KismetKat

in many ways the bad old days were actually the good old days.

Went for a walk today with our lovely rescue collie and stopped to watch an auction in a nearby street. I settled the dog in a sit next to me but there was a young boy (maybe 7 or 8) sitting in the gutter nearby. He was dressed in some sort of gladiator costume. The boy turned around and saw me and my dog, and then proceeded to glare at my dog. Honestly, this was the weirdest behaviour from such a young boy as he just glared, and glared, and glared at my dog. It was like he was trying to give the dog the evil eye. And he persisted for so long... I could tell this was making my dog a bit uncomfortable but I was so crowded in by people it was difficult to move away without making a fuss ("excuse me") in the middle of an auction. My dog remained calm but DID turn away from the kid so at least he wasn't seeing the continued glaring and then resettled into a sit. Meanwhile I am still keeping an eye on this kid and the little bugger is STILL glaring at the dog (even tho his back is turned). It was a total hard fixed glare/stare! The auction finished and I walked away, but this kid's family was behind me. I heard the kid say, in a very loud voice (and he could only mean my dog as there were no others about) "that is a dangerous dog". I did not hear the parents say anything to rebuke the kid. wtf? And all I can think of is at some stage this kid will glare/stare at a more reactive dog, the dog will react, and it will all be the dog's fault (at least in the eyes of the law).

When we had female dogs they were desexed. Too young to know/remember about male dogs. Certainly as one poster here suggested, female dogs were considered something of a liability as they could produce pups. To get a pup most were FTGH or very very cheap from a pet shop (who would be given the pups to sell). The only exeption to that were people with pure dogs (dunno about papers) who managed to get their bitch covered (before th mutt over the back fence managed to do it) by another pure dog of the same breed - then they would sell in a pet shop on consigment. There were many 'oops' litters - best pet dog we had growing up was a free 'oops' puppy that was a cross corgie/dasch. Pets getting knocked by cars (and killed or needing PTS) was common. Litters of kittens getting dumped was common. Kids bringing home stray dogs/dumped kittens was common. Really my memory was the biggest killer of pet animals was not PTS by pounds, but getting knocked by cars.

I'd get the cat first.

Well visit DOL's own breed 101 thread! I've only glanced at the first couple of posts, but like the first one said my experience of my sister's dogs (she had three) was that they were all quite different. Her desexed pet boy was a smooch and a clown (and also a thief - he loved chinese takeaway and could slurp a dim sim off the table as quick as you can - alas they gave him the runs ). It's a long complicated story how my sister ended up with the other two (a destined breeding pair) - the bitch was a sweetie but the boy was always aloof with me. However at the time I was a young kid and my visits were very rare (we lived interstate). I do remember a gorgeous picture tho of my sister reading in bed with the 3 dogs stretched out around her like so many flokati rugs! Perhaps with an afghan it gets down to the right breeder able to do good puppy selection?

Tess - I am having a HUGE problem imagining you without a bevy of rough collies at your feet. but if pointy nose and long hair are a prime criteria have you considered an Afghan? I know you mentioned Salukis are aloof, I think Afghans are meant to be as well, but hey, not with their family! My sister used to have some years ago, just lovely dogs

I was trying to limit myself to a chapter a night in bed - but I had a quiet Sunday (too hot for dog school) and... Anyway - what a surprise at the end! I think the author is a DOLer as there are a couple of pages of "interview" at the end where she makes much of pedigree dogs, choosing a breeder and also supporting rescue.

Are DOLers who didn't get to the seminar listening to it? I wonder about their reactions after they have actually listened to the speakers.

I just got an email - they're putting it up in stages. Here's a link with what they have so far seminar

So we go back to not desexing our pets early, let them have a litter or two ("cos it's a great experience for the kids") then FTGH them where we can and give (and yes I said give) puppies we can't place to the petshops to sell cheaply? That's how things used to work many years ago. A puppy farm could not financially survive in such an environment.

With so many of us reading it perhaps we should plan a date/time in about a month's time to all get online and have a nice (doggie) book discussion?

One big one. The chapters I've read so far have introduced the woman who inherits the kennels, introduced the people who help, introduced the dogs, and then gone on to introduce some of the potential adoptees. It's an easy read - no heavy-going so far. Just the sort of book that's nice to read a chapter or two in bed before snoozing off. ETA: I got my copy from the book depository, an online bookshop mentioned in a thread on these forums. It was half the price of bookshops here (free shipping) and I got it within 10 days.

A little "bump" - I am now up to chapter 5 and enjoying this book thoroughly.

The RSPCA has put out a pamphlet which does just this. I picked it up from the seminar. It was mentioned by at least one of the presenters.

How do you know the ANKC's platform is well known to all given that you just said the bit I bolded? Well everyone there is involved in research about dogs. The whole day was about dogs, not chickens. The ANKC has a code of ethics that's been around quite a while hasn't it? Also consider the numbers. Steve has stated that purebred dog breeders only supply 10% of dogs - much of the rest must come from (and I think this was a term Pauleen used) "for profit" breeders. Given the volume of puppies produced by "for profit" breeders then someone from that industry proposing a code of ethics would make an interesting speaker. Rather than stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen - why not critique the proposal? Surely, in part, that's what the day was about. Something is presented, you critique it. I asked earlier about the aspect of the code that said bitches should be desexed and retired to pet homes on a "7 litters or 7 years of age, whichever comes first" basis. Is that good or bad? 7 litters seems a lot to me but the only personal experience I have is my cat who was retired to this pet home at 5 years of age and having had only 3 litters. The breeder did not like them having too many litters as it takes so much out of them (and yes, coming here after weaning her final litter I would have to say she looked pretty skanky - it was only the next winter that she really bloomed again). I have a query about the stats posted on this thread that only 1% of purebreed dogs are relinquished to pounds. How do you know that? Are you basing this figure on dogs relinquished to pounds with their papers? Rebane - re the club thing you obviously don't see where I am coming from. Perhaps if you read some of the earlier posts on this topic including those written by the mal owner.

