We Have Been Betrayed

[cruzzi]

[

Knowledgable breeders are more interested in what is behind the puppy than the actual puppy per se.

You don't pay for the puppy you pay for it's breeding.

It is the proven lines behind the breeding that would attract the interest of other breeders if all you are importing for is make a buck.

If a dog is imported from a "main" register overseas why would it have to be limited registered here?

Cropped dogs aren't. They can't be exhibited at sanctioned shows is all.

But their uncropped progeny can.

I have you have been negotiating for 3 years surely you would know by now if you want the breeding or not.

If you are genuine, pay the bucks, stipulate not to be docked & get on with it instead of making mountains out of molehills.

Many dogs are registered on main overseas and can only go on limited - including non recognised colours etc.

How do you think they will limit which dogs can be shown if they dont put all docked dogs on limited register?

Easy,

The steward disqualities them at the gate.

However their progency shouldn't, & don't, suffer for the sins of their progenitors.

You don't really think every cropped import is automatically placed on the limited register do you?

They are imported for their bloodlines with no attempt to enter them in a show.

There are cropped imports listed in the the D.O.L breed profiles as available for stud duties.

Bitches whelp whole puppies (most of the time) & this proposal is to ensure they remain whole if they are to be part of the ANKC show scene.

Any breeder who imports a dog from mismarked parents or those of highly undesirable colours would be stupid wouldn't they?

Locally bred puppies with mismarks or colours are placed on the limited register anyhow, so what's the difference?

While I don't agree with the law, there are still quite a few docked exhibits in the rings & I imagine this proposal is a one size fits all solution to cut thru the bullshit.

"No docked exhibits will be allowed to be exhibited at ANKC sanctioned shows....end of game"

So just as any dog which suffers a malady & has to be neutered for any reason is ineligle to compete in the real section of a dog show, so will any which need their tails docked for any reason.

Sure makes sense so why would anyone want to stand up for their rights or be concerned they are being judged as lesser beings and potential animal abusers anyway - right?

I don't for one minute think you are naive enough to think all the docked dogs still being exhibited are the victims of ''accidental'' tail damage either.

Some exhibitors have had a terrible time....every dog they own has had some sort of "accident".

you just can't help bad luck.....right?

[Mjosa]

Let me state from the beginning, I am NOT against docking, in the past, back in the early 1940's my first pet was a beautiful Fox Terrier Smooth, in 1969 I purchased my first pedigree dog a Pembroke Corgi, so I have owned shown and bred a docked breed with a fabulous mentor, Ivor Snaith, who taught me how to dock.

Oakway I mentioned the frozen semen previously, as quite few a posters are lamenting all the new genes that they would miss out on, as an option, so the gene pool will still be there and not the dog, unless of course people are wanting to make mega $$$ from the import, believe me the bloodlines are the most important thing not the dog to be imported and hope that he throws what you are after and if people study their selected breeds pedigrees and know the dogs in that pedigree and what they produce then there is no reason why these overseas gene pools would be lost to you. You can import not just one breeding but up to six, so, sell the excess breedings.

[yarracully]

Why can't people just accept that it is not legal to chop portions of the tail off healthy dogs, or any other body part. Guess it would be hard to prove if someone deliberately broke or injured a tail. One could assume if it was a regular occurrence but if this is enough to prosecute I don't know ?

If people want to show imports from other countries they have to choose a puppy & say do not dock the tail. Its not complicated.

If they already have a dog here that is docked they can still breed from it but not show.

There are actually far more stupid & unfair rules in the dog world than this.

Some people are very sick & will do all sorts of awful things so it may be true that this has happened. If it is only once it is one time too many.

Thanks for the learned advice Christina.

Is that a serious reply or sarcasm? Overseas breeders dock a few days after birth. When did you last select your show dog at less than 1 week of age?

Those that import make application for a puppy from their selected breeder before the litter is even conceived.

Any wonder topics wander from the topic.

Yes application may be made but final decision on which particular pup is made well after whelping. And not many breeders would put off docking a litter of pups to allow you to choose one then run the risk of having to get rid of the rest of the litter with tails when other breeders in that country can provide docked.

As an example we had a litter of pups here shortly after the docking laws came in. You would be amazed at the number of people that asked "oh they're not docked?" "No we are not allowed to dock them anymore." "Oh but I wanted one that was docked."

Breeders don't import purely for show, neither do many actually travel to personally choose their puppy.

They import primarily for breeding purposes & rely on the honesty & integrity of the breeders.

