Jump to content
asal

Well, finally happening.

21 posts in this topic

asal   

Pity the ANKC's didnt bring everyone together but if it succeeds the other 80% of dogs in this country (thats the percentage mentioned in the story) will be represented, but somehow I suspect they comprise over 96% of dogs australia wide, more like it.

 

http://www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/story/4997523/tv-icon-gets-behind-breeders-association/

Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RuralPug   

Yes. Their goal is to commercially breed dogs without having to get a Domestic Animal Business permit from councils which will mean inspections and rules etc. which they don't want.

They whinge because Applicable Organisation members (e.g.DogsVic and the Working Dog Council, the various Cat Councils etc.)  are currently allowed up to 10 entire animals before they need a DAB and those who are not members of an AO can only have 3 entires before needing to register. as a DAB (if I have that correct).
 

Their other whinge was that those councils who enforce compulsory desexing UNLESS the dog is registered with an AO would stamp out BYB and small time designer dog breeders. Oh! Woe! they cry. (The big ones  - commercial puppy farms - already have DABs).

Thus they are trying to set up their very own AO so they can continue to "supply pets to the public."
.
This could be good because IF they are held to similar Codes of Ethics as the existing AOs they will have to take responsibility for the health testing of parents and to support puppy buyers and to socialise puppies properly etc. I really don't think that the people behind it are going to convince The Minister that they will enforce a Code of Ethics though as the existing AOs had to fight very hard to keep theirs in Victoria (in cats, dogs and cage birds).

But it would be good for puppy buyers if the organisation would  enforce a code of ethics so that all "pet puppies" from BYBs were ethically bred.

Edited by RuralPug
fat finger typo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

Just maybe, the community can learn to take back responsibility for the dogs they have and the dogs they get and expose some of the hypocricy.

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Don certainly knows what he's talking about when it comes to dogs and the values of crossbreeding and boutique dogs, in other words dogs that aren't a pedigree," Mr Guthrie said.

 

This is the crux of it. Just because 80% of dogs in that state are not purebred doesn't mean we need to be encouraging more mass breeding of said dogs. How many  dogs do we need in this bloody country anyway? I just can't support any encouragement for any en masse breeding of genetically poor puppies when so many perfectly good dogs are currently being put to sleep day in and day out around this country. How about we make a place for all of those first and reduce an unnesseccary death toll on living creatures if we love dogs as much as we claim? If we get those numbers down and keep them down then maybe there is a place to educate better breeding standards for the boutique fluffy. Because the people who breed and sell these puppies and the people who buy these puppies are all part of the current problem. How about a stat on that Mr Guthrie?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Little Gifts said:

This is the crux of it. Just because 80% of dogs in that state are not purebred doesn't mean we need to be encouraging more mass breeding of said dogs. How many  dogs do we need in this bloody country anyway? I just can't support any encouragement for any en masse breeding of genetically poor puppies when so many perfectly good dogs are currently being put to sleep day in and day out around this country. How about we make a place for all of those first and reduce an unnesseccary death toll on living creatures if we love dogs as much as we claim? If we get those numbers down and keep them down then maybe there is a place to educate better breeding standards for the boutique fluffy. Because the people who breed and sell these puppies and the people who buy these puppies are all part of the current problem. 

So well put @Little Gifts!!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

If the statements are honest, they don't intend to encourage mass breeding of genetically poor puppies- but provide a service and co-mentoring avenue to prevent that and teach best responses to avoid the problems in a practice that won't stop.

 

People will breed dogs of their choosing, as long as they choose to have dogs. ANKC or not. Seems mostly not.

Rather than say they can not choose what dogs they want and where from,  surely its better to work with those people to ensure they have the knowledge to do it responsibly and have  clear ideas of what they are trying to achieve, weather there is a place for the results, and how best get there while minimizing costs to the community they should be serving.

 

Pure or cross. Should not make a difference in approach. Mass breeding of genetically poor puppies is just as inexcusable no matter who is doing it.Who ever is going to breed dogs has a responsibility not just to standards, but to the community.

If some one is willing to try to facilitate that, good for them. It may not have been needed if such dogs were recognized by the bodies that took that job on in the 1st place.

You can't have an org. claiming concern with the welfare of all dogs when it does not recognize the greater majority.

