DogsAndTheMob

It's great to have input from a breeder, alpha bet. Maintaining genetic diversity is essential, and I have wondered how breeders cope with the reduced pool of dogs available for breeding. Even in the past when, I think, many breeders seemed to keep more dogs and were less constrained by limitations imposed on the number of litters bred from a bitch, breeders had trouble maintaining genetic diversity. I knew of breeders who recovered from unexpected set-backs such as the early death of a dog or its elimination from their breeding program for other reasons, by breeding to dogs they had sold as pets. Now, when most pet dogs are de-sexed early, how do breeders recover from such set-backs, particularly in breeds which have small numbers and smaller gene-pools? I agree with both comments, Redsonic and LisaCC. I should like to add, however, that breeding good quality dogs is challenging, and I can understand why breeders may not have the passion to spare for PR.

I think that the genetics of canine behaviour will be the next frontier in dog breed improvement. Many behavioural characteristics are likely to be genetically multi-factorial, but time and again I have observed behavioural quirks that are passed down the generations in certain strains of dogs. The ability to identify and, if desired, eliminate these quirks could transform dog breeding in the way that the identification and elimination of the genes responsible for health problems is already doing.

I agree, RuralPug, although there have always been "greeders". I work in performance monitoring and improvement. I applaud breed clubs for the work they have already done to promote breed improvement, but I think measurement is the next important step. One method might be the adoption and monitoring of a few, carefully selected, key performance indicators. For example, in breeds where genetically identifiable health defects are prevalent, breed clubs might set and measure a KPI that 100% of puppies bred by their members should have at least one parent genetically clear of the defect, and that an annually increasing percentage should have both parents clear. An annually decreasing median hip score for parents of litters bred by members might be another KPI. (I know that many organisations aim to decrease hip scores across the breed, but this is influenced by environmental variables, so parental hip scores are more controllable.) In terms of public profile, I think we all need to communicate more effectively with vets. I get tired of vets blaming every problem on "in-breeding", or assuming that any lameness or hind-quarter weakness is likely to be due to hip displasia -despite the parents' or even the dogs' own impeccable hip scores. Conversely, when my son took his puppy to the vet for the first time, he took the health-related documentation provided by the breeder with him. The vets were impressed, but had apparently never previously seen this quality of documentation. Perhaps breeders could provide puppy purchasers with a summary of the puppy's, the litter's and the parents' health profiles, to be passed on for the vet to keep in the puppy's files.

Firstly, thank you to all the dedicated dog breeders. At one time, I thought I would join you, but I don't think I'll ever have the time, money, energy or emotional stamina needed to do so. I attended my first dog show over 50 years ago, when I was three weeks old. (My mother - an RASKC registered breeder - got pneumonia after waiting in the rain before taking her collie into the ring.) I fear for the future of pedigree dogs in Australia: I fear that my grandchildren may be forced to buy pedigree puppies imported from a second-world country with lower standards of animal management than Australia's. Pedigree dog breeding has improved in many ways in recent decades. There are still problems, such as the issues around extreme type discussed in other threads, but I believe these to be outweighed by the following: Judging by discussion here, breeders are more knowledgable about genetics. They also have access to online resources and information such as My link Breeders routinely screen for deleterious genes and genetic defects. This is a huge advance. (I believe the failure of some - not all! - poodle breeders in the 1970s to address the (at that time) substantial problem of early blindness due to PRA and cataracts was one reason why the public became enthralled by the clever marketing of oodle cross-breeds. Breeding has generally improved conformation. Cow hocks and straight shoulders were commonplace in the show ring in the sixties. Now, I rarely see these defects even in cross-bred dogs in the street. Fewer breeders constantly kennel their dogs. Setting aside the welfare issues of constantly kennelling dogs, I used to wonder how breeders could judge their puppies' fitness to be sold as pets, if they never brought their dogs into the home or introduced them to children, old people etc. Judging by the experiences of my friends, by breeders' websites and by the discussions here, breeders are making greater efforts to ensure that their puppies go to suitable homes. I also now see little evidence of the attitude that the pet market is merely a "waste basket" for breeding failures, which was implied by the past use of terms like "pet-quality puppy". Unfortunately, I don't think the public is aware of the improvements in purebred dog breeding. So, how do we maintain the impetus of improvement in pedigree dog breeding, how do we address the aspects where there is room for improvement, and how do we ensure that the public is aware of these improvements, so that our grandchildren can buy healthy, behaviourally-sound puppies from Australian breeders?