If showing is a requisite they need only to request an undocked puppy & keep their fingers crossed the same as they do for a docked puppy.

IMO your argument is very weak & lacks credibility as a valid argument to overturn the tail docking laws, as does the dog will hurt it's tail claim.

I am more concerned about the loss of popularity of some of the previously docked breeds & fear they face virtual extinction because a the ridiculous law foisted upon us by people who don't even like dogs.

True breeders don't import for show only but you would find very few dogs imported that are not used in some form of competition to prove thier value. Why would you spend thousands of dollars to bring a dog in and then not use them in competition to assess their value and to allow others to see the potential the new bloodlines could add to the dog.

Who said anything about a valid argument for overturning docking laws. You can forget that ever happening. My point is as follows:

If I were a breeder in the US or Canada or Asia and I had a litter of ten pups born today with the possibility of one of those ten going to Australia. Now at two or three days of age it would be impossible to determine which pup is a likely prospect to send. So I have a dilemma.

1. Do I not dock the entire litter and therefore run the risk of being stuck with nine pups that have full tails yet demand in my country is for docked dogs. I may not find homes for them for this reason. Remembering that some states in USA and Canada do have limits on number of dogs to be kept.(have had experience in this from when NSW bought in Docking laws but other states had not)

2. Do I dock the entire litter and say to the potential Australian buyer "Bad luck you can still get the dog but you won't be able to show it to prove its value and thus by not being in the ring other breeders will not see the benefit of this new bloodline".

3. Do I leave one pup undocked and hope it turns out worthy of the buyers money they are putting in to importing it. Bearing in mind if they get the dog and it is not a good example for whatever reason my reputation as a breeder is at risk.

4. Choose a pup too leave undocked and then later have the intended purchaser pull out of the deal and I am then left with a dog that may be difficult to find a home for as all other breeders in my country are offering docked dogs which Joe Public thinks is right for the breed.

In this situation as a breeder in a country that allowed docking I would probably go down the path of option 2. This as the breeder would be the safest and less stressful way. However that is not the answer the people wanting to imort would want to hear.

I too am concerned about the future of previously docked breeds as I happen to breed/train and exhibit such a breed.

However I am also in the process of importing another breed to add to our pack and after a few emails with potential breeders in certain countries that we have been in discussion with for over three years, the above are some of the concerns these breeders are having should this ruling come into being.

Also it needs to be considered how would the ANKC prevent a dog from being exhibited. If the rules developed out of this motion require all dogs banned by this motion put on a limited register then there goes the possibility of even using the dog to breed with. So again a good opportunity to expand the gene pool is lost.

Knowledgable breeders are more interested in what is behind the puppy than the actual puppy per se.

You don't pay for the puppy you pay for it's breeding.

It is the proven lines behind the breeding that would attract the interest of other breeders if all you are importing for is make a buck.

If a dog is imported from a "main" register overseas why would it have to be limited registered here?Cropped dogs aren't. They can't be exhibited at sanctioned shows is all.

But their uncropped progeny can.

I have you have been negotiating for 3 years surely you would know by now if you want the breeding or not.

If you are genuine, pay the bucks, stipulate not to be docked & get on with it instead of making mountains out of molehills.

A dog may be main registered overseas but if this motion goes through it still cant be used here for competition. One way of doing that is for the ANKC to make any dogs banned by this motion to be automatically transferred to limited register. There would need to be some mechanism put in place to enforce this ban if it becomes accepted. Not saying this is how it would be done but it is one method. If this gets accepted and then the method of enforcement is revealed its too late to say "we don't want it".

There are quite a few breeds that have to have testing before being allowed to be registered on main register. It is possible for the progeny of two main registered dogs to be registered on limited register due to genetic diseases. Just because a dog or dogs are main registered in one country does not automatically mean they or their progeny will be mains registered in Australia.

The very statement of "Procedures in place to prevent the registration and/or exhibition" causes me concern however i am not prepared to accept this proposal and then hope the detail is favourable.

As for the time I take to choose a breeder and dog that really isn't any of your business. I have a few breeds that I am considering and as such a few different overseas breeders to liase with. Seeing as the dog I choose will be with me for quite a while I fully intend to take my time and choose the right breed and breeder that suits me. However I like to establish a good knowledge of the breeder and breed before I commit to one dog. I have that right.It is me thats paying for it. Further the points I raised in my previous post are all scenarios relayed to me over the past few days during discussions with overseas breeders on this matter.

