'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[mlc]

that would be because the MDBA is about pure breeds -

McGeevy Pauline Tammie and friends are about cross breeding -

and removing pure bred dogs.

Now you're just plain WRONG!

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely incorrect and I can't let you post rubbish like that without correcting you.

[Erny]

oh look there goes my friend Tammie and her overseer Pauline, prototype pushers of modpet.

Good to see all that research paying dividends ...

That's a bit unnecessary isn't it?

Why not come along on the day and listen to what they have to say and ask questions or get involved in a discussion rather than just be rude?

Hope to see you there!

Perhaps unnecessary and rude, MLC. But I think borne of fear and scorn for what has occurred over the past years. I harp, I know. But I think the AWA and other 'powers' (and the 'powers' that transfer those 'powers' to other orgs who have since overtly wielded those 'powers' granted them to the detriment of people and not necessarily to the benefit of animals) have a bit of responsibility to bear for that. So I think an expression that belies some anger/upset needs to be understood. We're cynical. The AWA and its peoples are I think the ones who need to do some trust building.

[BJean]

oh look there goes my friend Tammie and her overseer Pauline, prototype pushers of modpet.

Good to see all that research paying dividends ...

That's a bit unnecessary isn't it?

Why not come along on the day and listen to what they have to say and ask questions or get involved in a discussion rather than just be rude?

Hope to see you there!

rude?

I'll call a narc when I see one thanks -

and I stopped being an apologist for my pure breds when I realised what game was up and where it was heading.

Dont despair - I'm not just rude

I also get involved, ask questions and aid discussions where I can.

[Erny]

Thanks Erny,will have to see what i can do,i actually have my first show coming up in 3 years that weekend as well,but it isnt a big deal. To tell the truth,flying scares the crap out of me

Well, public admission is a big step forward, Centitout . I can appreciate your sentiment though. Perhaps someone else who is flying down might meet up with you at the airport and provide you with the moral support you need?

If you can't face it though, I would understand. 'tis ok. Although would be good to see you down here.

[mlc]

So I think an expression that belies some anger/upset needs to be understood. We're cynical. The AWA and its peoples are I think the ones who need to do some trust building.

I can understand that, but not attacking people or spreading untruths - it doesn't help anyone (dogs, people, anyone!) move forwards.

I'm off to bed for tonight - hope we can catch up and talk more on 11 Feb.

Cheers!

[kingsfolly]

[quote

McGeevy Pauline Tammie and friends are about cross breeding -

and removing pure bred dogs.

??? Lilli.. I have seen you at dog shows.. we both exhibit in Group 6! If you can't make it to the seminar, next time I see you I will introduce myself properly.

I hope to see you at the seminar though so I can lay your fears at rest.

[BJean]

that would be because the MDBA is about pure breeds -

McGeevy Pauline Tammie and friends are about cross breeding -

and removing pure bred dogs.

Now you're just plain WRONG!

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely incorrect and I can't let you post rubbish like that without correcting you.

Well it must go both ways

because I can't let you post rubbish like McGeevy and Pauline and Co

are in it for the pure breeds

so lets all clap hands and sing together ...

[BJean]

McGeevy Pauline Tammie and friends are about cross breeding -

and removing pure bred dogs.

??? Lilli.. I have seen you at dog shows.. we both exhibit in Group 6! If you can't make it to the seminar, next time I see you I will introduce myself properly.

I hope to see you at the seminar though so I can lay your fears at rest.

you mean when I actually turn up?

kingsfolly are you going to convince me that anything with McGeevy and the lineup above is for the benefiot of pedigree dogs?

okay I'm entered and have accom booked for cohuna, I'm going with brasco so you can't miss him

and I'll be at the show a day early so I can't miss it.

Seriously I await to be enlightened

Edited January 12, 2010 by lilli

[Christina]

I just wish that the animal welfare groups would concentrate on animal welfare, educate people on dog ownership & responsibilies, stop & take action against cruelty &

Leave the registered purebreed dog breeders alone & stop blaming the dogs & breeders for every problem.

