Vets Report Increase In Disease Amongst Brachycephalic Dogs

[Willem]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure....

Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test .

as much as I would love to share your optimism I just can't find an example where the findings of scientific research have not been misused in the past. In this case I see organisation trying to use these new technologies for all kind of not so ethical manipulations, e.g. 'increased production' = bigger litters...mass production...military purposes...food production (see China)...

[Steve]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

But removal of that rule says nothing of the sort. The rules for breeding PEDIGREE dogs stay exactly as they are.

The rules for breeding pedigree dogs are set into the rules and constitution even without that rule. It serves no purpose to the pedigree itself. Pedigrees would function the same way as they do now.

A positive ruling ie: "We WILL..... " gives direction and purpose. It tells you to do this brings value to the purpose of the organization (or dogs)

A Negative ruling gives no direction. It simply informs where there is no value to be had. Its a ruling AGAINST values to be had. What values must not be accepted into the pedigree system.

Its a ruling against the environment, or what is out side the pedigree system. In this case, every thing out side the pedigree system.

Never mind the fact that its STILL a dog.

The language of the constitution says there is no value in any direction outside of a pedigree. The culture of its membership are bound to express that.

Just as much as the language of genes govern expression.

Exactly what constitution are you referencing ?

[moosmum]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

But removal of that rule says nothing of the sort. The rules for breeding PEDIGREE dogs stay exactly as they are.

The rules for breeding pedigree dogs are set into the rules and constitution even without that rule. It serves no purpose to the pedigree itself. Pedigrees would function the same way as they do now.

A positive ruling ie: "We WILL..... " gives direction and purpose. It tells you to do this brings value to the purpose of the organization (or dogs)

A Negative ruling gives no direction. It simply informs where there is no value to be had. Its a ruling AGAINST values to be had. What values must not be accepted into the pedigree system.

Its a ruling against the environment, or what is out side the pedigree system. In this case, every thing out side the pedigree system.

Never mind the fact that its STILL a dog.

The language of the constitution says there is no value in any direction outside of a pedigree. The culture of its membership are bound to express that.

Just as much as the language of genes govern expression.

Exactly what constitution are you referencing ?

ANKC origninaly, though I haven't found access to that more recently than several years ago. Though I would use as reference any registry with a rule against members breeding dogs out side of their protocols.

There is no reason to exclude what was not there to begin with.

As for individual breeders striving to do their best, I believe they do.

Cells respond independently to their environment. How that is expressed in a cell culture though, depends on the language in the genetic code that binds them.

[Steve]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure....

Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test .

as much as I would love to share your optimism I just can't find an example where the findings of scientific research have not been misused in the past. In this case I see organisation trying to use these new technologies for all kind of not so ethical manipulations, e.g. 'increased production' = bigger litters...mass production...military purposes...food production (see China)...

Wow Willem thats a new way of looking at this that Ive never considered but we are talking about dog breeding and breeding for better health temperament, fertility,and longevity etc. Im struggling to see how this could be such a bad thing or worse than hit and miss especially when these sort of things have in the main been neglected. Ill think on this but right now I cant see how more knowledge and more information could be anything but a good thing. Its hard to consider someone would use such info to the detriment of purebred dogs rather than to their benefit.

[moosmum]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure....

Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test .

as much as I would love to share your optimism I just can't find an example where the findings of scientific research have not been misused in the past. In this case I see organisation trying to use these new technologies for all kind of not so ethical manipulations, e.g. 'increased production' = bigger litters...mass production...military purposes...food production (see China)...

Wow Willem thats a new way of looking at this that Ive never considered but we are talking about dog breeding and breeding for better health temperament, fertility,and longevity etc. Im struggling to see how this could be such a bad thing or worse than hit and miss especially when these sort of things have in the main been neglected. Ill think on this but right now I cant see how more knowledge and more information could be anything but a good thing. Its hard to consider someone would use such info to the detriment of purebred dogs rather than to their benefit.

It can be harmful if you are depending on those methods to over come continuing problems- Good breeding practices with out those aids becomes harder, more complicated and impractical for small hobby breeders.

More suited to a commercial venture and less part of a communities responsibility.

Reducing the environment.

