'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[corvus]

What? How about the average dog buyers choose a breed they can manage in the first place?

...like a crossbreed?

I think it's entirely unrealistic to expect every dog owner to have done research before getting a dog. It doesn't even cross the minds of many dog owners. They just want a dog, so they go out and get one from somewhere convenient. It's not their fault and it doesn't make them unworthy of having a dog. It's just the way a lot of people have been brought up to deal with dogs.

[poodlefan]

What? How about the average dog buyers choose a breed they can manage in the first place?

...like a crossbreed?

I think it's entirely unrealistic to expect every dog owner to have done research before getting a dog. It doesn't even cross the minds of many dog owners. They just want a dog, so they go out and get one from somewhere convenient. It's not their fault and it doesn't make them unworthy of having a dog. It's just the way a lot of people have been brought up to deal with dogs.

And that makes it OK?

Or should we make it less 'convenient' in the interests of dog welfare. Dogs are not fast food.

[WoofnHoof]

Also, anyone who doesn't research a breed and find out exactly what that means shouldn't have a dog.

I didn't research my breed, should I not have a dog?

[KismetKat]

Did Kate tell everyone she desexes her pups at 6 weeks?

Yes she did say that. And she breeds crossbreeds so don't u think she should? The more scientific people did say there was some advantages in F1 crosses (they stated the HD was less prevelant in F1 crosses even when both breeds could suffer from it) but genetic advantages were lost in F2s. But I also think she said she no longer routinely desexes (can note-takers elaborate?).

[gareth]

What? How about the average dog buyers choose a breed they can manage in the first place?

...like a crossbreed? :D

What?

I think it's entirely unrealistic to expect every dog owner to have done research before getting a dog. It doesn't even cross the minds of many dog owners. They just want a dog, so they go out and get one from somewhere convenient. It's not their fault and it doesn't make them unworthy of having a dog. It's just the way a lot of people have been brought up to deal with dogs.

WHY doesn't it cross their minds?

So you think it is a better option to change our current breeds rather than educating people to make more informed choices?

[poodlefan]

Also, anyone who doesn't research a breed and find out exactly what that means shouldn't have a dog.

I didn't research my breed, should I not have a dog?

Perhaps if you had, you'd not be saying things like this:

Personally, living alone and having a few things on the go it can be difficult to keep up with the sheer amount of exercise and stimulation my boy needs to have to keep him occupied, it wouldn't hurt to have a dog who could cope with a few days off without trashing the house out of boredom. It's not like he doesn't get a lot of interaction, it's just that some days it's not enough for him. Just because I can deal with the consequences of a few days of boredom doesn't mean it's the ideal situation for a breed which is largely unchanged since it's sledding days.

Good on you for rising to the challenge but you know better than most the reason why Huskies end up in pounds. If you don't want a dog that climbs the walls if it misses a day of exercise, don't buy a Husky next time. If you'd bought from a good breeder, you'd have been informed about what owning one entails.

Edited February 11, 2010 by poodlefan

[Diva]

Thus getting back to not desexing dogs routinely before 6 months as, an an adult dog, they might, without impinging on the conformation standard, prove to be 'good' dogs to keep in the gene pool.

When I got my first pure bred dog back in the eighties none of the breeders I spoke to were concerned that the pets they were placing were desexed at a young age. Not to say that no breeders at all were, but apparently not a lot or I would have run into some.

But then the increased farming of dogs, and especially F1 Hybirds, for profit came along and breeders became worried about pups ending up in that circumstance. That seems to me to be what has pushed the early desexing focus the most, at least outside of the rescue area.

Most breeders I know - and admittedly I mostly know those with larger breeds - would rather not desex young. Not because they can't tell temperament until age six, I think that's another great exaggeration - but because they believe its better for the individual dog to wait until maturity. But it becomes a balancing of risk

And no I don't think it's at all unreasonable, Corvus, to expect people wanting a dog to do their research. And especially if they want a pure bred they have no more experience of than seeing a couple and thinking they look good.

