'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[WoofnHoof]

Gotta love the way everyone is whining about how Peter Higgins hasn't been invited to speak, why would he be? What are the ANKC doing in terms of pedigree dog representation? Do they make their role known to anyone outside the insular world of pedigree dogs? Are they on the advisory committee for the AWSC? If not why not? What about DPI advisory panels? What about RSPCA committees? Has the ANKC put submissions into these organisations to seek representation? Have they sought communication with any of these organisations?

The only way to get your opinion heard is to get off your bum and get onto a committee or ten. No point whinging about others pushing various agendas when you aren't pushing your own beliefs, you expect everyone to come to you and ask you what you think about legislation and guidelines regarding dogs? Aint gonna happen and governments don't go to the RSPCA looking for advice you know, they take the RSPCA's advice because they are the only ones out there pushing their message. But no people would rather sit around whinging about how they weren't invited to speak and wont bother going because they disagree with the 'agenda'. If you want to speak put in an application to speak at the next one, and at every other event remotely concerning dogs, you can't whinge about not having a voice if you can't be bothered seeking avenues where it can be heard.

[WreckitWhippet]

By all means push the oodle agenda but leave me as a pedigree dog breeder/owner/exhibitor, the hell out of it. If they want to turn the oodle mongrels into the ultimate companion go right ahead, it doesn't bother me at all.

But this is not what it's about and blind freddy can see that. I await the seminar notes to prove me wrong.

[poodlefan]

Gotta love the way everyone is whining about how Peter Higgins hasn't been invited to speak, why would he be? What are the ANKC doing in terms of pedigree dog representation? Do they make their role known to anyone outside the insular world of pedigree dogs? Are they on the advisory committee for the AWSC? If not why not? What about DPI advisory panels? What about RSPCA committees? Has the ANKC put submissions into these organisations to seek representation? Have they sought communication with any of these organisations?

The only way to get your opinion heard is to get off your bum and get onto a committee or ten. No point whinging about others pushing various agendas when you aren't pushing your own beliefs, you expect everyone to come to you and ask you what you think about legislation and guidelines regarding dogs? Aint gonna happen and governments don't go to the RSPCA looking for advice you know, they take the RSPCA's advice because they are the only ones out there pushing their message. But no people would rather sit around whinging about how they weren't invited to speak and wont bother going because they disagree with the 'agenda'. If you want to speak put in an application to speak at the next one, and at every other event remotely concerning dogs, you can't whinge about not having a voice if you can't be bothered seeking avenues where it can be heard.

In the ACT, Dogs ACT (our CC) is consulted on legislative issues and also provides reps to some Government working parties (eg. the dog parks one).

The RSPCA also consults with Dogs ACT on some issues.

But that's here. And this DOLer gets off her bum as do others. The fact that we aren't madly attention seeking for our efforts doesn't mean we do stuff all.

What do YOU do Woofy?

Edited January 13, 2010 by poodlefan

[sandgrubber]

Jed . . . what's the secret of doing quotes? I mess them up every time. Your post below is a masterpiece of technique.

Retort follows after the quote of quotes

mlc

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

Thank you. I love learning, I love a good seminar. Alas, there's not much for me there - we already have a central registry, its called the ANKC, I know what happens to house dogs which go to kennels, from reports of Dr Bennet's seminar in Tas, I would think it was a waste of my precious time, Dr McGreevey's views are well publicised. I hear he is interesting, but flawed.

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.

Oogh, canine research, I like that. Will someone be able to tell me about new breakthroughs in the identification of the gene responsible for RD, or luxating patellas, or even the mode of inheritance? That's the type of research I love to hear about - the sort that will make me a better breeder.

If it's not a promotion of cross bred dogs, representatives from the ANKC should have been invited.

If it walks like a duck, quacks, looks like a duck, it's a duck, pure and simple.

I don't think it is a promotion of cross bred dogs, it's a promotion of animal rights and being further allowed to encroach on the purebred dog fancy. And yet another bashing of purebred dogs and their breeders, using skewed figures overridden by unbiased research which research will not be mentioned, to brainwash people into believing that purebred dogs have a myriad of problems which will be solved by some academics with an agenda and little practical experience. You were hoping for a good roll up to push your agenda.

