Jump to content

C.c.c. Qld's New Breeder Accredited System


Recommended Posts

mita i have seen accreditation schemes happen in several sectors both here and overseas and usually what ends up happening in my experience is all individuals (or in some cases, companies) join the scheme.

they may not do it immediately but they eventually join the scheme or leave the sector

So what you are saying is accreditation achieves nothing because everyone who is in the ''business'', good or bad, eventually becomes accredited.

no that is not what i am saying. i am saying that in my experience people or businesses decide they will meet the accreditation requirements and join the scheme or some decide it's not the direction they want to go and they leave the sector.

eta to be clear, if they meet the accreditation requirements then they are deemed to be ok by the governing body

Edited by Jaxx'sBuddy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

mita i have seen accreditation schemes happen in several sectors both here and overseas and usually what ends up happening in my experience is all individuals (or in some cases, companies) join the scheme.

they may not do it immediately but they eventually join the scheme or leave the sector

Time will tell with this suggested voluntary additional 2 levels for teachers. This is a scheme where the teachers already have to have basic accreditation anyway.

In that way, it's not the same as the CCCQ scheme, which wants to introduce basic accreditation. Tho' voluntary.

There I'd agree with you, that systems working to get basic accreditation, generally start to pull in the 'customers'.

Tho' they sometimes have a 'grandfather clause', where successful experience over a long time in the sector, gives some people automatic accreditation.

As to the proposed extra levels for teachers, it won't mean automatically earning extra money. And wouldn't be automatically linked to promotion.

They'll just be 'signs' that the registering authority's ticked off they have a certain level of skill & knowledge & practice.

A lot will depend on what evidence will be needed to apply. And they're still trying to figure out what that'd be.

So it's still a proposal.

Edited by mita
Link to post
Share on other sites
no that is not what i am saying.

OK

i am saying that in my experience people or businesses decide they will meet the accreditation requirements and join the scheme or some decide it's not the direction they want to go and they leave the sector.

eta to be clear, if they meet the accreditation requirements then they are deemed to be ok by the governing body

So given that some of those already accredited are ''bad'' - if everyone who wishes to continue as CCCQ breeders can and does become accredited it will be a case of everyone being accredited regardless if they're good or bad.

The acceptance that accreditation = good is simply bizarre to me, especially given the apparent emphasis on self-testing/self-grading which seems so common in many of these accreditation schemes.

Must be a cultural thing :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
no that is not what i am saying.

OK

i am saying that in my experience people or businesses decide they will meet the accreditation requirements and join the scheme or some decide it's not the direction they want to go and they leave the sector.

eta to be clear, if they meet the accreditation requirements then they are deemed to be ok by the governing body

So given that some of those already accredited are ''bad'' - if everyone who wishes to continue as CCCQ breeders can and does become accredited it will be a case of everyone being accredited regardless if they're good or bad.

The acceptance that accreditation = good is simply bizarre to me, especially given the apparent emphasis on self-testing/self-grading which seems so common in many of these accreditation schemes.

Must be a cultural thing :(

sandra i am really not trying to be difficult, i understand what you and oakway are saying BUT if the regulatory body has deemed that if a person or company has passed their accreditation standards then who is anyone outside of that system to say that there are "bad" people or companies in it? clearly, the regulatory body thinks and says that they have all reached a set standard.

i am not saying any accreditation scheme or system is good or bad, just that when they are in place there are implications for all people or businesses in that particular sector and that they need to make a decision on how they are going to manage the new situation.

i think it is too late to do much once an accreditation scheme is in place and people are willingly joining it

Edited by Jaxx'sBuddy
Link to post
Share on other sites
no that is not what i am saying.

OK

i am saying that in my experience people or businesses decide they will meet the accreditation requirements and join the scheme or some decide it's not the direction they want to go and they leave the sector.

eta to be clear, if they meet the accreditation requirements then they are deemed to be ok by the governing body

So given that some of those already accredited are ''bad'' - if everyone who wishes to continue as CCCQ breeders can and does become accredited it will be a case of everyone being accredited regardless if they're good or bad.

The acceptance that accreditation = good is simply bizarre to me, especially given the apparent emphasis on self-testing/self-grading which seems so common in many of these accreditation schemes.

Must be a cultural thing :(

sandra i am really not trying to be difficult, i understand what you and oakway are saying BUT if the regulatory body has deemed that if a person or company has passed their accreditation standards then who is anyone outside of that system to say that there are "bad" people or companies in it? clearly, the regulatory body thinks and says that they have all reached a set standard.

i am not saying any accreditation scheme or system is good or bad, just that when they are in place there are implications for all people or businesses in that particular sector and that they need to make a decision on how they are going to manage the new situation.

i think it is too late to do much once an accreditation scheme is in place and people are willingly joining it

Some people will flock to anything they think may make them look good or better than their peers, others may just suck it and see, others disagree with it for reasons stated here over and over. Who are you to say who is correct.

There are breeders already accredited who have ethics and standards that would draw the mobs baying for blood here, yet you say if Dogs Qld says they are ok then that's ok :wave:

Link to post
Share on other sites
no that is not what i am saying.

OK

i am saying that in my experience people or businesses decide they will meet the accreditation requirements and join the scheme or some decide it's not the direction they want to go and they leave the sector.

eta to be clear, if they meet the accreditation requirements then they are deemed to be ok by the governing body

So given that some of those already accredited are ''bad'' - if everyone who wishes to continue as CCCQ breeders can and does become accredited it will be a case of everyone being accredited regardless if they're good or bad.

The acceptance that accreditation = good is simply bizarre to me, especially given the apparent emphasis on self-testing/self-grading which seems so common in many of these accreditation schemes.

Must be a cultural thing :(

sandra i am really not trying to be difficult, i understand what you and oakway are saying BUT if the regulatory body has deemed that if a person or company has passed their accreditation standards then who is anyone outside of that system to say that there are "bad" people or companies in it? clearly, the regulatory body thinks and says that they have all reached a set standard.

i am not saying any accreditation scheme or system is good or bad, just that when they are in place there are implications for all people or businesses in that particular sector and that they need to make a decision on how they are going to manage the new situation.

i think it is too late to do much once an accreditation scheme is in place and people are willingly joining it

Some people will flock to anything they think may make them look good or better than their peers, others may just suck it and see, others disagree with it for reasons stated here over and over. Who are you to say who is correct.

There are breeders already accredited who have ethics and standards that would draw the mobs baying for blood here, yet you say if Dogs Qld says they are ok then that's ok :wave:

i give up. that is not what i am saying, seriously you all have the problem not me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i am saying that in my experience people or businesses decide they will meet the accreditation requirements and join the scheme or some decide it's not the direction they want to go and they leave the sector.

eta to be clear, if they meet the accreditation requirements then they are deemed to be ok by the governing body ... i think it is too late to do much once an accreditation scheme is in place and people are willingly joining it

There are breeders already accredited who have ethics and standards that would draw the mobs baying for blood here, yet you say if Dogs Qld says they are ok then that's ok :(

I don't think that's what JB is saying at all and I'm not sure why the point that's being made (by Steve and by JB) is being ignored.

I think JB and Steve are talking from the pov of the fact that this Accreditation Scheme IS in. Not that they are saying it should be in .... that it IS in. And the fact that it is in leaves breeders with a decision to make, and they need to be aware that the result of that decision will be judged by the government and the public, not necessarily by DOL people who get to read the back ground to it all (although that in itself is not an impossibility).

Edited by Erny
Link to post
Share on other sites
i give up. that is not what i am saying, seriously you all have the problem not me.

Actually I think the problem will lie with Joe Public who believe accredited = good and end up finding out this is not always automatically true.

I see very bad things ahead for the dog world with the very organisations which should be leading the way in defending our hobby folding up at the first sign of an animal rights nutter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i give up. that is not what i am saying, seriously you all have the problem not me.

Actually I think the problem will lie with Joe Public who believe accredited = good and end up finding out this is not always automatically true.

But if they don't have a prior bench mark, then what would they know/learn? Do you think they'd stop to think "oohhhhh .... it's the breeders who are not in the Accreditation Scheme who are the good ones"?

I see very bad things ahead for the dog world with the very organisations which should be leading the way in defending our hobby folding up at the first sign of an animal rights nutter.

The Breeders do need to do something about something if they are going to have any chance of separating the flowers from the weeds. But that is up to the breeders. From what I have read of their comments/objections nothing offered or proposed has been good enough to suit them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But if they don't have a prior bench mark, then what would they know/learn? Do you think they'd stop to think "oohhhhh .... it's the breeders who are not in the Accreditation Scheme who are the good ones"?

No - which is the problem. Accreditation is very wide spread through lots of things now that the ability/desire to think for yourself and figure out for yourself what is good and what is not is being hijacked.

In fact the ability to use good common sense seems to have perished some time in the mid 1990's :(

I see very bad things ahead for the dog world with the very organisations which should be leading the way in defending our hobby folding up at the first sign of an animal rights nutter.

The Breeders do need to do something about something if they are going to have any chance of separating the flowers from the weeds. But that is up to the breeders. From what I have read of their comments/objections nothing offered or proposed has been good enough to suit them.

What part of leading the way do you have a problem with?

I don't think anyone here is saying they won't help out, get behind or support something which makes sense, but when the people who manage to get their way into positions which means they should be leading and supporting don't do it, then it's a bit hard to get behind them, or even to make sensible suggestions when the idiotic seems to gain more attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i am saying that in my experience people or businesses decide they will meet the accreditation requirements and join the scheme or some decide it's not the direction they want to go and they leave the sector.

eta to be clear, if they meet the accreditation requirements then they are deemed to be ok by the governing body ... i think it is too late to do much once an accreditation scheme is in place and people are willingly joining it

There are breeders already accredited who have ethics and standards that would draw the mobs baying for blood here, yet you say if Dogs Qld says they are ok then that's ok :(

I don't think that's what JB is saying at all and I'm not sure why the point that's being made (by Steve and by JB) is being ignored.

I think JB and Steve are talking from the pov of the fact that this Accreditation Scheme IS in. Not that they are saying it should be in .... that it IS in. And the fact that it is in leaves breeders with a decision to make, and they need to be aware that the result of that decision will be judged by the government and the public, not necessarily by DOL people who get to read the back ground to it all (although that in itself is not an impossibility).

that's it in a nutshell erny, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i give up. that is not what i am saying, seriously you all have the problem not me.

Actually I think the problem will lie with Joe Public who believe accredited = good and end up finding out this is not always automatically true.

I see very bad things ahead for the dog world with the very organisations which should be leading the way in defending our hobby folding up at the first sign of an animal rights nutter.

yes this is absolutely the issue

eta if some breeders feel that this system will not achieve what it set out to do, is there anything that they can do to change the system or advocate for the system to be made better?

Edited by Jaxx'sBuddy
Link to post
Share on other sites
What part of leading the way do you have a problem with?

:( Not even sure what you mean by this question to me. Where did I say I have a problem?

I don't think anyone here is saying they won't help out, get behind or support something which makes sense, but when the people who manage to get their way into positions which means they should be leading and supporting don't do it, then it's a bit hard to get behind them, or even to make sensible suggestions when the idiotic seems to gain more attention.

The problem as I'm seeing it is that no Breeder/s is coming forth with what they want that they believe will work. They've only canned anything that's been put up as either not working or against their principals (eg paying extra fee). :wave: ....

Edited by Erny
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I see the fact that they caved to animal rights and didnt tell them to bugger off, that every one of their members was one of the good guys and if they are not that they will deal with them [as they had the power to do] as totally appalling. In reality whether one or more of those who have joined is rotten or not isnt going to make a scrap of difference because no one is going to believe you if they are able to stay where they are.

I sincerely hope that between now and when its written in stone and a done deal in other states the breeders who are members there say what ever they can to their reps to try to get it stopped.

However, once its in and its gaining support and momentum.Once the CC is promoting these members over any others I cant see how holding out and not joining is going to make any kind of difference to the big picture.

From what I can see that is what is happening - time will tell but holding out and not joining is one thing but publicly saying you wont join because there are bad breeders who have already joined when you are already a part of the group being presented as even worse ? :) .

Link to post
Share on other sites

:) and :vomit: all you like, why should good breeders have to put up with being asked to jump through more hoops to be acknowledged as ethical and the cream of the crop when there are rules, regulations and COE already in place which if enforced in the first place would make this all unnecessary. It is like every years new wave of dog laws and restrictions, when we have perfectly good laws already in place that are not enforced.

As far as every member joining to level the playing field, the only winner there will be Dogs Qld with the extra revenue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
:) and :vomit: all you like, why should good breeders have to put up with being asked to jump through more hoops to be acknowledged as ethical and the cream of the crop when there are rules, regulations and COE already in place which if enforced in the first place would make this all unnecessary. It is like every years new wave of dog laws and restrictions, when we have perfectly good laws already in place that are not enforced.

As far as every member joining to level the playing field, the only winner there will be Dogs Qld with the extra revenue.

maybe so but to bash other breeders who are on the accredited list does not do anyone any favours.

it looks really bad to people, joe public, when they hear that breeders are running down other breeders on the accredited list.

wouldn't it be better to take this up with CCCQ rather than on a public forum?

Link to post
Share on other sites
:) and :vomit: all you like, why should good breeders have to put up with being asked to jump through more hoops to be acknowledged as ethical and the cream of the crop when there are rules, regulations and COE already in place which if enforced in the first place would make this all unnecessary. It is like every years new wave of dog laws and restrictions, when we have perfectly good laws already in place that are not enforced.

As far as every member joining to level the playing field, the only winner there will be Dogs Qld with the extra revenue.

So - why shoot the messenger? I agree with you but why should good breeders be asked to jump through more hoops? Because your CC has already put the hoops in place. Its not right - its not fair but people have already joined and everything points to the fact that its there to stay.

Historically when an accreditation program is introduced some hold out for what ever reason and eventually the new kids and the people who join are seen to be the only ones worthy and those who stay on the outside are seen as a lower class. Accreditation programs are actually promoted that way. At the end of the day the ones who hold out are the loosers. Would have been completely different if NO ONE had joined for a couple of years but the game is on. So what will a good breder gain now if they refuse to join?

Of course time will tell how this is going to work in with the RSPCA push for all breeders to be licenced too - more hoops.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understood this forum was for PUREBREED breeders to discuss matters of concern? Yet I see mostly discussions on cross bred dogs, and social interaction.

Is it?

When I joined back in 2004 I wasn't asked if I was a breeder, let alone if I was a breeder of pure breeds. I thought that was why breeders had their own forum on DOL at which the others of us are not allowed to join in .... or is it that we can join in but not start? Sorry - I'm not sure because I usually don't venture there. I tend to stay here in General and Training and Health.

I do think that precluding everyone other than those who breed pure breed dogs from DOL would make for a pretty narrow-minded mode of conversation as it would cut a lot of good ideas, experiences and help to others out, but I didn't know that me not being a breeder precluded me (or others) from being a member of DOL nor in partaking in any conversations.

The banner at the top of the page says

Australia's Pure Breed Dog Community

So one would assume this forum is as advertised.

I believe that includes all owners of pure breed dogs, not breeders only, because it fails to specifically mention breeders. Nowhere is the preclusion of non breeders mentioned. It is interesting that those who are pushing for dogsqld members to pay up are from other states, and most of them do not appear to be breeders. I would have thought the matter would be for discussion amongst affected breeders only?

Edited by Tatzelwurm
Link to post
Share on other sites
I understood this forum was for PUREBREED breeders to discuss matters of concern? Yet I see mostly discussions on cross bred dogs, and social interaction.

Is it?

When I joined back in 2004 I wasn't asked if I was a breeder, let alone if I was a breeder of pure breeds. I thought that was why breeders had their own forum on DOL at which the others of us are not allowed to join in .... or is it that we can join in but not start? Sorry - I'm not sure because I usually don't venture there. I tend to stay here in General and Training and Health.

I do think that precluding everyone other than those who breed pure breed dogs from DOL would make for a pretty narrow-minded mode of conversation as it would cut a lot of good ideas, experiences and help to others out, but I didn't know that me not being a breeder precluded me (or others) from being a member of DOL nor in partaking in any conversations.

The banner at the top of the page says

Australia's Pure Breed Dog Community

So one would assume this forum is as advertised.

I believe that includes all owners of pure breed dogs, not breeders only, because it fails to specifically mention breeders. Nowhere is the preclusion of non breeders mentioned. It is interesting that those who are pushing for dogsqld members to pay up are from other states, and most of them do not appear to be breeders. I would have thought the matter would be for discussion amongst affected breeders only?

then it should have been put in the breeders forum, put it here and anyone can comment :laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...