'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[Elfin]

I thought I heard Kate say she had bred 3000 dogs.... at which point my head actually exploded.

I would liked to have asked if she tested her breeding stock for PRA. I know she is a vet, but from daily experiences, I know many, MANY vets cannot diagnose advanced PRA, let alone early PRA.

I wanted to say that in the two weeks preceding the seminar, we saw just over 80 pedigreed dogs for ACES eye screening. Not one dog presented with a hereditary eye disease, thanks to the years of hard work by responsible breeders.

In this same period, we saw nine "F1 hybrid" dogs (deliberate Poodle crosses, usually with Cockers, Schnauzers or Labs) with PRA. Not one of these dogs was over 4.5 years old. One also had cataracts.

But my head had exploded several times over and I could not form a sentence...

Elfin Hang onto those figures we are going to need them. Our survey is showing similar things but I doubt they are going to believe our stats without thrashing us a bit and you are in the perfect spot to supply a follow up. Is there any way you can keep track of the stats for us for a while longer?

By the way - you're beautiful and I was truly glad to meet you in the flesh.

Julie

I was nervous about meeting you...

Of course I will keep track of the stats...

[Steve]

I wont assist them either and Mcgreevy was definitely right on one count. I would rather eat my own vomit than see one of my dogs used for crossbreeding especially in a commercial kennel. I dont think anyone other than perhaps Kate thought we would ever just hand over our dogs to them Assisting them isnt the same as coming to the table with them [with our hands in our pockets]

[Steve]

I thought I heard Kate say she had bred 3000 dogs.... at which point my head actually exploded.

I would liked to have asked if she tested her breeding stock for PRA. I know she is a vet, but from daily experiences, I know many, MANY vets cannot diagnose advanced PRA, let alone early PRA.

I wanted to say that in the two weeks preceding the seminar, we saw just over 80 pedigreed dogs for ACES eye screening. Not one dog presented with a hereditary eye disease, thanks to the years of hard work by responsible breeders.

In this same period, we saw nine "F1 hybrid" dogs (deliberate Poodle crosses, usually with Cockers, Schnauzers or Labs) with PRA. Not one of these dogs was over 4.5 years old. One also had cataracts.

But my head had exploded several times over and I could not form a sentence...

Elfin Hang onto those figures we are going to need them. Our survey is showing similar things but I doubt they are going to believe our stats without thrashing us a bit and you are in the perfect spot to supply a follow up. Is there any way you can keep track of the stats for us for a while longer?

By the way - you're beautiful and I was truly glad to meet you in the flesh.

Julie

I was nervous about meeting you...

Of course I will keep track of the stats...

Goose.

[mita]

I can't understand why anyone would diss the people who DID attend. It seems they're being helpful in passing on their impressions.

Well I've been accused of promoting crossbreeds just for reporting what I heard. I think board moderation was even being suggested.

When any of the research work is presented/ published, the whole point is to open it to critique. It's what university scholarship is about. People are taught to be critical re content.

True - but people aren't reading what is posted by people there and just posting from their own assumptions about what they assume was said. Really, while some aspects of what was said was cotroversial and confronting, overall what was said was reasonable and backed up by studies. But some people want to say the studies are wrong.

Oh, fine, KK. I understand you were just reporting what was said. But it's a tricky one when one of the presentations was so clearly commercial & based on no research-based rationale.

I'm being repetitive, but I can't understand why a university would invite someone with that background of belief/practice re dog breeding to talk at a science-based unit.

Frankly, that person's work should be more a subject for study than a presentation. To be fair to you, tho'....I couldn't be making this statement if you & other people hadn't told me what she said!

I do have big question marks with what's been reported about the dog behaviour data collection study. . No nasties on either the researcher, or on the people who attended who've given their impressions. But it really needs critiquing. That's par for the course re research papers, tho'.

ADDED: Was the director of the Animal Welfare Science Unit asked WHY the person, with her particular beliefs about breeding, was invited to be a presenter?

Seminars showcase a direction in which research & theoretical thinking are heading.

So who thought that the person would be talking to their sense of where dog breeding might be heading?

