Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sandgrubber

Good that Oz has strict import regulations

17 posts in this topic

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2020/06/24/plane-packed-with-hundreds-dogs-landed-canada-board-were-38-dead-puppies/

Demand > supply can stimulate awful things. :(. No surprise, French bulldogs. 

 

Exerpt

The Ukrainian International Airlines plane arrived in Toronto after what is usually a routine 10-hour flight. It was a typical commercial aircraft, but airport workers found a shocking scene on board.

Inside were 500 crated puppies, according to Canadian authorities. Many were dehydrated, weak and vomiting. Thirty-eight of them were dead in their crates.

Edited by sandgrubber
Added exerpt
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
asal   

Pretty telling this paragraph.

 

Exactly whats occurring here in Australia.   The reason so many up front Puppy Farms are being licensed and built here.   Otherwise flights like these will be next.

 

"Because a growing number of larger U.S. dog breeders are shutting and smaller-scale hobby breeders are retiring, some of “our breeding has been outsourced to other countries,” said Patti Strand, founder of the Oregon-based National Animal Interest Alliance, which advocates for breeders and other animal businesses."

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
moosmum   
2 hours ago, asal said:

Pretty telling this paragraph.

 

Exactly whats occurring here in Australia.   The reason so many up front Puppy Farms are being licensed and built here.   Otherwise flights like these will be next.

 

"Because a growing number of larger U.S. dog breeders are shutting and smaller-scale hobby breeders are retiring, some of “our breeding has been outsourced to other countries,” said Patti Strand, founder of the Oregon-based National Animal Interest Alliance, which advocates for breeders and other animal businesses."

 

 

Absolutely! 

 

If environment is a space, then it has rules or laws that allow predictions.

We learn those rules in school, but not how they apply to human behaviour, in a human environment.

 

Some how believing human intelligence over rides them. No, it doesn't. Not if we ignore them.

The problems in the U.S and around the world play into this too. We can't change the past, but we can start recognising we have the present conditions to work with for a better future with out making the same mistakes all over again, where some parts are seen to be not worth the space they occupy. Take away that space and the platforms they stand on, and you leave them no choice but to claim their own.

Opposition brings only opposition. = and opposite reaction.

You don't like some ones perspective? you can avoid sharing the same space,  learn to accept thats their perspective and you don't have to share it, or give them a better one, because its all they have got.

 

If breeders can't recognise their environment, they will be taken out of their environment.

 

We have less time than you think to get it right, because its taken 150 years to shape the expectations we are left with today, that its too costly to support breeders for the value offered in return. 

 

We need to STOP promoting the failures and expecting that to result in improvement.

I think it may be too late with out a registry specifically based on Purpose, and free flow of information to promote responsibility.

 

I don't see any other way to counteract the effects of what was begun.

 

 

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
asal   

Depends on what you mean by "responsibility"?

 

so far  ankc members   making the rules now see "responsibility" as shutting down breeding as much as possible. eg less litters born per bitch, regardless of litter size in the toy breeds and smaller litter number breeds especially..  Examining the yearly reduction of puppies registered in these breeds has been highly successful as the numbers continually drop..

The most vocal believe no bitch should have more than one, perhaps two, at most three litters before being desexed.  In breeds with from 1 to 5 pups is the norm for a litter and most if not all are limit registered anyway, it is a recipe for extinction.

 

Promoting the majority of those born to be limit registered and  Desexing of as many puppies as possible to prevent "falling into the hands of puppy farmers" to the extent a significant number of kennels will not sell any on main register. With the resulting yearly reduction of puppies registered as the available pool of main registered adults continues to reduce along with the number of members.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "that its too costly to support breeders for the value offering in return"

 

What is too costly?  I am unaware of any  money spent to support breeders?  in fact we  are often told if you sell to make a profit is to be a puppy farmer?

 

It seems the inference is you need to be wealthy enough to be able to do so at a loss with independent income from other source or sources to support your hobby or otherwise you are a at risk of being called a puppy farmer?

 

and what is "the value offering"?  in return for what?

 

Apologies if I sound extremely dumb, had a terrible day and extremely tired so ability to think what you mean, is at a low ebb

 

Edited by asal
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post

My big gripe is decisions made not on free flow of information but on strong opinions without evidence.  Scientific studies on desexing go this way and that, depending on how the study is framed.  What the data mostly show is that the health effects are extremely small.  I've yet to see ANY evidence that having 4 or 5 litters is cruel or unhealthy for a bitch... nor that back to back litters was harmful given adequate nutrition and care. Evidence keeps growing that the popular sire syndrome and narrowing gene pools are bad.  