It does seem that all the problems are blamed on the breeds & the breeders & not on the owners.

There is no such thing as the perfect dog. It is a living being, not a toy.

The majority of dumped dogs are not from registered purebred breeders.

The majority of dogs involved in cruelty & roaming the streets are not either.

The majority of impulse buys are not from registered breeders.

Animal welfare is supposed to be about animals being cared for properly not genetically engineering the perfect pooch for the masses, like a bloody new car.

[Kelpie-i]

Hear, hear Christina...well put!

[Erny]

Agree.

Christina

[Sheridan]

that would be because the MDBA is about pure breeds -

McGeevy Pauline Tammie and friends are about cross breeding -

and removing pure bred dogs.

Now you're just plain WRONG!

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely incorrect and I can't let you post rubbish like that without correcting you.

Uh, sorry, but I have heard McGreevy bag out pedigree dogs so do please tell me where I can find him praising them to the heavens.

I would love to come but my perfectly healthy, soon-to-be 14 years old pedigree dog would probably prefer me to stay at home and I know whose company I'd prefer.

[BJean]

that would be because the MDBA is about pure breeds -

McGeevy Pauline Tammie and friends are about cross breeding -

and removing pure bred dogs.

Now you're just plain WRONG!

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely incorrect and I can't let you post rubbish like that without correcting you.

Uh, sorry, but I have heard McGreevy bag out pedigree dogs so do please tell me where I can find him praising them to the heavens.

I would love to come but my perfectly healthy, soon-to-be 14 years old pedigree dog would probably prefer me to stay at home and I know whose company I'd prefer.

Well I hope your pedigree dog isn't a male Sheridan,

AND you have the kids locked away

because according to keynote speaker the learned Kate Schoeffel

Studies show that children get bitten by dominant purebred male dogs.

Edited January 12, 2010 by lilli

[Sheridan]

Uh, sorry, but I have heard McGreevy bag out pedigree dogs so do please tell me where I can find him praising them to the heavens.

I would love to come but my perfectly healthy, soon-to-be 14 years old pedigree dog would probably prefer me to stay at home and I know whose company I'd prefer.

Well I hope your pedigree dog isn't a male Sheridan,

AND you have the kids locked away

because according to keynote speaker the learned Kate Schoeffel

Studies show that children get bitten by dominant purebred male dogs.

Do they indeed? Only by dominant purebred males? Golly.

I love it when people demonstrate that they cannot reason between A and B and come up with C. Darwin Award winner, that one.

[Elenbah]

I am absolutely with you Christina.!

What I can't fathom is why is there so much research being done in order to try and produce some nondescript, mundane mutt that never does anything wrong, has no urge to do anything bar lay around, look pretty or to do the owners biding without even wanting to please.... Oh, and of course 100% genetically the essence of pure perfection...... To me it's just not feasible... what about individuality, will they be looking at producing dogs that come out that won't need any training or set boundaries, will families have all responsibility for their pets taken away from them bar feeding them and giving them shelter...will they be able to leave them unsupervised for 18 hours a day while the family goes about doing their own thing?.... If this is what the pet surveys have come up with, would these people not be better off buying the pull along dog or the robot dog that all that is needed is a new set of batteries when they go flat.

As Christina has said, it is not the pedigree dogs that end up causing a problem. Pedigree dog breeders do not go out and force people to by their pups, they screen their buyers making sure the dog is suitable to the family's lifestyle... and I know i do and many many pedigree dog breeders tell their buyers that if the pup does not settle or there is any problems to bring the pup back for a refund. Do all these other breeders of pet dogs do the same?

[Sheridan]

I am absolutely with you Christina.!

What I can't fathom is why is there so much research being done in order to try and produce some nondescript, mundane mutt that never does anything wrong, has no urge to do anything bar lay around, look pretty or to do the owners biding without even wanting to please.... Oh, and of course 100% genetically the essence of pure perfection...... To me it's just not feasible... what about individuality, will they be looking at producing dogs that come out that won't need any training or set boundaries, will families have all responsibility for their pets taken away from them bar feeding them and giving them shelter...will they be able to leave them unsupervised for 18 hours a day while the family goes about doing their own thing?.... If this is what the pet surveys have come up with, would these people not be better off buying the pull along dog or the robot dog that all that is needed is a new set of batteries when they go flat.

