'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[Jed]

Hi Petbehaviourist, I believe that dogs have wonderful abilities. Unfortunately, we humans don't have the skills or the tools to discover and qualify those abilities.

The talents of Endal were amazing. Dogs detecting cancer, dogs detecting low blood sugar, seizures, termites, assistance dogs, guide dogs - they are capable of so much, all of it for the benefit of man. And the more we know, the more we will discover.

They deserve better than we often give them.

[PetBehaviourist]

Hi Petbehaviourist, I believe that dogs have wonderful abilities. Unfortunately, we humans don't have the skills or the tools to discover and qualify those abilities.

The talents of Endal were amazing. Dogs detecting cancer, dogs detecting low blood sugar, seizures, termites, assistance dogs, guide dogs - they are capable of so much, all of it for the benefit of man. And the more we know, the more we will discover.

They deserve better than we often give them.

Totally agree! They do deserve better (although mine have it pretty damn good ) Hopefully the more we learn about them the better the care we can provide. How lucky are we to be a part of the wonderful world of dogs!!??

[Sheridan]

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.

I know you didn't offer. I asked for one. You stated that it's not anti purebred so given McGreevy's well-publicised mutt stance I have asked you to provide something that shows he's praised pedigree dogs. Link, please.

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.

How about a balanced view on pedigree dogs? Or is that too much of an ask? How about going after the welfare of crossbreeds? How about going after the welfare of dogs in puppyfarms? Or are pedigree dogs your only target?

Edited January 13, 2010 by Sheridan

[Are You Serious Jo]

mlc, you have to realise that you aren't talking to a bunch of shut ins in velour pants. People here are involved in dogs in various capacities and some people also have PhDs and degrees, so when we are skeptical about this conference it is because we have seen the literature produced by some of the speakers and know their history. Most people here do not support the breeding of cross breds, and please don't treat us as thought we don't know the motivation behind some of the speakers, their own words show their philosophies about the purebred world.

[mlc]

mlc, you have to realise that you aren't talking to a bunch of shut ins in velour pants. People here are involved in dogs in various capacities and some people also have PhDs and degrees, so when we are skeptical about this conference it is because we have seen the literature produced by some of the speakers and know their history. Most people here do not support the breeding of cross breds, and please don't treat us as thought we don't know the motivation behind some of the speakers, their own words show their philosophies about the purebred world.

Hi ijdavis,

I know you are all experienced and intelligent people here - that's why I reckon it's important for you to come and be involved in this seminar day!

You can be sceptical, but I really believe there's no 'hidden agenda' or 'multi-point' plan in action here. Just researchers from the AWSC wanting to share their findings and engage with stakeholders. It's about dogs, we've got information to share, we're keen to hear from you too and we'd love you to be there. That's pretty much it.

I don't intend to convert anyone's point of view. I'm not against pedigree dogs, breeders or owners. I don't believe this seminar is either.

I'm just trying to respond to points asked about the day and to offer information when it's sought in response to my original post.

Cheers

[Erny]

As their caregivers is it not up to us to do best by 'mans best friend'?

Hi PetBehaviourist.

I won't repeat my stance and reasons for it, in opposition to the research that is being done - or more particularly, what the outcome could be used for. If you have read the thread, you will know that already.

However, referencing what you said (quoted above), my concerns lay with the potential for it being more accurately written as :

"As their caregivers is it not up to us to do best by best friend's man?" .............

as I don't see that what is being done will necessarily be used for anything other than genetically engineering dogs to be declared as "the ideal dog for Australians" (which is the essence of the reason for the research, is it not?), the scariest part being that if that comes to fruition, someone other than myself will declare what sort of dog is "ideal" for me.

[mlc]

I know you didn't offer. I asked for one. You stated that it's not anti purebred so given McGreevy's well-publicised mutt stance I have asked you to provide something that shows he's praised pedigree dogs. Link, please.