I think it's worth considering what would happen if you were stranded away from your home and pets. This happened to me during the June 2007 storms. I now ensure my pets have access to at least three days worth of water in an unspillable container, and I feed the dogs before we go out. I keep an eye on the BOM website and, whenever possible, either my husband or I stays at home if a weather watch is declared. Also consider whether your pet is at risk from flash-flooding. Several of my friends lost pocket pets during those storms, and another friend's dog was saved by a neighbour who pulled it over the fence. If it had been crated or caged, it would have died.

This story from the NZ Herald shows another parent's very different attitude to owning a pet... but be warned, the subject matter (childhood cancer) is very distressing. Charlie the cat I don't condone allowing cats to roam, but I think the story is worth reading, despite this.

A few years ago, my GSD had an abscess on the neck. Exploratory surgery found a splinter of wood from a chewed stick, which was lodged dangerously close to a major artery. My mother's BC had an abscess halfway up her leg, from a grass-seed that entered between her toes and travelled up the leg. I can't remember the exact costs of these surgeries, but they were in the order of several hundred dollars each. When you consider the labour costs for a vet and an assistant, the cost of anaesthetics and other materials, plus ancillary costs, this does not seem unreasonable. They should give you an itemised account, if requested.

Do you have another dog or a cat that might be subvocalising or giving him the 'evil eye'? I've seen dogs and cars do this, to keep the 'competition' away from a person or a place that they regard as a resource to be guarded. The bedroom is definitely a prime resource, so I would not be surprised if a pet anticipated bedtime by keeping another pet out of the house.

An ABC item on the proposal to heritage list Swiss yodelling started me pondering. I believe that dogs as a species should be heritage listed, for many reasons, including their roles in various civilisations, and the fact that they were one of the earliest human "creations". Which dog breeds do you think should be heritage listed, and why?

One of my dogs broke her toe when she jumped through a closed window on New Year's day. She also cut through a small artery, and we rushed her to the vet, who stopped the bleeding and bandaged the foot. By the time I realised the toe was broken (out of alignment with the other toes), it was too late to do anything. I wish we'd known about the injury soon enough to treat it, as she sometimes licked it as if it was causing pain.

Thanks you all for the information, and a big thank you for all the encouragement.. Mackiemad, although Jenny has a very light undercoat for a GSD, it has increased substantially in recent months. I read somewhere that this happens in response to poorer circulation in older dogs... In any case, I will groom her more thoroughly... Persephone, I find that she tolerates a shedding blade better than a slicker, and it seems quite good at removing the old hair. I used triocil rather than betadine to clean the skin. I thought the ingredients were the same but I've just checked the active ingredient, and it's not. Thanks for the information about humidity. With rain forecast for tomorrow, it's a timely warning. I'm glad to have confirmation of my thoughts about food, CHA and showdog. I'm very unhappy about changes I've noticed in the ingredients lists of most dog goods, from meat based with some grain to grain-based with some meat. I also remember seeing a comment about high glycaemic index foods as a risk factor for skin problems in dogs.