Yes, but then the breeder would get done by the RSPCA when the pullalong dog's string broke and for not providing a lifetime supply of batteries.

[Jed]

Ah a seminar. How excitement.

So far key speakers are

Dr McGreevy, who wants all dogs to be crossbreds, touts hybrid vigour, and the benefits of labradoodles, and is studding his cross bred no breed (and probably no health tests either, don't think there are a lot of tests for mutts) on the internet.

This is a small sample of what Dr. McGreevy has to say on "F1 Hybrid Vigour"

Contrary to popular belief, F1 hybrids between popular breeds are quite predictable.....

Indeed this predictablity will be as great as, if not greater than the predictability of purebreds. However, being the combination of the two breeds, such hybrids will have a far lower chance of exhibiting the the disorders which are common in their parental breeds - their genetic health will be substantially higher

Animal Welfare 1999 McGreevy & Nicholson (2006)

I wont post it, I posted the ad where the mongrel was being studded with no condition on the bitches (apart from paying the fee, as far as I could see, that was obviously the only important bit) and the page mysteriously disappeared. *spooky music* So, we wouldn't want that to happen again. I've saved it though, as I saved the stud ad. If you want a copy, let me know.

Of course, all deleterious genes simply fly out the window.

The above would no doubt explain why so many of these cross bred mongrels are dumped in pounds. There are about 14 pages, apart from a few sentences which are demonstrably provable.

Deja vu - sounds just like, just like, just like Don Burke Strange that a vet and a garderer should sound the same. And the gardener wanted to take over the management of purebred dog breeding according to his writings in his magazine in ... oh ... years ago.

And here's what Hilary has to say about that

Cross breeding. This is the mating of unlike breeds and is done in the formation of new breeds. It is not often resorted to by breeders as it only produces mongrels in the early generations.

Think I'll go with Hilary, she has the runs on the board. Theoretical is fine, but practical is more likely to work, particularly when coupled with sound theory.

Wonder if the gardener will be at the seminar? He can tell everyone how Gregor Johann Mendel (1822 - 1884), discoverer of the laws of inheritance, crossed peas and beans to get F1 hybrid vigour. I see great importance in vigour for peans, or beas. I'm sure we all do.

Dr. Bennett, whose ethos and goals were discussed in another thread on this forum needs no introduction. She of the anti purebred dog seminar in Tasmania. Will this be a rehash of those notes, I wonder?

Kate Schoeffel (Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders). Needing no introduction, puppy farmer of several designer mutts, all at very high prices, and cross breeder extraordinaire, and the subject of numerous complaints on this very forum over some gilding the lily during sales of labramutts. Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders was a rather nasty but failed forum, specifically to trade stories of cross bred dogs. According to a poster, she is devoted to producing some sort of mongrel beagle with little sense of smell. How peculiar.

Of course, if breeders had not devoted years to developing the beagle, she would not have any breed to desecrate.

Mike Goddard (University of Melbourne) Most of his blog sounds good, except for but to do this would require that a central registry was kept of dogs’ status for traits such as HD and epilepsy.

Uh huh, say no more. Another building block on the way to the 39 point plan

Mia Cobb – Monash University - mlc whom we have met.

Tammie King the phd student, whom we have met, being supervised by Dr Bennett.

Which leaves

Kate Mornement – Vanessa Rohlf and Lisa Tomkins –

Might have to ascertain just where they fit in.

