naitche

Senior Members
  • Content count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About naitche

  • Rank
    Meson
  1. No one? It appears to work and give a degree of predictability to directions and oppositions of cultural identities. According to this, the end result for the K.Cs would be take Dogs out their environment. A process that gains momentum as conditions change to better support that result. Loss of purpose and value. The single space occupied by Dog Breeders has been tied into opposing forces ,with equal and opposite reactions. The constitution acts as the genetic code for the organisation, though its looking like a written constitution is not required for a culture to close ranks against its environment. Unwritten agreement will do. The values provided the environment through other sources are discredited. The environment held to account for the identities condition. Reduction of environment. With no responsibility accepted for the environments condition, or the value offered to increase it.
  2. An identified subject is a space. That space is the environment for all it contains. The space is unresponsive. It has no expectation. It can only accept or reject other identified spaces or environments based on the conditions of its own. Environmental conditions and expectation results from the conditions supported within the space, by its collective content. Not the space itself. The laws of physics apply to the spaces identified- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So if we identify Dog breeders, The space they are given will accept or reject dog breeders ( and their product) according to value brought to the spaces they are able to utillize. The diversity of conditions (or identified spaces) they are able to recognise value in, and respond to. There must be purpose and value offered. The giving of space may be supported, depending on the cost of doing so. Ability to respond, or responsibility, are key to acquiring space, and greater diversity gives greater response ability. Out right rejection of a space or identity is not response, but an inability to respond, or recognise value potential . A subjective space may not offer immediate value based on conflicting conditions or expectations. But those are altered over time. Ability to respond can direct that evolution of conditions. Recognition of potential at an individual level opens small spaces that can increase as value is demonstrated. Marketing Psychology has shown that demonstration of value is essential to opening of and viability /increase market shares. demonstration can teach value of acceptance of other spaces, but can also teach cost of acceptance. The K.Cs recognise only the value of Pedigree Standards. Standard environments. They do not support Dogs in the diverse community. They support conditions and limitations. They measure the value of their environmental space in opposition to alternative conditions. And become a force against those. They are tied together in opposition by measuring the value of the space they are given, against the conditions of alternative spaces. Not the areas they can offer and demonstrate value to. Measuring the value of a space against the conditions of your own is to measure the space available according to fixed conditions. It disregards an ability to respond to any other and fixes your own identified condition in time and space. Evolution complete and entropy the end result. It may be, IF there such a thing as free will, the choice to use our inherent response-ability individually may be its only manifestation.
  3. The idea that organisations are living systems, depending on their wider environment to meet their needs. That they affect and should respond as such to thrive or maintain viability. To integrate. An idea expanded and elaborated on by Hendrik Gommer in A Biological Theory of Law, Natural Law Revisited. https://www.utrechtlawreview.org/articles/abstract/10.18352/ulr.166/ Embodied in the ideas for the writing of a successful successful constitution. The mission statement sets out what is the purpose / intent of the organisation. Rules and regulations set out how that is to be accomplished. Positive rules, (ie: We will) give direction. Negative statements and rules ( ie: we will not) should be avoided. They can only block direction, most often in unforseen ways . Statements, rules and regulations should concern only what occurs within the space of the organisation, and negatives avoided if mention must be made because that sets up what is called a double negative. What lies beyond the scope of the organisation is Its environment. So a negative statement, rule or regulation blocks intent in unpredictable ways, and affects integration with the environment, setting up an opositional force. This idea when applied to the K.Cs works. It forms links between social science, biology, law, language, evolutionary science, molecular science physics and more. Hendrik Gommer applies his theory to Law, and constitutions. Its applied to organisations. It seems from my observation they can be applied to any cultural identity. Governing interactions, integration and viability.
  4. 45 years now since Dalmations had the pointer outcross to solve the uric acid problem, and their country of origin breed club has just banned from its registry those dogs resulting. Not pure. Not recognised. Disease is more acceptable because with out it, its not a Dalmation. Bulgaria may follow. Can any one tell me if the organisation as organism hypothesis has been generally accepted or rejected by science? The rules for a successful constitution I mentioned in an earlier post? Or how to name it so I know where to look? My observations certainly back it up. It appears to me physics do as well. If so the effects are insidious and would be very relevant to world politics and culture today.
  5. Yes, I do think thats a good idea. We have the same mandatory chipping here too, to be done before 8 weeks of age or before sale. I.C.B does extensive genetic testing, including diversity. Maybe that could be tied in too, with cheaper council registration for those taking part to reward responsibility instead of punishing every one equally. I've been trying to convince the K.Cs they need to recognise cross breeds. That with out doing that, we are all locked in to a process of endless elimination and the only other solution is a value and purpose based registry specifically to bring those back to Dog breeding, Since those are lost with out environmental recognition. They can't understand that recognition is not the same thing as acceptance into the pedigrees, or why they should recognise cross breeds. My answer was; You wouldn't even need to ask that question if the K.Cs hadn't stated how they should be treated in the 1st place. The rules and regulations for registration and inclusion in the registry were already clearly set out, and still would be. That statement was unneeded and added nothing. It took away a lot. But it seems very few get it no matter how often its explained, we go in circles.
  6. What would you have in mind? We have had some pretty good legislation here in the past aimed at welfare, cruelty prevention etc. it didn't, of course, stop cruelty or welfare breeches from happening. Many of those were very high profile cases and generated a lot of outrage. So we have ever more being introduced. Its gone beyond asking people to meet the needs of dogs, to specifying exactly how that must be done. Its often not in the best interests of the dogs. Unless you agree that one standard fits all. Its driving Dog breeding into a purely commercial enterprise because the sheer amount of red tape for approval, inspections, licencing and infrastructure. I've thought the Institute of Canine Biology and my idea of a purpose and value based registry good mutual support. A finance source for the Institute, science for the registry
  7. I don't think its just pedigrees that many see as a status symbol, or that all pedigree owners do. It just seems to be getting more common these days. And there are Pedigree breeders who put everything they can into breeding the best all 'round dogs they can, health test for every genetic disorder there is a test for, doing all within their abilities to do it 'right'. But there are new disorders coming in all the time. A new one causing paralysis in Rottweilers just discovered in Australia. The institute of canine biology says if it keeps up at its current rate, 100% of dobermans will have a heart condition in 20 years. Testing is often not mandatory and isn't enough even if it were. Because all that can do is reduce the potential gene pool further. For those who see cross breeds as a solution, they are at risk too more than ever because these genetic defects are now so common that two very different breeds will often carry the same recessive genes for a disorder. Bad hips and elbows are almost universal to larger breeds and locking patellas in the smaller ones. In Australia at least, there are very few mutts that haven't a pure breed as recent as a grand parent. Entire Dogs are discouraged through higher registration costs - unless you are a registered breeder.
  8. This is not meant to be Pedigree bashing thread. There are undeniable benefits to Pedigrees. Better understanding the genetic history, able to match traits with expectations and personal environment are just two reasons the system has has been supported as long as it has. They are good reasons. Welfare of domestic dogs could benefit enormously if Back yard breeders were more aware of those considerations. That should have been a side effect of the K.Cs establishment. A positive influence on their environment. The opposite has been true. I am convinced after years now of examining the problems and culture that the reason for that is the K.Cs do not recognise the environment beyond their own identity. Instead of promoting practices that deliver maximum value in dog breeding, those practices are suppressed . A Dog Breeder, to the K.C identity ( not member, they are individual ) is a K.C member. Biologicaly speaking, the perspective of the K.C Identity is fixed to that idea. Because a dog with out a pedigree is not recognised. In defining the space of a Pedigree breeder against what lies beyond that space, its no longer an environment created to better support dog breeders goals and purpose. Its an Identity in its own right, with a fixed perspective. Possibilities are limited. Its self evolution is finished. Breeders themselves have described the dedication to the pedigree and its standards as a religion. Their faith in the Pedigree . Persons on the Pedigree forums requesting help with a pedigree breeding related problem are advised or directed to help. Those with unregistered dogs are invariably derided for their irresponsibility, being in a situation where they need help. For not understanding the consequences and pit falls of breeding. For breeding dogs whos history is unknown. Their ability to respond to the species is denied and discredited. Demonstrations of successful breeding practice beyond the pedigree system are not permitted to stand. They will be discredited. Demonstrations of poor practice on the other hand, are used to justify Legislation targeting the environments where those practices have been shown to occur. And exemptions sought at the same time for the K.Cs. Its a single species. The practices used to bring best value to humanity from that species are not confined to a pedigree environment. The Pedigrees are closed. There are protocols in place to to allow out crosses, and this has been done for example in Boxers, to introduce the bob tail gene, and in Dalmations to overcome a uric acid problem. Only using other pedigree dogs, but it has happened. When it does, many breeders will avoid those new lines as not 'true' to their breed, or even reject that breed completely. Its a long, slow process with approval needing sanction every step of the way. The closed pedigrees are are a problem, but the closed culture on top of that makes it a far bigger one. The only value to dogs recognised must be in the Pedigree. In the 'standard' condition of the dog. Its breed standard.
  9. Not really. Domestic Dogs.... I think the Pure breed/Pedigree system is and has been affecting our attitudes and expectations for Domestic dogs. I think it has lead human communities to become less responsible in their breeding practices and understanding of the species. To view them more as commodities and status symbols. To dumb them down so they are less responding to their human environment and more reacting to stimulus according to fixed traits.
  10. I would love to see a new register started based on purpose, free movement between groupings based on suitability to purpose, and even multiple category listing. A mission statement to promote value, responsibility and purpose. I think it would serve to better educate people about their choices, have a huge effect on welfare issues by promoting the idea that domestic dogs are a personal responsibility, Not an organisational one. I think that could reinforce Registered or not, there is a responsibility to promote value and purpose in breeding practices. At the moment, the registries don't do that. instead its implied that a Pure Breed Pedigree Register inherently supplies those benefits ( As one breeder told me ) It doesn't. A pedigree register is just a set of environmental conditions with no value of itself. It depends on the value brought to it. As it stands now, no value can be brought that isn't there to begin. Your breed has some advantages at this stage. Its a relatively recently recognised breed. There is still a very large 'control' population of Land race specimens, very likely a much larger gene pool with no historical 'bottle necks'. The Russians have their own unique cultural attitude to dogs that has been slower to embrace the Pure breed/Pedigree culture. Most Western cultures were pretty much at the same place regarding dogs about 75 years ago. I.M.O much healthier. The same does not apply for a majority of recognised breeds.
  11. Or, they could breed with a clear purpose in mind, and select for that purpose based on what is proven in their own environment to deliver maximum value to that purpose. As open working dog registries do. Regardless of a mythical set of 'standard' conditions that may or may not have any bearing on your own.
  12. Itoero, No, not the system. The culture. Sled dogs are bred for a purpose other than the 'standard' condition . I'm not familiar with the registry governing sled dogs, if there is one. But I'm pretty sure that if it is an open registry it will will not be recognised by the F.C.I that the majority of pure breed registries now come under, or that it will be the F.C.I or any affiliated registry running the sled dog trials or competitions. We have open registries here too for working dogs. mostly shepherd types. They are not recognised by 'Pure' breeders. Breeders of dogs such as working Basset hounds are discredited. Because their Dogs do not have an unbroken lineage pedigree proving it is the breed claimed, and differ in type. Do not conform to the standard as its recognised in the show ring today. Never mind that they are bred as Basset Hounds, from Basset Hounds, for the purpose of a Basset Hound and do it successfully. "Thats not a Basset" Open registry working breeds breeds may have a show line version that is recognised by Pure breed registries, but kept distinct and apart from its working counter part. Show lines have recognition, but not once a working line is introduced from an open registry. Dogs bred for any purpose other than the standard as its recognised in the show ring diverge. A pure breed working line version may still gain recognition in ring sports or trials under the F.C.I. Few breeds can gain recognition for value in both disciplines. Given enough time, I can almost guarantee no breed will. Breeders have tried to achieve success in both ring sports and show ring. Their success is almost nil and generally results in value lost to working line. No longer fit for purpose.
  13. The biggest barrier to improvement in the K.Cs is the culture. To understand that, it makes sense to look at the constitution and mission statements. While I was exploring that angle, I looked for guides to the writing of a successful constitution and found a text where it was advised that negative rules or statements are avoided. The reasoning being that positive rulings/statements provide direction. Negative gives no direction , only blocks it, most often in unforeseen ways. It was also advised that any ruling or statement should be to define the working of the organisation, so relate to those only. Any reference in the negative to what lies beyond the workings of the organisation should also be avoided. Reason being that what is beyond the organisation is its environment. So a negative ruling is a ruling against the environment. I haven't been able to find that document lately, so can't refer back to it to be exact. In essence though, it said that in stating non pedigree Dogs are not recognised, the organisation would not recognise its environment. The result would be to take dogs out of their environment. The Organisation as Organism idea. I figured the K.Cs would be a very good test of that hypothesis since they Have been going for over 150 years, so multi generational. A generation as a breeder is shorter than a human one.( averages out at about 7-10 years, high rate of attrition) The dogs themselves and their position in their environment give an additional, observable evolutionary reference. Evolutionary changes should be easier to observe and note. And the effects able to be measured. So is that what is happening? I am sure it is. Though I think its more apt to describe the organisation as part of an organism, That identifies as something separate. Its definition of self excludes the organism. What its founded on. So actively undermines its own foundations. I know I'm not good at language to get this across well, but it looks to me like the K.Cs are driving cultural change and expectation to exclude dogs.They lose purpose and value to the human community and the human community looses its ability to respond to dogs- looses its response-ability to dogs. Legislation to target irresponsible practices becomes aimed at environments where poor practices are demonstrated, rather than promoting and rewarding demonstration of better practice. The K.Cs loose their ability to meet the needs and expectations of their environment. They are aimed at meeting the expectation and demands of the breed standards. Demonstrated as successful in the show ring or Ring sports. Not in the broader environment. The trend to cross breeds might look positive at 1st, but is connected to an increased commodification of dogs as accessories with little purpose and increased reliance on commercial motives and practices. We expect far less of dogs today than 100 or even 50 years ago. We loose our response-ability to dogs because we are less familiar with them, with their diverse needs and requirements. with the demonstrations of the practices that maximise their value to us. Familiarity and demonstration of value teaches responsibility. Legislation meant to target irresponsible practice is instead aimed at environments where irresponsible practice is recognised, because out side of the K.Cs, responsible practices rarely are. They are discredited. Even the designer dogs benefiting from their new popularity are increasingly driven to registering bodies that compete to standardise the breeding practices, and type. Pedigrees are given to validate the dog. Rather than the dog being recognised for the value it can demonstrate to its environment. The purpose of the K.Cs, if they are unable to recognise a dogs value without a pedigree, is to the pedigree, Not the dog. They promote Pedigrees, not dogs. Any improvement to dogs must come through elimination. They have defined the space the K.Cs will occupy by its conditions, not its own scope. Its possibilities are unrecognised.
  14. Yeah. Interesting too to look at illustrations of some of our modern breeds and how they have changed in 100 years. Shar pei , Bull terriers, and most Mastiff breeds can be pretty shocking. You've hit it with this. Predictability isn't the same as reliability. Predictability reduces other possible responses. The push for predictability through a pedigree system also reduces our own response-ability to the species. The K.Cs could be a positive influence on Dog ownership and breeding practices. They are not, and I'm sure thats largely because they refuse to recognise the value of a dog without a pedigree. To be recognised as a 'Dog breeder' and assisted, mentored or encouraged requires membership into a Pedigree registry. So signing up to an agreement that those working out side that system shouldn't be recognised for any value. Re; parvo, Black and tan dogs are more vulnerable , and seem to be more commonly affected by haemophilia too. Regarding working ability of guardian breeds, These breeds under the K.Cs seem to inevitably split into two groups, Show line and working line. Working line dogs are tested and proven through trials. The working Dog version of the show ring. Set stimulus to provoke predictable response. Modern training methods have come to rely on training over natural ability for predictable results. A very high prey drive and state of arousal is usually sought to achieve that since its a drive that can be utilised for ease of training. Not within the ability of the average dog owner to manage safely or effectively. Even so, the rate of wash out seems to increase over time so that those once popular breeds are used less and less often. The Malinois is taking over for now.
  15. Yes. These are increasing at an incredible rate and are becoming far more prevalent than most owners realise. Cancers, haemophilia, and mental disorders too.The list is growing and is at the stage now where to breed even cross breeds ideally requires extensive genetic testing for multiples of conditions. Then we have the deliberate breeding of extreme physical characteristics that cause their own problems for the dogs quality of life and life expectation. I understand the Pedigree system has a lot of benefits for reliability of traits. But the selection for those traits is no longer driven by 'environmental' demand or expectation. At least not if you consider the environment for domestic dogs must be humanity. The environment has become the K.Cs ( or Kennel Clubs) The Breed Standard, as awarded in the show ring, has replaced the environmental conditions governing selection. And shapes our expectation according to what is demonstrated.