Have just started reading this for my bookclub. I've SO enjoyed the first chapter I thought I'd share. The basic plot is a woman inherits her Aunt's house and rescue kennels. The aunt had a real knack for matching up dogs with new owners, but the neice doesn't think of herself as a 'dog person'...

I did not mean to imply the day was unimportant - just to put the day in perspective as there have been many posts attacking for the day for not being scholarly enough, no peer review stuff, why a non-academic was there, hidden agenda cos of who might have paid for lunch, etc. etc. Erny - I agree that there are points and issues raised in this thread would be valuable reading for students and researchers alike. However sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to the actual seminar is not one of them Spike's Puppy no we did not take out the WT title (waggiest tail) title at Bayside - thus I am obviously a disgruntled customer And to whoever asked "why not have a breed club and committee full of non-reg pet owners (Rebane was it?) I think it would be a bad idea as a vastly changed membership base, and being in positions of control, could erode the original ideals of the club.

I think it is a shame that people's opinions of this seminar are so intransigent they won't even bother to listen to what was actually said. Many posts on this thread have been assumptions, guesses, words put in people's mouths that weren't said and things blown out of all proportion. You really need to listen to what was actually said. There has also been a lot of crap said about the university ran this seminar, why they invited who they did, and talk of hidden agendas. I've now asked someone who works in the postgrad sector about these types of seminars. Basically departmental seminars (which this was) generally only expect an audience from within the department. They provide a platform to give postgraduate students a chance to present their work and gives them practice for this which can help when they go off to more "scholery" (as one poster here put it) conferences and seminars. The seminar gives students and researchers a chance to check out what they're all doing and perhaps gain different perspectives about things from their fellows and the audience.. It is very common to invite 1 outside speaker (say from industry) that has a platform to present. I stand by my 'guess' that Kate was invited over the ANKC as Kate had something new to present where the ANKC's platform would already be well known to all. It is insulting to make the claim that the University invited this person as they endorse her stance. Universities invite speakers of all stripes and persuasions, they are meant to be places for robust debate.

Mita - the full title of the seminar was "building better dogs - Using what we've learned about genetic and experiential effects to improve dog welfare" not "building better dogs - let's repeat what we already know and have known for years". From looking at the invite sheet, Kate was the only presenter who was not an academic researcher. Which is not what I thought would be at a university seminar. However, she was presenting something "new" in that she presented a model for commercial dog farmers, a model which, while not ideal, is much better than the reality of a puppy farm with cages and limited human contact. So it certainly fitted in with the idea that the seminar (improving dog welfare).

Thanks steve. Labsrule - well someone payed for lunch! And they did state who sponsored the lunch but can't remember who it was. Surely these types of seminars are all about presenting "new" stuff so unless the ANKC had some new research to present, or a new code of ethics, then no reason to invite them to speak. Kate did have something "new" to present. Also, it's not the place of universities to censor debate. Probably helped to have someone controversial there too - look at how many bums on seats they got! 250!!! I gather from speaking with a couple of Monash people that is pretty unheard of. In fact one person said getting just 100 would have been significant. More people means more publicity to the uni, which may lead on to more research money.

Steve - from my memory that wasn't actually part of any presentation - it was point brought up at the very end of the day at question time by a member of the audience - a girl who bred dashunds as pets. She stated that according to (clause 5 I think she said) she was not allowed to breed unless she also showed so now she was no longer a member and now she did lots of crossing of her dashy's with different coats. I distinctly remember the clause 5 thing taking Pauleen totally by surprise as she breeds but doesn't show. After that I lost the ability to track what was being said as too many people were talking at once. The "discussion" then got shut down by the compare as the dachsy girl wasn't asking a question, but taking a platform.

Yes, but I mean a representative from outside the Veterinary fraternity, like a representative from ANKC/Dogs VIC. She's not a vet. She's an academic at Monash with a background in behavioural neuroscience and psychology. She established the Anthrozoology Research Group there. Ok, then outside the Veterinary and University fraternity Let me make it a bit clearer, a representative of Registered Purebred Dog Breeders, i.e. representative from ANKC or DogsVic Or MDBA? Aren't they currently doing some research projects? Perhaps the ANKC could sponsor a future seminar.

I did once talk to one of them about joining, but as I don't have papers for my 'pet' they conceeded there was limited appeal for me to do so as there were no real benefits for me. If I had a 'papered' pet it would be different. This is why I am suggesting a 2-tiered membership model - of course a breed club would not want to see people without registered dogs taking spots on a committee. But heck, I'll have another chat with them the next time they run an event (cos they do run ones and invite us pet owners, just there's only so many times one can enter a waggiest tail contest and not start to feel there should be more to this competition stuff

Yes, but I mean a representative from outside the Veterinary fraternity, like a representative from ANKC/Dogs VIC. She's not a vet. She's an academic at Monash with a background in behavioural neuroscience and psychology. She established the Anthrozoology Research Group there.

Pauleen Bennett is a purebreed dog breeder. I think the guy from Sydney was too. ETA: Pauleen had two of her puppies there. Very cute. Logotto's (hope I've spelt that right).