I think the point was that this seminar day is about dogs and their welfare. All dogs. All of the presentations on the day will contain information relating to (all) dogs. It's not a pedigree specific day and it's not a cross-breed specific day, it's a day about dogs. It's not an anti pure bred day or an anti cross bred day, it's a day about dogs.

I was objecting to you lumping all presenters together as anti pure bred - not offering to find you links! I haven't met or spoken to all the presenters in person, so I can't quote their personal opinions. However, I do know that a couple of them who (as I've mentioned previously) are pure breed breeders/owners/showers/VCA members and clearly not anti-pure breed which is why I objected to you calling them such.

How about a balanced view on pedigree dogs? Or is that too much of an ask? How about going after the welfare of crossbreeds? How about going after the welfare of dogs in puppyfarms? Or are pedigree dogs your only target?

I'm sorry, I'm confused. What's your question?

This day was never represented as being a day about the welfare of particular types of dogs. It won't be presenting a 'view' (balanced or unbalanced) about pedigree dogs. All the presentations relate to (all) dogs and what we've learnt about genetic and experiential research to contribute towards improving their welfare.

The post was about inviting people to attend a seminar hosted by the AWSC. Take it or leave it. I never anticipated it would elicit such a response.

It's fantastic how passionate people are about dogs - I think it's brilliant!

[Are You Serious Jo]

Maybe if you do some reading on the background of the speakers you might be able to put 2 and 2 together on why purebred breeders aren't happy about their interests. Most people on DOL don't agree with puppy farms or deliberate crossbreeding, and whether you know or admit it, the seminar will have people pushing both.

You said you aren't a breeder, so I'll assume you don't know the politics surrounding breeding. I can't see anything other than more breeder bashing coming from this seminar, as this is what some of the speakers are known for. You can tell everyone to turn up and listen and learn, but we already know the agenda, and some of the speakers are NOT interested in hearing from registered breeders.

[Muttaburra]

I believe it is very important for as many people to be involved with this as possible, otherwise the only ones who will be giving input will be the puppy farmers and crossbreed wackos.

If you read the website you will see how it is targeted towards Industry and Farming, however the implications are for all those involved in animal husbandry and purebred dog breeding.

It would be most unwise to let those with the least sound practices to get the jump on others truly striving for improved animal welfare and breeding practices. That cannot be done unless you are heard and get involved, or at least try to be.

http://www.animalwelfare.net.au/about/about.html

Centre Outputs

1. Develop scientifically defensible welfare methodology.

2. Use scientifically defensible methodology to establish, amend or validate industry welfare standards and practices.

3. Develop and support industry education and training strategies and provide scientific advice to support the modification of codes of practice and the development of quality assurance programs to introduce scientifically defensible welfare standards in the animal industries.

4. Understand public and consumer attitudes to animal welfare to assist Governments and industry in (1) developing animal welfare policy and (2) assuring local and international consumers, public and other governments of the sound welfare standards for Australian domestic animals.

5. Ensure tertiary students entering the animal industries are better prepared to provide sound, science-based advice on animal welfare practices to industry, interest groups and the public.

6. Provide high quality postgraduate and postdoctoral training for the next generation of researchers and teachers in animal welfare science.

[Sheridan]

I know you didn\'t offer. I asked for one. You stated that it\'s not anti purebred so given McGreevy\'s well-publicised mutt stance I have asked you to provide something that shows he\'s praised pedigree dogs. Link, please.

I think the point was that this seminar day is about dogs and their welfare. All dogs. All of the presentations on the day will contain information relating to (all) dogs. It\'s not a pedigree specific day and it\'s not a cross-breed specific day, it\'s a day about dogs. It\'s not an anti pure bred day or an anti cross bred day, it\'s a day about dogs.

I was objecting to you lumping all presenters together as anti pure bred - not offering to find you links! I haven\'t met or spoken to all the presenters in person, so I can\'t quote their personal opinions. However, I do know that a couple of them who (as I\'ve mentioned previously) are pure breed breeders/owners/showers/VCA members and clearly not anti-pure breed which is why I objected to you calling them such.