As for the 500 Frenchie puppies in the news story... It would be interesting to see their pedigrees. I'd be surprised if they had COIs under 25.  If you're breeding for profit, especially if pups are exported, why not mate father to daughter... and granddaughter too while you are at it. 

Edited by sandgrubber
Further thoughts
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
moosmum   
On 27/06/2020 at 4:43 AM, sandgrubber said:

My big gripe is decisions made not on free flow of information but on strong opinions without evidence.  Scientific studies on desexing go this way and that, depending on how the study is framed.  What the data mostly show is that the health effects are extremely small.  I've yet to see ANY evidence that having 4 or 5 litters is cruel or unhealthy for a bitch... nor that back to back litters was harmful given adequate nutrition and care. Evidence keeps growing that the popular sire syndrome and narrowing gene pools are bad.  

As for the 500 Frenchie puppies in the news story... It would be interesting to see their pedigrees. I'd be surprised if they had COIs under 25.  If you're breeding for profit, especially if pups are exported, why not mate father to daughter... and granddaughter too while you are at it. 

I agree. 

 

Much of the information we are getting is cherry picked to suit the agendas of self interest  groups who have the means to promote any research that supports their narrative, or statistics with out context. 

 

Part of the reason I think only a more broadly representative and all inclusive organisation could counter act that. To be  founded on a basis of purpose and responsibility,  free flow of information and research would be an essential part of its mission. You can't take responsibility with out it.

 

 

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
moosmum   
On 27/06/2020 at 1:25 AM, asal said:

Depends on what you mean by "responsibility"?

 

so far  ankc members   making the rules now see "responsibility" as shutting down breeding as much as possible. eg less litters born per bitch, regardless of litter size in the toy breeds and smaller litter number breeds especially..  Examining the yearly reduction of puppies registered in these breeds has been highly successful as the numbers continually drop..

The most vocal believe no bitch should have more than one, perhaps two, at most three litters before being desexed.  In breeds with from 1 to 5 pups is the norm for a litter and most if not all are limit registered anyway, it is a recipe for extinction.

 

Promoting the majority of those born to be limit registered and  Desexing of as many puppies as possible to prevent "falling into the hands of puppy farmers" to the extent a significant number of kennels will not sell any on main register. With the resulting yearly reduction of puppies registered as the available pool of main registered adults continues to reduce along with the number of members.

 

Nope. Thats not responsibility in my eyes. The  opposite.

 

 

Quote

 

I am not sure what you mean by "that its too costly to support breeders for the value offering in return"

 

What is too costly?  I am unaware of any  money spent to support breeders?  in fact we  are often told if you sell to make a profit is to be a puppy farmer?

 

It seems the inference is you need to be wealthy enough to be able to do so at a loss with independent income from other source or sources to support your hobby or otherwise you are a at risk of being called a puppy farmer?

Breeders offer value to their environment (community) in the form of the dogs they breed.

The community (environment) supports breeders through the dogs they choose.

 

The community (or environment) places high demand on good welfare outcomes.

If breeders,  are going to  discredit the  value of  breeders, ( on welfare grounds)  their value is null and void. The demands aren't being met.  The welfare costs of supporting breeders is eventually going to be seen as too much for the dogs they get in return.

 

Like the lady who clutches the pup you bred to her chest and asks how you can live with yourself. She wants a pup, 

For now she will take what you've provided. But shes not going to recognise a job well done for the privilege.

 

Given enough time at the rate we are going, and eventually it won't be just worthless breeders but worthless dogs as well. We discredit Dogs too, depending on where they come from.

 

 

Quote

 

Apologies if I sound extremely dumb, had a terrible day and extremely tired so ability to think what you mean, is at a low ebb

 

 

You've never sounded dumb to me. I appreciate you have enough  interest to ask for clarity when I haven't done better. 

Hope tomorrow is a better day.

Edited by moosmum
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
asal   

wow.......Yes 

 

This is exactly whats going on...

 

scary times , yet so few realise its happening and what it means

 

too focused on thinking they are ethical and responsible....  n its only others who arent and blind to the fact others think they are better and damming you as inferior to them....

 

https://quillette.com/2020/06/26/neo-totalitarianism-and-the-erasure-of-history/?fbclid=IwAR2etrX9G7yacr3HUNB5KGXSlERvnRpMrCANTBwJpJI5ftQgOAc0vovHQ7s

 

 

Published on June 26, 2020

Neo-Totalitarianism and the Erasure of History

written by Benjamin Kerstein
edward-howell-MJez68aL1Zc-unsplash.jpg

We are watching the era of the new iconoclasm take shape, no longer in the form of the destruction of religious icons, but in the demolition of historical memory via the toppling or desecration of statues and memorials across the West. While the removal of Confederate statues can be justified—though it should be accomplished by political consent rather than vandalism—it is clear that this new outburst of iconoclasm is in no way confined to the punishment of historical traitors.