Sounds like Don Burke revisited to me.

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.

Gee, many have said they will be attending. Perhaps the ones who have PM'd you are frightened you might bite them? Maybe work on your image a bit?

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

Absolutely not permitted, so you might try harder in future.

Does "all getting along" mean we all have to agree with you?

Erny - that bothers me too. No one is saying the right things *goes off to study Sun Tzu again*

Sandgrubber

Actually, there is something new and significant. From what DOL'ers repeatedly say, the health and temperament message needs to be put out to the DD community . . . and there are still some in the pedigree community who could stand to hear it as well.I would love to see some organisation working for quality control in cross breeds . . . or for all dogs equally.

I agree with you. Registered breeders are only as good as their integrity, mentors, source of learning, and will to learn. Some learn and succeed, some just do the same thing in the same place for years, some come, fail, leave.

As much as we like to bag the ANKC, it is working for health and quality in purebreds. There's a difference between working for health and quality and driving people out

Whether cross breds will come under a health and welfare umbrella is another matter. I think not. The purebred community has one goal, and one agenda, although both very broad.

The mong breeders have as many goals and agendas as they number.

In my experience in kennels, some DD's are wonderful, healthy pets and quite healthy, while others seem to be the result of breeding two dogs that no reputable pedigree breeder would think of using. No better, and no worse than pedigree dogs.

The worst of the pedigree dogs are better than the worst of the designer mongs, but the registered breeders do have an

organisation, which the mong breeders do not. And I very much doubt that most of the mong breeders want an organisation, they simply want to continue to do as they like, and rake in the moolah.

The non-pedigree dog community seems to be gaining market share from the pedigree community. I think behooves the pedigree dog community's interest to listen, look, and not prejudge.

the mongs already have the greater market share and have had for years. Few registered breeders give a rats about that. Supply and demand and promotion plays a large part in that. I don't see mongs as having any relevance to registered dogs, nor do I care what mong breeders do, except for damage done to the dogs. Mong breeders have different goals, different aspirations, different motivations.

I congratulate mic for keeping his or her cool in the face of hostility.

Hostility?

Unfortunately, most of the public does not understand about a lot of things about breeding dogs - not the mechanics, the things breeders stive for. I don't think they particularly want, or need to understand, although it is not "secret business". They do not understand the relevance of points in the breed standards, they do not understand that by changing a point, something else will be changed - and mostly, they don't care. They want a happy, healthy dog which fits their lifestyle, which suits their particular training style and which is easy for them to love.

Consider - the Cav standard calls for straight silky hair. Too easy. Some cavs have wavy hair. The wavy coat tends to be coarser. Not a big deal? Nope. Except that the straight silky hair knots less, holds the dirt less, smells less and requires less grooming. And if it knots, the knots are easier to remove. I know when I sell a pup with the hair type as required by the standard, it is unlikely that the dog will be at the groomers in a matted to the skin mess. It's only a small point, but it's a point which means the difference between success and failure for some owners. It is, in fact, a very important point, although very few owners realise it, and some breeders don't either, although the ones who have lived with both coats do know.

That's the kind of thing breeders know and strive for, but the public doesn't know. There are many many items like that with every breed, and these are often the things which highlight success or failure for the pet owner.

Boxers have a reputation for slobbering, but a boxer with a correct mouth and satisfactory flews slobbers very little if at all.

People don't understand the standards, they don't understand the difference between a coated dog they have to groom for a couple of hours a night, and one which is ok with a bit of a brush off every week. They think all boxers slobber.

I think it is rather sad that someone who doesn't seem to understand the standard wants to crossbreed dogs to change them. You should first understand that which you wish to change.

And puppy buyers generally are more satisfied with purchases from reputable breeders (read this forum for verification) and the majority of breeders do try very hard to do the right thing. A larger proportion than the mong breeders, as far as I can tell. Yep, some mongs are great but it's all Russian roulette, isn't it? Breeding purebred dogs shouldn't be Russian roulette.

