their fur child in the family way and now. Horror of horrors, selling their fur grandchildren, for MONEY? How could you DO such a thing? in the olden days, a person became a registered breeder to continue the generations of the breeder before them, to pass on suitable pups to the next generation of breeders to secure the future of their breed. not today. try and find a breeder who doesn't proudly flaunt one of the proofs of their "ethical" standing by clearly advising "all puppies will come with limit registration" as I read these my mind substitutes their coveted "ethical breeder" status for "dead end breeder". As for the increasing use of 'fur kids' don't like it (much as we love our dogs, they are DOGS, they are not children, they think like dogs they act like dogs and when you forget that tragedies happen as seen in off leash parks and the home) eg a FB forum member wailed, her last rescue puppy, now 18 months old had just torn apart her beloved 5 year old it was growing up with. WHY? did this happen. another very long time friend woke up one morning and shocked to discover her sons 2 yr old kelpie dead on one side of the room and her geriatric Labrador asleep beside her bed. She never woke up during what was obviously a deadly disagreement.

misunderstood you, sorry. no matter how much of a nanny state they want to make Australia, they fail to understand or don't want too. if not even children are safe from being dumped, abused or killed. its pretty stupid to think they can do better re dog and cat welfare.

exactly. as for the comparison to putting a seat belt on by the spotted devil? for starters no one has to feed,vaccinate or flea a seat belt yet many dont do them up

I understand that going through this is a terrifying experience (I followed your thread about Amber) - however I don't believe that dealing with cancer is more pleasant. Here a study that shows some interesting figures about mortality for pyometra: http://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-6148-10-6...interestingly, the mortality for the medical treated ones was 0%!...the surgical treated ones (OHE) was only 1%. The overall mortality considering also euthanized dogs (due to various reasons) was 10%. Compare these figures with the survival rate of dogs with cancer due to de-sexing http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937: quote: ...For females, the timing of neutering is more problematical because early neutering significantly increases the incidence rate of CCL from near zero to almost 8 percent, and late neutering increases the rates of HSA to 4 times that of the 1.6 percent rate for intact females and to 5.7 percent for MCT, which was not diagnosed in intact females. ...from zero to 5.7% for MCT!!!...plus all the other side effects. Based on these figures pyo seems to be the less dangerous evil... I dont desex, but then mine have dog proof fences so no accidents. in 40 years and being a breeder 3 to 8 bitches at any given time, from retired to puppies had one case of pymetra and one breast cancer in one teat, both removed and no further complications. other friends seem to have similar,others not as lucky. ditto results with friends with desexed pets.life tends to be a lottery for us and our pets http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/your-dog-needs-to-be-spayed-or-neutered-right/ ....more scare-mongering pseudoscience ...but hold on, so many studies coming to the same conclusion love this bit "Another danger is male aggression, though this is largely a cat issue, and in my experience much less likely in intact male dogs. Tom cats are prone to getting into serious fights when they are intact, and this can make for wounds, abscesses, and disease transmission, if they are wounded by a cat carrying FeLV, for example." our vet never told sylvester he was now a neuter. for the next 17 years he street fought his way to top cat on the block pile, with an array of expensive injuries to prove it. the other chap always came out worse, even the doberman who offended him once. one time I asked his vet to issue a desexed certificate we could show him to prove hes NOT a tom anymore. so whats up on the vets wall next visit? "warning, 11 % of desexed males wont know their desexed" thought it was funny at the time, but wait till the day that cute colt you had gelded grows up thinking hes a stallion AND YOU KNOW hes got no nuts, you saw the vet remove em...........GRRRRR! I found the comments about ADD very interesting too (the other stuff wasn't new for me), here the link (the link in the article seems to be broken): http://www.atftc.com/health/SNBehaviorBoneDataSnapShot.pdf quote: Summary The above data is just a small sample of the significant data that were determined in this study. By using large a sample of dogs than any used previously to examine behavior in dogs, we found significant correlations between neutering dogs and increases in aggression, fear and anxiety, and excitability, regardless of the age at which the dog was neutered. There were also significant correlations between neutering and decreases in trainability and responsiveness to cues . The other three behavioral categories examined (miscellaneous behavior problems, attachment and attentionseeking behavior, and separation-related behavior) showed some association with neutering, but these differed more substantially depending on the age at which the dog was neutered. The overall trend seen in all these behavioral data was that the earlier the dog was neutered, the more negative the effect on the behavior. A difference in bone length was found between neutered and intact dogs, suggesting that neutering has an effect on bone growth, which may be related to other orthopedic effects documented in the literature. Examination of changes in bone length of gonadectomized dogs is continuing. no idea where to find it now but in the 70's there was an experiment and colt foals were castrated at 3 months. other sibling colts left entire and compared when adult (around 5 to 7 years old) it was discovered the early gelded foals had developed longer limbs and the skeleton including pelvis was indistinguishable from that of a mare. the uncastratd colts growth plates closed at a younger age as puberty kicked in and were therefore shorter in height with bulkier appearance