No doubt the 39 point plan will be discussed. It's too long, but here's the 10 point plan

Ten-point plan for dog breeding

1. Collaborate: encourage collaboration amongst all interested parties; facilitate genuine dialogue amongst all interested parties, resulting in positive action that can be embraced by all stakeholders

2. Review breed standards: review breed standards and change them where necessary; provide incentives to encourage the breeding of healthy dogs with favourable temperaments

3. Conduct pedigree analyses and monitor the extent of genetic variation: enable pedigree analyses to be conducted on all breeds, to determine the actual levels of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity. Complementary to the pedigree analyses, obtain estimates of actual genetic diversity levels in all breeds, using any information that may be available. Increasingly in the future, DNA technology (including dog SNP chips) will be used to obtain estimates of genetic diversity

4. Limit the mating of close relatives: recommend that the offspring of any mating between first-degree relatives (parent-offspring; full-sibs), and possibly second-degree relatives (e.g. half-sibs, double-first cousins, uncle-niece/aunt-nephew, grandparent-grandchild), be not registered

5. Import genetic variation from other countries and from other breeds: especially for the numerically-small breeds, encourage and facilitate (a) importation of less-related animals from the same breeds in other countries, and (b) programs involving an outcross to another breed, followed by backcrossing. Provide examples of how this has been done successfully without compromising the integrity of breeds. Such programs are very effective strategies for introducing genetic diversity in numerically-small breeds and for addressing particular inherited disorders in any breed. Progress in such programs can be monitored by genotyping with dog SNP chips

6. Monitor the incidence of inherited disorders: in conjunction with epidemiologists, implement the LIDA strategy for continually estimating the prevalence of inherited disorders within breeds, and for making this information available to breeders, veterinarians, researchers, and potential pet-purchasers

7. Control single-gene disorders: recognise the distinction between: (a) eliminating (or decreasing the incidence of) inherited disorders (which is certainly possible), and (b) eliminating all mutant genes that cause disorders (which is not possible) Consistent with this reality, for known autosomal-recessive disorders, devise guidelines/rules that encourage/ensure that all matings involve at least one parent that is known to be (or has a high chance of being) homozygous normal [this will achieve (a) above]. At the same time, do everything possible to expand research into inherited disorders, especially with the aim of expanding the list of inherited disorders for which DNA markers are available for identifying homozygote normal animals. For practical feasibility, aim to expand current DNA testing to the stage where all available DNA tests can be incorporated in a single dog SNP chip (which can also include DNA profiling)

8. Control multifactorial disorders: for multifactorial disorders, develop schemes (in close collaboration with breeders) for using the most powerful means of predicting the results of any mating (namely estimated breeding values; EBVs), using phenotypic and pedigree data (and in the future, also from DNA marker data); and provide incentives for matings for which the average of the parental EBVs is on the favourable side of the kennel average and/or the breed average

9. Investigate insurance schemes: investigate the potential of insuring breeding stock against throwing offspring with particular disorders, especially those for which neither DNA tests nor EBVs are available. This provides increased financial security for vendors of breeding stock, reduces the likelihood of serious legal disputes between vendors and purchasers, and (very importantly) encourages reporting of disorders

10. Facilitate continuing education for all stakeholders: work with educational institutions to enable breeders, administrators, veterinarians and pet owners to increase their understanding of the biological and ethical issues involved in dog breeding

I hope Dr McGreevey, et al, intends providing the funding to prevent disorders as per No 7. So far, only registered breeders have provided any funding to recognize and test for disorders, a bit of help with that from Dr McGreevey would probably be the most beneficial thing he could contribute.

I am rather disappointed he thinks breeders are not able to handle #8, and I would like to know what his experience is of "handling multifactorial disorders" - not in the labratory, but in the real world, with quantifiable results, and his experience in the reading of pedigrees, and the weighting of the values contained within those pedigrees, and what studies he has performed to conclude that EBVs will give a better results, with proven reasons.

So, we have a puppy farmer, a vet who believes in Hybrid vigour, and the benefit of labradoodles and other oodledoodledandymutts over purebred dogs, we have someone who is keen to see the development of one size fits all, and we have some total unknowns.

Do they pay us to go, or do we pay them? Does anyone know??

Obviously these seminars will be televised, and will be promoted heavily to the public, as a way of getting rid of unhelalthy purebred dogs.

