sandgrubber

This has nothing to do with the original post, so my apologies. I don't know how long you have been breeding, but some temperament traits are obvious without any tests, and observation will tell you whether they are hereditary or not. Most experienced breeders do know what traits are hereditary in their own breed, so they are a good source of advice for those who do not know. People who do not understand this, and cannot observe it, imho, should not be breeding. Judge not and yee shall be not judged (Somewhere in the Bible). Evil to them who think evil (some long dead queen of England). I have been breeding for around 10 years. Have had no temperament problems with my own dogs, though some of them are so lovely I'd like to be able to clone their personalities and implant them in some people I wish I didn't know. My concern is the occasional whacko aggressive, nervous, bossy, or otherwise cussed dog who ends up being a pain in the posterior in the boarding kennel -- and who obviously causes distress to an owner who shows every sign of being good dog owner. Example . . . have a sweet German lady who keeps miniature poodles and has for decades. Her present pooch, in contrast to the last three, bites everyone, including her owner, shows affection to no one, and spends all her time in the boarding kennel hiding under the bed. This poor woman has kept the dog for 10 years. Colloquially, I'd say the dog has a screw loose . . . would love to know if it was a genetic defect. . . and how breeders could prevent cursing puppy-buyers with responsibility for such dogs. Could go on with half a dozen other examples. Yes, they might have turned out differently in the hands of the right owner. But some dogs seem to require a lot of effort to keep them from going over the edge, while others seem to be pretty healthy in the mind with owners who do everything 'wrong'.

Given that my bitches all jump in a mucky pond and roll is sand on a regular basis, I figure disinfectants are a waste of time. No way can I wash of the belly and teats before Mum gets back in the whelping box every time. My focus is keeping clean so there's no good pockets of filth to support massive growth of bacteria, ets. If there were a problem that needed disinfected, I'd use a very strong oxidant (bleach for example) at high concentration, sprayed on vertical as well as horizontal surfaces, let it sit for 20 minutes, and then wash it off with a lot of water so as not to burn the dogs.

... This OP study claims it will help people re the behavior of companion dogs. Yet the highly significant factor of human influence on dogs' developed & developing behaviours, is dealt with only in passing. When there's actually an extensive research literature on it & I've referred to a few. This OP study does not have a clear hypothesis....rather a mix of premises. Somehow, one behavioral assessment tool (which is a contradiction in terms)....somehow associated with the collection of dogs' DNA....is going to lead people to an 'ideal' companion dog as expressed in what Australians have said in a survey. (Sounds like advertising copy.) . . . My concern about the OP study is that it's being funded by private organisations to provide a behavioral assessment instrument for their use....& presumably to other members of the public. That's the primary purpose. If the OP study, were simply a report to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, then welcome to the critque which would follow (given if it were accepted for publication). But this study is going to drop, immediately, a behavioral assessment instrument re dogs, into the Australian community & 'mixing' that with collecting DNA. When the premises behind it all, should first be the subject of expert scrutiny (as for any study, I hasten to add). Without seeing the research proposal submitted the the PhD committee, I don't see how any of us can make such statements. Scientists are often awkward in communicating with the general public. . . that is, apart from the fraction that thrive on working the media. Seems likely that a PhD student communicating to potential participants in a study will not present the study background in it's full rigour, nor, for the post-modernist, give a full description of context. If she did, she'd probably turn off most possible participants, cause formal hypotheses are a real turn off to the non-science public and a lot of people won't give a hoot about her biases or funding sources or personal biases (any more than I worry about the politics of blood donation when I go in to a Red Cross collection point). Lots of PhD projects want to drop something or other on the Australian public, many with funding from some group with an axe to grind (perhaps an ARC sanctioned axe). Most of what they drop are stones in a pond, going straight to the bottom. Only a minority have any effect on real events. Personally, I want to know more about genetic influences on behaviour and the more these are linked to DNA or RNA, the better. There are some behaviour traits I see as worse than HD/OCD or epilepsy. If we find a way to test for them as a spinoff from a study that worked on behaviour assessment and happened to collect DNA samples on the side, fine and dandy. Btw, my own critique of what I've seen is that it's pretty obvious that the Australian public likes affability in dogs. Why else would Labbies and Staffies be rising breeds in breed registration statistics? . . . at the expense of GSD's, dobermans, and other 'guard' dogs. Also clear that Ozzies don't want to be bothered with long coats from the trends in Goldie registrations and the extreme difficulty finding a good home for an Afghan hound pup.

