Sheridan

Grumpy sired two litters. When Mini first arrived at my place she wasn't yet desexed and despite him having been desexed, he was all, 'Whoar, a girl!' Next day he was, 'Oh, she's still here. Where's my breakfast?'

It's useful - to academics. If you think that such a test would be used wisely and or well, instead of the more likely scenario that Woof has posited, then you need to get out of the university. The real world, Corvus, is about what's easiest and cheapest. Validity and comparisons are useful to everyone. It's the cornerstone of being able to make informed decisions and reliable predictions. Sheridan, I have been dragged out of the university to speak to people in the industry who badly want standardised, objective testing. They don't want it because it would be easiest and cheapest, believe it or not. I think such a test could be used well if it were carefully formulated. It has been done before in other fields. Even in dogs to some extent. The Swedish DMA, for example, has been used to help collie breeders breed timidity out of the Swedish collie population. The DMA is not perfect, but there's enough science out there on it to support its use. It's geared towards working dogs, though, and may be too harsh for some dogs in the broader population. WnH, no one CAN standardise internal variables in dogs? There is plenty that we can do, though. We can observe and work backwards, for example. There are plenty of people working on indicators of internal states and predictors of future behaviour. This is my life at the moment. I haven't the time or inclination to try to convince people on a dog forum. I can just say I've been neck deep in this literature for 3 years and have spoken to a lot of people about it, both academics and people in industry. I watch a lot of dogs behaving. The particular problem of behaviour assessments has been a bone I've been gnawing on for months. You can consider I maybe have some idea what I'm talking about or not. I really am not bothered. I am bowing out because I don't have the spare time for this discussion. I should never have got involved. I think that this study sounds great, though, and would encourage people to get involved. Ah, but you bow out before you explain why the people who 'badly want standardised, objective testing' actually want it and what they will use it for. And I am still at a complete loss as to how breed traits will be assessed in standardised testing. And since Diana R hasn't been back, before you disappear completely, do feel free to explain how gameness can be tested in this objective testing. Given gameness is erroneously labelled as dog aggression by people who don't know what they're talking about, I would really like to know.

The first I think anyone knew of it was when someone in Vic posted it on Facebook. From the outrage, I got the impression it was leaked.

Sheridan as you know I agree with this but everything about the ANKC pushes people to show their dogs to be able to properly assess their breeding potential. Most people who show believe this as well and whether I think they are mistaken and its possible to assess the dog without the need of showing them isn't the point - this is about taking the right for them to show their dogs even if the dogs are docked according to all laws - here or elsewhere. It means a withdrawal of any dog docked here as well as over seas from competition. It means every person who owns a dog with a docked tail is assumed to be a person who deliberately commits acts of extreme cruelty and in case someone somewhere might deliberately break a tail everyone needs to be punished. It reminds me of the whole debarking thing - that was all bought into law because of an accusation that breeders stick a pipe down a dog's throat and hit it with a hammer. Not one single case has ever been shown to have happened but just in case every person who needs to have a dog debarked has to run the gauntlet and cant just make a choice that they think is best for their dog. I'm haven't disagreed with that, Steve, despite certain people in the thread getting all het up about it.

There's theraputic and then there's snipping a bit of the dog's tail off to get a better set in the show ring, which is what the motion is about. that is not what the motion is about. It is about restricting what a person can do with a dog legally purchased and imported from another country. It is not illegal to own a docked dog in this country. I haven't said it was. Every dog I have had has been docked. I said it was illegal to dock and yes, acknowledging that some dogs damage their tails and have to be docked for 'theraputic' purposes. Docking is otherwise illegal, is it not? Or are there other loopholes being exploited? It's very clear that given the connection between the statement in the motion that 'significant numbers' of docked dogs are being shown, the person bringing the motion believes there is a connection between all these broken tails, etc, that he's heard about, and the show ring.

