Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 88

Thread: Your Thoughts on ANKC, Showing and the Outcomes for Dogs.

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MAC View Post
    I think what I find most disturbing about threads like this is that it is preaching to people who may be steered away from pedigree dogs and those that strive very hard to supply both a healthy dog and a good looking dog to believing that most breeders only breed for looks, money, and glory.

    Already there was a previous thread about breeders re-homing and how they can justify doing so.

    Dog show people are well aware that mandatory DNA profiling and testing will soon be mandatory, as with application for in-breeding.

    Am I defensive? Yes I am.
    That is a fair enough opinion too, some people are being put off pure bred dogs from registered breeders and it would be far better if we addressed the reasons for this than get defensive when it is not even your breed in any particular trouble.
    Other breeds are not as lucky and the problems are not being addressed as they ought to be, and THAT too turns people off the pure bred dogs and true, they may well extend that to breeds who are basically sound because they do not know any better.

    We still need to be better than Caesars wife to keep a good public image, running down BYB or puppy mills does not do anything for our image, testing and being reponsible for dogs we breed does.

    You are doing all that so why get upset? the questions asked by the OP are fair and reasonable and nothing for a good breeder to be upset about.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    745

    Default

    If the OP really wants to alter feelings they need to post where it will count, why choose a forum of primarily pet owners. Perhaps they already have and that's great.

    Without my posts will there be another perspective.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Great thread.

    I am purely a pet owner, and in fact do not own purebred dogs even - just a couple of mutts (grew up with pures and my Nana was a GSD and Poodle breeder)

    Even though I am not involved in breeding or showing, I personally do not think a dog should be able to become a Champion unless it is both physically beautiful, and also healthy.

    I think the main focus for a dog should be temperament and health, then looks. At the end of the day, what makes one dog a champion look wise might be a very slight difference to one that makes a dog not a champion.

    This is purely from a pet owner perspective. I think calling anything a champion should mean it is perfect (or as perfect as possible) in every possible way, not just one way.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    745

    Default

    I see where you are coming from Lala.

    As a person who is enjoying watching my friends granddaughter aged 7 show her first show dog (an ET) I think it would be crushing to her if upon reaching 100 points she could not have the satisfaction of that Champion Ribbon should her dog not pass health tests. Could we loose the people who enjoy showing as a hobby with their dog. Some people never breed, it's a social event for them.

    We could say then so as to encourage new comers, young or old to the hobby of dog showing that before breeding a bitch/dog it must be both a Champion and have appropriate health testing submitted. The problem with this while I like it would mean that I would not be able to use one of my bitches with becomingly rare older English lines due to the fact that she had an accident with a tap before completing her title.

    I could too and fro on much of this and yes I do see merit in everyone's posts.

    Though at the end of the day, when a puppy leaves here and goes to it's new home what gives me most satisfaction is when I know that puppy is going to a home that has thoroughly researched the breed and I don't mean a 5 minute google search, or because they used to have one as a kid, or they like the neighbours, which is fine if that is what sent them on their original search. But during that search and their search for a breeder they should know all there is about the breed good and bad & come home with both a healthy and well bred dog.

    I feel bad breeders regardless of what is put in place will ultimately still exist and while buyers don't research they will continue on.

    If a breeder is so hung up on looks they could substitute the paperwork of another healthy dog but use the good looking unhealthy dog. Who would want to mess up their paper-trail like that I don't know, but unless we have the shag police who knows.

    Could breeders who concentrate on health but are unable to obtain a title, judged by his or her peers later on structurally damage a breed? This could easily be done to Whippets, with non show people misinterpreting the difference between a series of curves and a slap ass (as it's termed). Could they begin to paddle and loose the reach thus making them structurally unable to carry out their original role?

    Maybe these are some of the reasons the ANKC is slow to make any changes.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    I don't think the tooth problem should make a difference.

    I have a friend who has a bull terrier with a mangled foot from an accident. That dog still wins prizes in conformation shows - in the neuter section.