It sacrifices more of the value in small hobby breeders.Less purpose for breeders and more for science driven by the ecconomics.

Edited April 13, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure....

Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test .

as much as I would love to share your optimism I just can't find an example where the findings of scientific research have not been misused in the past. In this case I see organisation trying to use these new technologies for all kind of not so ethical manipulations, e.g. 'increased production' = bigger litters...mass production...military purposes...food production (see China)...

Wow Willem thats a new way of looking at this that Ive never considered but we are talking about dog breeding and breeding for better health temperament, fertility,and longevity etc. Im struggling to see how this could be such a bad thing or worse than hit and miss especially when these sort of things have in the main been neglected. Ill think on this but right now I cant see how more knowledge and more information could be anything but a good thing. Its hard to consider someone would use such info to the detriment of purebred dogs rather than to their benefit.

It can be harmful if you are depending on those methods to over come continuing problems- Good breeding practices with out those aids becomes harder, more complicated and impractical for small hobby breeders.

More suited to a commercial venture and less part of a communities responsibility.

Reducing the environment.

It sacrifices more of the value in small hobby breeders.Less purpose for breeders and more for science driven by the ecconomics.

MM Im not even going to try and answer that because to me that's just straight out illogical,seems a bit nutty and not based on the real world of the purebred pedigree hobby breeder .

[Steve]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

But removal of that rule says nothing of the sort. The rules for breeding PEDIGREE dogs stay exactly as they are.

The rules for breeding pedigree dogs are set into the rules and constitution even without that rule. It serves no purpose to the pedigree itself. Pedigrees would function the same way as they do now.

A positive ruling ie: "We WILL..... " gives direction and purpose. It tells you to do this brings value to the purpose of the organization (or dogs)

A Negative ruling gives no direction. It simply informs where there is no value to be had. Its a ruling AGAINST values to be had. What values must not be accepted into the pedigree system.

Its a ruling against the environment, or what is out side the pedigree system. In this case, every thing out side the pedigree system.

Never mind the fact that its STILL a dog.

The language of the constitution says there is no value in any direction outside of a pedigree. The culture of its membership are bound to express that.

Just as much as the language of genes govern expression.

Exactly what constitution are you referencing ?

ANKC origninaly, though I haven't found access to that more recently than several years ago. Though I would use as reference any registry with a rule against members breeding dogs out side of their protocols.

There is no reason to exclude what was not there to begin with.

As for individual breeders striving to do their best, I believe they do.

Cells respond independently to their environment. How that is expressed in a cell culture though, depends on the language in the genetic code that binds them.

My link I cant spot anything here to resemble what you say is there.

[Steve]

One more time the registry [ the ANKC] does not set the protocols for each breed - and why you will see lots of "unless approval is given etc" within the codes, rules and regs.

[moosmum]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

DNA testing seems to be already pretty far today (a club member told me did a DNA test for his mutt as he wanted to know which breeds were involved - for AU$ 70 he got an ancestor tree covering 3 generations!!!!) - no doubt, in a few years scientists will be able to tell you exactly which gen is responsible for specific diseases, traits, body shape etc. etc... is it a good thing?...I'm not so sure....

Breeders who use the pedigree the way it's supposed to be used to track such things can tell you now which generation or more to the point which dog is responsible for a disease. We can also know what colour traits a dog has so we can predict what colours our puppies might be using a punnet square ,we can predict body shape and there is more and more every day . Is it a good thing? Absolutely. If I can breed a dog which is cleared for certain genetic disorders via DNA, if I can see in its pedigree that none of its ancestors have had allergies, bad hips immune diseases etc then I have the chance of breeding happier healthier dogs. The issues discussed here are not genetic issues that can be addressed by DNA its about selection for or against traits you can see and because you may or may not be able to see it all in one generation knowing what traits were in previous generations helps the breeder to be able to work out predictability stats on risk factors and potential outcomes via keeping scores or maths using the Chi Square test .

as much as I would love to share your optimism I just can't find an example where the findings of scientific research have not been misused in the past. In this case I see organisation trying to use these new technologies for all kind of not so ethical manipulations, e.g. 'increased production' = bigger litters...mass production...military purposes...food production (see China)...