Most notably in this regard, a statue of Winston Churchill, perhaps the greatest anti-fascist of them all, was desecrated. Along with it, a statue of Ulysses S. Grant was toppled, despite his legacy as the man who crushed the Ku Klux Klan and fervently defended Reconstruction and human rights. What we are seeing, in other words, is not an attempt to force the past to answer to the present, but the emergence of something else.

Over 2,000 years ago, Plato described it in part when he said, “Bad men, when their parents or country have any defects, look on them with malignant joy, and find fault with them and expose and denounce them to others, under the idea that the rest of mankind will be less likely to take themselves to task and accuse them of neglect; and they blame their defects far more than they deserve, in order that the odium which is necessarily incurred by them may be increased.”

51UqnR0eQIL._SX326_BO1204203200_-197x300This, however, is clearly only a tactic in a larger struggle. In his book The True Believer, Eric Hoffer pointed toward the origins of this struggle in his description of “the militant man of words.” Such a man, wrote Hoffer, “prepares the group for the rise of a mass movement” by “discrediting prevailing creeds and institutions and detaching from them the allegiance of the people” and “undermining the convictions of the ‘better people’… so that when the new fanaticism makes its appearance they are without the capacity to resist it. They see no sense in dying for convictions and principles, and yield to the new order without a fight.”

For at least a generation, militant men and women of words have been laboring mightily to do precisely what Hoffer described. They have raised up a culture dedicated to the idea that our civilization is a monstrous aberration in human history, an industrial machine of dehumanization, the ultimate product of which is mass murder. It must be destroyed, they said, and replaced by something left vague but that is purged of sin and corruption, bereft of the inherent flaws of being human.

No one disputes that there is great sin in the history of our civilization. But historical sin demands a moral struggle. In their erasure of history, the new iconoclasts render that struggle obsolete, and in doing so leave us with nothing but power. And the idea that everything is power is, perhaps, the most essential and absolute principle of totalitarianism.

The indications, then, are ominous: Out of the new iconoclasm, a new totalitarianism is being born. And this neo-totalitarianism has learned from the past: It has its inquisitions, its auto-da-fes, its purges and cultural revolutions, reeducation and self-criticism sessions, and above all the ostracization and ultimate erasure of dissidents.

It is true that, for the moment, this is a soft totalitarianism—a totalitarianism suited for an age of social media spectacle. But the essence is the same: The penalty for even the weakest sin is damnation, and the sin always remains unknown. The goalposts are ever-moving, and the unspecified crimes admit of no redemption. Forgiveness has become a word voiced by no one.

Perhaps most important: if the sin is unnamed, then it is also absolute. Anything can be a sin and everything is a sin. And this leaves all of us vulnerable before the inquisitors, once the mob arbitrarily turns against us. And it can always turn against us, because it demands saints, and there are no saints. They have never existed and never will. What the neo-totalitarians cannot admit is that this is a good thing. Because in being more than human, a saint cannot be human, and as such, his example is useless to us.

In response to all this, there is probably only one way forward: People must begin to think again. We require a revolution of nuance. We should admit that historical injustice is real and must be addressed. That there are indeed some beliefs and opinions that are beyond the pale and must be shunned. But we must demand overwhelming evidence before doing so. And we must allow for the possibility of repentance and forgiveness.

Above all, we must reject the demand that we accuse ourselves of crimes we did not commit, and reject the idea that there can be such a thing as universal crime or a crime that bears no name. We must assert that anyone has the right to establish a religion, but no right to compel others to recite the catechism.

If there is one great and absolute enemy of totalitarianism, it is truth. And to reach the truth, one must think. It is only here, in the solitude of our own minds, that we can begin the slow process of resistance to those who would impose their will on anyone who demands the right to choose the difficult struggle and not the easy bonfire of the vanities.

 

Benjamin Kerstein is a writer and editor living in Tel Aviv. He holds degrees in Jewish and Israeli history from Ben-Gurion and Tel Aviv Universities. You can follow him on Twitter @benj_kerstein.

 

 

 

 

Edited by asal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
moosmum   

@asal    You got it!:thumbsup::happydance2:

 

Scary alright.

 

When anti fascism has become fascism,

and anti hate promotes hatred.

