'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[poodlefan]

I understand why there were no outside invites. Its their party. Theres much more to discuss than who was or was not invited -Thats the least of our worries.

I can't tell you how glad I am that you'll be there Steve. Would it help you if we all came up with the references to some of the studies we've been rattling on about?

[Steve]

I understand why there were no outside invites. Its their party. Theres much more to discuss than who was or was not invited -Thats the least of our worries.

I can't tell you how glad I am that you'll be there Steve. Would it help you if we all came up with the references to some of the studies we've been rattling on about?

Definitely. Thank you.

Julie

[Jed]

Is this seminar about reasoned debate, or is it a step on the road to wiping out purebreds. In my paranoia I believe the latter.

But Elenbah said it better

it is the breeders of pedigree dogs they are targeting, why, because we have a paper trail, an open book and easily accessible... force the pedigree breeders to comply and the rest just falls into place....

except there will come a point where they will walk away, so they wont have anyone to control, and there wont be any ccs

- Husky, I cannot imagine a more unsuitable cross than Cavalier + Beagle in terms of drive, temperament personality - to reduce the sense of smell by crossing two totally dissimilar breeds is incredible. Imagine breeding a pup with the conformation of a cavalier, and the drive of a beagle? Not to mention skull shape, dentition, and coat type. How long would it stay sound for? LP, MVD and SM could still occur in the pup. What a bastard - in the true sense of the word. And Huski, she can do it because she has no deep knowledge of dogs, or the breed, and no intrinsic knowledge or care for dogs of any particular breed, specially these two. People who support her are exactly the same by extension. And that's another thing which worries me about these people. Lots of book learning, lots of theory, but absolutely no common sense, or dog knowledge, or sense of dogs as sentient beings.

Oh, I can imagine a more unsuitable x - stafffy x pug!!

Sandgrubber -

Drag the mouse, highlight, copy what you want - paste it where you want. Highlight the text, and click on the "quote" icon. That will wrap the quotes around it.

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?

Sounds like the breed standard runs contrary to what you want. IMHO, you need to breed as close to the standard as you can - in the standard, there is a wide range. I don't know that the duplex coat would be a problem in WA. If I had a breed which was seriously affected by the heat or cold, and to make it suitable, I would have to breed away from the standard, I would cease breeding that breed. However, it seems to me that a lot of labs are ok in WA, so I would give my buyers instructions about the keeping of the dog in the heat. I would think the duplex coat would insulate the coat a little. Friends had a lab in WQ (hot as WA) and he was fine. He had a duplex coat.

Not all dogs within the line are going to match the standard 100%. One of my cockers is a true water spaniel, digs in the water dish, swims at every opportunity, would love to work. The other couldn't give a toss about water, couldn't give a rats about retrieving game. I don't think she would cut it as a working dog. However, she is mellow, and easy in all ways. She's the one for the family with little kids. Both are close to their standard, except for work and the second dog. I will breed her, and accept that she has a breed fault, but her pups will probably make better pets - when I breed her, I will chose a dog who throws drive.

All dogs have faults - you accept them, and you try to breed away from them. I sold someone a cocker pup recently, they were disappointed their previous cockers wouldn't swim and didn't like water. the one they bought was out of the first bitch I mentioned, and I am sure that pup is this minute, digging in the water dish and tracking mud through the house.

People who want suburban pets still want the attributes of the breed. Not everyone wants "insert batteries here" dogs. The people above want a dog who fits into the breed standard, who will be a cocker, not just in name. That is their right, imho. They will laugh about him digging in the water dish, because they will enjoy him fetching from water, and swimming.

Buyers accept that the dog does (a) or (b) because he is a particular breed. Buyers wouldn't buy if the dogs were different. Some buyers prefer crosses, some like pure. I don't think any of our standards are contrary to "pets" - some dogs are not suitable for some homes. Accept that there is a breed for anything. If breed A is not suitable, it is not due to an unsuitable standard, it is due to the fact that another breed would suit more.

I don't think we need to change the standards. We need to accept that not everyone wants the same dog, but we need to breed dogs to the standard for the people who want them. We may need to breed some things to one end of the standard or other. IMHO, after a lot of years of breeding, buyers do want the particular breed, they do want it to behave like the breed.

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.