Goodness me. Again, I know you didn\'t offer. I asked you to provide me with one from McGreevy who, from what he has said, seems to most certainly be anti-pedigree dogs. Do you see the difference?

How about a balanced view on pedigree dogs? Or is that too much of an ask? How about going after the welfare of crossbreeds? How about going after the welfare of dogs in puppyfarms? Or are pedigree dogs your only target?

I\'m sorry, I\'m confused. What\'s your question?

Oh dear, short memory, must have a. You asked for suggestions. I provided some.

This day was never represented as being a day about the welfare of particular types of dogs. It won\'t be presenting a \'view\' (balanced or unbalanced) about pedigree dogs. All the presentations relate to (all) dogs and what we\'ve learnt about genetic and experiential research to contribute towards improving their welfare.

The post was about inviting people to attend a seminar hosted by the AWSC. Take it or leave it. I never anticipated it would elicit such a response.

That would be because we\'re not stupid. The only way that crossbreeders seem to be able to spruik their \'wares\' is by denigrating their source material.

It\'s fantastic how passionate people are about dogs - I think it\'s brilliant!

A pity then that you appear unable to understand our concern.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Sheridan

[Jed]

I surmised this thead was posted as revenge for this forum not instantly complying with the request in an earlier thread for subject matter to aid in the PhD study conducted by mlc's friend, which I thought rather immature. However, I may be ascribing motives which are non existent. Other motives I have considered are probably not suitable for this forum, so I shall keep them to myself.

The seminar appears to be highly weighted towards crossbred dogs, "hybrid vigour" and discussions on financial independence made on the backs of dogs.

I do hope that one of the attendees will ask Dr McGreevy whether the keeping of 200, 300, 500 dogs in agricultural premises with minimal socialisation, and more importantly, no socialisation of pups to produce these crossbreds equates with best practice for the welfare of dogs, particularly given the recent BBC documentary on the domestication of dogs via proven scientific studies. Which concur with other properly conducted studies proving the same thing. Perhaps the same enquiry could be made of the vet who is producing the Cavbeastuffups? It would also be interesting to learn what, if any, health tests are done on puppy farm breeding stock. I understand the producer of the poodle x labradors does indeed do testing.

I am sure those enquiries will be made. The purpose of the seminar is to disseminate information, inform the public, and allow for fair study, I believe.

The results of the study on inbreeding of purebred dogs has long been finalised, yet no results are available. I am aware that any "inbreeding" of purebred dogs is well within scientifically established parameters. The gene pools of some breeds, although not large, are diverse enough for continued production of healthy dogs. And as has been done in the past, new blood will be introduced via imported dogs or semen, when the need arises.

It is rather unfortunate that a pet owner, and non ANCK member chose to make suggestions about what the ANKC should be doing, with no knowledge of the workings of the ANKC.

But, it's a public forum. All should be free to speak, but some of those comments may have given an incorrect impression of the ANKC.

mlc

It\'s fantastic how passionate people are about dogs - I think it\'s brilliant!

No, it's reasonable that people who own and breed purebred dogs would be more than concerned that a seminar would be conducted by people who are demonstrably anti purebred dogs, and who have in the past, used any and all tools, includiing - um - sketchy - research, to discredit them, and further, to dissmeninate incorrect informaton to the public to further a particular agenda.

Counsel is supplying an opinon to registered breeders. The CCs exist for the keeping of registers of purebred dogs, and for the conduct of competitions for purebred dogs and for the continuation of the hobby. The CCs are supported solely by members, and their charter is to work at all times in the best interests of those members and purebred dogs.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Jed

[mlc]

I surmised this thead was posted as revenge for this forum not instantly complying with the request in an earlier thread for subject matter to aid in the PhD study conducted by mlc's friend, which I thought rather immature. However, I may be ascribing motives which are non existent. Other motives I have considered are probably not suitable for this forum, so I shall keep them to myself.

Jed, I'm sorry you think that. I really don't have a hidden agenda.

My 'motivation' is genuinely just wanting to extend an invitation to everyone on this forum to attend a day about dogs because you're doggy people. Truly.

I've extended the invitation and attempted to respond to the concerns and questions raised.

If anyone has any further enquiries or questions about the seminar, they can email Jeremy Skuse directly at [email protected].

I do hope to see you at the seminar and would encourage all of you to come and be part of it.

Cheers

[raz]

Ohhh this should be interesting. Have fun, Steve. I look forward to seeing your report on the seminar.

[WoofnHoof]

It is rather unfortunate that a pet owner, and non ANCK member chose to make suggestions about what the ANKC should be doing, with no knowledge of the workings of the ANKC.

From the ANKC website:

To act as spokesperson on all canine related activities on a National basis on behalf of State Member Bodies and to pledge assistance and support to the respective State Member Bodies.

Australian National Kennel Council Media Spokesperson - Dr Peter Higgins

But hey what do I know I'm just a pet owner.

Careful Jed your true colours are showing.

[BJean]

Careful Jed your true colours are showing.

Which are?

[arawnhaus]

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.

I know you didn't offer. I asked for one. You stated that it's not anti purebred so given McGreevy's well-publicised mutt stance I have asked you to provide something that shows he's praised pedigree dogs. Link, please.

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.

How about a balanced view on pedigree dogs? Or is that too much of an ask? How about going after the welfare of crossbreeds? How about going after the welfare of dogs in puppyfarms? Or are pedigree dogs your only target?

I have not read this thread in it's entirety,however where is the notion from that this seminar will be targeting pedigree dogs exclusively? Welfare of dogs I have read but I am curious to read more so perhaps I will look over the rest of the thread.

The title of the seminar is a good title for registered pure breed breeder's.

Edited January 14, 2010 by arawnhaus

[BJean]

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'?

The seminar doesn't do much for welfare (sic)

or I suppose it depends on how you define welfare - whether you genuinely care about canine welfare or whether your interest spurns from an animal rights ticket.

Edited January 14, 2010 by lilli

[sandgrubber]

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'?

The seminar doesn't do much for welfare (sic)

or I suppose it depends on how you define welfare - whether you genuinely care about canine welfare or whether your interest spurns from an animal rights ticket.

Say what? I run a boarding kennel. I get pedigree, DD, BYB ('purebred' but not pedigree), and oops litter derivations in more-or-less equal numbers. Some of them (from each category) are clearly unhappy, or clearly make their owners and/or their owner's neighbours unhappy through temperament/behavioural traits. Too excitable. Demand too much stimulation. Dig holes, bark, chew everything, destroy their dog beds, even a few who deliberately crap in their beds or pee in their feeding dishes. Some interact poorly with other dogs. I am not saying there is anything wrong with these dogs. Many of them would have been great working dogs with huge stamina and high intelligence. The problem is that they have ended up in suburban backyards, and they don't fit into the place they've ended up. You may call it 'dumming down' . . . although sometimes low drive doesn't mean 'dumb'. But whatever words are used . . . I think it advisable that there is realistic understanding that most of the pups born -- that is, those who find caring homes -- will end up in the suburbs. Some temperaments/behavioural tendencies do better than others in the suburbs. Pedigree dog breeders need to recognise this in their breeding programmes . . . or else avoid placing pups as pets in suburban households. The converse may also be true . . . if you want to breed working dogs, you may want to selectively breed out couch potatoes with mild drive. The point is, breeding for temperament is important and improvement of the science behind breeding for temperament can serve us all.

yah, yah, yah, it would be great if more owners would put their dogs into agility or run them twice a day . . . but there are a lot of owners you are not going to reach with that message. Sure, it might be better if those owners had gotten a pet rock and not bothered with a dog. But welcome to the real world. There are a lot of dogs out there demanding/requiring a lifestyle that their owners aren't willing or able to provide them with. In the long term, it may be better if more dogs were bred with temperament that suits suburban lifestyles.

In my experience as a breeder, many behavioural traits are hereditary. I have often watched very specific behaviors such as pawing in a cute way to get attention, having very high food drive, or being ultra-broody and lactating when there are pups around, pass from mother to daughter, sometimes for several generations.