It couldn't have been for the purpose of making comparisons.....because no one representing registered purebred breeding was invited to present a paper.

Edited February 12, 2010 by mita

[WoofnHoof]

Steve thanks for your summaries of the talks, you must make great notes! I think the beagle test you were describing a few pages back is what I was trying to get at earlier re selecting out extreme traits and I obviously wasn't making the point all that well

Would have been good to go I think they need to hold the next one in sunny QLD

ETA special thanks to everyone who attended and has put their thoughts and reports here!

Edited February 12, 2010 by WoofnHoof

[Erny]

Tho Kate's proposed code of ethics for commercial dog breeders (and making pet shops responsible for lifelong commitment) would mean the end of puppy farmers and pet shops sourcing pups at 6 weeks age.

This part of what she proposed puzzled me. She acknowledged that in the case of a pet shop, it would probably need to have some arrangement with a shelter.

.... was she suggesting that pups returned to the shop would need an arrangement with a shelter because of course, how could a pet shop (business) keep pups that are returned, and that therefore the pet shop would need a place where they could move them on?

If that's what she meant, then I don't get it. How does that make anyone more responsible? To me, all that does is shift the action of surrendering the pup to a shelter, from the pup's owner back to the pet shop.

On this, I asked Kate the question as to whether she means perhaps that the pet shop have an arrangement with the breeder of the pup, but she said something that money refund would be the difficulty. I don't understand that part either. Why would money refund be any more difficult? Question time ran out or she was directed to another question, so my query remains unanswered in this regard.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Erny

[Lablover]

Steve thanks for your summaries of the talks, you must make great notes! I think the beagle test you were describing a few pages back is what I was trying to get at earlier re selecting out extreme traits and I obviously wasn't making the point all that well

Would have been good to go I think they need to hold the next one in sunny QLD

ETA special thanks to everyone who attended and has put their thoughts and reports here!

Beagles were a breed of choice, by Scott and Fuller. The book is wonderful.

http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2009/11...tise-still.html

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Lablover

[mita]

Would have been good to go I think they need to hold the next one in sunny QLD

I'd hope so, too. Great if UQ would mount a seminar or conference.

UQ has a strong research base re socialisation. Which was the elephant in the room re the 'Better Dogs' seminar. IMO from reports here.

It's also the home of the study which found that registered breeders tended to socialise their puppies best & control numbers of litters.

And they have data on why people dump dogs in pounds.

Socialisation is about what people do for dogs & dumping is what people do to dogs.

Can't separate human behaviour from dog welfare. Another elephant in the room.

Edited February 12, 2010 by mita

[Erny]

I thought I heard Kate say she had bred 3000 dogs.... at which point my head actually exploded.

I would liked to have asked if she tested her breeding stock for PRA.

I thought she said she did. I could be wrong though ....

Edited February 12, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

Beagles were a breed of choice, by Scott and Fuller. The book is wonderful.

Funny that you raise "Scott and Fuller". I was just talking to a friend of mine who asked about the seminar and in the course of conversation I mentioned Scott and Fuller and the fact that they ran experiments on control groups of various dogs (beagles and basenji's were amongst two of the breeds) for behaviour differences under certain conditions. The dogs were raised as control dogs for the purpose of the experiments and the results are reported. In "Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog".

[mita]

The reality is that they're trying to improve their image. You need to look past the pretty words and see the practices - they aren't changing. When Kate removes every derogatory comment on her website about purebred dogs then maybe I'll take her seriously.

Why did a university give her a platform? Unchallenged by any presentation about registered breeding?

[Lablover]

In "Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog".

Good books also.

Labrador devotees are lucky in a way, the breed is popular and USEFUL, $$$ has been spent as has previously been mentioned in this thread, for a variety of working purposes - Guide dogs for the visually disabled, miliary and customs dogs.

Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog, which I had out early, very early this morning. Long suffering simply sighed!! .

We need open data bases!!!! Full disclose, the good and bad in Australia. The US has the OFA site (voluntary), British accepted relevant health issues also, to say nothing of Scandavian data bases.