There's always room for qualified debate, what I don't have time for is unqualified people who want to take over, or end our hobby.

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.

Dog breeds have adapted to fit the current world. And not simply by changing conformation features. Someone earlier in this thread spoke of the lowered drives in GSD and dobes.

I don't breed those breeds, but I know the drive in boxers is lower than it was 40 years ago. The dogs of 40 years ago would often have a little slice of you if you were on their territory, the boys loved a bit of a dust up, blood was fine too, and whilst a boxer wouldn't begin a fight, he sure could finish one!! But they were still 100% trustworthy with their families, good with other pets, kind and nice.

It became apparent that they would need to mellow a bit for the changing world. Not sure what others did, but I bred more mellow dogs - the drives were reduced, but I still needed to breed brave and bold dogs who could step up to the plate, who would be brave enough to do their job if injured, who still had the judgement to pick a bad guy and take action, without losing the trustworthiness. It took a bit, but I now have dogs who will still bite if the need is there, who wont back off, but wont bite as quickly and who need more reason. They are still within the standard for temperament, but they are not at the hard edge of the standard any more.

If I had to breed them off the standard so they could cope in the modern world without having a DD tag I would have stopped breeding.

And most of the people who buy them today couldn't cope with the majority of dogs of 40 years ago - AND the dogs are still within the standard.

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.

I don't think anyone has any right to change any breed. If you like a breed,but you don't want to breed it to the standard, leave it alone. One of the main reasons some lines in some breeds are trucked is because someone came along, liked the breed, but thought they would be better with this, or without that, which was off the standard, because that is what THEY like. And it's led to stuffed dogs and huge problems every single time. Lack of respect for the integrity of a breed always leads to grief.

I love my boxers, just as they are. I have no desire to change anything. I have a picture in my mind of the ideal boxer, and that is what I have always tried to do. If I thought the perfect specimen was not perfect, I wouldn't have been interested in breeding the breed, if I had, I would have stuffed it. Breeds go downhill because people want to change the standard, because it either isn't the breed for them, they think they know better, or they don't understand the standard. And plenty don't.

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.

No. The temperament of many breeds has evolved, as I mentioned earlier with boxers, but any change must not go outside the standard.No breed is simply a working attribute, or a coat and once you change something well away from the standard, you change the line, and the breed becomes different. We are the guardians of the breeds

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.

I don't give a rats ass what they do - as long as the dogs aren't suffering, though they mostly seem to be, and as long as they don't want to stuff up my breed. I don't want them trying to change my breed either.

If you want to create another breed, there is nothing stopping you doing that. If you want to breed labs which are more heat tolerant, and less food obsessed, you have the right to do that.

Really, it's up to each of us, as breeders, what we do, and what we see as right. We are the ones who hold the reins, we need to be aware of that, and careful.

Please don't think I am having a go at you, I'm not, but I think you would really benefit from having a proper mentor who you could talk these things through with. I know a few breeders I can chew things over with, and whether they agree or disagree, or call me an idiot, at the end of it, I have clarified the issue for myself. Over a long time breeding, I have cemented my opinion, because I have watched things happen, things change,breeders come and go, fashions come and go ---- and I have seen the results of it all. I've seen breeds totally stuffed by people who thought they were God, and I've seen them come good again over time.

I think the extra time in the breed gives you another outlook. I notice breeders my age + have different opinions to those younger, and they are mostly due to experience. You also know what you can and should change, and what you shouldn't.

[poodlefan]

I understand why there were no outside invites. Its their party. Theres much more to discuss than who was or was not invited -Thats the least of our worries.

I can't tell you how glad I am that you'll be there Steve. Would it help you if we all came up with the references to some of the studies we've been rattling on about?

Definitely. Thank you.

Julie

No worries. I might start a thread to collect them all.

[huski]

- Husky, I cannot imagine a more unsuitable cross than Cavalier + Beagle in terms of drive, temperament personality - to reduce the sense of smell by crossing two totally dissimilar breeds is incredible. Imagine breeding a pup with the conformation of a cavalier, and the drive of a beagle? Not to mention skull shape, dentition, and coat type. How long would it stay sound for? LP, MVD and SM could still occur in the pup. What a bastard - in the true sense of the word. And Huski, she can do it because she has no deep knowledge of dogs, or the breed, and no intrinsic knowledge or care for dogs of any particular breed, specially these two. People who support her are exactly the same by extension. And that's another thing which worries me about these people. Lots of book learning, lots of theory, but absolutely no common sense, or dog knowledge, or sense of dogs as sentient beings.