Out of curiousity, how do you intend to present the results?

Agreed and while I havent looked at it for a while because I dont work in the field any longer there have been several studies with aggressive prisoners[ murderers] They found that when babies cry and they are comforted and soothed by their Mum that they secrete seretonin so their body learns how to produce this as they grow to counteract stress and testosterone.Without that experience regardless of genes they grow up as individuals which are anti social or more prone to violence or depression because their bodies never learned as babies how to manufacture the chemicals they need. Regardless of breed its about how they are reared ,socialised and handled as babies and based on the fact that certain traits suit different people trying to tie this to breeds is missing a very large chunck of the info required to determine what dogs make the best pets. Another part is how capable the owner is at bonding with a dog too. Actually, the guys with hard to remember names from Cordoba have done a lot of work showing that behavioural traits can be hereditary . . . and are responsible for a very interesting finding of colour-linked aggression in Cocker spaniels. I don't know anyone who would deny that how a dog is raised, treated, and trained has a major influence on behaviour. Assigning relative strength of genes vs environment is a can of worms . . . you can frame definitions and tests to 'prove' (or if you're a scientist, 'falsify') either point of view. If I wanted to add weight to the genetics side, I'd do a trial with a bunch of pups raised in different ways and try to teach them to herd sheep. I'll bet the pups from herding dog backgrounds would do well and Labs, Staffies, poodles, etc. would have a hard time catching on . . . perhaps with a few exceptions in each group. As for human psych . . . I may be showing my age (and I seem to have been way off in understanding the reasons for the study in question). It's been 30 years since I've had much to do with psych. At that point, no ethics committee in the US would have permitted a study that looked for the genetic basis of criminality. I think this was due to fear of eugenics lingering after WWII. The study Steve discusses is entirely PC by that standard . . . I have never seen much fright about finding possible 'nurture' reasons for criminality. Such studies generally provide rationale for preschool, parenting classes, and other humane programmes. But the larger point is tolerance of scientific research. I am bothered by everyone jumping on the bandwagon to condemn some PhD research with limited information on the study's intent, management, etc. If the results are published in the open scientific literature, they are available to us all. If they show something we don't like, we have the opportunity to examine study methods and contesting validity . . . or re-examining our understanding and perhaps learning something. Science is full of studies that point one way, only to be followed by studies that point in the opposite direction. Even if the study were framed by PITA maniacs to 'prove' something you know is not true -- and I see NO evidence that this study is -- it's only a drop in the ocean of research findings. The louder and clearer a study voices unjustified conclusions, the easier it is to overturn the study in subsequent research and bury the falsified hypothesis.

Here's an extract from the sheet inviting people to participate. . . . many owner-dog relationships fail each year, resulting in owner distress, community disruption and thousands of dogs being admitted to, and often euthanased in, welfare shelters and pounds. Results from a recent questionnaire study found that dogs which were easy going, friendly, non-aggressive, relaxed and sociable were rated as “ideal” by the Australian public. The development of an accurate behavioural assessment that measures these characteristics in dogs would assist in identifying dogs best suited for living in Australian society and could be used to select breeding dogs. This, along with educating the public about dog behaviour and training, has the potential to improve owner-dog relationships. In my reading it looks like pretty normal PhD research. Possible that the student is trying to get at the genetic basis of aggression -- a taboo subject in human psychology. Highly unlikely that a psych department would support a study that took on both breed and aggression, as that would open a can of worms regarding racism. I sent a note to the PhD student concerned saying that her letter had caused a hubub on DOL and inviting her to clarify. Hope this draws a result.

Agreed, this is correct. Natural, chilled or frozen makes no difference it is the egg that is the determining factor not the insemination. If you know via Prog test the exact day of ovulation than it is easy to track when your bitch is due. Here's what makes frozen AI different (from an excellent piece on K9 reproduction . . . ", insemination with frozen-thawed semen is best performed 3-4 days following the LH surge (2-3 days following ovulation)." I had it wrong above in saying the AI was done at ovulation.

I seem to remember that the expected gestation period for surgical AI was 61 rather than 63 days because the insemination is (ideally) done at the time of or hours before ovulation. . . . and that the day count was likely to be pretty much exactly 61 because there is little uncertainty about the time of ovulation. As I watch Jarrah get rounder and rounder and try to plan my days to accommodate the whelping, I would be grateful to know if others have found their girls know about the 61 day thing.