Wow Willem thats a new way of looking at this that Ive never considered but we are talking about dog breeding and breeding for better health temperament, fertility,and longevity etc. Im struggling to see how this could be such a bad thing or worse than hit and miss especially when these sort of things have in the main been neglected. Ill think on this but right now I cant see how more knowledge and more information could be anything but a good thing. Its hard to consider someone would use such info to the detriment of purebred dogs rather than to their benefit.

It can be harmful if you are depending on those methods to over come continuing problems- Good breeding practices with out those aids becomes harder, more complicated and impractical for small hobby breeders.

More suited to a commercial venture and less part of a communities responsibility.

Reducing the environment.

It sacrifices more of the value in small hobby breeders.Less purpose for breeders and more for science driven by the ecconomics.

MM Im not even going to try and answer that because to me that's just straight out illogical,seems a bit nutty and not based on the real world of the purebred pedigree hobby breeder .

Makes perfect sense to me and illustrates direction forced by lack of other choices open.

You are creating what will become the realities of pure bred pedigree hobby breeders.

[moosmum]

This is a somewhat cynical view but I am intrigued by the notion that the "fix" to the issues of pedigree dogs (bearing in mind that most pedigree breeds don't require a fix) bred to a standard is to use dogs not bred to a standard at all.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst examples of any breeds I've seen are not pedigreed. Double that for temperament. There may be some great examples too but there are those with pedigrees.

Again, if you don't know the ancestry of a dog you will have no idea what you are introducing to a bloodline. Genotype is just as, if not more important. than phenotype. Where there is no health testing for a condition (eg. epilepsy) ancestry is all you have to use to avoid it.

But removal of that rule says nothing of the sort. The rules for breeding PEDIGREE dogs stay exactly as they are.

The rules for breeding pedigree dogs are set into the rules and constitution even without that rule. It serves no purpose to the pedigree itself. Pedigrees would function the same way as they do now.

A positive ruling ie: "We WILL..... " gives direction and purpose. It tells you to do this brings value to the purpose of the organization (or dogs)

A Negative ruling gives no direction. It simply informs where there is no value to be had. Its a ruling AGAINST values to be had. What values must not be accepted into the pedigree system.

Its a ruling against the environment, or what is out side the pedigree system. In this case, every thing out side the pedigree system.

Never mind the fact that its STILL a dog.

The language of the constitution says there is no value in any direction outside of a pedigree. The culture of its membership are bound to express that.

Just as much as the language of genes govern expression.

Exactly what constitution are you referencing ?

ANKC origninaly, though I haven't found access to that more recently than several years ago. Though I would use as reference any registry with a rule against members breeding dogs out side of their protocols.

There is no reason to exclude what was not there to begin with.

As for individual breeders striving to do their best, I believe they do.

Cells respond independently to their environment. How that is expressed in a cell culture though, depends on the language in the genetic code that binds them.

My link I cant spot anything here to resemble what you say is there.

No time to find it again before next week. So far the link you provided seems to deal with the affiliated bodies more than individual membership.

I do recall checking the U.S and one of the Nordic countries as well and that rule seemed to be universal.

If it has been changed, it certainly isn't public knowledge or the understanding breeders are operating under.

Edited April 14, 2016 by moosmum

[Salukifan]

The whole point of breed registries is the keeping of a stud book and issuing pedigrees.

If someone can find a breed registry in ANY domestic animal that permits breeding outside it, please provide an example.

I honestly am beginning to wonder what people want from pedigree breeders, beyond not breeding pedigree dogs.

No Australian breeder is a member of the ANKC. Breeders are members of state bodies which in turn are members of the ANKC.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Haredown Whippets

[Steve]

The ANKC does not now nor has it ever had any association with individual members .Their constitution has never had any reference to individual members. The ANKC only has affiliated state bodies which are autonomous. The role of the ANKC is that of a co ordinating body to help ensure the affiliated state bodies - their members have the same standards for dogs, judges ,national recognition of awards and suspensions. The ANKC does not have a code of ethics for breeders though more recently they have a code of practice for hereditary diseases. Their rules and regs are pertinent to the registry. THEY dont say what a member can or cant do which dogs they can use etc THEY only state which dogs under which criteria they will accept on their registry.

They do have regulations which are in need of a revisit in my opinion pertinent to this but all of the restrictions and approvals for registration of any breed are able to be changed via a process as directed by the breed clubs.and its a decision which carries Nationally because the purpose of the ANKC is to ensure co ordination and that its the same Australia wide.

There is also criteria in place to tender and to accept breed extension explanations and even though within this they do reserve the right to do this themselves if they feel it is required and a breed club doesn't want to this would be exceptional and still needs to go through a process which takes at min 5 years. As stated in their regulations the purpose of these is to educate judges and students of the breed. Some obvious problems with this as to how they can be distributed due to copyright.

The actual standards are pretty much set in stone with the ability to enter a extension. For example if a standard said "moderately short " theoretically a breed club can submit an extension which might clarify exactly what moderately short is via measurements etc.

There are agreements in place via country of origin as who can and when they can in anyway alter the breed standard and is restrictive in whether a breed extension might fly. Reason for this is that the FCI acts as the coordinating body internationally just as the ANKC acts in this capacity nationally.

Now knowing these things plus a whole long list of other things which are impacting on the current situation discussing realistic solutions with an understanding of what could possibly be done before it is taken out of their hands is something that I think has some merit .

the culture and the environment is toxic but its not in my opinion due to the rules,regs and especially not any one rule in particular that we could remove and magically make it all better and be more confident and state our case and provide evidence that we don't breed dogs that suffer into the future.

the environment can change if the cells [ the breeders- not the dogs] begin to think and operate differently.

[moosmum]

The whole point of breed registries is the keeping of a stud book and issuing pedigrees.

If someone can find a breed registry in ANY domestic animal that permits breeding outside it, please provide an example.

I honestly am beginning to wonder what people want from pedigree breeders, beyond not breeding pedigree dogs.

No Australian breeder is a member of the ANKC. Breeders are members of state bodies which in turn are members of the ANKC.

I breed miniature horses.

I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose.

Registration or pedigree is another matter.

The progeny MAY be registered or not, if I prefer to fore go registration, or if the resulting progeny do not conform to standards. Regulations only govern an animal that WILL be registered, in which case, it must fit with breed standards

and the pedigree will be incomplete if parentage is unknown or unable to be verfied.

Registration requirements vary, in some registries it will be classified as as foundation.

There are no rules I am aware of preventing pedigree cattle or sheep or even pig breeders to ONLY breed animals that will be eligible and registered into the stud books for that pure breed.

Pretty sure a working stock dog breeder has the same options open.

Edited April 14, 2016 by moosmum

[Salukifan]

The whole point of breed registries is the keeping of a stud book and issuing pedigrees.

If someone can find a breed registry in ANY domestic animal that permits breeding outside it, please provide an example.

I honestly am beginning to wonder what people want from pedigree breeders, beyond not breeding pedigree dogs.

No Australian breeder is a member of the ANKC. Breeders are members of state bodies which in turn are members of the ANKC.

I breed miniature horses.

I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose.

So how are all those health issues emerging in Miniature Horses going? Should we ban them too? Or insist on outcrossing for size?

[Steve]

The whole point of breed registries is the keeping of a stud book and issuing pedigrees.

If someone can find a breed registry in ANY domestic animal that permits breeding outside it, please provide an example.

I honestly am beginning to wonder what people want from pedigree breeders, beyond not breeding pedigree dogs.

No Australian breeder is a member of the ANKC. Breeders are members of state bodies which in turn are members of the ANKC.

I breed miniature horses.

I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose.

Registration or pedigree is another matter.

The progeny MAY be registered or not, if I prefer to fore go registration, or if the resulting progeny do not conform to standards. Regulations only govern an animal that WILL be registered, in which case, it must fit with breed standards

and the pedigree will be incomplete if parentage is unknown or unable to be verfied.

Registration requirements vary, in some registries it will be classified as as foundation.

There are no rules I am aware of preventing pedigree cattle or sheep or even pig breeders to ONLY breed animals that will be eligible and registered into the stud books for that pure breed.

Pretty sure a working stock dog breeder has the same options open.

O.K. So its THAT rule but the ANKC dont have that rule at all. Nor do most other countries where they have the same welfare issues to deal with .

I breed purebred sheep and as a member of the breed association I am not restricted on whether I want to put my ram over a bunch of ewes of a different breed but I cant expect that when I do that all of the lambs will be entered into a closed stud book either. In any closed stud book for any animal species you cant just pop one in that's not already registered because you as an individual think it would be nice.

If the stud book is open you could. But that's two different arguments. If you breed your registered purebred to a mutt without intention of bringing that progeny into the gene pool for future development of purebred animals thats not the same as wanting to bring a mutt in because it brings something good with a desire to include it into the purebred genepool. How does it benefit the registered pedigreed gene pool if that progeny cant be registered because both parents arent registered? You say you are not arguing for the stud books to be open so please correct me if Im wrong what you seem to be asking for is that everybody should just allow their dogs to be with any dog to have dogs outside of registered gene pool sired by dogs owned by registered breeders ? Then what ? We already have a whole bunch of people who are using registered dogs to let them mate with other registered dogs of the same breed or different breeds or any old dog they want they just arent CC members and their dogs are in the same boat - under the spotlight because because they have conformation related health issues.

So It is true that Some state CCs have it in their regulations and codes of ethics that the registered dog cant be used with an unregistered dog.Some states are O.K. if your registered dog has an unregistered litter or if you only register some of your puppies.

So if the answer to the question of how we can breed healthier dogs is to remove that rule then how do you explain that this is a relatively new thing - people were breeding to extremes before some states introduced that rule, that its not the case in other countries, and this can be done and is being done by people who dont stick with the code of ethics and who have chosen to breed unregistered pedigreed purebred dogs.

[moosmum]

The whole point of breed registries is the keeping of a stud book and issuing pedigrees.

If someone can find a breed registry in ANY domestic animal that permits breeding outside it, please provide an example.

I honestly am beginning to wonder what people want from pedigree breeders, beyond not breeding pedigree dogs.

No Australian breeder is a member of the ANKC. Breeders are members of state bodies which in turn are members of the ANKC.

I breed miniature horses.

I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose.

So how are all those health issues emerging in Miniature Horses going? Should we ban them too? Or insist on outcrossing for size?

I have NOT insisted on banning OR out crossing.

Health issues identified: Before progeny from my stallion can be registered, he must undergo and pass a veterinary inpection. If he shows any signs of having those conditions, or of having surgery to correct those conditions, He will not pass inspection and his progeny will not be eligible for registration.

D.N.A on file. ( my choice)

We have the same problems with 'newbies' or those who see big dollars and think if they pay lots, they can ask lots. That problem is evening out ( very slowly, since horses are so much more long lived than some other species) as the market is flooded with inferior types and people do start to realize there is more to "big money" than male + female = multiply. They are also moving on to the newer 'fad' in American Shetlands.

Its a common modern problem with any animal that doesn't ( relatively) need much room.... The more money people see asked for, the more they want part of that. When the money is less, the interest is more genuine and mostly more responsible because of that.

I have also bred milking goats, long before they were considered worth any thing to Australian farmers, through the popularity phase when people would pay big money for anything and more for pedigree, and finaly the market settled down to achieve relative stability. The problems encountered early are mostly wiped out today, or confined to small pockets. There may be other new problems for all I know since I no longer breed dairy goats. My need for them is gone.

But similar deal to other live stock.

No restriction on what I could breed my animals with. If the results don't meet certain criteria they simply aren't eligible for registration.

And thats fine.

There seems to be an assumption that if a pedigree, registered DOG though, is used for breeding, the breeder must expect resulting progeny to also be eligible for registration in some sort of stud book no matter what that animal was bred to.

That is not what I am arguing.

There is no rule, in registries I have been involved with for any of of the mentioned species, that I can NOT breed a registered animal with any thing but another registered animal of the same breed.

The breeder simply accepts that animal may not be eligible for registration if certain criteria is not met.

Registration and/or eligibility for show is not the only value or direction recognized. I believe though not problem free, for the most part those species are in much better shape than domestic dogs of either pedigree or mutt heritage. A breeders decisions (weather they end up right or wrong) are based on value adding for the individual conditions or environment that breeders must work with.

A goat farmer with pedigree stock and a goat breeder with unregistered stock both recognize the same values in GOATS to achieve the purpose of a Goat. The husbandry requirements are shared and discussed equally. The heath issues are shared and discussed equally, and tackled equally. The value of healthy stock is a shared responsibility.

A breeder of cross breed goats has access to healthy stock and an understanding of what to look for, what to avoid and how to find a breeder matching his requirements, with advise to do that readily available. ANY breeder has access to stock with predictable traits and health status.

A pedigree goat has likely gained value because of that. A cross breed goat has likely gained value because of that. Over what was being produced here 30 years ago.

Steve,

" So it is true that some state C.Cs have it in their regulations and code of ethics that the Registered Dog can't be used with an unregistered dog"

THANK YOU!!

I am not aware that that rule is 'new' or not pretty universal to pedigree dogs. I noted it in at least 2 overseas registries when I started this research, but it has never been formal research so no notes to confirm which. Will have to check.

I do know it was part of Regs. in at least one country overseas 45 years ago.

As to the fact people are doing it anyway contrary to rules and regs. They sign up to a code and disregard it, doesn't say much for their character.

Edited April 14, 2016 by moosmum

[Steve]

So in other words what you are advocating is for members to be able to breed their registered pedigreed dogs to dogs which are not registered and if the progeny meets certain criteria you want them to be able to be admitted into the pedigree system. Is that right?

[Steve]

The whole point of breed registries is the keeping of a stud book and issuing pedigrees.

If someone can find a breed registry in ANY domestic animal that permits breeding outside it, please provide an example.

I honestly am beginning to wonder what people want from pedigree breeders, beyond not breeding pedigree dogs.

No Australian breeder is a member of the ANKC. Breeders are members of state bodies which in turn are members of the ANKC.

I breed miniature horses.

I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose.

So how are all those health issues emerging in Miniature Horses going? Should we ban them too? Or insist on outcrossing for size?

I have NOT insisted on banning OR out crossing.

Health issues identified: Before progeny from my stallion can be registered, he must undergo and pass a veterinary inpection. If he shows any signs of having those conditions, or of having surgery to correct those conditions, He will not pass inspection and his progeny will not be eligible for registration.

D.N.A on file. ( my choice)

We have the same problems with 'newbies' or those who see big dollars and think if they pay lots, they can ask lots. That problem is evening out ( very slowly, since horses are so much more long lived than some other species) as the market is flooded with inferior types and people do start to realize there is more to "big money" than male + female = multiply. They are also moving on to the newer 'fad' in American Shetlands.

Its a common modern problem with any animal that doesn't ( relatively) need much room.... The more money people see asked for, the more they want part of that. When the money is less, the interest is more genuine and mostly more responsible because of that.

I have also bred milking goats, long before they were considered worth any thing to Australian farmers, through the popularity phase when people would pay big money for anything and more for pedigree, and finaly the market settled down to achieve relative stability. The problems encountered early are mostly wiped out today, or confined to small pockets. There may be other new problems for all I know since I no longer breed dairy goats. My need for them is gone.

But similar deal to other live stock.

No restriction on what I could breed my animals with. If the results don't meet certain criteria they simply aren't eligible for registration.

And thats fine.

There seems to be an assumption that if a pedigree, registered DOG though, is used for breeding, the breeder must expect resulting progeny to also be eligible for registration in some sort of stud book no matter what that animal was bred to.

That is not what I am arguing.

There is no rule, in registries I have been involved with for any of of the mentioned species, that I can NOT breed a registered animal with any thing but another registered animal of the same breed.

The breeder simply accepts that animal may not be eligible for registration if certain criteria is not met.

Registration and/or eligibility for show is not the only value or direction recognized. I believe though not problem free, for the most part those species are in much better shape than domestic dogs of either pedigree or mutt heritage. A breeders decisions (weather they end up right or wrong) are based on value adding for the individual conditions or environment that breeders must work with.

A goat farmer with pedigree stock and a goat breeder with unregistered stock both recognize the same values in GOATS to achieve the purpose of a Goat. The husbandry requirements are shared and discussed equally. The heath issues are shared and discussed equally, and tackled equally. The value of healthy stock is a shared responsibility.

A breeder of cross breed goats has access to healthy stock and an understanding of what to look for, what to avoid and how to find a breeder matching his requirements, with advise to do that readily available.

A pedigree goat has not lost any of its value because of that.

Steve,

" So it is true that some state C.Cs have it in their regulations and code of ethics that the Registered Dog can't be used with an unregistered dog"

THANK YOU!!

I am not aware that that rule is 'new' or not pretty universal to pedigree dogs. I noted it in every overseas registry I checked when I started this research, but it has never been formal research so no notes to confirm which. Will have to check.

As to the fact people are doing it anyway contrary to rules and regs. with no more success, the very fact they sign up to a code and disregard it at all, doesn't say much for their character.

Actually the goat breeder who breeds registered stock and wants to enter them into shows and be awarded due to their closeness to the standard and get top dollar way over and above what his neighbour will get has at least a slightly different criteria and value placed on different animals for selection. In my breed of sheep a stud Ram which has won at Dubbo can expect up to $40000 for him. I hardly think the guy next door who has a commercial flock with no papers and no chance of a championship is going to get more than a couple of hundreds dollars for him - even though they produce great meat.

I breed working Maremma which are registered pedigreed and a person who breeds this breed who is not interested in registering them has the same goal as me in seeking a great working dog.I dont show my dogs and around here if its a great looking dog resembling the conformation standard and it cant work is of no use to me or the people who take my puppies. We have the same value placed on a working dog but I believe using the pedigree system is a more useful tool to help me and those who come behind me to select the best dogs for my breeding program. We have hundreds of members who dont show and use the registered pedigree system to select therapy dogs, assistance dogs, search and rescue dogs ,agility dogs, obedience dogs, medic alert dogs, etc. There is no rule within any state CC codes or regs that someone must breed for the show ring

[moosmum]

So in other words what you are advocating is for members to be able to breed their registered pedigreed dogs to dogs which are not registered and if the progeny meets certain criteria you want them to be able to be admitted into the pedigree system. Is that right?

No.

I would advocate removal of that rule so that Pedigree breeders are not ruling against some thing outside of their jurisdiction, which is PEDIGREE dogs.

A dog ineligible for a pedigree is outside a pedigree breeders jurisdiction.

Against just about every thing NOT in a pedigree breeders jurisdiction. Against the environment the registry system itself needs to remain viable.

The pedigree dog used might be jurisdiction of the registry, but surely its not bred FOR the registry alone, but for a human and a purpose. The purpose surely is dogs, not the registry itself. The registry alone can not meet the needs and expectations of Man. Dogs can.

A 'Registry only' making a political statement can not be a 'registry only'. They invite an expectation and the pressure they will be more.

IF breeders are free to meet the needs of Man 1st, I believe the culture will change to reflect those needs better. If that turns out to mean admitting other values/dogs into the pedigree system, it should be easier to accomplish with a culture willing to see values in other directions but inwards.

Edited April 14, 2016 by moosmum

[moosmum]

The whole point of breed registries is the keeping of a stud book and issuing pedigrees.

If someone can find a breed registry in ANY domestic animal that permits breeding outside it, please provide an example.

I honestly am beginning to wonder what people want from pedigree breeders, beyond not breeding pedigree dogs.

No Australian breeder is a member of the ANKC. Breeders are members of state bodies which in turn are members of the ANKC.

I breed miniature horses.

I can breed my registered horses with any horse I choose.

So how are all those health issues emerging in Miniature Horses going? Should we ban them too? Or insist on outcrossing for size?

I have NOT insisted on banning OR out crossing.

Health issues identified: Before progeny from my stallion can be registered, he must undergo and pass a veterinary inpection. If he shows any signs of having those conditions, or of having surgery to correct those conditions, He will not pass inspection and his progeny will not be eligible for registration.

D.N.A on file. ( my choice)

We have the same problems with 'newbies' or those who see big dollars and think if they pay lots, they can ask lots. That problem is evening out ( very slowly, since horses are so much more long lived than some other species) as the market is flooded with inferior types and people do start to realize there is more to "big money" than male + female = multiply. They are also moving on to the newer 'fad' in American Shetlands.