There's theraputic and then there's snipping a bit of the dog's tail off to get a better set in the show ring, which is what the motion is about. I'm sorry Sheridan but nowhere in this motion do I see a reference to that. It states quite clearly and categorically "a motion that any dog whelped on or after I July 2014 is ineligible for exhibition at ANKC approved events if the tail of the dog has been docked". This motion encompasses far more than just the show ring. It is a proposed ban for all ANKC events. The show ring is the only area where there could possibly be an advantage obtained by docking...... if the motion was truly about that, then it would refer only to the show ring. You and Megan have made statements pertaining to the legality (or otherwise) of docking in this country which have been inaccurate and cast aspersions on those who have been forced to dock tails for theraputic and humane reasons. Tail docking is still legal in Australia under certain circumstances. Please get it right. Please get over it and accept it. Please ensure that when you make statements (or ask a rhetorical question) that you have facts. If you have proof, genuine and irrefutable, that someone has deliberately damaged tails in order to obtain a docking procedure then offer that proof. If not, then it's just rumour and inuendo, hearsay and scuttlebut. It's wrong that we should be governed by rules based on gossip rather than on hard evidence. I have said tail docking is illegal, which it is. I have cited the motion, which states 'a significant number of docked dogs continue to be shown in all classes' and that people are deliberately damaging tails. If that is not to get a better tail set for showing, why would someone do that? I have, by the way, since you're incapable of reading, said evidence of this should be presented. I haven't cast aspersions on people who have to get tails docked for theraputic purposes. You want to make up crap then go try someone else who might fall for it. Go away.

There's theraputic and then there's snipping a bit of the dog's tail off to get a better set in the show ring, which is what the motion is about.

True breeders don't import for show only but you would find very few dogs imported that are not used in some form of competition to prove thier value. Why would you spend thousands of dollars to bring a dog in and then not use them in competition to assess their value and to allow others to see the potential the new bloodlines could add to the dog. I know a number of breeders who don't show. They're great breeders, they produce beautiful dogs. Believe it or not, some breeders are able to assess a dog's value to their breeding program without trotting the dog around a show ring.

Catahoula leopard dog? Really?

Curious to know if with these sorts of DNA tests, do you have to state what you think your dog is?

Well, no, it's not. It's about using a single approach so that there are limited external variables that may influence the results. Like I said before, a standardised test needn't ignore breed. It could mean the individual tests within a behaviour assessment are carried out in a way that doesn't vary from dog to dog. Breed can be accounted for in the statistical analysis afterwards if there is enough information to do so. A standardised approach would mean the same things are measured in the same way using the same scale so comparisons can be made. This does not mean comparisons between breeds would be assumed meaningful. That is something you find out later in analysing the results. Ideally a standardised test would be well supported by science before it was adopted, but this isn't always the case. Standardisation does not necessarily equal loss of information or smoothing over details. That's all in the design. It does mean the ability to make comparisons and test for validity. This is useful. It's useful - to academics. If you think that such a test would be used wisely and or well, instead of the more likely scenario that Woof has posited, then you need to get out of the university. The real world, Corvus, is about what's easiest and cheapest.

...Yes. Which means...? Consider the possibility that if you want bedlingtons to be treated differently to ceskies you might have to do a teeny bit of leg work and encourage those in rarer breeds to participate in scientific studies. We can only do so much ourselves. The more support we get the better our data and the less angsting about under-represented portions of the dog population. They are under-represented because it's hard to find them. You people in the breeds and breed groups themselves have better contacts than we do. Well, I was responding to your post that said we know more about labradors than we do about bedlingtons. It stands to reason we know more about labradors because there are more labradors. As to doing so much yourselves, represented in what?

Consider the possibility that there are actually a lot more labradors than there are bedlingtons.

Sorry, Diana R, but you cannot classify by group. A bedlington is as different to a cesky to a staffy. Yes, they're terriers, but a dog that only goes to earth is going to have a different temperament to a dog that does multiple tasks. How, for example, do you measure gameness?