And when the public is trying to cope with totally unsuitable schoodlemoodledoodles with two coat types and bad attitudes, and so much "hybrid vigour" the buggers are untrainable, with skull and mouth types are so unsuitable they have dental problems, it will be too late, all the nice purebreds, purpose built for a job, and which might have been used to rectify the evils of Eurodog will be gone.

And of course, if you are developing a schoodledoodlemoodlefoodle, you need a predictor for temperament. There already is one for purebred dogs.

I believe even the originator of the labradoodle mutt came out publicly againt them. Unsuitable as guide dogs, far too many problems, he stated he had produced a monster.

As a vendor of breeding stock (Item 9), I think I would be better staying home and investigating the potential of insuring against breeding a shonky pup which someone will sue me for. Of course, I could simply do as I do now, avoid problematic lines, but give them another pup io case of disaster, and everyone would be happy, except the insurance companies, who will no doubt charge us vendors of breeding stock a few grand annually for insurance. But I suppose as a "vendor" I am perceived as having a few extra grand for insurance?

And really, I don't see much value in this seminar for me. Dr. McGreevey's ethics and ethos are directly opposed to mine, he may be a vet, but I've been putting the goods on the ground for a very long time - and not by studding a cross bred mutt of dubious parentage, with no health tests.

The ethos and ethics of a puppy farmer are also diametrically opposed to mine, the keeping of dogs as agricultural animals in purpose built (or not) sheds is not in the best welfare of those dogs. And I don't need a degree to know that. But in any case, there are numerous studies proving my assertion.

Dogs are not agricultural animals. The link to the BBC program I posted on another thread proves that, not that we didn'rt know already. That program also scientifically negates some of what the people (above) have postulated as scientific fact. Of course, there are other scientific papers by other vets/scientists which negate every finding by the above. I hope they are given equal time at the seminar.

Perhaps some of those attending would like to take some of them, so there is considered debate on all aspects?

Why anyone would want to truck with the hobby of just 40,000 odd people Australia wide baffles me. I cannot believe it is for the "welfare of dogs", If welfare of dogs is the agenda, why is not a plan being drawn up for the keeping of dogs as agricultural animals? It is well known, both as the results of studies overseas, and anecdotal evidence of rhe psychological damage done to dogs kept in that fashion, that such methods are not in line with canine "welfare, and the number of dogs so affected numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Why is much being made of testing and more testing, when pf dogs are not tested at all? Why are EBVs not being discussed in terms of puppy farms? Why are autosomal recessives and PRA not being discussed as relevant to puppy farms?

Why is not interest being taken in farms which produce, according to the only figures available, something like 100 TIMES more pups annually than all registered breeders in Australia do? Why are our learned friends not intersted in controlling the breeding in puppy farms, for the greater welfare of dogs in Australia, and the supply of healthier and more suitable pups to the public?

Very strange that the major welfare issue is not addressed first.

Perhaps that question could be asked at the seminar?

Additionally, as the promotion of cross bred dogs is against the rules of this forum, I can see no reason why the promotion of a seminar to promote crossbred dog breeding is not also against the rules of the forum, so I will discuss this matter with Troy, and perhaps he will nuke the thread.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jed

[Jed]

Oh, incidentally, Kate, I notice you are cross breeding beagles so they lose their sense of smell. I hope you will apply to the government for permission to crop the ears of the pups.

Every hound which uses scent, world wild, has pendulous ears. This is beause it is felt that the ears "trap" the scent, helping to keep the dog on it. There is no scientific proof, of course, but I am prepared to go with anecdotal evidence - often hundreds of years of anecdotal evidence.

If the mutts you breed don't have much sense of smell, do have them cropped. They wont need long ears

Hounds which use scent as a hunting tool and have pendolous ears include Bloodhounds, Bluetick Coonhounds, Beagles, Finnish Hound, Basset Hound, Cheins Francaises, Chein Francais Blanc et Orange, Gascons-Saintongeois (Grand and Petit), Porcelaine, Bruno Jara Laufhunds, Luzemer Laufhund, Luzemer Neiderlaufhund. There are heaps more too, but I coiuldn't be arsed putting them here.

It's really hilarious, isn't it, that dogs which do the same job, no matter where they originated, all have very similar features so they can do a similar job, anywhere, with the same degree of skill and success.

