Another reminder Pedigree Dogs Exposed BBC America

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

The OFA hip dysplasia statistics by breed may provide some interesting information for those curious whether there is a higher incidence of CHD in longer-proportioned breeds. (Stats from Jan '74 - Dec '08.)

[Sue R]

The OFA hip dysplasia statistics by breed may provide some interesting information for those curious whether there is a higher incidence of CHD in longer-proportioned breeds. (Stats from Jan '74 - Dec '08.)

Quite interesting! Too bad there isn't more detail on where some of the dogs tested originate - kennel club, working, non-papered, and so on.

 

Amazingly sad to see how high the incidence is in some breeds. The other question, though, is the sampling random over (within) a breed or primarily among potential breeding stock or from individuals about which there was a concern that prompted testing.

[Liz P]

The OFA stats are from potential breeding dogs and are often pre screened. That is to say, if a vet tells an owner that the dog has HD based on the radiographs, most people choose to not send them in (saves the OFA fee). Even OFA admits this is the case and that the actual incidence of HD in a breed could easily be twice the reported rate.

[geonni banner]

The OFA hip dysplasia statistics by breed may provide some interesting information for those curious whether there is a higher incidence of CHD in longer-proportioned breeds. (Stats from Jan '74 - Dec '08.)

 

I note that of the "top ten" breeds, most would probably have a rather small gene pool. Rare breeds. If one is affected, makes sense that a large proportion would be - if the problem was genetic at least. Pugs and Bulldogs are more populous - but they are both walking (sometimes) catalogs of the evil that comes of exaggerated type.

[Debbie]

More news from pedigreed dogs exposed, however again it will affected all dog breeders in the UK including ISDS breeders.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6974649.ece

 

From The Times January 4, 2010

 

Dog breeders to be registered in attempt to reduce canine deformities

 

A shake-up in the way that dogs are bought and sold is to be proposed by an inquiry into the future of canine breeding in Britain.

 

Plans for a compulsory registration scheme for breeders — whether of pedigrees or crosses — has emerged in a report by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, a leading zoologist, which aims to stamp out controversial breeding practices in which puppies are born with disease and deformities.

 

The Times has learnt that only breeders with a registered number and who are subject to checks on their animals and premises would be allowed to sell or advertise the sale of puppies.

 

The proposals, which are already in force in France, are an attempt to draw a line under the unscrupulous breeding of dogs for the competition ring, which was highlighted in the television documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed on BBC One 16 months ago.

End.

 

This idea is being discussed to be put in place in Australia too. Some points that have been discussed.

Mention was made that all pups born would have to be microchipped and the breeders information would be recorded to that pup, all information about the dog could be traced back to the breeder for prosecution at any time during the dogs life.

Only dogs owned by registered breeders could be left intact, all other dogs would have to be desexed by law.

There is a lot of worry about the random 'home' inspections by the RSPCA on all breeders of all dogs (RSPCA, Uni's and government can not single out just show breeders for legal restrictions in this country. So as in the UK above, all breeders will have to be treated the same under the law).

Fees in the range of several hundred dollars a year could be charged to keep your registration current and to pay for the random inspections, failing to keep your registration as a breeder current would result in mandatory desexing of your dogs. So even if you had no plans to breed a litter for several years, you would still be inspected and required to meet all the expectations each year.

Many other concerns, but the primary statement expressed is that most people will not be breeding any longer, as they fear prosecution, fines and jail.

[mum24dog]

It's a report with a proposal, that's all. The government has no obligation to take any notice of the results of any enquiry, offocial or not, and frequently doesn't.

The government has more important things to worry about. In the unlikely event that anything like that ever became law it wouldn't be policed except maybe against a few soft targets.

Illegally docked litters are advertised all the time and yet there have only been a couple of successful prosecutions (at least when I last checked). I can't see breeding legislation being any different. It would just drive the breeding business underground.

As for the RSPCA - it is a charity not an agent of the government and it hasn't got the resources or the legal power to deal with all the cases of animal cruelty reported to it, let alone random inspections of breeders, even if the government gave them the power.

 

And this would be far too politically sensitive to put forward - we don't take kindly to being bossed around.

 

Only dogs owned by registered breeders could be left intact, all other dogs would have to be desexed by law.

 

All my dogs are neutered, but that is my choice. I would defend anyone's right to decide otherwise, even though I may disagree.

 

There is a major flaw in these proposals - reducing the gene pool to only dogs belonging to registered breeders is likely to cause more genetic problems in the long run.

 

Pam

[Debbie]

The topic of this thread is the impact and results of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

 

This UK Parliamentary Inquiry and their recommendations, to regulate all dogs breeders in the UK is a direct result of that program.

 

I do not know how it goes in the UK. In Australia when the government calls for a Parliamentary inquiry, it is because they think there is grave concern. Here, the governement will listen to the results and recommendations made by a parliamentary inquires.

 

What the Parliament Inquiry in the UK has suggested is not strange or unusual. It had already happening in many countries in Europe. Regulating and controlling all dog breeders and attempting to regulate and control disease in dogs is not a new idea.

 

More from the report.

