'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[Lablover]

Thankyou for this detailed summary. One question that I'd have liked to be able to put if I'd been there, was whether the proposed code for commercial breeder's would require health testing of the sire & dam & whether the speaker health-tested her own stock. Do you remember if this was touched during the seminar?

The presenter does not breed beyond a first cross. Where does she locate her pedigreed dogs?

She spoke of her desire for purebred breeders to be more receptive to selling her their dogs.She felt she would be able to offer us feedback on how our dogs went in the breeding department and what they were producing. ;) :p She did say that she had never bred past a first cross but on her website she speaks about how she is breeding on in the hope she can reduce shedding and has photos and descropitions of them. So either she told fibs yesterday or I misunderstood what she said or she tells fibs on her website.

FI (labrador/poodle) shedding? Was that not covered, by Dr Goddard? Pauline Bennett, spoke of parasites (she or another paraphrasing Ray Coppinger?), well... "it" certainly fit when Kate spoke, from her written notes.

[Steve]

She did say that she had never bred past a first cross but on her website she speaks about how she is breeding on in the hope she can reduce shedding and has photos and descropitions of them. So either she told fibs yesterday or I misunderstood what she said or she tells fibs on her website.

My guess she was honest yesterday. Bear in mind her website is designed to cater to her 'market' - of course you tell fibs when marketing something ;)

MMM Maybe she means here we as in the royal we so they bred them but she personally doesnt - maybe?

http://www.family-pets.com/backcross.htm

Kate's Family Pets

<H2 align=left>Backcross Labradoodles</H2>

These puppies are bred by crossing a first cross miniature Labradoodle with an unrelated Poodle.

The first cross Labradoodle mothers are bred from Miniature Poodles and these girls are usually crossed with a Standard X Toy Poodle male so in effect there are four different breeds in the mix. This maximises heterosis while at the same time maintaining the poodle influence on the coat.

Backcross puppies rarely shed hair and if they do shed it is only slight shedding. Their coats can be quite poodle like, long curly and soft as puppies becoming coarser as they grow older. Some pups have shorter fine shaggy coats.

The woollier dogs usually need clipping although some have been kept long with regular monthly visits to the groomer and a bit of judicious trimming around the eyes and the bottom.

We breed these dogs for people who would like a dog with more certainty in their coat type. They do usually look more poodle like than the first cross dogs but if their coat is clipped evenly they will not be mistaken for poodles.

They are usually knee high dogs similar in size to the Miniature Labradoodles only with a lighter frame. Occasionally we join back to Mini or Toy Poodles in which case they will grow into small dogs – no larger than a beagle.

[KismetKat]

FI (labrador/poodle) shedding? Was that not covered, by Dr Goddard? Pauline Bennett, spoke of parasites (she or another paraphrasing Ray Coppinger?), well... "it" certainly fit when Kate spoke, from her written notes.

I definitely remember Kate admitting her mutts shed. Is that the question???

[WreckitWhippet]

Why would any ANKC breeder want to sell their puppies to someone who is going to cross breed them ? To me, if you knowingly do that, it is every bit as bad as doing it yourself.

You put in countless hours, dollars and dedicate your life to producing pedigree pups that are typey, have great temperaments and are sound, why would you go to all that effort, to then have the quality animals contribute nothing to the gene pool

Edited February 12, 2010 by SBT123

[Lablover]

She was honest, "some are plain looking", which I noted during her photo display. Maybe one becomes used to such, after all my focus is in working lines.

On a plus side, during her presentation, she included personal data, where she surveyed past puppy buyers. 62% (from memory) responded, from a total number of ?????, very few with hip dysplasia significantly less than those with skin disorders.

I have bred a labrador with horrific "atrophy", so I was all ears ...at the very least paid more attention.

[Lablover]

FI (labrador/poodle) shedding? Was that not covered, by Dr Goddard? Pauline Bennett, spoke of parasites (she or another paraphrasing Ray Coppinger?), well... "it" certainly fit when Kate spoke, from her written notes.

I definitely remember Kate admitting her mutts shed. Is that the question???

She did confirm yes. Labradors shed +++++.

[Rebanne]

She did say that she had never bred past a first cross but on her website she speaks about how she is breeding on in the hope she can reduce shedding and has photos and descropitions of them. So either she told fibs yesterday or I misunderstood what she said or she tells fibs on her website.

My guess she was honest yesterday. Bear in mind her website is designed to cater to her 'market' - of course you tell fibs when marketing something ;)

glad you find the telling of lies to be funny. Wonder if the people who feel duped find lies funny as well. Wonder if the dogs that may now be neglected because of such lies find life funny.