A few weeks ago my 10 yo German Shepherd developed a hotspot. I cleansed the area and put on an Elizabethan collar and the vet gave her a course of antibiotics. A couple of new lesions developed, even though she was not allowed to lick the area, and I treated these with Curash - a hint I found on this forum. Her skin is now unbroken but I'm worried about a couple of pink spots, so back to the vet, I think. My question is, why? I've never had a dog with a hotspot before, even though most of my dogs have had heavier coats than she has. She's never had a hotspot before and, as I said, she is ten years old. She doesn't have fleas and the weather has been mild, so why now? I would be grateful for any insights. I'm starting her on a raw diet, but what else can I do to prevent recurrences?

I don't need to use dog parks because I live on a farm, but even when I walk my own dogs in the paddock I stay alert for hazards and temptations, and I practise calling my dogs to me then releasing them to play. I also keep the dogs well away from our horse, even though she is quite placid. I have seen or heard of too many incidents with dogs and horses. My father bought a filly from a border collie breeder who let her dogs round up the horses. The filly had been soured by the experience and, half a century later, I still remember the horror of seeing her charge across the paddock to trample and kill two puppies that had strayed within her reach. For many years, a good friend stabled her horse in her back yard overnight then walked him up the street to graze on a vacant block during the day. She took her dogs with her every time, until the day when the younger dog started a fight with the older one, right under the nose of the horse she was leading. A family friend was riding his horse on his own very large property when a traveller let her dog out of her car. The dog took off after the horse and the rider was thrown. He became a paraplegic. So... IMO horses and riders should be safe in dog parks, but riding there may not be a wise choice.

There is a lot of good information on the web. There is also a lot of misinformation. I see two major issues. Firstly, the focus on genetic testing of purebred dogs gives the false impression that crossbreed dogs are somehow exempt from the risk of genetic disease. Secondly, I have observed that many people have great difficulty understanding Mendelian genetics. ( I have even read books by senior breeders who got it wrong.) I think many people would have difficulty understanding that a puppy with one parent clear for a recessive disease and one carrier parent is a safer bet than a puppy whose parents have not been tested for that disease. A knowledgeable vet could act in the role of an "honest broker", advocating for appropriate genetic testing, and helping puppy purchasers to interpret the results.

Thanks Janba. I must admit I feel bewildered about why this thread degenerated into personal attacks. Sheridan, my relatives have been members of RASKC/NSWCC/Dogs NSW continuously since 1944 ( and I have photos of my grandparents and great-grandparents with their purebred dogs, dating back before WWi), but my passion is for dogs and their welfare, not simply for one subset of the species.

No, SkySoaringMagpie, I don't work for a vet or for any enterprise even remotely associated with the veterinary industry. I'm not a breeder, either, so I don't have a vested interest in purebred dogs. I do believe that both genetic advances and information technology offer unprecedented opportunities for breed improvement.

A model that accounted for all the variables would be fascinating, Corvus. I look forward to reading the research paper.

I think it depends on the circumstances. I travel long distance and I have briefly left a dog in a car parked in deep shade while I walked across the road to buy a coffee. I also sat in the car and drank the coffee, as I had done previously on many occasions when travelling without the dog, so I know what happened to the temperature in the car. It would have been more dangerous to the dog to keep driving and risk falling asleep at the wheel.

Thanks for that information. I'm not sure how accessible the information on genetic testing would be for the average puppy purchaser, or even the average busy vet. I think it will be difficult to make widespread improvements in the genetic health of dogs until the local veterinarian knows enough to look at the puppy that walks in the door and ask, " were the parents of your phalene tested for PRA?" or "were the parents of your Elkhound tested for Chondrodysplasia?" , even if she has never seen a phalene or an elkhound before. It will also be difficult to make improvements until the vet also looks at the crossbreed puppy and says, "hmm, he looks to be part poodle. As we don't know anything about the rest of his ancestry, his parents should have been tested for PRA and renal dysplasia and undergone screening for patella luxation." I don't think we can expect that of vets until they have the genetic screening information accessible at the click of a mouse.