I think there is a basic, rock bottom challenge that the pedigree community is not facing. Some of our breed standards promote things that run contrary to breeding good suburban pets . . . which is what most of our puppies end out being [pardon awful awkward English language]. For example, as a Labrador breeder, I know that breeding for the duplex coat that is appropriate from pulling in fish nets in the Bay of Fundy and enshrined in my Breed Standard, results in dogs that suffer from the WA summer heat. 90% of my pups go to pet homes -- mostly because of the Lab's deserved reputation for easy temperament and low grooming needs. If I get a lovely bitch pup who lacks the duplex coat, do I run her on as a brood bitch? Or the father/daughter line that doesn't like to swim? Not true to the intent of the breed standard, but less inclined to dig in the water bowl and slosh water all over the place. Do I promote a line that done well as Guide Dogs due to high biddability and strong loyalty to person, but useless in retrieving trials?

I'm not taking sides . .. just saying there is a legit debate . . . and I think some people are trying to cut that debate off . . . and in my eyes that reflects badly on the pedigree dog world.

Actually, I am taking sides. I strongly believe that the world changes. Dog breeds need to change to adapt to changing environments. I welcome genetic tools that will help that adaptation.

I almost decided to have a go with kelpies . . . a breed I greatly admire for endurance, intelligence and suitability for a hot climate. But seeing how unhappy many kelpies are in the suburbs, I decided that breeding them was a bad idea. There aren't that many openings for herding dogs these days . . . and the openings that there are are better filled by people who run 10,000+ sheep, not by ageing yuppiie dog lovers like me. Lots of Aussies like the kelpie look, keen-ness, intelligence, and strength. I would love to see kelpie lines devel oped that were better adapted to suburban life.

Given that dog breeds have evolved over time to varying 'work' demands -- eg, Labs became retrievers, not bringer-in-of fishnet dogs, many 'fighting' dog breeds are now house dogs, and cart dogs all but died out a century ago -- I think the desire to make dogs fit in better with suburban lifestyles deserves serious consideration. Breeding to suit a function is a long honoured fact in the pedigree world. We need to accept that the function of many dog breeds has changed. We allow for appearance to evolve . . . why not also allow temperament to do so.

As for cross breeding .. . I think the Lab was improved by cross breeding with a hodge-podge of gun dog and occasional other breeds ~1800 to 1950. I don't think we should be jumping on others who try to create new breeds through cross breeding. The example I know is the Rat Terrier . . . mostly a 20th century breed that mixes ground-dog prey drive with more affable traits . . . and which would not exits if the extreme anti-cross-breeding community had its way. I can see some sort of 'spoodle' being a great family dog . . . and I wouldn't condemn anyone for trying to breed some heat tolerant and not so food obsessed traits into Labrador lines to come up with a new breed.

[Erny]

The only way to get your opinion heard is to get off your bum and get onto a committee or ten. No point whinging about others pushing various agendas when you aren't pushing your own beliefs, you expect everyone to come to you and ask you what you think about legislation and guidelines regarding dogs? Aint gonna happen and governments don't go to the RSPCA looking for advice you know, they take the RSPCA's advice because they are the only ones out there pushing their message. But no people would rather sit around whinging about how they weren't invited to speak and wont bother going because they disagree with the 'agenda'. If you want to speak put in an application to speak at the next one, and at every other event remotely concerning dogs, you can't whinge about not having a voice if you can't be bothered seeking avenues where it can be heard.

WoofnHoof - I agree with you in principal. We do need to make our voices heard. And certainly, it's not easy if you are a lone voice.

BUT, remember that the 'folks' in orgs such as the RSPCA (executive committee/decision makers), the AWA and other related Govt departments are PAID for their time. Whilst they work on bringing in laws; deciding who to fund for research; etc., they are being paid. It is not as though the rest of us 'lowlies' (I know you didn't call us that, but that's how I feel we are regarded by the "powers that be") are "sitting around on our backsides". Somewhere in amongst the idiocy of things, we have to work in our various vocations, to earn money, to pay the bills; families to look after. Oh - and gee!! Dogs to look after and train . I agree - the effort of joining wherever and whenever possible IS what is required, but on behalf of myself (who is already caught up with a couple of different aspects of dog-related laws and will be attending the AWA Seminar in February) and others, I think it is resentful to suggest that just because people aren't on or seeking to join committees, they are sitting around on their butts doing nothing.