I understand that going through this is a terrifying experience (I followed your thread about Amber) - however I don't believe that dealing with cancer is more pleasant. Here a study that shows some interesting figures about mortality for pyometra: http://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-6148-10-6...interestingly, the mortality for the medical treated ones was 0%!...the surgical treated ones (OHE) was only 1%. The overall mortality considering also euthanized dogs (due to various reasons) was 10%. Compare these figures with the survival rate of dogs with cancer due to de-sexing http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937: quote: ...For females, the timing of neutering is more problematical because early neutering significantly increases the incidence rate of CCL from near zero to almost 8 percent, and late neutering increases the rates of HSA to 4 times that of the 1.6 percent rate for intact females and to 5.7 percent for MCT, which was not diagnosed in intact females. ...from zero to 5.7% for MCT!!!...plus all the other side effects. Based on these figures pyo seems to be the less dangerous evil... I dont desex, but then mine have dog proof fences so no accidents. in 40 years and being a breeder 3 to 8 bitches at any given time, from retired to puppies had one case of pymetra and one breast cancer in one teat, both removed and no further complications. other friends seem to have similar,others not as lucky. ditto results with friends with desexed pets.life tends to be a lottery for us and our pets http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/your-dog-needs-to-be-spayed-or-neutered-right/ ....more scare-mongering pseudoscience ...but hold on, so many studies coming to the same conclusion love this bit "Another danger is male aggression, though this is largely a cat issue, and in my experience much less likely in intact male dogs. Tom cats are prone to getting into serious fights when they are intact, and this can make for wounds, abscesses, and disease transmission, if they are wounded by a cat carrying FeLV, for example." our vet never told sylvester he was now a neuter. for the next 17 years he street fought his way to top cat on the block pile, with an array of expensive injuries to prove it. the other chap always came out worse, even the doberman who offended him once. one time I asked his vet to issue a desexed certificate we could show him to prove hes NOT a tom anymore. so whats up on the vets wall next visit? "warning, 11 % of desexed males wont know their desexed" thought it was funny at the time, but wait till the day that cute colt you had gelded grows up thinking hes a stallion AND YOU KNOW hes got no nuts, you saw the vet remove em...........GRRRRR!

I understand that going through this is a terrifying experience (I followed your thread about Amber) - however I don't believe that dealing with cancer is more pleasant. Here a study that shows some interesting figures about mortality for pyometra: http://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-6148-10-6...interestingly, the mortality for the medical treated ones was 0%!...the surgical treated ones (OHE) was only 1%. The overall mortality considering also euthanized dogs (due to various reasons) was 10%. Compare these figures with the survival rate of dogs with cancer due to de-sexing http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937: quote: ...For females, the timing of neutering is more problematical because early neutering significantly increases the incidence rate of CCL from near zero to almost 8 percent, and late neutering increases the rates of HSA to 4 times that of the 1.6 percent rate for intact females and to 5.7 percent for MCT, which was not diagnosed in intact females. ...from zero to 5.7% for MCT!!!...plus all the other side effects. Based on these figures pyo seems to be the less dangerous evil... I dont desex, but then mine have dog proof fences so no accidents. in 40 years and being a breeder 3 to 8 bitches at any given time, from retired to puppies had one case of pymetra and one breast cancer in one teat, both removed and no further complications. other friends seem to have similar,others not as lucky. ditto results with friends with desexed pets.life tends to be a lottery for us and our pets

For so long I kept hearing how controlling purebred breeders would reduce the hundreds of thousands of stray and unwanted dogs. in this country of over 23.13 million. There are estimated to be 4.2 million pet dogs in Australia; 19 dogs for every 100 people. These figures might put some perspective as to the millions bred by person or persons unknown ANKC purebred puppies of all breeds registered for the whole of Australia Year + Grand total all purebred puppies registered on Main and Limit register for that year. 1986 95,792 1987 97,917 1988 92,089 1989 86,586 1990 87,768 1991 82,062 1992 80,693 1993 80,071 1994 85,415 1995 81,389 1996 84,718 1997 68,637 1998 89,922 1999 73,061 2000 77,559 2001 69,946 2002 69,419 2003 66,710 2004 64,189 2005 62,340 2006 61,524 2007 64,074 2008 63,387 2009 66,588 2010 66,040 2011 63,465 2012 64,224 2013 66,904 2014 69,274 2015 70,130 if you want to see the breeds breakdown here is the link http://ankc.org.au/media/4468/rego-stats-list_to-15v2.pdf so few breeders are prepared to main register puppies now many breeds are becoming so low in numbers they could be classed as endangered. think how many Maltese for example you can see out for a walk or in a pound yet, 196 for 2015, you see yet see how few registered traceable breeders have actually bred any.

If its not on the news then it should be, spotted on facebook I do grooming and seen too many like this, its like shaving off a flannel blanket, poor dogs https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12734051_472092469647838_649841839751287293_n.jpg?oh=224121dc024c8f0166f7861232c27641&oe=579A2D89&__gda__=1474318866_df4c2c7352def5066a1ebc8b16555af9 Polderwind Trimsalon en Liefhebberskennel Berner Sennen en Grote Poedel Like This Page · 12 February · DOODLES! (And others) The perfect photo (shared from another groomer) to show how matting happens at the base (or at the skin). So many doodle owners are saddened to hear the only thing I can do with their pups coat is a shave because they thought brushing the top coat was enough. By looking at this dog, you may not see the knots and you may not feel them as you would a knot on the ends of the fur but once it starts its very difficult/ impossible to brush/COMB out... Not to mention it would be cruel to put the dog through. Often times I feel like owners don't believe groomers when they say the dogs has to be clipped. I always hear "I know he/she is matted, but leave as much as you can"... this photo shows, the only way to get UNDER the matting is nothing left. I promise you, I'd rather not clip your baby naked either! I also don't want to hurt my reputation when the clients go around complaining about how the last groomer "scalped" their dog....But doodles are easily one of the highest maintenance dogs in reference to their coats. The combination of the soft coat of a golden, or aussie, or newf, or wheaten, or whatever they are mixing poodles with these days is a coat that is SO prone to matting. And even more so are the new "double doodles" that i like to call "double maintenance". I even find some doodles on a regular schedule need to be clipped once or twice a year (maybe not shaved, but maybe teddy bear length for a fresh start) because after all of the brushing and de-matting, the damaged coat seems to become even MORE likely to matt. If you like a fluffy pup, you probably need to consider no more than 3-5 week intervals between grooming and set aside time for regular COMBING at home. Please know, if you bathe your doodle you really need to blow dry and brush out right after. Moisture, be it a bath, rain, swimming, snow etc are all going to amplify matting. And if you know you dog is already matted bathing is only going to make it worse! Brush out BEFORE the bath. AND!!!!! "breeders" who say they can't/shouldnt be clipped and OR not to give them a hair cut until they are 1 year are out of their minds and setting you up for a SAD SAD SAD day when you finally take your pup to the groomer.

just spotted this add for pedigree puppies with main or limit register available obvious this photo of the cream/black parti it actualy does have a muzzle without the deep folds so there are dogs that could be used to select away from the ulra squashed face still to be found http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/zI0AAOSwFEFXJqEb/$_20.JPG compared to how short this one is http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/qooAAOSwIjNXJqET/$_20.JPG