'Professor Bateson said that in future he expected registration to be restricted to accredited breeders who follow tough health and welfare rules. The club has already reviewed the standards for each breed, but Professor Bateson questioned the organization's role as “judge and jury”. He favors instead a new statutory body to oversee all breeding practices. “I think regulation is the only way to do it".'

 

This is right out of the Uni of Sydney proposal for Australian Dog Breeding, it is called the 10 point plan for dog breeders. One of the proposals is (all) dog breeding should be controlled by a panel of experts, including RSPCA, the Uni experts, animal welfare groups, the AVA, the public and others with an interest in dogs breeding. Will be intersting to see how the experts opinions on dogs breeding will affected working dogs, if this happens.

 

Be clear, in Australia the kennel club breeders and all purebred dogs including purebred working dogs like kelpies and border collies, make up a very small percentage of dog breeders. Kennel club breeders have dropped by almost 50% over the last 20 years and now produce less than 60,000 pups per year for all breeds across the entire country, this is out of the many hundreds of thousands of pups born each year.

 

Designer dogs are by far more popular. Cross breeds have been well promoted by the Unis research, RSPCA and even magazines and TV shows over the past 10-15 years. For example, the RSPCA places market values on their rescue dogs. They recently sold a labradoodle for $800.00, the price of a purebred border collie that day was $100.00. So in Australia, any further push against purebred dogs will likely just about end purebred dogs of any kind in this country. So the problem of show breeders and the problem of purebred dogs of any kind, has really already been severely dealt with in practical terms in Australia.

 

However, all of the problems in pedigree dogs exposed, such as deformed bodies, inherited disease, inbreeding and uncaring breeders, also happen in the non pedigree/purebred dog breeding world, of which the majority of pups being born in Australia belong too. Pekapugs also can't breath. Sharbulls also have skin problems, Labraoodles also have HD and PRA and Pocket dogs so small they fit in one hand. To control these abusive welfare problems in dog breeding, any laws will have to be across the board and affect all breeders. Any animal rights person worth his salt know this, and knows that any action taken agaisnt the more dramatic easy target show breeders will also be taken agasint all the rest of the dog breeders.

[mum24dog]

This UK Parliamentary Inquiry and their recommendations, to regulate all dogs breeders in the UK is a direct result of that program.

 

I do not know how it goes in the UK. In Australia when the government calls for a Parliamentary inquiry, it is because they think there is grave concern. Here, the governement will listen to the results and recommendations made by a parliamentary inquires.

 

I do know about the enquiry - my daughter's partner is PA to one of the MPs involved and we have had long discussions about the issues involved.

 

This is how it goes here in the UK.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/no...dvisers-inquiry

 

The government's principal advisor on the Council reponsible for reporting to the government on the misuse of drugs was sacked for complaining that the Council's advice was ignored.

 

The government will listen but if they will lose votes by implementing the recommendations or they are unworkable they will be ignored.

 

Making laws is one thing - enforcing them (and finding the public funds to do so) is quite another. I've already mention the toothless laws on docking. Another example is the ban on PBs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 - and there are plenty still walking the streets in certain areas quite openly.

 

Puppy farms are already regulated and yet horrific conditions still exist.

 

Australia's situation seems very different from ours. Yes, we do get mugs taken in by "designer dogs" but not much in the grand scheme of things. KC registrations are increasing year on year.

 

The Chairman of our KC came over badly in the programme but actually he isn't bad in terms of the showing fraternity. There has been a lot of modernisation since he took office and I suspect that he would like to do more. (He's a border terrier man so no vested interest in producing canine monstrosities.) The programme has given the KC a kick in the backside to use its power and not worry about offending its core clientele ie breeders and show people. Of course a lot more needs to be done but the politician he has to be is trying to avoid a self defeating backlash from the grass roots.

I do think bolder measures should be taken but I do sympathise up to a point.

 

What the Parliament Inquiry in the UK has suggested is not strange or unusual. It had already happening in many countries in Europe.

 

Which countries out of interest? The Times article only mentions France, which is far more pedigree dog orientated than the UK and where the population are not exactly known for following the rules - unless it suits them.

 

Our main problems are 3 fold -

 

The one highlighted by the programme affecting pedigree dogs. I'd be inclined to give the KC more of a chance to get its house in order now it's started, with the threat of legislation if it doesn't get its act together.

 

Puppy farms - needs stronger and enforceable legislation with stringent welfare provisions and a limit on numbers kept and produced. Banning them just isn't going to happen.

 

Back yard/hobby/accidental breeders - this is the hardest group to deal with and the one that is most likely to slip through the net of any legislation and go underground. I won't tar them all with the same brush - I know some very good and caring breeders in this category. Some do have a positive contribution to make and it shouldn't be the aim to legislate them out of existence. Anything that interferes with freedom of choice for the individual in such matters is likely to meet with strong resistance. I don't really have a realistic answer to this one and don't know anyone who does.

 

Just for the record, all the dogs I have ever had have been from rescue and neutered and that will always be the case. I have never bought a dog, nor ever will, never bred and will never have a dog registered on the KC breed register unless an already registered rescue. I am above all a pragmatist though and laws that are ignored bring the whole legal system into disrepute.