Its a common modern problem with any animal that doesn't ( relatively) need much room.... The more money people see asked for, the more they want part of that. When the money is less, the interest is more genuine and mostly more responsible because of that.

I have also bred milking goats, long before they were considered worth any thing to Australian farmers, through the popularity phase when people would pay big money for anything and more for pedigree, and finaly the market settled down to achieve relative stability. The problems encountered early are mostly wiped out today, or confined to small pockets. There may be other new problems for all I know since I no longer breed dairy goats. My need for them is gone.

But similar deal to other live stock.

No restriction on what I could breed my animals with. If the results don't meet certain criteria they simply aren't eligible for registration.

And thats fine.

There seems to be an assumption that if a pedigree, registered DOG though, is used for breeding, the breeder must expect resulting progeny to also be eligible for registration in some sort of stud book no matter what that animal was bred to.

That is not what I am arguing.

There is no rule, in registries I have been involved with for any of of the mentioned species, that I can NOT breed a registered animal with any thing but another registered animal of the same breed.

The breeder simply accepts that animal may not be eligible for registration if certain criteria is not met.

Registration and/or eligibility for show is not the only value or direction recognized. I believe though not problem free, for the most part those species are in much better shape than domestic dogs of either pedigree or mutt heritage. A breeders decisions (weather they end up right or wrong) are based on value adding for the individual conditions or environment that breeders must work with.

A goat farmer with pedigree stock and a goat breeder with unregistered stock both recognize the same values in GOATS to achieve the purpose of a Goat. The husbandry requirements are shared and discussed equally. The heath issues are shared and discussed equally, and tackled equally. The value of healthy stock is a shared responsibility.

A breeder of cross breed goats has access to healthy stock and an understanding of what to look for, what to avoid and how to find a breeder matching his requirements, with advise to do that readily available.

A pedigree goat has not lost any of its value because of that.

Steve,

" So it is true that some state C.Cs have it in their regulations and code of ethics that the Registered Dog can't be used with an unregistered dog"

THANK YOU!!

I am not aware that that rule is 'new' or not pretty universal to pedigree dogs. I noted it in every overseas registry I checked when I started this research, but it has never been formal research so no notes to confirm which. Will have to check.

As to the fact people are doing it anyway contrary to rules and regs. with no more success, the very fact they sign up to a code and disregard it at all, doesn't say much for their character.

Actually the goat breeder who breeds registered stock and wants to enter them into shows and be awarded due to their closeness to the standard and get top dollar way over and above what his neighbour will get has at least a slightly different criteria and value placed on different animals for selection. In my breed of sheep a stud Ram which has won at Dubbo can expect up to $40000 for him. I hardly think the guy next door who has a commercial flock with no papers and no chance of a championship is going to get more than a couple of hundreds dollars for him - even though they produce great meat.

I breed working Maremma which are registered pedigreed and a person who breeds this breed who is not interested in registering them has the same goal as me in seeking a great working dog.I dont show my dogs and around here if its a great looking dog resembling the conformation standard and it cant work is of no use to me or the people who take my puppies. We have the same value placed on a working dog but I believe using the pedigree system is a more useful tool to help me and those who come behind me to select the best dogs for my breeding program. We have hundreds of members who dont show and use the registered pedigree system to select therapy dogs, assistance dogs, search and rescue dogs ,agility dogs, obedience dogs, medic alert dogs, etc. There is no rule within any state CC codes or regs that someone must breed for the show ring

I wasn't speaking of financial value alone, but yeah, I agree a pedigree should most always be worth more financialy.

I believe that increased value would remain in dogs too, if that rule were brought in line with other live stock enterprises. More likely to increase, as the purpose could become better understood by those outside the pedigree system.

As it is by sheep breeders.

Reality is never the same from one point to another, one time to another. The realities of what one person gets from his dogs, or sheep, or horses is never going to be the same for every place or time.

To expect all needs or values to be found in a single environment or system is unrealistic.

Too late for me to at this.

Edited April 14, 2016 by moosmum