Apart from which - the Government is supposed to be there to serve the people, not to rule them; to be leaders, but not dictators. We do voice, in many different ways. They should be hearing us already. NOT making us work our butts off to the detriment of our own finances before they will lend us a sensible and listening ear.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Erny

[poodlefan]

Sandgrubber, I'm sure you''re aware that one of Australia's most successful breeders of Labrador Retrieving Champions also provides breeding stock for Guide Dogs and Customs. The two aims don't have to be exclusive and keeness to work can be focussed in various directions.

Frankly I think a lot of Labradors would be far more heat tolerant if they were thinner. Your average pet Lab is technically obese.

Edited January 13, 2010 by poodlefan

[mita]

If you want to speak put in an application to speak at the next one, and at every other event remotely concerning dogs, you can't whinge about not having a voice if you can't be bothered seeking avenues where it can be heard.

You've checked that there was actually a call for papers? That's the protocol for a conference. Because conferences want a wide offering in research directions, as well as depth re specific issues.

This Monash activity is a seminar. Seminars are in-house, with staff featuring (as in this case) plus invited speakers who illustrate further the in-house position.

I wish to heaven there were a conference on the topic of the breeding & raising of companion dogs.

And, to go far out, I'd like to see health & adjustment issues relating to companion dogs coming under the aegis of the National Health & Medical Research Council. Why? Because there is strong evidence of the link between the health & well-being of humans, with companion dogs....in all sorts of situations where they interface. Right down to post traumatic stress being detected in shelter/pound workers who have to PTS hundreds of rehomeable pets.

Edited January 13, 2010 by mita

[Erny]

Frankly I think a lot of Labradors would be far more heat tolerant if they were thinner. Your average pet Lab is technically obese.

Yeah - but how so far less impressive than being able to sprout about genetic isolations and the thousands of dollars spent on that. How very boring just to say "feed your dog less; exercise your dog more".

[WoofnHoof]

In the ACT, Dogs ACT (our CC) is consulted on legislative issues and also provides reps to some Government working parties (eg. the dog parks one).

The RSPCA also consults with Dogs ACT on some issues.

But that's here. And this DOLer gets off her bum as do others. The fact that we aren't madly attention seeking for our efforts doesn't mean we do stuff all.

What do YOU do Woofy?

No one said you do stuff all, more that there is no point denigrating the AWSC for not asking the ANKC to speak when the ANKC is not pursuing the many opportunties available to offer their views on this type of platform. There are many organisations running events for animal welfare and IMO it should be the job of the ANKC to represent it's membership at these events and actively pursue opportunities to do so. It's good that this happens to a certain extent in the ACT but the groups whose view you oppose are acting nationally and it would make sense for the ANKC and it's branches to do this as well.

As for what I do, I watch and I learn, I don't own pedigree dogs and I don't belong to any breed clubs my interest remains in animal welfare as a whole.

Erny that's the thing, your ANKC membership is paying for this PR bloke Peter Higgins to spend his time representing your interests, why isn't he doing just that? It is his job to pursue all available opportunities to represent you that is what he is paid for.

[poodlefan]

No one said you do stuff all, more that there is no point denigrating the AWSC for not asking the ANKC to speak when the ANKC is not pursuing the many opportunties available to offer their views on this type of platform.

How do you know that?

Erny that's the thing, your ANKC membership is paying for this PR bloke Peter Higgins to spend his time representing your interests, why isn't he doing just that? It is his job to pursue all available opportunities to represent you that is what he is paid for.

As I understand it, Dr Higgins is the spokesperson for Dogs NSW. This seminar is in Victoria.

You do understand that nearly all ANKC members volunteer their time don't you?

Edited January 13, 2010 by poodlefan

[sandgrubber]

If you want government processes to hear your words, get involved in the political process. I doubt that your local Member reads DOL forums.

Interest groups effect change when the effectively exchange with the outside world . . . not from chorus behaviours.

[Cosmolo]

There was scientific reserach presented at a seminar a few years ago about the link between inactivity and obesity..

Sandgrubber- i know plenty of kelpies in suburbia who are perfectly well adapted and i would hate to see them change

[Sheridan]

In the ACT, Dogs ACT (our CC) is consulted on legislative issues and also provides reps to some Government working parties (eg. the dog parks one).