[The Spotted Devil]

Why would any ANKC breeder want to sell their puppies to someone who is going to cross breed them ? To me, if you knowingly do that, it is every bit as bad as doing it yourself.

You put in countless hours, dollars and dedicate your life to producing pedigree pups that are typey, have great temperaments and are sound, why would you go to all that effort, to then have the quality animals contribute nothing to the gene pool

To be honest, I couldn't see many people going along with this one!

She likened it to production animals, where some people are "stud breeders" and breed the purebred breeding stock whilst those involved in production purchase the breeding stock (you would think, for a premium) and breed F1 "pets". I found her talk quite hard to follow at times without a powerpoint presentation.

She was honest, "some are plain looking", which I noted during her photo display. Maybe one becomes used to such, after all my focus is in working lines.

On a plus side, during her presentation, she included personal data, where she surveyed past puppy buyers. 62% (from memory) responded, from a total number of ?????, very few with hip dysplasia significantly less than those with skin disorders.

I have bred a labrador with horrific "atrophy", so I was all ears ...at the very least paid more attention.

I *think* she said 2000 but I can't be sure. I don't know over what time frame.

[mita]

She did say that she had never bred past a first cross but on her website she speaks about how she is breeding on in the hope she can reduce shedding and has photos and descropitions of them. So either she told fibs yesterday or I misunderstood what she said or she tells fibs on her website.

My guess she was honest yesterday. Bear in mind her website is designed to cater to her 'market' - of course you tell fibs when marketing something ;)

glad you find the telling of lies to be funny. Wonder if the people who feel duped find lies funny as well. Wonder if the dogs that may now be neglected because of such lies find life funny.

It escapes me why this presentation was given at a university-based seminar.

[KismetKat]

glad you find the telling of lies to be funny. Wonder if the people who feel duped find lies funny as well. Wonder if the dogs that may now be neglected because of such lies find life funny.

well find me a website from a registered lab breeder that proudly states "voted worst breed for leaving hair everywhere by Best Friend Holiday Retreat" or a website from registered French Bulldog breeders that has in it's banner "WANT A FARTING DOG?" ;) and then I will duly frown at Kate for glossing over some matters on a website designed to attract buyers.

Spotted Devil - I too had some problems following Kate's talk. I don't think it was so much the lack of the powerpoint rather than she was reading notes rather then speaking out to the audience and "presenting" plus many things she said caused some muttering in the audience - making it hard to tune in just her voice and truly 'listen'.

I note the people on this board most disinclined to take anything said 'onboard' and make quick smart posts dissing the presenters (and even the people who DID go) weren't actually there.

One aspect of the seminar was very much about how dialogue needs to be opened between all stakeholders for the good of the species we all love - dogs. We can't afford to have a multiple "us and them (and them and them and them, oh and them too!)" situation.

Edited February 12, 2010 by KismetKat

[gundoglover]

She likened it to production animals, where some people are "stud breeders" and breed the purebred breeding stock whilst those involved in production purchase the breeding stock (you would think, for a premium) and breed F1 "pets".

Usually a farmer will buy in stud rams or bulls to produce cross-bed lambs or calves. It is rare that they would buy a stud ewe or cow and then usually to breed their own purebred ram or bull. I guess if we want to accommodate this F1 pet market idea (not sure that we do), but if, then it would be more sensible to allow pedigreed studs to be used - less impact on the purebred gene pool that way. With the added advantage that at least the pedigreed studs could have known health checks, etc., so would be better for this purpose than selling puppies to cross-breeders.

[Lablover]

I *think* she said 2000 but I can't be sure. I don't know over what time frame.

Gee, I have big ears, should be able to hear. I thought she said 362?

[WreckitWhippet]

Why would any ANKC breeder want to sell their puppies to someone who is going to cross breed them ? To me, if you knowingly do that, it is every bit as bad as doing it yourself.

You put in countless hours, dollars and dedicate your life to producing pedigree pups that are typey, have great temperaments and are sound, why would you go to all that effort, to then have the quality animals contribute nothing to the gene pool

To be honest, I couldn't see many people going along with this one!

She likened it to production animals, where some people are "stud breeders" and breed the purebred breeding stock whilst those involved in production purchase the breeding stock (you would think, for a premium) and breed F1 "pets". I found her talk quite hard to follow at times without a powerpoint presentation.

The thing is they are dogs not stud cattle.

We as registered breeders are supposed to take type, temperament , structure and soundness (which includes health ) seriously. We are aiming to produce the best that we can. If a puppy meets our expectations upon maturity and we think it worthy of breeding from, then why would we waste it, by seling it to someone who is going to cross breed and it's forever lost to our breed.

If the idea is to breed " better dogs", then how can the cross breeders hope to achieve that, if they are using the second rate left overs, that the registered breeders wouldn't touch with a barge pole ?

But it guess that doesn't matter, as all they are looking it is both parents are "nice" dogs.

ETA: the day the CC's rule that our pedigree dogs can be used at stud with unregistered or dogs or used for the purposes of cross breeding, is the day that I walk away.

Edited February 12, 2010 by SBT123

[The Spotted Devil]

I *think* she said 2000 but I can't be sure. I don't know over what time frame.

Gee, I have big ears, should be able to hear. I thought she said 362?

I certainly won't bet a bottle of red on it, LL

[Lablover]

I *think* she said 2000 but I can't be sure. I don't know over what time frame.

Gee, I have big ears, should be able to hear. I thought she said 362?

I certainly won't bet a bottle of red on it, LL

Bet you a bottle the dam was a labrador. Better/bigger producer.

[The Spotted Devil]

Why would any ANKC breeder want to sell their puppies to someone who is going to cross breed them ? To me, if you knowingly do that, it is every bit as bad as doing it yourself.

You put in countless hours, dollars and dedicate your life to producing pedigree pups that are typey, have great temperaments and are sound, why would you go to all that effort, to then have the quality animals contribute nothing to the gene pool

To be honest, I couldn't see many people going along with this one!

She likened it to production animals, where some people are "stud breeders" and breed the purebred breeding stock whilst those involved in production purchase the breeding stock (you would think, for a premium) and breed F1 "pets". I found her talk quite hard to follow at times without a powerpoint presentation.

The thing is they are dogs not stud cattle.

We as registered breeders are supposed to take type, temperament , structure and soundness (which includes health ) seriously. We are aiming to produce the best that we can. If a puppy meets our expectations upon maturity and we think it worthy of breeding from, then why would we waste it, by seling it to someone who is going to cross breed and it's forever lost to our breed.

If the idea is to breed " better dogs", then how can the cross breeders hope to achieve that, if they are using the second rate left overs, that the registered breeders wouldn't touch with a barge pole ?

But it guess that doesn't matter, as all they are looking it is both parents are "nice" dogs.

My interpretation was similar Whatever you breed, you must put together the best bitch with the best dog to get the best outcome.

During the panel discussion, Pauleen Bennett did point out that scientists can be extremely blunt and hyper-critical of each other and that the breeders et al. who were present at the seminar clearly were trying to do the right thing by their dogs and their puppy buyers. It becomes part of the problem when you are preaching to the converted. How do you reach those that are either blissfully ignorant or don't care? I strongly suspect that DOL does not represent the "average" breeder nor the "average" owner. I find it hard to get my head around that sometimes because I swear I'm normal!!!!!!

Edited February 12, 2010 by The Spotted Devil

[Steve]

glad you find the telling of lies to be funny. Wonder if the people who feel duped find lies funny as well. Wonder if the dogs that may now be neglected because of such lies find life funny.

well find me a website from a registered lab breeder that proudly states "voted worst breed for leaving hair everywhere by Best friend Holiday Retreat" or a website from registered french bulldog breeders that has in it's banner "WANT A FARTING DOG?" ;) and then I will duly frown at Kate for glossing over some matters on a website designed to attract buyers.

Spotted Devil - I too had some problems following Kate's talk. I don;t think it was so much the lack of the powerpoint rather than she was reading notes rather then speaking out to the audience and "presenting" plus many things she said caused some muttering in the audience - making it hard to tune just her voice in and truly 'listen'.

I note the people most disinclined to take anything said 'onboard' and make quick smart posts dissing the presenters (and even the people who DID go) weren't actually there.

One aspect of the seminar was very much about how dialogue needs to be opened between all stakeholders for the good of the species we all love - dogs. We can't afford to have a multiple "us and them (and them and them and them, oh and them too!)" situation.

Yes I agree we need to have an open dialogue but lets be honest its going to be difficult when first blood has already been drawn.

[Steve]

I *think* she said 2000 but I can't be sure. I don't know over what time frame.

Gee, I have big ears, should be able to hear. I thought she said 362?

It was both 362 she sent the survey and over 2000 animals over 10 years or [there abouts.]

[The Spotted Devil]

I *think* she said 2000 but I can't be sure. I don't know over what time frame.

Gee, I have big ears, should be able to hear. I thought she said 362?

I certainly won't bet a bottle of red on it, LL :p

Bet you a bottle the dam was a labrador. Better/bigger producer.

No deal ;) She said it was

[The Spotted Devil]

I *think* she said 2000 but I can't be sure. I don't know over what time frame.

Gee, I have big ears, should be able to hear. I thought she said 362?

It was both 362 she sent the survey and over 2000 animals over 10 years or [there abouts.]

Thanks Steve ;)

OK, LL - looks like we share the bottle of red