 

Hypocricy to think organization  can work for pedigrees  but no other.

 

 

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Moosmum but we will have to agree to disagree. All I see happening is the people already making a wad of cash puppy farming or backyard breeding will continue to do exactly what they are doing. The only reason they will join an organisation like this is to appear more legitimate. They are not interested in changing a thing about their practices unless it is to make them more money and seem less vulnerable to the fanatics. Then you will have the newbies who want to learn how to make money from breeding puppies and we will end up with even more puppies, puppy farmers and backyard breeders than we have now, all patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Not one existing, money generating business is going to become more educated about their poor practices through this organisation. If they were in it for the dogs they would already have educated themselves.

 

In this article Mr Guthrie was quoted several times regarding providing education for appropriate breeding practices. Isn't part of that related to genetics and health and isn't this very issue already a problem within some breeds in the purebred community? How will you improve it by boutiquing it? Pure bred (but not papered) dogs end up in rescue all the time and the only way to change that is reduce the numbers that exist in the first place, not legitimise, support and increase it. And representing owners who have not registered their dogs due to cost and an unwillingness to desex is saying a lot to me too. If you can't afford to register your undesexed dog then what else can't you afford for your dog? Desexing is a personal issue but if you want to keep animals it costs money and there are requirements to be met. Maybe if these people took the same responsibility everyone's registration fees would be less and we would have more dog friendly places because it would be clearer to council how many dogs they had in their catchment area? If these same people are not willing to pay council registration or desexinng fees (because some people do claim they don't desex due to cost) then I doubt they'd pay a registration fee to this organisation either unless they wanted specific help. 

 

More puppies on the market equals a bigger burden on pounds, shelters and rescue organisations both from new animals that will be dumped down the track (for various reasons) and also due to an increase in  purchasing a pet shop puppy over adopting a rescue. Education is definately needed at the buyer level so they don't continue to feed the negative side of this market. I am all for people choosing whatever breed of dog they desire but I am not for flooding the market with poorly bred, unsocialised dogs to increase their poor choices and I sure as hell will never support breeding bitches kept in kennels simply to pump out as many puppies as she can.

 

This is all about money and people - people wanting to make more money breeding and people wanting to pay less money for owning. At no point is there indications here that any of that money will improve the lives of any existing or new dogs. Sorry, but same same from where I sit unfortunately. It sort of looks good but it feels like rewarding bad behaviour.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tassie   
46 minutes ago, Little Gifts said:

I'm sorry Moosmum but we will have to agree to disagree. All I see happening is the people already making a wad of cash puppy farming or backyard breeding will continue to do exactly what they are doing. The only reason they will join an organisation like this is to appear more legitimate. They are not interested in changing a thing about their practices unless it is to make them more money and seem less vulnerable to the fanatics. Then you will have the newbies who want to learn how to make money from breeding puppies and we will end up with even more puppies, puppy farmers and backyard breeders than we have now, all patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Not one existing, money generating business is going to become more educated about their poor practices through this organisation. If they were in it for the dogs they would already have educated themselves.

 

In this article Mr Guthrie was quoted several times regarding providing education for appropriate breeding practices. Isn't part of that related to genetics and health and isn't this very issue already a problem within some breeds in the purebred community? How will you improve it by boutiquing it? Pure bred (but not papered) dogs end up in rescue all the time and the only way to change that is reduce the numbers that exist in the first place, not legitimise, support and increase it. And representing owners who have not registered their dogs due to cost and an unwillingness to desex is saying a lot to me too. If you can't afford to register your undesexed dog then what else can't you afford for your dog? Desexing is a personal issue but if you want to keep animals it costs money and there are requirements to be met. Maybe if these people took the same responsibility everyone's registration fees would be less and we would have more dog friendly places because it would be clearer to council how many dogs they had in their catchment area? If these same people are not willing to pay council registration or desexinng fees (because some people do claim they don't desex due to cost) then I doubt they'd pay a registration fee to this organisation either unless they wanted specific help. 

 

More puppies on the market equals a bigger burden on pounds, shelters and rescue organisations both from new animals that will be dumped down the track (for various reasons) and also due to an increase in  purchasing a pet shop puppy over adopting a rescue. Education is definately needed at the buyer level so they don't continue to feed the negative side of this market. I am all for people choosing whatever breed of dog they desire but I am not for flooding the market with poorly bred, unsocialised dogs to increase their poor choices and I sure as hell will never support breeding bitches kept in kennels simply to pump out as many puppies as she can.

 

This is all about money and people - people wanting to make more money breeding and people wanting to pay less money for owning. At no point is there indications here that any of that money will improve the lives of any existing or new dogs. Sorry, but same same from where I sit unfortunately. It sort of looks good but it feels like rewarding bad behaviour.

This was what I was thinking as I was reading this thread.    It's not just about the choice of dogs to breed ... though knowledge of possible genetic problems of particular breeds, and modes of inheritance is of high importance, and is one of the hallmarks of a responsible, ethical breeder, and not even just about the breeding bitches .. though that's obviously also of key importance.   The thing that's missing in this sort of discussion (and including the new gee whizz state of the art (!!!!! :o ) factories, is that critical first 6-8 + weeks of the puppy's life.   What happens in those weeks is key to determining not only the physical but also the social well-being of the puppy and the adult dog it is to become.   When I watch the time and dedication and expertise and learning that breeders that I admire (you know who they are on DOL) spend on puppy raising, it is clear that this is not going to happen in a mass breeding environment, or in any breeding the primary purpose of which is to make money.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

I hope thats not going to be the case, and maybe  that hope is  miss placed. If its not permitted.

 

But it looks to me like it is aimed at small hobby  breeders. To try and change what they are doing to some thing better and more socialy responsible. Dog knows there is need for that, and for demonstrations of why that hobby model is best for buyers and dogs.

 

There is representation and some form of mentoring urgently needed. Pedigree Dogs depend on that too .Because if you  eliminate back yard breeders, small scale hobby pedigree breeders will follow them very quickly.

I guarantee it.

 

The general lack of responsibility to dogs in the community is a symptom of an ailing environment .The K.Cs depend on its health.   Yet as soon as anyone   tries to demonstrate an ability to respond,  its discredited. Because its not ANKC . So ANKC won't recognize it and no one else should either.

But its a responsibility ANKC refuse themselves.

 

The result is biophysicaly  predictable, for an Identity that refuses to recognize its environment- It looses responsibility.

The organizational Identity is acting in accordance with the blue print laid down at inception, for predictable results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by moosmum
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

You can pick an  Identity.

 

if its humanity -Human behavior is causing problems for  humanity, holding it back, stifling growth and costing valuable/limited  resources.  We  address those problems and find better ways as human beings with common belief for humanity. We work with what we have to make it some thing better. Communicate  the problems, try to understand the cause, where it  comes from. If the body of humanity  contains enough diversity, some of its cells are able to demonstrate alternative behavior and practices that over come the problems. The benefits are  shown. And imitated. Because everyone wants to benefit.. It works when  there is  recognition of a whole human environment. Its  potential and possibilities. Its diversity.

 

History ( and biology) show that when parts of Humanity  can't or won't recognize the commonality of humanity,  remaining focused on  our differences, Its impossible to work together to achieve  potential. Demonstrations of potential are tainted by association and not recognized for any benefits they bring.There is no common belief in Humanity. The difference is held to be unacceptable. Inhuman, with no place in Human society or commonality. Not some thing that we can work with to affect, change or improve.

 

It becomes, biologicaly speaking, a foreign body to be expelled or rejected.

 

 Then we get a process of elimination, oppression, censure and a common antagonism of forces in opposition. Attacks on the 'self' of humanity that harm the whole. Its can't work in syncronicity.

Thats the physics of an Identity environment.

 

The 'body' of an identity can't hold  integrity by rejecting  its own diversity.

 

An organism,  an organization. An identity.  It can only be held together with any integrity or lasting viability with common belief in its 'self'. Recognition of all its parts. Genetic diversity is an essential part of response and adaptation to changing conditions.

 

Now transfer that to Dog breeders. That is also an  Identity. Comprised of anyone who breeds Dogs. Weather you can recognize them as dog breeders or not. an identified environment of all its 'own' parts.

 

All are part of the same whole.  It works together and demonstrates to all its parts the effective responses that over come problems and allow growth and viability. Or it doesn't and suffers the fate of an organism/organization with insufficient diversity in its genetic makeup to adapt and conform to the demands of its environment.