I agree, WExtremeG. I think you and I are trying to make the same point.... There are no guarantees, but puppy purchasers can reduce some risks by buying a puppy with a documented pedigree and evidence of appropriate health and genetic screening of parents and related dogs.

Doctors routinely ask patients about family medical history, but no veterinarian has ever asked me about the veterinary history of a puppy's parents or their veterinary or genetic screening. In fact, local veterinarians that I have consulted have lacked knowledge about genetic diseases in dogs. It would be good if veterinarians had access to this knowledge, so that puppy purchasers could consult them about recommended health/genetic testing in their breed/ crossbreed of choice, before they acquire a puppy. I would like to see a collaboration between ANKC and veterinary and genetic specialists to build a web-accessible index of recommended health and genetic testing for breeds and popular crosses, together with an explanation of the implications of parental test status. Veterinarians would be able to factor this information into advice to clients, and into diagnostic algorithms.

How can you measure the odds on what is, in effect, a moving target? The crossbreed "demographic" in my town this year may be different from the crossbreed "demographic" in your town, and may also be different from the crossbreed "demographic" in my town next year, depending on the fashionable style of dog. This would make it difficult to generalise the results of a survey over time or distance. If, in addition, there is any difference between owners of purebred dogs and owners of crossbreed dogs in their response to possible health problems, (such as the assumption that crossbreed dogs are healthier and don't need to be seen by a vet), then that would further complicate interpretation of any statistically significant differences. I don't think that purebred dogs are intrinsically more or less healthy than crossbreed dogs... Too much depends on the parentage of the individual. All you can do is look at health records and genetic testing of the kinship group of the individual dog, and you are unlikely to obtain reliably documented evidence of health and genetic testing of the relatives of the majority of crossbreed puppies.

This is why I'll be prepared to pay the money for a purebred, registered puppy, when I get my next dog (although that is many years away.) I don't assume that a crossbreed puppy is a first generation cross with hybrid vigour (the spiel used to market "designer crossbreeds"). I assume that a crossbreed puppy is likely to be a second or subsequent generation cross, possibly from a mating of related individuals. I therefore anticipate that the puppy may be prone to any of the genetic diseases prevalent in the progenitor breeds. My views are formed by my experience with the rescue "designer crossbreed" I owned for 12 years. He had more health problems than all my purebred dogs combined. He had epilepsy from the time I rescued him. I've never owned a purebred dog with epilepsy. He went blind from cataracts. (In fact, he already had impaired vision when I rescued him.) None of my purebred dogs have gone blind. He had chronic back and neck problems from the time I rescued him, which were worse than anything I've seen in my purebred dogs, except in very old age. He had alopecia with bruising and seborrhoea, which was evident when I rescued him, and only partially improved with care and grooming. None of my purebred dogs have had these skin problems. He also had what I have since heard referred to as a typical "oodle" coat - a coat that matted within hours of grooming. His coat had to be clipped short, and that did nothing to conceal his alopecia or protect his bare skin. On the plus side, he was a delightful, devoted dog, with a notably stable temperament, contrary to the inane stereotypes about "small white fluffies". My views are also coloured by my observations of crossbreed puppies in petshops, which so often are obviously not the crosses that they are claimed to be. If their breeders are not even honest about the parent's breeds, how can anybody trust them to pay attention to the finer details of breeding healthy dogs? Problems can and do occur with purebred dogs, even when great care has been taken. But at least with purebred puppies, I can look at the pedigree and ask pertinent questions.

We have four dogs and recently had two senior dogs visiting for a few months. The old girls weren't interested in anything except food and my dogs ignored them but, even so, my dogs seem much more relaxed without the two visitors. I also think the pie is limited in terms of time and money to devote to the dogs. The more dogs, the smaller the size of each slice of the pie. This is becoming even more of a consideration as vets have more ways to help my dogs live longer with better quality of life... at a cost. In the future, I will think very carefully before having more than two dogs.