A whirl of wheatens.

Oh my gosh for real? Seriously? I don't want to be on this earth any more While they're at it, they should ban Marley & Me and 101 Dalmations. And Beethoven. Don't think they won't try.

PETA have now weighed in on it and have demanded Hasbro replace the Scottie with a mutt. Once again, they lie about purebred dogs. No surprise there. I won't link to their rubbish but you can look it up. Slate have also have a go at the Scottie and the article is also in SMH. http://www.smh.com.au/world/monopoly-no-longer-a-board-game-in-tune-with-lifes-losers-20130202-2dr8f.html

The reason there are elected officials is so it not necessary to get permission from the entire community to propose a piece of legislation. Unfortunately, like politicians, some elected officials think once they are in they have carte blanche to do what ever they THEY want. It won't matter that it is legal to own a legally docked dog if the ANKC decides no docked dogs can be exhibited at an ANKC sanction show, no docked dog will be allowed to be exhibited. I don't doubt there are exhibitors/breeders using "mischievious'' means to legally dock puppies. However, anyone who makes such an allegation should have to put up or shut up. Such allegations without documented proof should have serious consequences for the accuser. Absolutely if it is voted in it is now an agreeance that they think theY DO have members who are capable of this and it taints all ANKC registered breeders. Animal rights love this stuff and it goes so well with accusations that ANKC SHOW breeders are cruel wicked creatures for breeding the in-bred suffering creatures they do ex pedigreed dogs exposed. Well, there's a couple of different possibilities. 1. The guy's barking mad and/or lying. This would probably be most people's in this thread's favourite but it's unlikely he's just gone crazy. 2. The ANKC has been infiltrated by AR whacktivists. Not likely unless it's a long term plan by a long time breeder to get rid of dogs. No really, not likely. 2. They suspect people are illegally docking puppies and are taking a shot in the dark to put the frighteners on. More likely. 3. They have proof that people are illegally docking dogs and are putting the frighteners on to get them to stop without involving the authorities. More likely. 4. They have proof and are getting in before one or more members are charged with illegal docking by the police because these people have indeed been reported by veterinarians. This way they can say, 'Hey, we were doing something about it' to show they're a responsible state body. This works even if the motion fails cos they can say, 'Well, we tried to do something about it.' More likely. Take your pick.

Really - just because this has been written in the motion / letter does not mean that it is happening. They have supplied NO PROOF that this has occurred - do you really believe that this is happening ? I don't know if it is happening and have already said that proof should be presented. The motion said that a substantial number of dogs are being shown docked. Surely, that can be proved or disproved?

Such a pretty girl. I am very sorry for your loss.

People who say this isn't about tail docking itself have it only partly right. Tail docking is illegal and no lamenting about it will change the law but unless pedigree dog breeders want further laws they have to abide by the ones there are already. Because the reaction to people breaking laws is always more laws. Bringing in new laws is always easier than policing existing laws. The bad apples always ruin it for everyone else. A simple way around people illegally docking is that no locally bred dog can be shown if it's docked. People will actually learn not to illegally dock when they cannot show their dogs. If this means these apparently great people stop breeding then so be it. That's up to them. Is having a docked tail worth more than the breed itself? I think if people answer yes to that then there is something drastically wrong with your world view. While it may not stop people faking import certificates to show a dog is imported when it isn't, perhaps Dogs Vic should do some work on confirming an import before registering it. The days when the ANKC simply touts itself as a registry are gone.

Well, how very interesting.

How much fat is there in turkey mince?

yes and that breeder made an example of, but no need to punish the good ones. The good ones who dock tails?

Just because you do, it doesn't mean someone in Nowheresville, Outback does. And I think for people like the RSPCA and LDH, it does mean neat little boxes, as it clearly does for some rescues. Few have the time or the resources to put work into dogs that don't fit neat little boxes.