I'm sure they have similar issues to the pug/beagle crosses that have become a very popular DD

We should be protecting and promoting the breeds we already have, without trying to take away exactly what makes them the breed they are.

[WreckitWhippet]

Need any $$ Steve for your trip ?

[corvus]

For the record, I have spoken to McGreevy face-to-face about pedigrees and he made it clear that he was guided by welfare concerns and actually praised breeders, knowing nothing about my reasons for bringing it up and with no prompting or prior knowledge of my stance. I didn't even ask a question. I made a leading comment and he replied, presumably honestly because he had no reason to lie to me. I'm yet to meet someone who loves dogs so much they try to make them a part of their livelihood that wants to simultaneously prevent people from having pet dogs. They are mutually exclusive scenarios!

[mlc]

Ah a seminar. How excitement.

.

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.

It does appear to be so. The speakers chosen reflect this.

I, & am sure many others, would attend gladly if the focus was ANIMAL WELFARE, it is that organisation running it.

The seminar is about breeding etc.

Managing dogs going from homes into kennels ?

Shouldn't it be about dogs going from shelter to new homes ? Educate the owner to be, not research the dog.

What about analysing Why were the entire dogs responsible for the bites. In that particular study.

Did they have a particular type of owner? How did their children behave ? What was the home environment ?

Its all a bit like blaming a car of a certain design, which the owner has the choice of buying.

Then when they crash because they drove like an idiot & couldn't handle it. Blame the car.

So, let us produce an idiot proof car.

My posts are not intended to be defamatory. They are an honest opinion based on what is being presented & what Animal Welfare is supposed to be.

The situation is that are millions of dogs ( & more cats ), dumped, surrendered & destroyed daily. Mainly because the owners did not want them, could not cope with them, impulse bought, can't afford them, didn't get the brand they liked etc etc.

A low number would be due to owners death, emigration & genuine distress circumstances.

There are many instances of abuse, neglect & cruelty by people to dogs.

How does this seminar help them, the animals ? I really don't understand. Can you explain the points raised ?

Hi Christina,

I'll certainly try to explain the points you raise. The focus of this seminar is very much about animal welfare, specifically canine welfare and what we have learned from genetic and experiential research to improve the welfare of dogs.

Managing dogs going from a home environment into kennels is a potential welfare concern for many dogs (boarding pets, working dogs, etc.) - understanding what behavioural and physiological responses dogs go through in this change of environment is a way to improve our understanding from the dog's point of view and also evaluate strategies to improve welfare in kennel facilities.

The Anthrozoology Research Group is currently involved in research regarding dogs from shelters into new homes - it's just not a topic being presented on this day (instead the researcher is speaking about public perceptions regarding shelter dogs). I'm sure she would be happy to discuss the other aspects of her research with you though.

The 'bite study' you refer to is not one I'm very familiar with and doesn't seem related to any of the presentations on the schedule, so I'm not sure what you'd like to explain regarding this point, sorry.

The seminar hopes to help the animals by offering a forum in which all stakeholders can get together to share ideas, listen and talk with each other and have the opportunity to network. By showing what research is currently being undertaken by students (and all research on this day is linked to understanding/improving the welfare of dogs), the AWSC (centre and researchers) are keen to engage with stakeholders regarding future research directions/ideas/requests.

I hope this helps in response to your points raised.

[mlc]

I am, by the way, still waiting on your link to where McGreevy praises pedigree dogs. Can't you find one?

Were your seminar balanced I'm sure more would consider going. Why hasn't, for example, Peter Higgins been invited? Someone who can read a standard and actually understand why dog breeds have particular traits? Cos the ones I've listed don't seem to.

I thought some registered breeders were supposed to be part of this. Who are they and what do they breed? And if the purpose is not to pedigree bash, what exactly is the purpose? Cos I'm not getting it from what's been spruiked thus far.

Hi Sheridan,

I never offered to post a link, I merely objected to all speakers being categorised as anti pure breed.