I am more concerned about the loss of popularity of some of the previously docked breeds & fear they face virtual extinction because a the ridiculous law foisted upon us by people who don't even like dogs.

Have you actually read the motion proposed. You will find it has been proposed by a delegate from DogsVic. A person who is supposed to support and promote dogs not destroy the whole dog fraternity. This not a government regulation but a rule being devised and introduced by an elected member of the Victorian Canine council and attempted to be pushed through without the members of that state or any other state being aware or consulted.

Furthermore I am not making mountains out of molehills. You need to realise that once this goes through then there will be another move to chip away at the dog world. Or are you happy to let this happan "because it wont affect me". Perhaps you might want to look at some of the methods used to eliminate dogs from urban areas in large cities in other countries. Things such as height restrictions, restricting numbers of dogs owned, madatory desexing of all dogs thus almost wiping out dog breeders etc. It was stated before by others that the docking laws were just the start to wipe out companion animals. Don't think for a minute it will stop here.

I am also concerned about many breeds but equally I am concerned about being able to choose where I get my lines from and not being restricted by some rule brought in by the very body I expect to support and promote my chosen hobby.

Edited February 4, 2013 by yarracully

[Salukifan]

Yarracully:

Have you actually read the motion proposed. You will find it has been proposed by a delegate from DogsVic. A person who is supposed to support and promote dogs not destroy the whole dog fraternity. This not a government regulation but a rule being devised and introduced by an elected member of the Victorian Canine council and attepted to be pushed through without the members of that state or any other state being aware or consulted.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was.

Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[yarracully]

Yarracully:

Have you actually read the motion proposed. You will find it has been proposed by a delegate from DogsVic. A person who is supposed to support and promote dogs not destroy the whole dog fraternity. This not a government regulation but a rule being devised and introduced by an elected member of the Victorian Canine council and attepted to be pushed through without the members of that state or any other state being aware or consulted.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was.

Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections.

Fair enough. On that point was anyone from Victoria consulted before one of their delegates put the motion to ANKC on the official DogsVIC letterhead. I stand to be corrected but I'm pretty sure you will find no-one from Victoria will reply they were consulted.

This motion should have been decided by the state members before being put forward on DogsVic letterhead and making it an official order of business put forward by the entire DOGSVIC which it seems it is not.

Seeing as there are only 8 delegates on ANKC with a few states with two votes and a few with only one vote it needs only two states out of seven to cause a tie in an election on this matter. Reality is three states could vote yes and five states could vote no and the yes could still win.

[Steve]

I don't for one minute think you are naive enough to think all the docked dogs still being exhibited are the victims of ''accidental'' tail damage either.

Some exhibitors have had a terrible time....every dog they own has had some sort of "accident".

you just can't help bad luck.....right?

Yep everyone knows show dogs suffer at the hands of those who show and who breed dogs only for the way they look and there is no way to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Doesn't matter that we have heard of no one being charged for deliberately breaking puppies tails and no one can prove that the law is being broken - no doubt if it were some fellow exhibitor would have dobbed them in by now- its great that there are some on the board who want to make it public and stop this and best to prevent all of them being shown "in case". - except whether the vote makes the idea float or not there are now known publicly to be ANKC members who are animal abusers in the show ring.

Makes no difference to me - I no longer breed a docked breed because I felt breeding them and having to leave their tails on was cruelty and I dont show.

Except that this impacts on all ANKC members because purebred breeders are tagged with this just as they were via PDE and one taints the entire group especially some entire breeds.

However, thankfully, I know a whole group of people most of whom show their dogs who would never ever do such things and any suspicions or accusations would be investigated in very quick time in order to protect the dogs, them and the rest of the membership.

[Salukifan]

Yarracully:

Have you actually read the motion proposed. You will find it has been proposed by a delegate from DogsVic. A person who is supposed to support and promote dogs not destroy the whole dog fraternity. This not a government regulation but a rule being devised and introduced by an elected member of the Victorian Canine council and attepted to be pushed through without the members of that state or any other state being aware or consulted.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was.

Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections.

Fair enough. On that point was anyone from Victoria consulted before one of their delegates put the motion to ANKC on the official DogsVIC letterhead. I stand to be corrected but I'm pretty sure you will find no-one from Victoria will reply they were consulted.

This motion should have been decided by the state members before being put forward on DogsVic letterhead and making it an official order of business put forward by the entire DOGSVIC which it seems it is not.