They are choosing a companion they may spend 10 or more years living with - of course they should do research!

[Are You Serious Jo]

What? How about the average dog buyers choose a breed they can manage in the first place?

...like a crossbreed? :D

I think it's entirely unrealistic to expect every dog owner to have done research before getting a dog. It doesn't even cross the minds of many dog owners. They just want a dog, so they go out and get one from somewhere convenient. It's not their fault and it doesn't make them unworthy of having a dog. It's just the way a lot of people have been brought up to deal with dogs.

It is their fault! If people can work out what sort of car suits their lifestyle they can spend a bit of time looking into the differences between dogs. Are you saying that it is unreasonable to expect that people should spend even a few hours researching into a breed they may own for the next 15 years?

As for crossbreds being good for the average dog owner, yes, buying a dog that you cannot make any prediction on its temperament is far more reliable than buying a purebred that has a defined temperament.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Also, anyone who doesn't research a breed and find out exactly what that means shouldn't have a dog.

I didn't research my breed, should I not have a dog?

Surely you don't recommend people just get any dog they like the look of, regardless of whether their choice means the dog may be discarded in the pound because it is unsuitable for their circumstances.

[poodlefan]

Did Kate tell everyone she desexes her pups at 6 weeks?

Yes she did say that. And she breeds crossbreeds so don't u think she should? The more scientific people did say there was some advantages in F1 crosses (they stated the HD was less prevelant in F1 crosses even when both breeds could suffer from it) but genetic advantages were lost in F2s. But I also think she said she no longer routinely desexes (can note-takers elaborate?).

No, I don't. The only reason I think she does it is to prevent breeding in competition to her.

Dogs pay a price for that early desexing in terms of health and development.

Her website says she's desexed all pups at 6 weeks for the last 13 years.

[KismetKat]

As for crossbreds being good for the average dog owner, yes, buying a dog that you cannot make any prediction on its temperament is far more reliable than buying a purebred that has a defined temperament.

Yet the "forprofit" cross-breeders are selecting for temperament over looks, while purebreed breeders may well put looks first.

[poodlefan]

As for crossbreds being good for the average dog owner, yes, buying a dog that you cannot make any prediction on its temperament is far more reliable than buying a purebred that has a defined temperament.

Yet the "forprofit" cross-breeders are selecting for temperament over looks, while purebreed breeders may well put looks first.

Says who? Kate? Where's her evidence? She can no more predict the temperament in her dogs than she can their coat type.

A purebred dog that does not conform to the temperament requirements of its breed standard is not a good example of the breed.

Edited February 11, 2010 by poodlefan

[gareth]

As for crossbreds being good for the average dog owner, yes, buying a dog that you cannot make any prediction on its temperament is far more reliable than buying a purebred that has a defined temperament.

Yet the "forprofit" cross-breeders are selecting for temperament over looks, while purebreed breeders may well put looks first.

Where does it say in the "crossbreed" standard what the temperament should be?

And why do they all use "non shedding" as the biggest selling point if they are breeding for temperament foremost?

[huski]

There are a lot of sibes that are escape artists regardless of how much interaction they get, how would toning that down ruin the whole breed? Of course those of us who still have sibes haven't found them that much of a problem but there are lots of sibes in pounds and anything that reduces that situation is a good thing IMO. Very easy to say that heaps of people shouldn't own them but who should and what do you do with all the excess sibes bred with no homes to go to? Should breeders breed just enough to keep the breed going and fill a few select orders and euth the rest?

How do you work out which gene in the Siberian Husky produces dogs that are excellent escape artists, and how do you selectively breed away from this without buggering up the breed entirely?

Do you honestly think that the majority of Sibes in pounds and rescues come from reputable breeders? I don't - surely you realise that changing the breed in the way you propose will take decades, if it is even possible, what do we do about the dogs that are dumped in the mean time? Do you seriously think the problem is the dogs, and not the people who are buying and breeding them?