    Has the most gorgeous temperment.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cavalierqld View Post
    I found this forum while looking for a certain breed for a friend of mine, and after having read through the posts, I would like to pose this question to members.
    I have serious doubts regarding the inability of the ANKC and many kennel clubs worldwide to protect the welfare interests of purebred dogs while they are still prescribing to conservative, centuries old ideologies and traditions that are harmful to the canine species.


    These are are a few quotes from ANKC site refering to its stratagies for improving the health and well being outcomes of pedigree dogs. I believe this information is dated 2009 so would be interested to hear of any implimentations or changes that have been made since this document especially in the areas of genetics and breed standard exaraggerated conformation.
    Also I would like your thoughts on WHY you feel the ANKC has not implimented mandatory extensive health testing for ALL dogs entered in shows?
    To me this seems the fastest and most logical way to deal with the inherent genetic disease problems within most pure breeds?
    Australian National Kennel Council

    2. Disease prevalence data collection and analysis. (LIDA)
    The LIDA database has the possibility to provide a system to determine prevalence rates for specific disorders for each registered pedigree breed. However, this is a long term ongoing project which will require a large amount of input and assessment.

    The ANKC Ltd feels that the system is limited in that it depends upon veterinarians collecting and forwarding on the information. Many of these diseases can be quite obscure and difficult to diagnose in some breeds as they may manifest at quite a young age and may fail to get diagnosed correctly. Another problem with LIDA is the possibility of incorrect identification of breeds by the Veterinarian. For example some Labrador crosses look similar to the pure bred. The ANKC Ltd is also concerned that it is mooted that information from non pedigree dogs will also be listed on the database.

    Funding issues will also be long term and ongoing in order to provide ongoing support to LIDA to increase its data collection capacity. Instigation of breeders reporting of inherited disorders to LIDA certainly is a long term possibility and would considerably widen the data base input.

    Some breed clubs already have internal reporting mechanisms; however use of these is often poor but certainly can be pushed by the Health and Welfare Committee.

    The recording of inherited disease data is one of the major issues to be addressed by the ANKC Ltd Canine Health & Welfare Committee. The ANKC Ltd is in the process of trying to develop its own nationwide data base for the logging the results of all inherited diseases. This will take significant money and time to develop. It is envisaged that there will be both open and closed registers initially, with the end goal of having disease data results printed on pedigrees for easy access to all buyers and potential breeders. This is certainly a long term project and will take time to achieve its long term goals.

    The Opening of stud books is an area that is strongly opposed by many breeders.

    The Opening of stud books is an area that is strongly opposed by many breeders. Where this has been done as with the LUA Dalmatians, it has been done to counteract the high uric acid problem that affects all Dalmatians. This is a very useful and purposeful exercise. These Low Uric Acid dogs have now been accepted by the Kennel Club (UK).

    Breed extensions is an area with continual review – this is undertaken every 5 -10 years across all breeds and is an area that could become very proactive in promoting fitness and health in breeds. These are used to educate judges and to a lesser degree breeders. A higher emphasis on health and welfare aspects as well as the fit for function can be readily brought in along with the need to avoid exaggerations.

    These are all long term goals that will need time, education and a whole shift in the dog breeding fraternity philosophy towards dog breeding and exhibition. This, like any major shift, is often subtle but eventually quite profound. “Fit for function, fit for life” should be the eventual common goal for us all.


    From these stratagies, there seems to be an underlying vein of ,-_long term goals - need more time - education - long term ongoing project - more funds.

    How much longer do we need? Why is there not a movement to FORCE every show or breeding animal to have health testing, including and especially genetic disfunction and disease?

    Should a "champion" ONLY be a champion, if he is fit, functional and free of genetic disorders? I certainly think so..
    Firstly, I have to say I agree 'in essence' with your opinion and I am answering your opening post without reading in detail all the many posts after it, so forgive me if I repeat points lready made.

    Still, lets look at a few things. If mandatory testing comes out it won't neccessarily help if it is on its own. Education and a major cultural change is needed and I feel this, while commencing at the top with the ANKC, should then be brought down via the state associations and then be implemented through breed clubs. There are big issues with tis however.

    The biggest issue I see is with the structure - each state association runs separately (administratively etc) and breed clubs are purely voluntary and, in some cases, run by people who really have no knowledge nor the ability to gain that knowledge in a way to educate others. Many Breed clubs are run so poorly they are nothing more than a social club.