 

Pam

[Debbie]

Australia is only different as we are where much of the Uni work is coming from that is now being used in the UK. Just wait till every morning TV show tells it's viewers purebred dogs are bad and the cross breds are recommended by the Uni and BVA as the best choice for healthy happy pets. Wait til the RSPCA sells cross breeds for more money because they are healthier than any purebreds. Won't take long for ISDS border collies will be viewed as trash.

 

To me it does not sound that different in the UK as to here. The laws will be made, most people will and are saying no big deal or it is good as we need to control those nasty dog breeders. As you imply even if they make the laws we do not need to worry about obeying them.

 

Finland Sweeden and several other countries have extensive dog breeding and ownership laws, along with very limiting registration rules. Most require all dogs and breeders to be registered in the kennel club. That is why you will see a few dogs at the world trail that are KC registered. They can not breed them if they are not in the Kennel club. As I said this stuff is not new.

 

You have told me 3 times you only have desexed resuce dogs, am I supose to react to that in some way? Not eveyone wants to get their next working dog from rescue. I am glad that it has worked out for you, but rescue is not a method of maintaining the working border collie into a future of highly regulated dog breeding. But I guess that may not be the goal for everyone.

[juliepoudrier]

You have told me 3 times you only have desexed resuce dogs, am I supose to react to that in some way? Not eveyone wants to get their next working dog from rescue. I am glad that it has worked out for you, but rescue is not a method of maintaining the working border collie into a future of highly regulated dog breeding. But I guess that may not be the goal for everyone.

If I had to guess, I'd say that she's made that comment to make it clear that she isn't herself a breeder with an agenda. So in fact her comments should be less biased than those of a breeder might be. It has nothing to do with whether she has a working dog (the answer would be no anyway, since she competes in agility, and given the sports breedings taking place in this country--US, don't know about the UK--frankly, I'm grateful that at least some sports competitors are choosing rescues for their dogs). She's trying to make it clear that she has no stake in breeding practices and so isn't arguing from that viewpoint but is instead trying to be a voice of reason. The stuff you're quoting/claiming is pretty sensationalistic, after all.

 

J.

[Debbie]

Here is some more sensational facts.

 

State of Victoria Australia, Animal Welfare Code of Practice for inherited disease.

CEA and CL is regulated on all border collies (not just KC registered dogs). I am told TNS is due to be added on the next review.

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa.nsf/L...e%20Disease.pdf

 

Personally this law had no effect on me, I live in another state. However the vast majority of border collies in Victoria are working dogs (not in the KC) and the working border collie breeders in Victoria do not usually ( I will say almost never) screen for CEA or CL. They had no say in this law and even today many of the working border collie breeders still do not know about the law.

 

I could say it is unfortunate that the kennel club did not mandate this testing. I could say the same thing about the Vic Sheepdog trailing register, though fair enough they are not breed club for border collies. Or I could say it is unfortunate that ABCA has not mandated CEA testing or made an official statement about CL testing for ABCA/ISDS bloodlines. Or I could say the breed clubs should stay out of it and let the animal welfare groups, Unis and the government mandate all health testing and breeding practices. Or I could and this is in fact all I do say, that the government should stay out of dog health testing and dog breeding.

 

This is not a law about show breeders, it is not affecting only show dogs. This same sort of thing is happening in many countries. I do not think that it is sensationalism.

[Mark Billadeau]

Debbie,

 

The ABCA does recommend testing for CEA; however, due to the simple inheritance of this disease it is NOT necessary to test ALL dogs. Testing all dogs for CEA would only improve the profit of Optigen not improve the health of the breed.

 

Currently there is no scientific or clinical evidence to suggest the need to test Border Collies in North America for CL; hence the lack of an official statement by the ABCA on this disease. To date I’ve only seen references for 3-6 Border Collies having been diagnosed with the disease in North America over the past 25 years and the familial background (North American, UK, European, or Australian lines) of these dogs was not disclosed.

 

At what incidence level do you believe a breed organization should mandate testing for a genetic disease?

 

3-6 affected dogs out of 100,000s (ABCA registers about 20,000 dogs a year Registration figures for 2005 & 2006)

 

0.01% affected dogs

0.1% affected dogs

1% affected dogs

10% affected dogs

etc

 

Mark

[Eileen Stein]

As I said earlier, I don't feel I know enough about the laws and politics of most countries other than my own to form judgments about them, and that definitely includes Australia. I was able to tell from reading the original link that you posted, Debbie, that contrary to what you wrote, it did not require all dogs bred to have current screening for any known inherited disease in the breed. I don't feel I can tell from reading the Victoria Code of Practice, which you have now linked to, what legal requirements it imposes. It is not clear from a quick reading what is required and what is merely recommended. Since you say few if any working breeders in Victoria screen for CEA or CL and that most do not know about the law, that suggests that such screening is not required of them, but I cannot say conclusively that this is so.

 

I can speak with some confidence about my own country, however. For a start, you initially said, "It is my understanding that any laws brought in to combat issues of inherited disease in dog breeding, would have to apply to all breeders and all dogs being bred. The government can not single out just kennel club breeders." That is certainly not true in the US. Dog legislation routinely contains exceptions for certain classes of dogs, notably including working dogs. When society thinks about dogs as a whole, they think of pets; working dogs are a different subset, and it's only to be expected that different considerations would apply to their breeding.

 

Secondly, you say that working breeders "had no say in the [Victoria] law." That would not be the case in the US. If you followed the postings here about the proposed California spay/neuter law AB1634, you will have seen how all sides had input into the lawmaking, and aggressively advocated for their positions before the bill was ultimately defeated.

 

Thirdly, you indicated that when a problem is committed by parliament to a study group, it would be very unusual for parliament not to implement the recommendations returned by the study group. That is not the case in the US. In fact, one of the most common ways of dealing with an issue that the legislature does not want to confront, ever, is to commit it to a commission for study. The recommendations of the commission may or may not be implemented, and most likely won't be if there is significant public opposition to them.

 

Finally, while overly restrictive dog legislation has been enacted in some localities in the US, I simply cannot bring myself to fear that our federal government would enact legislation governing the length/height ratio of dogs, or regulating breeding in any way except to prohibit the grossest forms of cruelty. Lots of people here advocate that people seeking pets look for a nice mixed breed at the pound. I do that myself. After viewing "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" more people may be likely to follow that course. But it's a very long step from that to the kind of government regulation you are claiming will inevitably come here.

[Debbie]

Mark, I am very well aware of CEA CL TNS and all of the testing implications. I do not need a lesson on that. What I am trying express is the ideas being promoted in Pedigree Dogs Exposed, by the Unis and by the animal welfare groups, that there is a dire need for government legislation to dictate to breeders on health testing, sire dam selection and breeder liability, in my opinion stinks. These ideas are becoming a reality here in Australia and the UK and already exist in much of Europe. I do not think it is wonderful, I do not support government dog breeding laws and these laws will affect all dogs not just the show dog.

 

As you point out, I do not need to test my ISDS border collies for CL, but I have to in Australia if I live in Victoria because the law says so. (BTW I tried to prove that ISDS ABCA dogs did not get CL but was unable to do that. I would be grateful for any professional opinion that states this, that can be submitted to the governments involved to get exemptions for ISDS and ABCA dogs on CL testing).

Soon I may have to choose my parents using EVB's. Now here I will need a lessons. Want to show me how to lower a COI below 0.24% for the next litter and still keep the litter registered in ABCA? Or perhaps I should just go with the Uni's idea that pure bred working dogs are no better than purebred show dogs, forget ABCA registration and even forget the idea of a border collie, just have a working sheepdog mutts? Yes some lessons on these concepts is in need.

I really don't like this stuff. And all because of what some show breeders might get up to? Call me selfish and uncaring.

 

I am done trying to explain why this is so dangerous to working dogs. Massive dog legislation, jail, fines, law suits, COI controlled breeding, EVB selection processes, mandatory health testing, cross bred preferred breeding programs, mandatory insurance for inherited disease, independent commission to set breeding guidelines. To me it is crazy. I just want an ISDS ABCA border collie like I have have had for the last 20 years. Made the same way it has always been made for the last 100 years.

 

Eileen,

The law is the law in Victoria. Read the law it is there on the web page and the testing criteria is also there. I am not making this up, show me where it says it does not apply? The law in my state NSW is much bigger and more nebulous, is that good or bad? I think that is bad, at least in Victoria they name the diseases and tell you exactly what you have to do. There have been no legal actions yet in either Vic or NSW. But the law is still the law and all must obey it.

 

Working breeders in Victoria or else where in Australia do not usually health test because it is not part of the culture. They do not know about the laws because they pay no attention to what is happening. There is no border collie club like the ABCA functions to educate their members. Kelpie council tries to stay up to date, but it is not easy. Remember that Australia is a republic, almost nothing happens on a national level, which means the laws are different in each state and dog clubs are different in each state. Makes it very hard to organize. Most border collies are not registered anyway and most breeders do not communicate with other breeders or clubs. They are people like my neighbors, who have been breeding working dogs for generations. It is just different here. For example, I only found out a few days ago, that it is now only legal for dogs to ride inside cars, inside secured crates or with a secured crash harness and they can not ride in front seats at all. I had no idea and this law had been in effect for several months and I try to stay up to date.

 

I understand that you feel confident that you can promote and impose breeding laws on only kennel club breeders and that you will not be required to meet those same laws yourself in ABCA. Time will tell if that will happen. But in the UK and Australia the language in the existing laws and the laws currently being suggested is clear, it applies to all dogs and all breeders. Read the UK Parliament Inquiry statement from just a few days ago ( a direct result of PDE), he did not say only KC breeders and KC dogs, he said all breeders of all dogs, purebred and mix bred.

 

It is true that in the US you have more control. But be clear that US support of dog breeding legislation and animal rights movements does have dramatic affects in other countries.

Please read the Uni 10 point plan and then in your mind apply it as a law to working border collies or even to yourself and the ABCA. This is real and it is being discussed in parliaments, and could become reality in Australia and the UK in the near future. Much of the ground work has already been set up. In Australia the data banks are in place at the Uni's for the COI's, the vets in NSW are now wired into the AVA to the Uni for the EBV health data intake information to begin, as I understand it, each vet visit will be data banked by the dogs microchip number. All dogs now must be microchiped and this number is recorded on their registration with the government. This is not pretend, there has been a lot of efforts and work on this for many years. It is a well thought out plan and a totally different way of breeding dogs. Ask yourself if you would impose this 10 point plan onto ABCA breeders.

http://www.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/research/dis..._point_plan.pdf

[Mark Billadeau]

I would be grateful for any professional opinion that states this, that can be submitted to the governments involved to get exemptions for ISDS and ABCA dogs on CL testing

Unfortunately it is very difficult, scientifically, to prove that these mutations do not exist or are at a very low level in our (ABCA/ISDS) gene pools without a massive testing program. I am unaware of a centralized veterinary clinical database that would list the number of diagnoses of CL and TNS in our gene pool. We rarely hear of dogs being affected by these diseases. Both of these diseases would be impacted by COI of a gene pool and perhaps you can approach the problem this way. Currently I don't have a feel for the level of COI and carrier rates where CL and TNS would lead to x level of affected dogs. COI is a key area where working dogs can differ from show bred dogs and this WILL impact the health of the gene pools.

 

Mark

[mum24dog]

Thirdly, you indicated that when a problem is committed by parliament to a study group, it would be very unusual for parliament not to implement the recommendations returned by the study group. That is not the case in the US. In fact, one of the most common ways of dealing with an issue that the legislature does not want to confront, ever, is to commit it to a commission for study. The recommendations of the commission may or may not be implemented, and most likely

won't be if there is significant public opposition to them.

 

Exactly the same here in the UK.

It's a desire on the part of the politicians to be perceived as "doing something" without actually doing a thing.

I would say that talk is cheap but these sort of enquiries often waste huge amounts of our money.

 

Pam

[kelpiegirl]

Debbie

I see clearly where you are coming from. I don't believe this is henny penny-ism, and it is fair warning to all dog breeders/enthusiasts. I have several friends in NSW, and I can tell you that I don't know if they even know all these rules (such as car riding, etc). My question is how on earth govt's and economies have the money, and time (equals money) to spend on all of this pie in the sky legislation....

 

Mark, I am very well aware of CEA CL TNS and all of the testing implications. I do not need a lesson on that. What I am trying express is the ideas being promoted in Pedigree Dogs Exposed, by the Unis and by the animal welfare groups, that there is a dire need for government legislation to dictate to breeders on health testing, sire dam selection and breeder liability, in my opinion stinks. These ideas are becoming a reality here in Australia and the UK and already exist in much of Europe. I do not think it is wonderful, I do not support government dog breeding laws and these laws will affect all dogs not just the show dog.

 

As you point out, I do not need to test my ISDS border collies for CL, but I have to in Australia if I live in Victoria because the law says so. (BTW I tried to prove that ISDS ABCA dogs did not get CL but was unable to do that. I would be grateful for any professional opinion that states this, that can be submitted to the governments involved to get exemptions for ISDS and ABCA dogs on CL testing).

Soon I may have to choose my parents using EVB's. Now here I will need a lessons. Want to show me how to lower a COI below 0.24% for the next litter and still keep the litter registered in ABCA? Or perhaps I should just go with the Uni's idea that pure bred working dogs are no better than purebred show dogs, forget ABCA registration and even forget the idea of a border collie, just have a working sheepdog mutts? Yes some lessons on these concepts is in need.

I really don't like this stuff. And all because of what some show breeders might get up to? Call me selfish and uncaring.

 

I am done trying to explain why this is so dangerous to working dogs. Massive dog legislation, jail, fines, law suits, COI controlled breeding, EVB selection processes, mandatory health testing, cross bred preferred breeding programs, mandatory insurance for inherited disease, independent commission to set breeding guidelines. To me it is crazy. I just want an ISDS ABCA border collie like I have have had for the last 20 years. Made the same way it has always been made for the last 100 years.

 

Eileen,

The law is the law in Victoria. Read the law it is there on the web page and the testing criteria is also there. I am not making this up, show me where it says it does not apply? The law in my state NSW is much bigger and more nebulous, is that good or bad? I think that is bad, at least in Victoria they name the diseases and tell you exactly what you have to do. There have been no legal actions yet in either Vic or NSW. But the law is still the law and all must obey it.

 

Working breeders in Victoria or else where in Australia do not usually health test because it is not part of the culture. They do not know about the laws because they pay no attention to what is happening. There is no border collie club like the ABCA functions to educate their members. Kelpie council tries to stay up to date, but it is not easy. Remember that Australia is a republic, almost nothing happens on a national level, which means the laws are different in each state and dog clubs are different in each state. Makes it very hard to organize. Most border collies are not registered anyway and most breeders do not communicate with other breeders or clubs. They are people like my neighbors, who have been breeding working dogs for generations. It is just different here. For example, I only found out a few days ago, that it is now only legal for dogs to ride inside cars, inside secured crates or with a secured crash harness and they can not ride in front seats at all. I had no idea and this law had been in effect for several months and I try to stay up to date.

 

I understand that you feel confident that you can promote and impose breeding laws on only kennel club breeders and that you will not be required to meet those same laws yourself in ABCA. Time will tell if that will happen. But in the UK and Australia the language in the existing laws and the laws currently being suggested is clear, it applies to all dogs and all breeders. Read the UK Parliament Inquiry statement from just a few days ago ( a direct result of PDE), he did not say only KC breeders and KC dogs, he said all breeders of all dogs, purebred and mix bred.

 

It is true that in the US you have more control. But be clear that US support of dog breeding legislation and animal rights movements does have dramatic affects in other countries.

Please read the Uni 10 point plan and then in your mind apply it as a law to working border collies or even to yourself and the ABCA. This is real and it is being discussed in parliaments, and could become reality in Australia and the UK in the near future. Much of the ground work has already been set up. In Australia the data banks are in place at the Uni's for the COI's, the vets in NSW are now wired into the AVA to the Uni for the EBV health data intake information to begin, as I understand it, each vet visit will be data banked by the dogs microchip number. All dogs now must be microchiped and this number is recorded on their registration with the government. This is not pretend, there has been a lot of efforts and work on this for many years. It is a well thought out plan and a totally different way of breeding dogs. Ask yourself if you would impose this 10 point plan onto ABCA breeders.

http://www.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/research/dis..._point_plan.pdf

[mum24dog]

I would just like to add that any talk of legislation being introduced "in the UK" is misleading.

Animal welfare is a power devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.

Whilst the government in London reserves the power to legislate in devolved matters it would not normally do so without the consent of the constituent legislatures.

We have a situation where the law on docking is different in Scotland - there it is banned completely.

In England, for example, there is an exemption for certain classes of working dog.

Shock collars - Wales is very near a ban, England dragging its feet and Scotland somewhere in the middle in the banning process.

As for potential breeding legislation -

Wales would have a bit of a problem as the Assembly has given grants to farmers to diversify into puppy farming.

Northern Ireland doesn't have a great record on animal welfare.

I'm not sure which way the Scots would go but they certainly wouldn't just roll over and do as London tells them.

England will probably just go on talking about it as long as possible.

 

Pam

[kelpiegirl]

Sounds even more like a GIANT waste of money. The laws cannot be enforced, and the people are paying legislators to waste time. I would think the world economy would hit home to our countries, and maybe, just maybe they ought to concentrate on things like- jobs, and deficits...

 

I would just like to add that any talk of legislation being introduced "in the UK" is misleading.

Animal welfare is a power devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.

Whilst the government in London reserves the power to legislate in devolved matters it would not normally do so without the consent of the constituent legislatures.

We have a situation where the law on docking is different in Scotland - there it is banned completely.

In England, for example, there is an exemption for certain classes of working dog.

Shock collars - Wales is very near a ban, England dragging its feet and Scotland somewhere in the middle in the banning process.

As for potential breeding legislation -

Wales would have a bit of a problem as the Assembly has given grants to farmers to diversify into puppy farming.

Northern Ireland doesn't have a great record on animal welfare.

I'm not sure which way the Scots would go but they certainly wouldn't just roll over and do as London tells them.

England will probably just go on talking about it as long as possible.

 

Pam

[juliepoudrier]

Sounds even more like a GIANT waste of money. The laws cannot be enforced, and the people are paying legislators to waste time. I would think the world economy would hit home to our countries, and maybe, just maybe they ought to concentrate on things like- jobs, and deficits...

Well sure, but as long as we have attitudes as noted by Eileen and Pam (appear to be doing something, but really do nothing), special interests controlling legislation, and so on, you can bet that money will continue to be wasted.

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

Very sad, stupid and sad. I wonder where we will be in 50 years? Not that I will be around, but it is a scary thought.

 

Well sure, but as long as we have attitudes as noted by Eileen and Pam (appear to be doing something, but really do nothing), special interests controlling legislation, and so on, you can bet that money will continue to be wasted.

 

J.

[mum24dog]

Sounds even more like a GIANT waste of money. The laws cannot be enforced, and the people are paying legislators to waste time. I would think the world economy would hit home to our countries, and maybe, just maybe they ought to concentrate on things like- jobs, and deficits...

 

Exactly.

Who's going to police the rancher in the wilds of Wyoming or the stockman in the outback?

Population size comes into it too - Finland has around 5m people - the USA over 300m. Much easier to control a small population, although geography also comes into it.

Sweden around 12m. Australia 21m.

OK France has 62m+ but whether it would work there depends on the culture's starting point. You don't get as many mutts there as we do in the UK, I'm told, and dogs owners are already inclined towards the pedigree end of the market with its bureaucracy. It may not be a huge step for many of them.

France is a country of opposites as far as observance of the law is concerned. On the one hand they do love their little rules and regulations and mountains of paperwork (I've lived there in my pre dog days) - on the other they're perfectly capable of blatantly breaking laws that don't suit them. Where breeding legislation would fall I don't know.

 

Rather than wielding a big legislative stick, the battle should rather be for hearts and minds. In the UK our KC must play a part, whatever its failures in the past. It has the power to control breed club activities if it would only use it. No health tests - no registration. No registration - no showing. No showing - no inflated stud fees and puppy prices. That's the legitimate pedigree side sorted.

 

Additional legislation on puppy farming and enforcement of the laws we have should improve that end.

 

No puppies to be sold at retail outlets. Strict control of imports cutting off the Irish puppy farm supply, with exceptions for approved rescues.

 

That wouldn't be 100% coverage of all the problems but enough to make a significant difference.

 

Pam

[mum24dog]

Here's an interesting bit about the Times article mentioned above -

 

Neither the KC nor Dogs Trust has seen the report; the article’s contents have not been confirmed to DOG WORLD and was described by one source as ‘entirely speculative’.The inquiry’s secretary, Heather Peck, said: “The Times’ reporter did have a discussion with Professor Bateson but he didn’t tell her any of the report’s conclusions and recommendations because no one is being told until January 14. She may have drawn inferences.”

 

Pam

[Debbie]

Rather than wielding a big legislative stick, the battle should rather be for hearts and minds. In the UK our KC must play a part, whatever its failures in the past. It has the power to control breed club activities if it would only use it. No health tests - no registration. No registration - no showing. No showing - no inflated stud fees and puppy prices. That's the legitimate pedigree side sorted.

 

Additional legislation on puppy farming and enforcement of the laws we have should improve that end.

 

No puppies to be sold at retail outlets. Strict control of imports cutting off the Irish puppy farm supply, with exceptions for approved rescues.

 

That wouldn't be 100% coverage of all the problems but enough to make a significant difference.

 

Pam

 

I hear this often, the KC should mandate health testing. Should ISDS and ABCA also have to mandate health testing?

Is KC mandated health testing a solution to a welfare issue as seen on pedigree dogs exposed? I have also seen some ISDS ABCA border collies with the very same disease welfare issues as seen on pedigree dogs exposed. So just trying to understand, why is KC mandated health tested is a welfare issue and does the same apply to ISDS litters? I am guessing it does, perhaps you can expand on this.

 

Controlling imports and exports is another animal welfare issue. Controlling dog movements is also a powerful tool in controlling dog breeders and dog ownership. This is also being discussed here in Australia by the welfare folks. They want to ban all exports of dogs and cats from Australia. It is felt that it is inhumane to export a dog or cat. They also say that dogs are exported as part of puppy milling and for the dog meat trade. However the cost of airfare out of Australia per dog is huge and the AQIS paper work extensive, so I highly question this rhetoric. (Dogs can only leave Australia by air, as per normal air flights for dogs around the world)

ISDS breeders export a good number of dogs every year. This is good for ISDS breeders, good for the world as we can access new bloodlines, and I think it is good for the future of ISDS dogs. Ireland is included is the export many fine ISDS sheepdogs.

You think that banning dog exports from Ireland is an animal welfare issue and a good thing. You would like to see export and import of dogs controlled by governments based on the protection of dogs from health welfare issues as seen on Pedigree Dogs Exposed? This is just plain scary if you ask me.

[Eileen Stein]

Eileen,

The law is the law in Victoria. Read the law it is there on the web page and the testing criteria is also there. I am not making this up, show me where it says it does not apply?

 

Okay, I'll try.

 

The publication you cited to is not a law. It is a "Code of Practice for the Responsible Breeding of Animals with Heritable Defects," a publication issued to carry out the mandate of an actual law -- the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 -- which "has the purpose of protecting animals, encouraging the considerate treatment of animals and improving the level of community awareness about the prevention of cruelty to animals." The second and third of these purposes are not legal mandates -- legal mandates do not "encourage" conduct, they require conduct. Legal mandates do not "improve levels of community awareness," they tell people what they must do to avoid legal sanctions.

 

From what I can tell, this publication does not in and of itself set forth any legal requirements. It refers to two legal requirements of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act -- not intentionally or recklessly breeding an animal with a hereditary defect, and not letting an animal suffer from a heritable disease (presumably requiring euthanasia in such cases; see Sec. 4: "Affected progeny must be assessed and humanely destroyed if they suffer"). What this publication does do is recommend behavior which, if followed, will insulate anyone from a charge under the Act. With very few exceptions, it does not say "If you don't do what we set forth here, you are breaking the law"; instead, it says "If you do what we set forth here, you will have a defense to any charge that you are breaking the law." Legally, those two statements are very different. For example, there are other ways you could defend yourself from a charge that you were recklessly breeding a dog with NCL than by following these guidelines. If the dogs you breed do not have NCL, and their offspring do not have NCL, you cannot be charged, regardless of whether you did advance testing or not. Even if your breeding does produce NCL, you could defend yourself from a charge of recklessness by expert testimony and/or statistics showing that NCL could not reasonably be expected to result from breeding of dogs of these lines. The Code itself says that reckless conduct (i.e., that which is forbidden under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) "is highly unreasonable conduct that is an extreme departure from ordinary care outlined in this Code," not just any violation of the Code. BTW, I can find in this Code's statement of the "standard of care" no suggestion that you must test for a disease where the animal in question is not already known to carry the disease, or does not have parents or offspring who are already known to carry the disease.

 

The law in my state NSW is much bigger and more nebulous, is that good or bad? I think that is bad, at least in Victoria they name the diseases and tell you exactly what you have to do. There have been no legal actions yet in either Vic or NSW. But the law is still the law and all must obey it.

 

If by "the law in my state NSW" you mean the material you cited at http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pd...of-practice.pdf as

"requiring all dogs bred to have current screening for any known inherited disease in the breed," I have already pointed out that there is no such legal requirement in that material. I am not surprised to hear that there have been no prosecutions in Vic or NSW; it confirms my view that you are overstating what the law in both those states requires.

 

Working breeders in Victoria or else where in Australia do not usually health test because it is not part of the culture. They do not know about the laws because they pay no attention to what is happening. There is no border collie club like the ABCA functions to educate their members. Kelpie council tries to stay up to date, but it is not easy. Remember that Australia is a republic, almost nothing happens on a national level, which means the laws are different in each state and dog clubs are different in each state. Makes it very hard to organize. Most border collies are not registered anyway and most breeders do not communicate with other breeders or clubs. They are people like my neighbors, who have been breeding working dogs for generations. It is just different here.

 

Well, the US is a republic too, and dog legislation is far more often on the state and local level than the federal level. The proposed California state law AB1634, which I mentioned earlier, is a good example. Concerned dog people from all around the US weighed in on that bill, although I'm sure the lobbying of California residents had more effect on their legislators than the letters and protests from outsiders. But I do think that in any democratic republic it is the responsibility of citizens to inform themselves about the laws that are being proposed and to make their views and arguments known to their legislative representatives. That is true with any legislation, not just dog legislation. In general, the people who care the most are the people who are going to go to the trouble of expressing their views, and whose views are going to be heard and implemented.

 

I understand that you feel confident that you can promote and impose breeding laws on only kennel club breeders and that you will not be required to meet those same laws yourself in ABCA. Time will tell if that will happen. But in the UK and Australia the language in the existing laws and the laws currently being suggested is clear, it applies to all dogs and all breeders. Read the UK Parliament Inquiry statement from just a few days ago ( a direct result of PDE), he did not say only KC breeders and KC dogs, he said all breeders of all dogs, purebred and mix bred.

 

Apparently the language in the existing laws and the laws currently being suggested is not that clear -- or at least you and I apparently disagree about its meaning. I cannot read the UK report you refer to, because it has not been published. A newspaper article purporting to say what the report is going to propose is not good authority, even if it addressed the question of whether working dogs would be exempt, which it does not. And it will only be a proposal, subject to the usual democratic process before it could be enacted into law.

 

I am not picking on you, Deb. It's the same in this country. In any lobbying effort I have been involved in where people have strong feelings on a subject, the extreme proponents of legislation have overstated the extent of the existing problem and understated the effectiveness of any remedies short of the new legislation, and the extreme opponents of legislation have understated the extent of the problem and overstated the extent and burden of the government regulation that the new legislation would entail. Both sides have a tendency to say the sky is falling, and many people read what they say and believe it. It is just human nature, and it's inevitable with an issue like animal welfare, where emotions run so high. I cannot say as you do that the government should stay out of dog breeding, when I have seen the horrendous, wholesale suffering that results when dog breeders are left totally unregulated. Would you say that government should stay out of dogfighting? Not me. OTOH, I don't want to see government making stupid laws that impose misguided burdens on dog breeders out of all proportion to the good that can be achieved by doing so. As a result, I don't condemn all animal welfare legislation, nor do I support all animal welfare legislation. I advocate for the laws I think are necessary and will be effective, those that best balance costs/risks and benefits, and are strictly tailored to be the least restrictive necessary to get the job done. I will make the best case I possibly can for these laws, and oppose the other kind. I think something like "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" presents important information that should be widely known and taken into account, but I think it's our responsibility as dog breeders to do our best to make sure all important considerations are given equal weight by lawmakers and by the public. I tend to think that the particular evils shown in PDE will require little if any legislation to correct -- that the black eye this publicity has given to the KC and its breed clubs will pressure them to take their own remedial action. I think the opposite is true of the worst of the puppy mills, whose evils cannot be corrected without legislation.

 

Please read the Uni 10 point plan and then in your mind apply it as a law to working border collies or even to yourself and the ABCA. This is real and it is being discussed in parliaments, and could become reality in Australia and the UK in the near future. Much of the ground work has already been set up. In Australia the data banks are in place at the Uni's for the COI's, the vets in NSW are now wired into the AVA to the Uni for the EBV health data intake information to begin, as I understand it, each vet visit will be data banked by the dogs microchip number. All dogs now must be microchiped and this number is recorded on their registration with the government. This is not pretend, there has been a lot of efforts and work on this for many years. It is a well thought out plan and a totally different way of breeding dogs. Ask yourself if you would impose this 10 point plan onto ABCA breeders. http://www.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/research/dis..._point_plan.pdf

 

I've read it, and in general I like it. But again, as I read it, it's not meant to be a law. It's a plan for disseminating important, up-to-date thinking and information about hereditary diseases, population genetics, and the like, and encouraging voluntary consideration, agreement and actions in these areas. It doesn't scare me in the least. I serve on the Health & Genetics Committee of the ABCA, and these are issues we are thinking about all the time, and trying to keep current on, and trying to bring to the attention of our breeders, for the good of our dogs.

 

I just want an ISDS ABCA border collie like I have have had for the last 20 years. Made the same way it has always been made for the last 100 years.

 

Are you familiar with the ISDS regulations on eye testing?

Made long before "Pedigree Dogs Exposed." And the ophthalmic exam has been required for probably 20 years before the DNA test for CEA came along.