Seeing as there are only 8 delegates on ANKC with a few states with two votes and a few with only one vote it needs only two states out of seven to cause a tie in an election on this matter. Reality is three states could vote yes and five states could vote no and the yes could still win.

I have zero knowledge of what happened in Victoria on this one. It is up to the members of Dogs Vic to make their views known to their Council on how the motion was initiated.

As for the other states - wait and see. I don't think you'll have to wait long.

[Wundahoo]

Yarracully:

Have you actually read the motion proposed. You will find it has been proposed by a delegate from DogsVic. A person who is supposed to support and promote dogs not destroy the whole dog fraternity. This not a government regulation but a rule being devised and introduced by an elected member of the Victorian Canine council and attepted to be pushed through without the members of that state or any other state being aware or consulted.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was.

Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections.

Fair enough. On that point was anyone from Victoria consulted before one of their delegates put the motion to ANKC on the official DogsVIC letterhead. I stand to be corrected but I'm pretty sure you will find no-one from Victoria will reply they were consulted.

This motion should have been decided by the state members before being put forward on DogsVic letterhead and making it an official order of business put forward by the entire DOGSVIC which it seems it is not.

Seeing as there are only 8 delegates on ANKC with a few states with two votes and a few with only one vote it needs only two states out of seven to cause a tie in an election on this matter. Reality is three states could vote yes and five states could vote no and the yes could still win.

There is no requirement for an ANKC delegate to vote as instructed by their relevant state controlling body. It's possible for a delegate to ignore instructions from their Council and to vote as THEY personally wish.

I wonder what will happen if the Vic Council instructs their delegate to vote against the very motion that he has put ????

[cruzzi]

Yarracully:

Have you actually read the motion proposed. You will find it has been proposed by a delegate from DogsVic. A person who is supposed to support and promote dogs not destroy the whole dog fraternity. This not a government regulation but a rule being devised and introduced by an elected member of the Victorian Canine council and attepted to be pushed through without the members of that state or any other state being aware or consulted.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was.

Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections.

damn right.

Talk about the doomsday mob.

Who would import a dog they knew or even suspected they may not be able breed from?....no one with half a brain.

All the checks & balances would be in place before the dog even left its kennel.

Rabbiting on about can't pick the puppy you want because....because why?

How many puppies are purchased sight unseen every year. It would be in the tens of thousands at least. The breeding attracts the buyers.

Rights?....just what rights are being impinged?

When you sign up you agree to abide by the rules & by-laws of the organisation.

You have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice from your particular area.

If you have a concern you can then exercise your rights.

You can write a letter of protest to the board, you can vote, you can even stand for election or you exercise the ultimate protest & walk away.

Until you decide on any of the above, honour the terms you agreed to when you joined up.

Hey it's just like living in society, you exercise your right to vote & when it rolls around you exercise your right to vote again.

If you candidate isn't elected?

Thems the breaks.

if they introduce a carbon tax, they will pay.

That's the way it is.

[Salukifan]

There is no requirement for an ANKC delegate to vote as instructed by their relevant state controlling body. It's possible for a delegate to ignore instructions from their Council and to vote as THEY personally wish.

I wonder what will happen if the Vic Council instructs their delegate to vote against the very motion that he has put ????

I think you need to give the Directors some credit for consulting on such controversial motions. They know very well who they represent and most are quite capable of discussing an issue without use of the terms "my dog", "my breed" or "my interests". At times I wish more people would try it.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[yarracully]

Yarracully:

Have you actually read the motion proposed. You will find it has been proposed by a delegate from DogsVic. A person who is supposed to support and promote dogs not destroy the whole dog fraternity. This not a government regulation but a rule being devised and introduced by an elected member of the Victorian Canine council and attepted to be pushed through without the members of that state or any other state being aware or consulted.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was.

Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections.

Fair enough. On that point was anyone from Victoria consulted before one of their delegates put the motion to ANKC on the official DogsVIC letterhead. I stand to be corrected but I'm pretty sure you will find no-one from Victoria will reply they were consulted.

This motion should have been decided by the state members before being put forward on DogsVic letterhead and making it an official order of business put forward by the entire DOGSVIC which it seems it is not.

Seeing as there are only 8 delegates on ANKC with a few states with two votes and a few with only one vote it needs only two states out of seven to cause a tie in an election on this matter. Reality is three states could vote yes and five states could vote no and the yes could still win.

There is no requirement for an ANKC delegate to vote as instructed by their relevant state controlling body. It's possible for a delegate to ignore instructions from their Council and to vote as THEY personally wish. I wonder what will happen if the Vic Council instructs their delegate to vote against the very motion that he has put ????