Course it's hilarious. If you haven't read a standard, ir's a complete joke. If you have read a standard, you understand fully why these breeds, most of which were developed in totally different regions, in different continents, without the breeders ever seeing most of the other simllar breeds, are similar

Because those are the features which allow them to do their job better than any other breed.

But I suppose if you cross a staffy, with his little ears, with the beagle, you should get short ears, in some of the F1 progeny. Of course, you will lose the attributes which make the staffy so popular, and the attributes which make the Beagle such a wonderful and trustworthy family dog. So you may well breed and independent dog, which likes to wander, but which loves to beat up other dogs on those wanders, oh and a few cats and rabbits. Yep, definitely an improvement.

But I guess that is less important than no sense of smell.

One size fits no one.

Most gun dogs, particularly those which retrieve from close to the hunter, have pendulous ears, often covered in long hair - this is to protect their hearing from the noise of the guns. Some have ears which reach their nose, or longer - this is so they too can catch a scent from the ground when finding and retrieving fallen game. Not all retrievers are expected to do this, bur you can see which ones do from the length of their ears.

Of course, Irish Setters have different feet from English Setters because they worked on peaty, boggy ground, and needed different feet to do their jobs.

The integrity of the breeds means nothing to those wishing to trash them, to breed some good for nothing cross bred triipe hound, because they have no inkling of why the features of the dogs were bred into them iin the beginning, or don't see it as important.

Lose some of those features, and you will lose also the genes responsible for other features - the ones which make breeds the great companions, obedient friends, soft mouthed trustworthy companions, willing and compliant obedience competitors, nnd all round good buddies.

And I can't think of anything more repulsive than a boxerdoodle. I want the boxer go guard, to step up to the plate and do what he was bred to do to protect his family. Not to find the friggin intruder and retrieve him to my feet. And to want me to throw him so he can retrieve him again. Where has commen sense flown?

But I guess you wouldn't waste your time on a purebred forum, would you?

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jed

[Jed]

I am absolutely with you Christina.!

What I can't fathom is why is there so much research being done in order to try and produce some nondescript, mundane mutt that never does anything wrong, has no urge to do anything bar lay around, look pretty or to do the owners biding without even wanting to please.... Oh, and of course 100% genetically the essence of pure perfection...... To me it's just not feasible... what about individuality, will they be looking at producing dogs that come out that won't need any training or set boundaries, will families have all responsibility for their pets taken away from them bar feeding them and giving them shelter...will they be able to leave them unsupervised for 18 hours a day while the family goes about doing their own thing?.... If this is what the pet surveys have come up with, would these people not be better off buying the pull along dog or the robot dog that all that is needed is a new set of batteries when they go flat.

Yes, but then the breeder would get done by the RSPCA when the pullalong dog's string broke and for not providing a lifetime supply of batteries.

How about one which plugged into the mains power to recharge?

And Kevlar string?

I understand the Bill Clinton BOB has both those attributes. Of course, you can't take your Bill BOB walking, but it is the same principle. I hear there was a Malcolm Turnbull BOB but it didn't really take off.

Maybe Eurodog could be a multipurpose dog and a BOB? I see some benefits there.

[mlc]

Ah a seminar. How excitement.

Perhaps that question could be asked at the seminar?

Additionally, as the promotion of cross bred dogs is against the rules of this forum, I can see no reason why the promotion of a seminar to promote crossbred dog breeding is not also against the rules of the forum, so I will discuss this matter with Troy, and perhaps he will nuke the thread.

Jed - I'd love to see you there and have a chat over lunch.

This seminar is NOT a promotion of cross bred dogs - it is an opportunity for us all to get together and talk and for you (along with all other stakeholders) to have input and take part in discussions and learn more about what canine research is being done in Australia right now. By listing this invitation here I was hoping to encourage that.

There's been a lot of positive feedback from people wanting to attend, although many PM's are because people are too hesitant to publicly say so.

I thought making defamatory posts was not permitted in this forum. I really just wish we could all get along!