    Secondly, I think the ANKC's role needs to be looked at. They are, primarily, a registry body that keeps records titles and registrations. They are an umbrella org that then feeds this info to the state associations. They are not an advisory body to be my knowledge and withint the current structure, the ANKC cannot operate with ultimate authority. Major administrative changes and policy decisions have to come before the ocnsensus of every state association.


    In other posts elsewhere you have brought the show world into the argument. I agree again 'in essence' but not entirely. A culture of conformation has been allowed to develop to the exclusion of all else in my opinion. However, in having said that, I still believe that being judged against your peers is important. We need to balance the scales again though.

    Everything living has genetic faults. We will never eradicate all genetic faults. Counting the number of genetic diseases in a breed means nothing. Humans also have a high record of genetic diseases and if they were listed, it would possibly stop some people from having babies! What is more important is looking at how to breed away from these issues.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allie View Post
    I agree Di - I don't feel that I have enough insight, knowledge or understanding to actually comment on this issue. My own experience is limited to pets, and my concern there (since knowing more about breeder registration and practices etc) has been round buying a dog without health problems, from an ethical breeder.

    I agree with your last point that a champion should only be fit to possess that title if they are fit, functional and free from genetic disorders. And I generally consider these factors to be of primary importance, and factors that should definitely be prioritised above look/type. That said, I'm personally not concerned with breed standards, in terms of those things - I like fit, healthy and happy dogs. However they come is fine by me.
    When you say they shoul dbe 'free from genetic disorders' are you meaning in a physical sense ie they do not show a physical manifestation or the ability to develop a physical manifestation' of a genetic disorder? If so, it is possible. However, the 'champion' may still carry the genes that will produce the fault in its off-spring, even though it never will develop the fault. Further, it is impossible to eradicate genetic disorders completely.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    I can 100% understand why MAC feels defensive. Minibulls and Cav, you both use emotive arguments and you both know what you really want to say, but don't. I did say in an earlier thread about cav that her real feelings are bubbling away under the surface.

    I still must also say that I do not believe that you are in anyway an experienced Cav breeder nor possibly a registered breeder. Not that this has anything to do with this particular disucssion, however, I feel the need to state it at this time.
    Last edited by Anne; 07-25-2011 at 08:51 AM.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne View Post
    When you say they shoul dbe 'free from genetic disorders' are you meaning in a physical sense ie they do not show a physical manifestation or the ability to develop a physical manifestation' of a genetic disorder? If so, it is possible. However, the 'champion' may still carry the genes that will produce the fault in its off-spring, even though it never will develop the fault. Further, it is impossible to eradicate genetic disorders completely.
    Yep, I understand the difference between genotype/phenotype, carriers, and animals in which the genetic fault/disorder is expressed. I also realise it's impossible to eradicate genetic disorders completely.

    I am talking about animals free from a manifested genetic disorder, and testing to ensure that an animal, if a carrier, is not bred with another carrier such as is likely to produce progeny with that genetic disorder manifested. It's not always as simple as carrier + carrier = manifestation, obviously, and it's not always as simple as carrier + carrier = carrier OR manifestation. Some things can be controlled for, and others can't. I believe that it is important to control what you CAN control for, and not play genetic roulette. Which means being sure of what you are breeding, which requires an understanding of your dog's status with respect to various genetic disorders which the breed is prone to.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Therefore the statement "...that a champion should only be fit to possess that title if they are fit, functional and free from genetic disorders" cannot be possible. If we are including the perception of the pet buying public, then your statement would be taken literally as well.

    Perhaps it should be worded that a champion should not only represent the breed in type, but also be the highest representation of health, and future health, for that breed.

    Overall I believe that change has to come from the top, and the way that the purebred dog world is structured is not in the best interests of the purebred world or is it an encouragement to the change that is needed. I also believe there to be a fair amount of 'doom and gloom' expressed that is exaggerated which greatly decreases the chance of 'good and proper' resolutions.
    Last edited by Anne; 07-25-2011 at 12:39 PM.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •