These are the posts that were on the Spring Gun thread that relate to this topic

Sandro Bechini wrote:

Grant The gene pool is getting smaller and smaller With breeding at 50% of what it was, its time the authorities who are so called in charge of fostering the breed, fast tracked a policy to reduce the number of services any one stud can have per annum, rather than per quarter Reason: Instead of 216 per annum (54 per quarter) shouldn't be more than say 140 per annum From the last Stud Book available Vol 65 there were 1270 litters born in Australia Top 3 Barcia Bale 164 Kinloch Brae 80 Fabregas 80 Dyna Double One 74 398 litters in 4 sires or 31.33% of all litters/pups born attributed to 4 sires Fernando Bale only had 49 in that season In the next season, Vol 66 (17/18 whelps) FB is likely to go close to the 200 mark this year and Barcia will probably maintain his numbers Project Forward FB 200 BB 160 DDO 70 Fabregas 80 ( I left KB out as I am assuming his semen stocks may be reducing) Say with a 10% increase in breeding there is 1400 litters That's 510 litters between 4 sires Projection is 34.69% of all litters/pups being centered around 4 sires Some would argue that these are the best sires and positive for the breed but I think in time it will be detrimental as we start to lose various damlines from the use of different sires I believe the gene pool will become more diminished if we continue in this fashion Perhaps it is a transitional phase whilst these sires are alive and well and once everyone has used them they will start diversifying again But it concerns me to see 3 dogs in every race by the same sires I still remember the days when most dogs were closely in bred to Temlee, he was that dominant A restriction of services may see a further increase in price for these popular sires but IMHO, its a small price to pay for the stability of the breed and any price increase would increase the opportunity for newer sires & imported sires to be used more frequently and thus lead to a stronger industry over all Apologize if any particular stud masters/stud owners have been offended but its a general view of the industry as I see it

steven martin wrote:

Couldn't agree more Sandro. I've been saying the exact same thing since we were hung out to dry. I to don't want to offend owners or studmasters from potentially earning a quid, but for the betterment of the sport due to the decreasing numbers of whelpings, a new annual capping on sire should be urgently discussed. As it stands this year and without naming any sires, up to the end of July, 1 sire has served 15.05% of all matings this year & another 14.67%. That's 30% of all matings. Maybe somebody (with a bit more time) could start a new topic as this threads about Spring Gun.

As we no, breeding figures have been very unstable & unpredictable over the past couple of years.
I now believe whelping figures have reached rock-bottom in this country, but they're on there way back up again, slightly.
So to be fair and inline with the 54 per quarter quoter (216 per annum), a "Sliding Scale" could be used in conjunction with annual whelping figures.

For example, when the 54 per quarter rule was unforced, I believe it's fair to say that 3000 whelpings per year would be a happy medium to work with. So if we take 3000 whelpings and divided that figure by 216, it converts to a percentage of 14% per year, to those sires lucky enough to receive full books.

So this is how my "Sliding Scale" works. You take the total amount of litters whelped the year before and divide it by 14%, & a quoter that's fair and even is achieved yearly, on figures that are generated by the industry.

For example in -
2015, 2867 whelpings divided by 14% = 204 whelpings or 51 per 1/4.
2016, 1788 whelpings divided by 14% = 128 whelpings or 32 per 1/4.
2017, 1270 whelpings divided by 14% = 91 whelpings or 23 per 1/4.

Obviously, 2017 was the lowest whelping figures ever recorded since WW2, so I can hear some people crying poor with my evaluation. But it's only a "One-Off" as my figures for this year are showing that 1800 whelpings are achievable (give or take a little) by the end of the year, which converts to 128 whelpings or 32 per 1/4.
This system is simple and fair & will give the gene-pool in Australia more opportunity to survive.

Imo, if something like this is not introduced soon, colonial damlines will fade and shrink on a year by year basis.