I have a friend who told me he thinks french bulldogs are so cute he is going to get one..think I will send him a link to this. might have a rethink

Not very hopeful. I can see that going down hill fast. Again, I am convinced the insularity of pedigree breeders is the cause. Each generation only has whats in front of them to form values, and each generation will expect less, and have less to work with. Permitted to cross breed for a "pet" market, I could see thoughtfully planned, health tested litters competing with both BYBers and puppy farms to promote better practices and dogs. Informing buyer expectation in the general population. Supporting the idea purpose and value are just as relevant in non pedigree dogs. The ways these are achieved. About time. Dogs that might not win in the show ring but having great value for companion purposes being retained for breeding because of value else where being recognized. And in turn comparative and alternative values being recognized by pedigree breeders and judges alike. I realy don't think we have time for anything less. We have some wonderful breeders, putting their hearts and souls into improvement, but until the pedigree is better understood to be a tool for better practice and not the end goal for their unique difference, they are pi**ing into the wind. standards can be changed. they need to be changed if that is what is above. as in Persians the standard was changed to favor the flat no face. when are the breed clubs going to make the changes BEFORE they are forced too? when are they going to become proactive instead of the decades of reactive? at least PDE , forced one good reaction the deletion of (in the case of equal merit the more diminutive preferred)in the chihuahua standard or words to that effect, some of us noticed the smallest were going to the top of the line before conformation was even assessed and commented should be deleted . but no nothing was done until public embarrassment. not good public relations waiting for that surely? how is shortening a breeds face over decades from what is was originally "improving" it into eye problems and suffocation? drooping skin so badly eyes look like they are sunk in sagging purses of dust catchers for infection? eyes bigger and bigger again until they are easily damaged and infected , how on earth can that be construed as improving anything other than the chances of needing veterinary intervention to cure the resulting damage? there are soooooo many sites to show the original breed and what "improved" has morphed it into, I doubt the origional breeders would be any but horrified at the changes wrought over the past 40 to 60 years

yes that seems to be the intention

You can with somethings that show up at birth or soon after but for things that a really horrible such as PRA , Degenerative Myelopathy etc if you don't test by the time you find out you have a carrier is when you get an affected - in the mean time the dogs have been used for years for breeding and spreading the good news all around. This is only about recessives anyway. Lots in this day and age have DNA tests available but you have to know what to test for and you have to be prepared to do test matings to identify carriers for things that don't have a DNA ID. I dont know any breeders who would balk at breeding carriers to clears so not sure what we are talking about with limiting gene pools in this way. Gene pools are limited much more by selection for conformation. when SCIDS finally had a test, (and before, for any that produced a scids foal) hundreds if not thousands went to the doggers, I know, I saw whole pens full of them during the panic days, few understood, or cared to learn, a taint was a taint no one would touch, a carrier was perfectly healthy and put to non carriers would never produce a scids affected foal PRA is a weird one, before I knew there was a dna test I unknowingly put carrier to carrier and discovers one is a C, definitely will develop PRA I was going to have him put down but to my surprise my vet told me "don't, he is more likely to die of old age or other causes before he develops PRA". I was skeptical but a friends girl died of old age just a week before she did her eyes began to go a odd look and was diagnosed as developing PRA she was almost 16. A friend has oscar and he is 10 and eyesight perfect so far. annoyingly he is a magnificent dog. such a waste sometimes i think should I put one of my A girls to him and then change my mind. hey, hadnt shown mine since 1984 when misty took out best in show at singleton and 2 nd at sydney royal. took three a while back for two 1 sts and a second and brought home challenge dog, best puppy in show and best minor in show. only ever work to preserve what Hilton started me out with in 82 so was pretty astonished. pleased too the breed hasnt morphed too much in 33 years, like others have