The RSPCA also consults with Dogs ACT on some issues.

But that's here. And this DOLer gets off her bum as do others. The fact that we aren't madly attention seeking for our efforts doesn't mean we do stuff all.

What do YOU do Woofy?

No one said you do stuff all, more that there is no point denigrating the AWSC for not asking the ANKC to speak when the ANKC is not pursuing the many opportunties available to offer their views on this type of platform. There are many organisations running events for animal welfare and IMO it should be the job of the ANKC to represent it's membership at these events and actively pursue opportunities to do so. It's good that this happens to a certain extent in the ACT but the groups whose view you oppose are acting nationally and it would make sense for the ANKC and it's branches to do this as well.

As for what I do, I watch and I learn, I don't own pedigree dogs and I don't belong to any breed clubs my interest remains in animal welfare as a whole.

Erny that's the thing, your ANKC membership is paying for this PR bloke Peter Higgins to spend his time representing your interests, why isn't he doing just that? It is his job to pursue all available opportunities to represent you that is what he is paid for.

I agree that the ANKC should be pursuing opportunities to promote pedigree dogs. In fact, I've harped on about it on many an occasion and have been flamed for my troubles.

However, people get invited to speak at these things; they don't invite themselves unless there is a submission process. You have to ask why if this is not simply another opportunity for people like McGreevy to pedigree bash, wasn't someone like Dr Higgins invited to take part.

[WoofnHoof]

If you want to speak put in an application to speak at the next one, and at every other event remotely concerning dogs, you can't whinge about not having a voice if you can't be bothered seeking avenues where it can be heard.

You've checked that there was actually a call for papers? That's the protocol for a conference. Because conferences want a wide offering in research directions, as well as depth re specific issues.

This Monash activity is a seminar. Seminars are in-house, with staff featuring (as in this case) plus invited speakers who illustrate further the in-house position.

I wish to heaven there were a conference on the topic of the breeding & raising of companion dogs.

And, to go far, out I'd like to see health & adjustment issues relating to companion dogs coming under the aegis of the National Health & Medical Research Council. Why? Because there is strong evidence of the link between the health & well-being of humans, with companion dogs....in all sorts of situations where they interface. Right down to post traumatic stress being detected in shelter/pound workers who have to PTS hundreds of rehomeable pets.

I don't know whether there was a call for papers for this specific seminar but the AWSC has been around a while and anyone who knows anything about them knows that the breadth of research includes domestic pets so it would make sense for an organisation with an interest in domestic pets to express their interest in being a part of this organisation, they have an advisory committee consisting of a wide variety of representatives and if I were a representative of an org like the ANKC I would make sure I had a place on that committee, or at the very least had busted my gut trying to get a place on one.

Interestingly Hugh Wirth is on the advisory committee for the CAWE at UQ, why he is I don't know but again if I were in the CCCQ I'd be wanting representation on that committee as well.

[Erny]

Erny that's the thing, your ANKC membership is paying for this PR bloke Peter Higgins to spend his time representing your interests, why isn't he doing just that? It is his job to pursue all available opportunities to represent you that is what he is paid for.

I agree that I have been and am disappointed in the lack of strong activity and conviction coming from that region. The recent Judy Garde issue is one example. And the law that was allowed to slip by unnoticed, which 'got' her in the first place. And to my knowledge, the lack of 'noise' from DogsVic to right that law. Having said that, I haven't had time to read my latest VicDogs mag - so perhaps there are some announcements of revelation in there that would have me eating my words here.

[WoofnHoof]

No one said you do stuff all, more that there is no point denigrating the AWSC for not asking the ANKC to speak when the ANKC is not pursuing the many opportunties available to offer their views on this type of platform.

How do you know that?

Erny that's the thing, your ANKC membership is paying for this PR bloke Peter Higgins to spend his time representing your interests, why isn't he doing just that? It is his job to pursue all available opportunities to represent you that is what he is paid for.

As I understand it, Dr Higgins is the spokesperson for Dogs NSW. This seminar is in Victoria.

You do understand that nearly all ANKC members volunteer their time don't you?