This statement says 'dogs best suited' not 'breeds most suited'. I think the gist of it is that they're trying to pin down behavioural differences WITHIN breeds, hopefully finding a genetic basis, with the hope of helping breeders achieve desired temperament. Could be something like trying to reduce yappyness and over-excitability . . . which are a problem in suburbs now that back yards are getting smaller and neighbours more in one another's face . . . or understanding the heritability of aggression. Even if I don't want to design a breeding program to produce the perfect pet, there are some behavioural tendencies that I would just as soon be able to keep out of my stock. If someone works out a better way to select for temperament, my ears are open.

Jarrah is big as a house and due 4 January. Fingers crossed. AI, imported frozen semen.

Oops . . . meant to post as a reply in the January thread. Please delete

I think it's too bad that Cav's have gotten so much attention in the debate. Yes they are an extreme example. But other breeds have a lot of problems. I was talking with a Basset breeder who said most Bassets have to be mated AI cause the boys are too heavy for the girls, and Ceasars were more common than not. Not that Bassets should be in the spotlight: just the discussion should include breeds not under the spotlight. It seems to me that many breeds will develop unnatural and unsound physique if hundreds of generations are put to broader, narrower, higher, heavier, lighter, or whatever in any dimension . . . with the head being perhaps the most dangerous part to breed to extremes.

I have public liability for the Boarding Kennel. It also covers breeding. I don't think it would cover shows. I pay around $700/yr. Try Ford Kintner. They do a lot of kennels.

I doubt that very many breeders, even those claiming to 'make a profit', would be operating in the black if they costed the time they put in at minimum wage (not to mention overtime rates during crisis periods) and accounted for the costs of caring for dogs through the full of their lifespans and the costs of maintaining a dog property. I don't feel at all guilty when I sell 8 pups at $1100+ each and am able to pay off some of the mortgage I've taken on to be able to run a dog property. Nor do I feel guilty breeding to the colour specifications of the 'puppy buyer market' (eg preferred colours) -- as opposed to those of the show ring (which is supposed to be colour neutral within the allowed colours, but isn't). It's some work to cater to what the puppy buyer market wants, cause it almost always requires AI and a lot of sorting through pedigrees and talking to people to make sure that health criteria are at least met, and preferably, exceeded. Being a good breeder is hard work and requires some skill. Nothing wrong for getting some return for hard work and skill, or having income adequate to pay off some of the costs.

I agree completely. I'm afraid it's easier to just curse the RSPCA. In WA we don't find the RSPCA much of a problem (or are there people they've bothered who aren't speaking up). I'd guess that's historical accident, not a result of good organisation in the K9 community. I would say it's the VIC and maybe QLD/NSW people who need to mount a a challenge. So I take it you haven't read about how people who were identified as members of a canine council were refused membership? Serious question. It is a bit hard to run for board if you aren't a member, and a bit hard to be a member if they exclude people from certain groups. No I haven't. Where is this documented? Has it happened in WA? (We're a long way from East, often in more ways than km. When I did my PhD, one of the geography profs was fond of saying propinquity is the first element of causation.). Was there more involved than 'members of a K9 council' involved? Was 'being member of K9 council given as a reason for exclusion from membership?

They don't have to supply "proof". Just letters from other groups who happen to agree with it/him (ie RSPCA/Hugh Wirth). Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness doesn't seem to have to apply when it comes to regulating/legislating. I agree with you regarding the more -vs - lesser support that the RSPCA gets from the joe public. But that shouldn't stop people from voicing their objections (not that you said it should). And this can be done in the form of : telling people of these factual stories (eg. this one; Ruth Downey; etc. etc.); giving donations to some other charity; letters (they accumulate, over time); engaging in the Christmas Card Challenge suggested by the MDBA with the notation "Concerned about the RSPCA powers" on them; voting with your feet; on the back of your voting slips, writing something similar (ie "Concerned about the RSPCA powers"). Keep letting them know you're not happy. After all, when you're in trouble, do you only cry out for help once and quit when no one responds? In WA I see the RSPCA as doing more good than harm. May be different in other states. I could well be wrong cause I don't see everything. In general, I think it's more powerful to take responsibility than to point fingers. All charities have internal politics and many are succeptible to being directed by people with extreme views. Where I grew up (California) there were problems with extreme Christians taking over the PTA (Parents and Teacher's Association) and pushing school prayer, preventing sex education, etc. I don't blame the Christians . . . I blame the non-extreme members for letting extrimists take over. The RSPCA has built up a well respected brand name. I think it's more effective to work to make the RSPCA respond to genuine cruelty than to bad mouth the organisation.