Exactly and they do not have to reveal how they voted. So this may or maynot go through and we won't know who to vote in or out next election. Good process with accountability-not.

Although the Vic Delegate happens to be the signature on the proposal so I doubt if instructed by Victoria to reject it that they actually will vote that way. Why would you put a motion up in this way and then vote it down.

Edited February 4, 2013 by yarracully

[Salukifan]

Exactly and they do not have to reveal how they voted. So this may or maynot go through and we won't know who to vote in or out next election. Good process with accountability-not.

Ask them!

[Sheridan]

I have zero knowledge of what happened in Victoria on this one. It is up to the members of Dogs Vic to make their views known to their Council on how the motion was initiated.

As for the other states - wait and see. I don't think you'll have to wait long.

The first I think anyone knew of it was when someone in Vic posted it on Facebook. From the outrage, I got the impression it was leaked.

[Salukifan]

Well, while the motion runs its course, I have a question for everyone.

If this isn't the way to ensure that all Australian bred dogs exhibited in the show ring are done so in accordance with the relevant State laws on docking, what should the ANKC do about it. One obvious answer is "nothing" but is that the best approach? If not, where to from here??

As I see it, there are some steps along the way on this one.

Step 1: Convince ANKC members to abandon all hope that tail docking laws will ever be reversed. They won't. Ask any politician.

Step 2: Cease all discussion of the merits of routine tail docking. That ship has sailed and we need to move on.

Step 3: Commence discusson on how the ANKC might ensure only lawfully docked dogs are exhibited. Or should we do nothing and await the arrival of animal welfare Inspectors at a major dog show and the associated publicity??? Never say "never" on that one.

Ideas?

[Starkehre]

apparently this rule not just be for Conformation but also other disciplines too eg: Obedience, Field trials etc etc, also not allowing to join an affiliated clubs

Dead right Murve. The dog would not be allowed to compete in ANY ANKC EVENT. Confirmation, agility, Obedience, tracking, earthdog, dancing with dogs,herding, field trials, retrieving trials, endurance trials, weight pulls you name it their all included as ANKC events.

Added, I believe this also means that the dog cannot be trained at any ANKC sanctioned ground or with any ANKC affiliated club. I believe the word "exhibited" in this context covers competing and training, not just exhibiting as we know it.

Edited February 4, 2013 by dyzney

[Wundahoo]

Well, while the motion runs its course, I have a question for everyone.

If this isn't the way to ensure that all Australian bred dogs exhibited in the show ring are done so in accordance with the relevant State laws on docking, what should the ANKC do about it. One obvious answer is "nothing" but is that the best approach? If not, where to from here??

As I see it, there are some steps along the way on this one.

Step 1: Convince ANKC members to abandon all hope that tail docking laws will ever be reversed. They won't. Ask any politician.

Step 2: Cease all discussion of the merits of routine tail docking. That ship has sailed and we need to move on.

Step 3: Commence discusson on how the ANKC might ensure only lawfully docked dogs are exhibited. Or should we do nothing and await the arrival of animal welfare Inspectors at a major dog show and the associated publicity??? Never say "never" on that one.

Ideas?

Perhaps this might be better as a separate topic of its own.

[Steve]

Well, while the motion runs its course, I have a question for everyone.

If this isn't the way to ensure that all Australian bred dogs exhibited in the show ring are done so in accordance with the relevant State laws on docking, what should the ANKC do about it. One obvious answer is "nothing" but is that the best approach? If not, where to from here??

As I see it, there are some steps along the way on this one.

Step 1: Convince ANKC members to abandon all hope that tail docking laws will ever be reversed. They won't. Ask any politician.

Step 2: Cease all discussion of the merits of routine tail docking. That ship has sailed and we need to move on.

Step 3: Commence discusson on how the ANKC might ensure only lawfully docked dogs are exhibited. Or should we do nothing and await the arrival of animal welfare Inspectors at a major dog show and the associated publicity??? Never say "never" on that one.

Ideas?

Agreed - however, if there is ANY question what ever that any members are guilty of animal cruelty the onus is on them to investigate and do what animal welfare inspectors would do if the member is likely to be guilty.

There is no point in them bringing in any regs which puts all members under suspicion and admits that they know some members are guilty but they do nothing about it. Anything else is inviting animal welfare to look closer and consider all exhibitors or docked breeds potentially guilty - it also has the ability to impact on many more issues if it is considered impossible or unlikely for the ANKC to police their own members.It has the potential to have exemptions for registered breeders removed and for all to be under greater suspicion and targeted.