Personally, living alone and having a few things on the go it can be difficult to keep up with the sheer amount of exercise and stimulation my boy needs to have to keep him occupied, it wouldn't hurt to have a dog who could cope with a few days off without trashing the house out of boredom. It's not like he doesn't get a lot of interaction, it's just that some days it's not enough for him. Just because I can deal with the consequences of a few days of boredom doesn't mean it's the ideal situation for a breed which is largely unchanged since it's sledding days.

Honestly there have been a lot of drastic and fundamental changes to breeds over the years, I understand that it's difficult to contemplate changes that may impact on the essence of the breed but it's been done in the past and if it's in the best interests of dogs then it deserves serious consideration not just dismissing out of fear of the 'generic dog'.

But what about all the Siberians in homes world wide whose owners love the breed the way it is, those of which the breed suits well? I wouldn't change anything about my Siberian. If the breed was too active for me, then I would learn from the experience and next time would buy a breed that does suit my lifestyle.

Isn't it far simpler to encourage people to buy breeds that suit them rather than try to change the inherent nature of the breed itself? What's a Siberian Husky if he's not an active dog that needs a reasonable amount of physical and mental stimulation - they are not a coach potato breed, why you would want to breed one who is, is beyond me, for the same reason I cannot fathom why anyone would breed a beagle who didn't want to scent.

Edited February 11, 2010 by huski

[Are You Serious Jo]

As for crossbreds being good for the average dog owner, yes, buying a dog that you cannot make any prediction on its temperament is far more reliable than buying a purebred that has a defined temperament.

Yet the "forprofit" cross-breeders are selecting for temperament over looks, while purebreed breeders may well put looks first.

No, as you have been told purebred breeders select for temperament as well as looks. The vast majority of pure breeders have their dogs live with them, they want to have dogs they can live with that are good representations of their breeds. For profit breeders aka puppy farmers are not breeding for temperament, they are breeding for profit. Do you really think they actually make decisions based on anything other than how much a puppy will sell for. They don't give a toss what happens after they sell the pup, otherwise why don't they do it properly and vet owner and offer lifetime support, not to mention health testing.

I am a bit :D from this thread to be honest. Stay away from the kool aide people.

[KismetKat]

The only reason I think she does it is to prevent breeding in competition to her.

Could be as she was quite honest that she is breeding for profit. However she is also well aware that F2s are problematic.

Cat breeders routinely desex kittens before sale. Do you have a problem with that?

You really need to see the full transcript of what the various speakers said before you pass judgement. I will say here I was quite confronted by what some of the speakers said, particularly Kate, but each made some good and valid points (imho).

[Lhok]

In regards to research I have for one been turned off a breed because I didn't like some of the breed's characteristics. I'm not knocking the dog breeds I liked before I knew better but I for one am glad I did do the pro's and con's before I made the choice to buy the dog of in this case not buy the dog because we would be both unhappy in the situation but that is just me.

It is also during my research into dog breeds that led me here ^_^

--Lhok

[Kissindra]

on the suggestion that pet stores should have the responsability on pups they sell because they are making the proffit - there are plenty of people having litter after litter to supply pet stores here or overseas, I don't believe for one MINUTE they are not making a proffit churning out pups!

[Diva]

Yet the "forprofit" cross-breeders are selecting for temperament over looks, while purebreed breeders may well put looks first.

I doubt it. Cute sells. Ugly but nice nature isn't going to move off a puppy farmer's website shopfront anytime soon.

On the other bad temperament is hard to show, and hard to live with if the breeder has several dogs. I don't think purebred breeders are ignoring it. If anything, temperaments have become better over the years I have been an observer of the show scene.

Oddly enough I often criticise breeders for their priorities. But not for increased breeding of bad temperaments. I just don't see it.

What is the evidence for these assertions?

Edited February 11, 2010 by Diva

[Sheridan]

Yet the "forprofit" cross-breeders are selecting for temperament over looks, while purebreed breeders may well put looks first.

I somehow doubt there's any valid research that shows crossbreeders select for temperament.