I agree completely. I'm afraid it's easier to just curse the RSPCA. In WA we don't find the RSPCA much of a problem (or are there people they've bothered who aren't speaking up). I'd guess that's historical accident, not a result of good organisation in the K9 community. I would say it's the VIC and maybe QLD/NSW people who need to mount a a challenge. Non-governmental organisations with strong opinions have a long history of taking control of relevant policing. Note certain Christian groups getting Harry Potter banned in school libraries and inserting their people as 'abortion councelors' . . . or homophobes in standard police units. It takes a lot of work and effective organisation to prevent this sort of thing.

I think the problem in the following statement is in the \'give us\' Give us a system where we FEEL we have the ability to be heard and defend ourselves and our animals and where we dont FEEL threatened and helpless against goliath. . . . . Policing seems to be the most difficult area of governance. If you have a stomach for cursing, I'd recommend viewing The Wire (rent the DVD's . . .HBO stuff), a cop show like no other, which deals with the problem of policing in terms of individuals, bureaucracy, education, and the full gamit of complexity. I see that you (Steve, MDBA, and friends) are working hard and effectively. But no one is going to give provide the dog world with a utopian system for encouraging good practice and cutting back on outright cruelty. It's hard, endless, work to improve the bloody system that has come down to us. Companion animal legislation is every bit as hard as dealing with race, sexual orientation, or drugs . . . and governance systems may be equally as f@$#'ed up. But our budgets are in the hundreds of millions instead of the multi-to-hundreds of billions scale. So it's hard to get attention. Personally, I don\'t think the RSPCA are the bad guys. Not sure 'bad guys' is the problem. It's the lack of a sensible framework for management of a complex problem.

If it's not teething or attention seeking / bored behaviour, you may have to do fencing, or replace the gravel with something less attractive to chew (eg concrete). In my experience, rock eating is hard to train out, and may lead to high vet bills.

Police have these powers, but that doesn't guarantee that they are willing to exercise the powers they have. I think it's in the 'too hard' basket for a lot of police, and they'd much rather shunt responsibility off to the RSPCA or . . . in our area . . . the Rangers. Domestic disputes and child welfare give many police enough headaches without taking on animal welfare.

I've been reading -- and doing the devil's advocate thing -- on some dominantly anti-RSPCA threads in the last weeks. It strikes me that breeders relate to the RSPCA like hippies did to cops in my youth. Back then, I was on the hippy side. We all said awful things about cops (ie, 'pigs') and tended to rude, crude anarchist condenation. Looking back over a few decades, I'd say there were some bad cops and some good cops . . . and some hippies who were doing bad things and deserved the hand of the law. I have a lot of problems with a lot of laws, but I've seen too much to think that anarchy would be a better solution. Good enforcement isn't easy to set up and maintain. The RSPCA has been put in the position (or taken on the role) of dog cops. Some segments of the RSPCA in some regions will take on the role vigorously and some think ill of pedigree dog breeders. Sometimes there will be harsh and unjust application of the law . . . in effect police brutality. Sometimes there will be lax enforcement, or outright corruption. But in my experience, some breeders are pretty cruel, and I think there need to be someone attempting to enforce minimum standards on the breeder community. No argument here, the same standards need to be applied to X-breeds and puppy mills as to registered breeders. I don't think the situation would be much different if it were left to Rangers or normal police agencies to implement animal cruelty laws. There has to be someone out there doing enforcement. The outcome will be a mixed bag.

Watch like a hawk. A friend of mine ended out with a mysterious and difficult to diagnose obstruction that nearly killed the dog (Labrador); it didn't show up on X-rays, and eventually went away without treatment (but a huge vet bill) . . . they think it was from eating a meat tray thingy.

I had a Lab end up looking like a Shar-pei after a bee sting. Antihistimines (human kind) work. But better to google 'antihistimine dog' or some such to get suggestions about dosage . . . or speak with a vet.

I bought a great scooter for $20 at swap meet. What I'd look for . . . the kind with a platform nearly as big as a skateboard, tires about the size of those on a kiddy bicycle, and BRAKES. Handlebars also need to be where you can reach them . . . but the big kind with brakes almost always have higher handlebars.

I have six Labs, including two pups. Haven't trained any of them to use the doggy door. They just figure it out. It's just a heavy blanket flap door, but high enough to challenge a young pup. They rise to the challenge and clamber over, following the bigger dogs. What takes a little more doing is teaching them to go through the door, as opposed to, say, the closet in the back bedroom, when they need to wee.