As I've mentioned earlier, I believe the AWSC invited keynote speakers who were already involved with the AWSC. As this has caused quite a stir, I've spoken today with executive Jeremy Skuse and the AWSC would welcome expressions of interest from groups/individuals who would like the opportunity present at future AWSC-hosted events (seminar, conferences, etc.).

I understand a forum regulation here is not to disclose people's identities, so I would prefer not to list the people's names or breeds as I believe that would identify them and I don't want to breach the forum regulations.

As mentioned previously, the aimof the seminar is for the keynote speakers to be accessible to share information and ideas and answer stakeholder questions that may be generated through such a forum. Also to showcase the dog-related research being done currently by students of the Animal Welfare Science Centre.

There will also be opportunities for stakeholder to network (with all speakers/students and with each other) and to have input to suggest future research directions that you'd like to see the AWSC directing resources into.

[mlc]

You were hoping for a good roll up to push your agenda.

No - I was hoping to engage people from lots of different areas to come along and share ideas with the common interest of maximising dog welfare.

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?

Thanks for the feedback Jed. Duly noted.

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

Of course not. I am interested to listen and learn about people's various ideas and opinions and do not expect everyone to agree with my viewpoints. That would be both boring and unrealistic! However, I do prefer conversations that are a little less alarmist/aggressive.

[PetBehaviourist]

Hi all!

Wow, it seems this seminar has created much heated discussion on this forum. I am very interested in hearing what the speakers have to say and looking forward to attending. I see it as an opportunity for all those involved in the wonderful world of dogs (breeding, companions, working dogs etc) to voice their opinions and concerns and to work together for the good of the species. At the end of the day a dog is a dog - purebred, cross bred or designer. As their caregivers is it not up to us to do best by 'mans best friend'?

[mlc]

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.

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

Hi mita,

the keynote speakers were invited by the Animal Welfare Science Centre, but there was an open call for postgraduate student abstract submissions that was distributed prior to Christmas and which closed at the end of last week. All submitted abstracts were accepted - there weren't a large volume submitted and (as it's evident) the bulk were from Monash University.

If you're interested in a great 'conference' that's coming up this year, check out the Canine Science Forum that will be held in Vienna in July. It should be great!

[mlc]

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 AWSC 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?

DogsVic have specifically been sent the invitation and you have all been invited via the initial post on this thread.

The seminars hosted by the AWSC are not closed to 'invite-only' lists. They are posted well-ahead of time on their website (see here) - for everyone to see any time they like and for anyone to attend who is interested.

[mlc]

There's a difference between invite & notification. Seminars only invite outsiders to present work.....when that work follows on from some direction the in-house staff is taking.

I have no idea if Monash University has a mailing list which notifies outside stakeholders that they are holding a seminar....& inviting them to attend, not perform (as is the wont for seminars). And, if so, I have no idea whose names are on it.

The AWSC would welcome expressions of interest from all groups/individuals who would like the opportunity present at future AWSC-hosted events (seminar, conferences, etc.). Just email Jeremy Skuse.

[mlc]

I understand why there were no outside invites. Its their party. Theres much more to discuss than who was or was not invited -Thats the least of our worries.

The AWSC welcomes expressions of interest from all groups/individuals who would like the opportunity present at future AWSC-hosted events (seminar, conferences, etc.). Just email Jeremy Skuse.

[asal]

Kate's the puppy farmer vet, isn't she? The one who breeds "labradoodles" and so on. She also breeds beagle/cav crosses with the aim of eradicating the beagle's drive to scent

I don't get it....they are BEAGLES!! Whats wrong with the drive to scent - they are SCENThounds...am I missing something?? Why would anyone want to change a Beagle???

Apparently their drive to scent is what stops them being the "perfect family pet" ... but that is getting off topic ;)

suppose guilty of streatching the off topic bit. met a guy at the vets today with a beagle x cavalier, beautiful dog i have to say. altough he looked like a straight beagle to me, he said he is a wonderful boy because although he has the look of the beagle he has none of the disobediance and scenting drive instead he has the cavaliers eager to please and train attitude. the perfect family dog.

he said he was the pup featured on kerry ann's program when it was touting this cross as the perfect solution

[mlc]

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

Another conference and international group that you might be interested in is the The International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ). Details about the upcoming conference in Stockholm this year are available on their website here.