As a pedigree dog breeder, I would like to have a better grip on behavioural inheritance. As someone that boards dogs, I wish there were better understanding and management of temperamental traits when dogs are matched to their owners.

Edited January 14, 2010 by sandgrubber

[poodlefan]

Sandgrubber:

Some of them (from each category) are clearly unhappy, or clearly make their owners and/or their owner's neighbours unhappy through temperament/behavioural traits

My guess is that some of them are poorly socialised, untrained and rarely leave the backyard. All too easy to pass the buck to the dog for its "issues" Sandgrubber rather than look at the environment it was raised and is kept in.

If people want a dog without problems then they need to select, raise and keep it appropriately. Yep, there are still dogs with genuine behavioural issues but they are a lot rarer than some folk would have us believe.

[Steve]

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'?

The seminar doesn't do much for welfare (sic)

or I suppose it depends on how you define welfare - whether you genuinely care about canine welfare or whether your interest spurns from an animal rights ticket.

Say what? I run a boarding kennel. I get pedigree, DD, BYB ('purebred' but not pedigree), and oops litter derivations in more-or-less equal numbers. Some of them (from each category) are clearly unhappy, or clearly make their owners and/or their owner's neighbours unhappy through temperament/behavioural traits. Too excitable. Demand too much stimulation. Dig holes, bark, chew everything, destroy their dog beds, even a few who deliberately crap in their beds or pee in their feeding dishes. Some interact poorly with other dogs. I am not saying there is anything wrong with these dogs. Many of them would have been great working dogs with huge stamina and high intelligence. The problem is that they have ended up in suburban backyards, and they don't fit into the place they've ended up. You may call it 'dumming down' . . . although sometimes low drive doesn't mean 'dumb'. But whatever words are used . . . I think it advisable that there is realistic understanding that most of the pups born -- that is, those who find caring homes -- will end up in the suburbs. Some temperaments/behavioural tendencies do better than others in the suburbs. Pedigree dog breeders need to recognise this in their breeding programmes . . . or else avoid placing pups as pets in suburban households. The converse may also be true . . . if you want to breed working dogs, you may want to selectively breed out couch potatoes with mild drive. The point is, breeding for temperament is important and improvement of the science behind breeding for temperament can serve us all.

In my experience as a breeder, many behavioural traits are hereditary. I have often watched veryspecific behaviors such as pawing in a cute way to get attention, having very high food drive, or being ultra-broody and lactating when there are pups around, pass from mother to daughter, sometimes for several generations.

As a pedigree dog breeder, I would like to have a better grip on behavioural inheritance. As someone that boards dogs, I wish there were better understanding and management

Its my experience that PEDIGREE dog breeders already know this and this is why they take such pains to educate the buyer and ensure they know what they are getting.Its also why they choose the dogs they do for their breeding programs.They know this because they know the breed characteristics and their pedigrees BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN tracking this and breeding this for several generations - Something only purebred breeders can do. Because of the fact that all of us are different and we all have different ideas and needs as to why we choose the breeds we do.Are you seriously trying to say that you believe that its possible to identify dna to help us decide which is the best to have floating around in a dog to make it more suitable as a companion? Some science which will tell us which male dogs are going to poop in their water bowls when its a natural instinct for male dogs to do this to spread their scent? I love it that one of my boys poops in his bowl. I have one for water and one he uses as a toilet. I clean out the toilet twice a day and never have to pick up poop all over the yard? A companion for who?

The reason we have purebred dogs is because each is more suited to different needs. The science is already there if you're looking at purebreds. All you have to do is look at the predictibility of breeds to know what behaviour to expect and its why we are all against choosing a dog you have little clue about what it takes to live with . Its why we want people to talk with the breeder and not some pet shop spotty teenager with no clue about specific behavious which can be expected etc.

Simple if you want a better companion - choose a breed that suits your lifestyle. Save everyone the expense of trying to find some magic formula in a cross bred mutt.