a quote from the link: " And then, doggone it, when one of us shares something of great consequence like "did you know they developed this new DNA test to identify that fatal CHG disease in puppies?" someone like Bill Andrews grins and says "Well I reckon if it’s fatal in pups, it pretty well eliminates itself. If you don’t breed the same dog and bitch again, it won't happen again." ...the further information provided on the same website (see also part 2 and 3) indicates that both parents need to be the carrier to allow for 'natural' extinction. Therefore the adopted attitude of B.A. seems to be contra productive regarding producing a healthy stock. as the arabian world discovered in the case of SCIDs, eliminating all carriers is not sensible, carriers are "healthy stock". As long as no carrier to carrier matings are done there will never be affected offspring and you havent eliminated those that otherwise in many cases are the best of their generation. although it was found although there is a low incidence across the population when it came to selecting the top of their generation it was discovered to have been the majority in many cases the ones selected turned out on testing to be carriers. far better to keep the gene pool from contracting , never put carrier to carrier and the incidence of the defective gene will reduce by 50% per generation anyway To put carrier to carrier means yes two patterns mean death and "natural" extinction of that offspring, but the surviving leaves 1 in 4 clear of the defect gene and 2 in 4 carriers

This was emailed to me yesterday. cant copy and paste as its copywrite. I think I met this chaps like in 1978 her name Phil Burgess, apprently there are more like her, just need an awful lot more to learn and apply, think this chap is in america. http://www.thedogplace.org/GENETICS/DNA-Smokescreen_Andrews.asp pity the braci's couldnt go back to what they were instead of the faces improved off them in 1950 my uncle bred Champion Persian cats. they had faces. Today such Persian's are referred to as chocolate box persians because thats the only place you can see them now. In the 80's a friend Brenda Hotop tried to stop the removal from the standard the words "pleasant expression" which up to then had prevented the gargoyle like ultra flat faced from winning. The vote won to delete it. a Himalayan kitten bred in early 1980 won best in show with a face, she actually had a muzzle. now the poor Himalayan has gone the flat faced route too. up until then its siamese roots had preserved it a face.

a test which has been proven to be very wrong several times here on DOL so true, remember the case of the pure bred german cooli whose owner was told it had labrador and golden retriever in it, forget the other breeds listed, none of the breeds mentioned included german cooli

where is a link???????? please

I wonder? you cannot register some breeds of horses until they have been vet checked for soundness , two teste and dna results for various conditions done. It must bedone by a qualified vet, not a breeder or judge.. maybe a similar idea be implemented for all registered dogs? retained teste....out Cant breathe normally,,,out. abnormal features, eyes, legs, patella, hd, whatever...out my pet hate, hernias.........OUT

I dont think that this would have shown as a spike - purebred dogs havent become more expensive since 09 in fact some are less expensive and the limited register has been in existence for a very long time. Ive no doubt these things have impacted over time but in these years numbers went up and then dropped again quickly . To be honest the only thing that does make much sense why it went up and then down is the Mcdougal thing as it was at this time that they were running ads and more were being purchased by the pet store. In my mind just about every thing doggy is either pre string or post string and that was jan 2000 Never took notice of any McDougal, advertising post 2000, was essentialy shut down from that date for something like 5 years min anyway. So my learning of their activities and those who sold to them was early 90's I think? From memory Transpet became the sole agent for Mcdougal in Australia and PIAA was given a tick by Dogs NSW around about '98. HA! so I was right.. thanks Steve

I dont think that this would have shown as a spike - purebred dogs havent become more expensive since 09 in fact some are less expensive and the limited register has been in existence for a very long time. Ive no doubt these things have impacted over time but in these years numbers went up and then dropped again quickly . To be honest the only thing that does make much sense why it went up and then down is the Mcdougal thing as it was at this time that they were running ads and more were being purchased by the pet store. In my mind just about every thing doggy is either pre string or post string and that was jan 2000 Never took notice of any McDougal, advertising post 2000, was essentialy shut down from that date for something like 5 years min anyway. So my learning of their activities and those who sold to them was early 90's I think?

:) We have quite a few dogs..and they bark a lot (we live in the country , and they are allowed to bark ,within reason they bark at birds, at strange cars, at each other ....) We still have a number of snakes way too close to the dogs and the house Exactly. too many times has some snake decided to imitate the garden hose across the doorstep. Times like that reinforces my desire to move to NZ or Ireland..........