Sure we're spoilt with the choices of any imported sire thru A.I which is a great thing & something a support 100% (& used recently)....but we still deserve the diversity that our ancestors have created & presented to us over generations of breeding, rather than watch these Australian dam & sire lines get swallowed up by a gene-pool that continually entertains only a handful of sires, on an annual basis.

Anyway, it's out there now. Both barrels are cocked. Fire away.

A very logical solution Steve.

GA needs to entertain this ASAP

If they want to use Barcia Bale and Fernando Bale then they should be able to. Nobody should be setting a cut off point and 1st in best dressed no matter how many others are using them. Why should other breeders tell someone how to breed?

I also think it is unfair on the owners of the stud dog. Imagine if you owned one of the top dogs, and some1 just said, nope, u can serve 50 bitches next year. Most people breed/buy/own/race for 15/20 years to find a good dog and make some good money, then have some1 come in and say u can only have so many service i think is unfair.

I cannot possibly contribute to a technical subject such as this - but I can be alarmed.

I can also repeat my often repeated suggestion that this is precisely the sort of event which should or could be anticipated by an independent group charged with reporting annually on THE STATE OF THE BREED.

I shudder to think how GA would be competent to handle this task yet there is little alternative. Suffice to say that absolute independence of the review group is mandatory. It should work, for example, much like the Reserve Bank operates independently of government even though it has to deal with what the government creates.

Going down that road is much more likely to achieve what you want, never mind how brilliant your ideas are.

Ideally, a small group of top breeders could make submissions to every state calling for the establishment of the review group. Next time the states meet, they could then insist that GA sets up the review group independently.

Brilliant though you guys are, that would be much more likely to get action.

In any event, the subject is a very wide one - ie not just diversification but also health, disease, stamina etc etc. It also introduces a touchy area of restriction of trade and other legalities.

and that is CLOSURE, have you spoken to anyone lately who can see a future for the industry beyond 5/10 years , i haven't,
myself personally im just going with the flow , (proceeding with caution)

so i say make HAY while the sun shines

There is already a cap of 54 per quarter or 216 per annum per sire

The precedent has been set and no one has challenged it yet in a court of law.

Its been ok when there are 2500 to 3000 litters born per annum, but we are down to 1270 and might eventually get back to 1800 as Steve has alluded

It's not healthy in any genetic pool to have such domination by 3 or 4 sires, as what is transpiring right now

If it ever happens it is still a free market....if supply is restricted then all it means is that market forces will adjust prices until only those with large pockets or elite bitches can afford those dogs.

That's one of the problems Mick, a lot of short sighted people in this industry

Totally agree Mick.
I believe they are working towards a total ban of the sport within 20 years.

anyone who cant see the bigger picture needs to change their classes
so make hay while the sun shines , because dark clouds are gathering

its an industry that authorities know cant be policed in its present form no matter what rules and regulations they bring in ,,

if it has any chance of survival it will be through large commercial kennels with full time welfare etc

The survival of this sport/industry depends solely on us .. no one else. We over turned the ban in NSW with the support of Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Paul Murray and co on the understanding that we represented rural battlers maligned by misguided city centric politicians and that we loved and cared for our dogs

Politicians respond to votes nothing else. If their constituents tell them were ok then well stay if they dont, were in trouble. We cannot ignore that fact, whether we like it or not.

We have to be smart and adapt policies that are acceptable to the general population of today and those policies revolve around Integrity and Welfare

There are the Ultra-Left-Greens that will never be satisfied but they are a minority .. albeit 10% of the voting population .. so we have to ensure that we dont give them any more ammunition to turn the general population against us

Good news is that figures out today show that support for the Shooters Party (SFFP) in Victoria has reached 3.8% up from 1.4% of the vote up at the last election and heres a party that fully supports our industry

Well said Geoff ....as usual!
SFFP will smoke the greens next election , cant wait to watch it all unfold and let our industry stabilise as much as it can ....... with plenty still to achieve

It will also keep the Australian gene-pool alive and healthy.

Richard, I think you need to start at the beginning of this thread & absorb exactly what has been presented.