 

 

 

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

Had a bit of a read up on his ideas and a look at the  rough constitution draft.

I think he has some great ideas and great vision. His intent is long over due but I don't think he has anymore hope of achieving it  than the N.S.W version.

 

Far too much focus on details that should be considered situational making it very complicated for the average person and trying too hard to please various groups that should be more concerned with actual welfare issues than legislation trying to make welfare issues impossible to occur. The bottomline is there will be welfare issues for people and Dogs as long as there are people and Dogs. Those issues can't be legislated away. We can only support better conditions that reduce the chances of them occurring.

 

I'm convinced participation and involvement under  common beliefs of greater potential for Dogs and Dog ownership is more important than regulating  how thats to be achieved.

Participation and  involvement  creates  higher  expectations through  examples demonstrated. The best are emulated as the ones the ones that get most support and least effective examples don't get support. Education comes with participation and a stake in the outcomes.

 

Examples are recognized for their value or lack of it if people are welcomed to participate and supported under a common belief. People respond to support that belief, and the environment favors the most effective responses. Again, there is an environment being set up that puts all the value in its self, and not the responses brought to it.

because thats what we are taught to expect. That value is in the environment, not our own response to conditions.

 

Keep it clear and simple. To promote  purpose for dogs in the community and support value and purpose in the breeding of Dogs. Then thats what what will happen.

I doubt he will get the level of participation needed to achieve his great intent while conditions are micro managed.

 

A shame, since its badly needed to unify the purpose of breeding Dogs.

He offers tremendous support for possibility and potential.....then limits the results to a set of conditions its very hard to exceed.

It doesn't recognize diversity of situation or environment. The environment is the value, not its membership.

 

The idea is to set up an environment to  support a mission. The Mission has no where to go if  the environment  is limited to pre-set conditions. conditions

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know if Don Burke has ever bred dogs or studied genetics or has any type of qualification that makes his opinion on dog breeding valid ?

Or is he just a celebrity who people take notice of because he is a celebrity, even if it is for gardening which is completely irrelevant to dogs ?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don Burke's show always had a breed segment or breed road tests on it. I'm assuming he had staff researching the info though. The Burke's Backyard website also has dog breed fact sheets on it and a quick google shows he has given support to breeders groups in the past. I assume his interest in dogs is part of the 'backyard' type of focus of his shows, with Aussie backyards being for more than just plants. I couldn't see that he had any professional quals regarding dogs or animals in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lhok   

I believe he has bred budgies in the past and is a good friend of dr harry.. not that it helps with the topic at hand XD

--Lhok

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mjosa   

Years ago I was approached by one of his staff members, would have been mid 1990's, to do the road test for the Frenchie.

The plans were laid out, had to get a minimum of 20 Frenchies, was achieved but hard to do as not many around in those days not like it is today.

He brought his crew to Adelaide and we did the road test at SACA Park, everything went well during the filming, I did the interview, then he dropped the bomb shell, have I ever thought of cross breeding the Frenchie to improve their breathing, I know the breed has this problem if not selectively bred and I told him so, even back then I was health testing before it came fashionable.

He would not know the front to the back end of a dog, I only learnt later that he was involved in some cross breeding programme in Sydney.

The road test was put to air about four months after the actual filming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lhok   
9 hours ago, moosmum said:

Well. What a surprise.

 

 

 

This isn't because of breed standards, this is because the RSPCA would find it easier to just be able to rubber stamp large facilities. It means they don't have to do as much work if there is only a handful of breeders around. It also big business being able to come in and take control over something and industrialize it. If people care about dogs they will want to stop this.

--Lhok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2017 at 10:51 PM, Lhok said:

Looks like hobby breeders are under attack in NSW with the factory farming of dogs set to be legal and any other forms of it illegal

http://www.dogsnsw.org.au/members/noticeboard/1258-prevention-of-cruelty-to-animals.html


--Lhok

The minimum cage sizes are disgusting.

Having bred both cats & dogs previously stud cats really do need to live outside in a run unless you are exceptionally lucky re the spraying, which is rare. I would never expect a cat to live in a run the size they quote. They need to be able to run, jump, stretch & exercise to keep healthy & develop muscles & with cats particularly this is done when they feel like it so a separate  exercise run may not work anyway.

Not seeing other animals is not good either.

No suprises though. Just more control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×