[Jumabaar]

Yarracully:

Have you actually read the motion proposed. You will find it has been proposed by a delegate from DogsVic. A person who is supposed to support and promote dogs not destroy the whole dog fraternity. This not a government regulation but a rule being devised and introduced by an elected member of the Victorian Canine council and attepted to be pushed through without the members of that state or any other state being aware or consulted.

The ANKC Directors from all other states are required to vote on this motion. Most (if not all) will consult with their elected Councils before voting on the motion. Some already have - ask your ANKC Director/s what their vote was.

Frankly I think people need to allow the system to operate as it is designed before concluding the end is nigh. If you have so little faith in your currenty elected Councillors to see to your interests, the answer lies in the ballot box at the next elections.

damn right.

Talk about the doomsday mob.

Who would import a dog they knew or even suspected they may not be able breed from?....no one with half a brain.

All the checks & balances would be in place before the dog even left its kennel.

Rabbiting on about can't pick the puppy you want because....because why?

How many puppies are purchased sight unseen every year. It would be in the tens of thousands at least. The breeding attracts the buyers.

Rights?....just what rights are being impinged?

When you sign up you agree to abide by the rules & by-laws of the organisation.

You have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice from your particular area.

If you have a concern you can then exercise your rights.

You can write a letter of protest to the board, you can vote, you can even stand for election or you exercise the ultimate protest & walk away.

Until you decide on any of the above, honour the terms you agreed to when you joined up.

Hey it's just like living in society, you exercise your right to vote & when it rolls around you exercise your right to vote again.

If you candidate isn't elected?

Thems the breaks.

if they introduce a carbon tax, they will pay.

That's the way it is.

I woud not take a puppy with undefended testicles, I wouldn't take a puppy with a crappy bite or missing teeth. I wouldn't take a puppy that was east west in the front or had cowhocks.

If I am spending 10k to get a pup I want the lines and the quality in the pup itself and even with Australian puppies when I put in an order I say that I only want the pup if its a good quality specimen. So my puppies are not picked before 8 weeks of age and I may be looking for specific lines but a crap dog is a crap dog and I dont want crappy puppies with good grandparents. There are things I am happy to overlook but there are plenty of deal breakers that I would refuse to have in my lines and I trust the person to make sure my pup doesnt have any of them but how could they know at 2 days of age?

I am quite disappointed with the ANKC but since I am only a member of Dogs NSW then apparently my opinion isnt worth much. It would be really nice if this could all be based on proof and scientific evidence rather than emotion and politics. But considering I want to compete in Rally O, Obedience and Herding I guess I just have to accept that I am likely to get shafted by my own organisation some time in the future.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Jumabaar

[lils mum]

Megan,

It is NOT illegal to dock dogs in this country for theraputic purposes. Therefore it is possible for dogs bred in this country to have a docked tail, either done as a neonate or as an adult and for the procedure to comply with the law.

Please be aware of the FACT !!!

Edit for spelling.

There's theraputic and then there's snipping a bit of the dog's tail off to get a better set in the show ring, which is what the motion is about.

No that's not all that its about. That may well be the impetus, but it certainly wil not be all that is impacted. I'm astounded that people are stuck on conversations about imports. This will also have an effect on those dogs ** legally and therapeutically** treated by tail amputation BY a vet and who are owned by dog sport competitors.

[Wundahoo]

Megan,

It is NOT illegal to dock dogs in this country for theraputic purposes. Therefore it is possible for dogs bred in this country to have a docked tail, either done as a neonate or as an adult and for the procedure to comply with the law.

Please be aware of the FACT !!!

Edit for spelling.

There's theraputic and then there's snipping a bit of the dog's tail off to get a better set in the show ring, which is what the motion is about.

No that's not all that its about. That may well be the impetus, but it certainly wil not be all that is impacted. I'm astounded that people are stuck on conversations about imports. This will also have an effect on those dogs ** legally and therapeutically** treated by tail amputation BY a vet and who are owned by dog sport competitors.

Yes exactly ! It will have a far reaching effect on many dog owners, not just those who breed and show and import.

It has the potential to affect even the pet owner who purchases a pet puppy which has been legally docked as a neonate in this country.

As the wording stands it's possible that those owners will not be able to take their pet puppy to any obedience classes run by an ANKC affiliated dog club nor to participate in any event held on the grounds of any ANKC affiliate.