Since all the press releases I've read had Dr Higgins as the PR rep for the ANKC it's on their website from memory, didn't they say they had employed him specifically to counter the fallout from PDE? Most committees do consist of volunteers, hell most of the people in PETA are volunteers doesn't seem to stop them, you just need a touch of zealoutry which of course DOL has in spades

Anyway I'll have to continue this later I'm supposed to be working

[mita]

Erny that's the thing, your ANKC membership is paying for this PR bloke Peter Higgins to spend his time representing your interests, why isn't he doing just that? It is his job to pursue all available opportunities to represent you that is what he is paid for.

This thread is about a specific seminar at Monash University. Any outside speakers are invited to a seminar, to support the in-house staff position being presented. Dr Peter Higgins, in his capacity as PR vet for a Kennel Club, was obviously not invited.

A whole list of other people who'd have an academic or stakeholder interest in the issues, were also not invited. As is the wont with seminars....which are much, much narrower than conferences.

Edited January 13, 2010 by mita

[Crisovar]

How about instead of trying to change dogs to suit the me generations I want it so I will have it mentallity, we go back to people actually choosing a dog that does suit them and their situation. There are many breeds that I love but do not suit my lifestyle, it isn't bloody hard. Just sometimes you can't have everything you want.

I too do not care a fig if some people wish to develop some oodle cross and make thier own little oodle lovers society, but leave our Purebreeds bloody well alone, and stop trying to make the crosses out to be something that they aren't, and stop trying to make the the public believe that the Breeders of Purebreeds are doing it all wrong.

I have lived with dogs all my life, I work with dogs every day, and I tell you from my own experience that the so called DD's are no healthier, no more "stable" than any other dog.

Little dd's that you are afraid to hold onto a leg to clip because the patellas dance in your hands, little jaws that are twisted and crooked and teeth so crowded they look like a handful of popcorn was tossed in

I am fed up with fools who try to tell me they got a DD because they are easier to care for coatwise than a poodle or a shihtzu , yep right, that's why so many are shaved back everyday, that sure makes them easier. The Lab X poodle that I wrestled last week is one of the most stupid dogs I have ever dealt with, it's owners paid an arm and a leg for it because they are born the perfect family pet. No training, no grooming at home because you only need to clip them once a year that it is it. Give me strength, where does Troy find his.

[Erny]

Erny that's the thing, your ANKC membership is paying for this PR bloke Peter Higgins to spend his time representing your interests, why isn't he doing just that? It is his job to pursue all available opportunities to represent you that is what he is paid for.

This thread is about a specific seminar at Monash University. Any outside speakers are invited to a seminar, to support the in-house staff position being presented. Dr Peter Higgins, in his capacity as PR vet for a Kennel Club, was obviously not invited.

A whole list of other people who'd have an academic or stakeholder interest in the issues, were also not invited. As is the wont with seminars....which are much, much narrower than conferences.

Have they asked to go on the "seminar invite/notification" list though? Would they not be like me, who did this? Should they wait for a special invitation? Of course, it would be nice (and I would have thought, sensible, for AWA to have specifically contacted these sorts of people - especially if they are after good and balanced input and not potentially just an audience that will be easily persuaded to what they are doing), but that doesn't mean that the people of the ANKC/VicDogs and any other in relevance to their own States shouldn't have known to have made the move to ensure their participation was on the invite list.

And besides - would they (DogsVic) not know about it now? Should I forward the email I received notifying me of this seminar, to DogsVic? The email invites me to send on the notification to others. Would VicDogs act on it and go in formal representation? Should I do this (ie send it on to them) or is there someone here in the 'know' who has already done that?

Edited January 13, 2010 by Erny

[mita]

Interestingly Hugh Wirth is on the advisory committee for the CAWE at UQ, why he is I don't know but again if I were in the CCCQ I'd be wanting representation on that committee as well.

CAWE is a 'Chair' re animal welfare at UQ. It's not the same as the Centre for Companion Animal Health (CCAH) at the UQ, which produces highly relevant research relating to the interface between humans & companion pets....and also the appalling problem of so many being PTS is shelters & pounds. The CCCQ works in cooperation with such research.....& also in matters like the world standard advancement re deafness in dogs (thanks to the ACD club). The latter had great significance, too, re deafness in humans.