When bigotry is rightious,

And racists the ones who don't want to see any difference.

Edited by moosmum
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Scratch   

Is a breeder responsible or irresponsible when they remove genetic material that throws non standard, but non health threatening traits such as off standard colour markings, low ears or high tails?? or when they remove genetic material that has tested positive to health issues?? 

I know ANKC breeders who operate on one side of this fence, both sides of this fence, or either side depending on the objective at hand. 

Breeding to standard can only go one way. I despair at the genetic material that’s been lost in dogdom, in the name of purity & standards. It can only ever end badly. I think there really is no way to breed for purity, to standards, responsibly. Think about that. I admire a beautiful pure breed dog, don’t get me wrong, but I’ve come to see the sadness & terrible loss in it too. 
The purebred fraternity has shot itself in the foot.  It’s a slow bleed but the wound is terminal. 

But I see thing are changing. Dogs are clawing their way back. The strange ways of the universe are seeing a contemporary dog emerging. And it’s generally not a dog steeped in purity or standards. 

I am quietly confident in the future of domestic pet dogs. But It doesn’t look like it does now. It can’t. 
 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
moosmum   
5 hours ago, Scratch said:

Is a breeder responsible or irresponsible when they remove genetic material that throws non standard, but non health threatening traits such as off standard colour markings, low ears or high tails?? or when they remove genetic material that has tested positive to health issues?? 

 

You are right,  irresponsible. 

 

Standards can only reduce a dogs ability to successfully 'respond' to its environment. Physically as well as mentally

Its not a purpose, its a condition a pedigree tries to fix in time and space. Unchanging. A 'fixed' condition is in entropy. 

 

Trying to maintain a fixed condition against the demands placed on it, can only reduce it.

Purpose gives a direction to move towards. A condition is the end result. Finished. 

 

We see the results in the overall decline in health, both physical and mental. And I'm feeling that loss now. 

Just back from the vets having lost my beautiful Coda to bloat. Rushed her in, but there there was already torsion and signs of damage by the time we could get a vet on Sunday and her to town. Not a pure bred, but the problems we are told are 'just a breed thing'  transcend breed.:mad

 

Rip Coda.:cry:

6 years old..... The cost of that is almost too much now. How long will people support THAT!!?

Bad luck? Yeah, being bred in as we speak. Tonight, I don't feel so optimistic.

50 years ago, to get a dog that didn't die of accident or old age was rare bad luck.

Today it would be rare good luck to achieve that.

 

Sounds like maybe you've got it too? 

We are doing it all backwards.

Edited by moosmum
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Scratch   

OMG I’m so sorry to read 
:cry:

 

It seems we have come to think that ‘alive’ equates healthy.  I groom dogs everyday that have multiple chronic issues who would be described by their owners as healthy. We’ve got to pull our heads out of our arses. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Scratch   

And as for “how long will people support that” ...... 

it seems people crave it! Some of the most “expensive to buy, expensive to run, nothing but heartache & expense, very short lived” breeds are booming in popularity at this moment in time. It’s fashion baby :mad

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Scratch said:

And as for “how long will people support that” ...... 

it seems people crave it! Some of the most “expensive to buy, expensive to run, nothing but heartache & expense, very short lived” breeds are booming in popularity at this moment in time. It’s fashion baby :mad

It's frightening to see how brachy breeds have moved up the charts. Still, Oz is lucky that it's unprofitable to import puppies, especially of the fashion breeds, from puppy farms in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
moosmum   
On 28/06/2020 at 8:36 PM, Scratch said:

And as for “how long will people support that” ...... 

it seems people crave it! Some of the most “expensive to buy, expensive to run, nothing but heartache & expense, very short lived” breeds are booming in popularity at this moment in time. It’s fashion baby :mad

Yeah, I should know better. 

People want dogs. 

its breed thing. Why would they expect more?

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
moosmum   
On 28/06/2020 at 2:55 PM, Scratch said:

Is a breeder responsible or irresponsible when they remove genetic material that throws non standard, but non health threatening traits such as off standard colour markings, low ears or high tails?? or when they remove genetic material that has tested positive to health issues?? 


 

As well, if you are going to rely on a single 'standard' of inheritance, you are only decreasing modes of inheritance- For that trait and others that  were not considered by doing so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Scratch   
49 minutes ago, moosmum said:

As well, if you are going to rely on a single 'standard' of inheritance, you are only decreasing modes of inheritance- For that trait and others that  were not considered by doing so.

Absolutely! the concept of standards as we know them present an insurmountable problem in this respect 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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
Sign in to follow this  
×