[SeeGee]

Kate's the puppy farmer vet, isn't she? The one who breeds "labradoodles" and so on. She also breeds beagle/cav crosses with the aim of eradicating the beagle's drive to scent

I don't get it....they are BEAGLES!! Whats wrong with the drive to scent - they are SCENThounds...am I missing something?? Why would anyone want to change a Beagle???

Apparently their drive to scent is what stops them being the "perfect family pet" ... but that is getting off topic

suppose guilty of streatching the off topic bit. met a guy at the vets today with a beagle x cavalier, beautiful dog i have to say. altough he looked like a straight beagle to me, he said he is a wonderful boy because although he has the look of the beagle he has none of the disobediance and scenting drive instead he has the cavaliers eager to please and train attitude. the perfect family dog.

he said he was the pup featured on kerry ann's program when it was touting this cross as the perfect solution

I love Beagles just how they are. AND I love Cavaliers just as they are.

[Jed]

Hi all!

Wow, it seems this seminar has created much heated discussion on this forum. I am very interested in hearing what the speakers have to say and looking forward to attending. I see it as an opportunity for all those involved in the wonderful world of dogs (breeding, companions, working dogs etc) to voice their opinions and concerns and to work together for the good of the species. At the end of the day a dog is a dog - purebred, cross bred or designer. As their caregivers is it not up to us to do best by 'mans best friend'?

Welcome to the forum, PetBehaviourist,

"Heated discussion"? Naw. Just members voicing their disapproval of a purebred dog forum being used to promote a seminar with key speakers whose voiced aims are to turn purebreds into crossbreds, and someone who is breeding poodle x labradors crossbreds, and CavBeastuffeds.

There is bound to be dissention when the tenets of others are diametrically opposed to your own, and whose tenets, in your opinion, are not doing the best for "man's best friend"

But there you go, everyone has a different opinion.

I hope you enjoy the seminar.

Jacquilee

I love Beagles just how they are. AND I love Cavaliers just as they are.

Mmm, me too, and considering you have to promise your youngest child, gouge out your eyes with a rusty teaspoon, show 10 pieces of photo ID, your mortgage, bank loan details, and sign 200 forms in triplicate to buy a halfway decent dog from any registered Cavalier breeder, I have to wonder where the breeding stock came from? *shudder*.

I think registered Beagle breeders are marginally easier, but I still have to wonder, Oh, I suppose there is always good old Pets Purgatory, the mother lode for puppy farmers. Would you like a single heart murmur with that, or a double? How about a bit of SM on the side?

Mita

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

Breeders have conferences all the time - on the phone, at shows, at lunch. Breeders phone other breeders for advice on pedigrees and matings, on rearing pups, on coats, eating, just about anything you could think of. Breeders physically help each other quite a lot too. Plus, anyone who wants one has a mentor. Being particularly stupid and inept, I have a few, which is wonderful. Additionally, the ccs do run seminars/conferences from time to time. This forum is an encyclopaedia of knowledge too.

Lots of things happen for cc members - if they want it to.

Mita, please do go and look at the youtube links I posted in the general forum. You'll really enjoy them. I was fascinated. But the white silver fox is mine, OK?

[PetBehaviourist]

Hi all!

Wow, it seems this seminar has created much heated discussion on this forum. I am very interested in hearing what the speakers have to say and looking forward to attending. I see it as an opportunity for all those involved in the wonderful world of dogs (breeding, companions, working dogs etc) to voice their opinions and concerns and to work together for the good of the species. At the end of the day a dog is a dog - purebred, cross bred or designer. As their caregivers is it not up to us to do best by 'mans best friend'?

Welcome to the forum, PetBehaviourist,

"Heated discussion"? Naw. Just members voicing their disapproval of a purebred dog forum being used to promote a seminar with key speakers whose voiced aims are to turn purebreds into crossbreds, and someone who is breeding poodle x labradors crossbreds, and CavBeastuffeds.

There is bound to be dissention when the tenets of others are diametrically opposed to your own, and whose tenets, in your opinion, are not doing the best for "man's best friend"

But there you go, everyone has a different opinion.

I hope you enjoy the seminar.

Thanks for the welcome Jed Yes, different opinions make life interesting! I watched the BBC doco on Youtube also - AMAZING!!! Dogs are just the best. Their intelligence and capabilities continue to astoud us.