[mita]

We need open data bases!!!! Full disclose, the good and bad in Australia. The US has the OFA site (voluntary), British accepted relevant health issues also, to say nothing of Scandavian data bases.

The Tibetan Spaniel breed has its own international data base for each country. Sort of thing registered breeders do.

http://www.tibbies.net/itswp/health-tests

[Steve]

Steve thanks for your summaries of the talks, you must make great notes! I think the beagle test you were describing a few pages back is what I was trying to get at earlier re selecting out extreme traits and I obviously wasn't making the point all that well

Would have been good to go I think they need to hold the next one in sunny QLD

ETA special thanks to everyone who attended and has put their thoughts and reports here!

I understand what you were saying but I think you see it from a different angle and its a bit over simplified.

The fact that some breeds are so much different to the same breed which havent been shown shows that breeders have in fact been selecting for things which will make better pets without being that aware of it.

So we have been flogged because we supposedly only breed for the show ring but the truth is we havent. Now some scientists will tell you that certain looks must be related to certain temperaments and that may be the case sometimes and they use the silver fox stuff as evidence for that but I dont believe it is most of the time with purebred dogs. We're always hearing that particular breeds dont look the same anymore and we blame judges for that but even though thats part of it isnt the full story.

Its pretty easy when you study a particular thing and come at it from only one angle.

So someone who studies genetics for example will have a theory and set out to either prove or disprove something based on that start point but not even experts in the same field agree much of the time. Then you have a bunch of other types of scientists who look at things from a diiferent start point.

For example, even though polygenic issues were discussed and environmental impacts etc we didnt hear anything about how disease may impact on temperament - yet Jean Dodds comes at it from a different angle and before she would look at the heritability she would eliminate thyroid issues. The thyroid issues may be heritable but they may be because of vaccination, heart worm meds etc Some others would look at diet. What happens if say hormones impact on how friendly a dog is today, maybe the weather, etc.

When you breed dogs you cant afford just to single out one "expert" and blindly follow their advice until you consider a bunch of other stuff.

One study says if we score and breed low scores thats all we have to do to bring the incidence of HD down another will say we need EBV to bring it down, another says we need both , another says if we feed raw we can prevent 60 % of animals deemed most likely to develop HD from getting it and so it goes on.Yesterday Mike Goddard said puppies dont learn fear response from their Mums but that needs further investigation from me before I blindly accept what he's saying because if thats not what goes on here it sure is a good imitation especially with the Maremmas. Ill talk about that another day.

Then you get one guy [billinghurst] who says feed em raw and they wont get the thing - others say feed them crap because then if they get it we know where it is.

I have 8 kids - I had 6 before I was 25 and 2 in my 40's .During that time there were lots of studies and lots of trends.One was advice for us to use controlled cryng to "train our kids" to shut up. One said alternate which side you allowed them to sleep on - never let them sleep on their tummies, another said dont lay them on their side let them lay on their tummies. We had some telling us what was the best age to introduce new tastes and solids and other for a while told us formula was better than breast milk ,delrosa was best for vitamin C, only let them feed 5 mins on each breast, then let them feed as long as they like, oops then back to ten minutes each side. We get people poppping them out in wading pools, electing C sections, using drugs , not using drugs etc

Now they tell us controlled crying is child abuse, delrosa was full of sugar and all of our kids teeth were rotten.One clinic sister advised me to put a bit of vegemite on the tip of my baby's tongue when he was about 2 weeks old and the poor kid hated it and shuddered for ten mins .He's 36 now and still wont touch vegemite.The next baby doctor told me not to put a simngle thing in my baby's mouth except me until it was 6 months old. Some weighed me every visit others never did. I asked around the fourth one why he didnt weigh me and told him I was worried I might put on too much weight so he told me to look in the mirror .Next pregnancy the doctor was a weight nut case and approached it with a vengence!

My point is as a breeder we have to take it all into account and we all have our own mini labratories so you cant just grab onto one theory and be so sure thats definitely the answer.

Mia's study was great but as far as I could see we werent checking whether their diet had changed when they came into the kennel or maybe something like them being recently vaccinated as a matter of course before they may enter the kennel might impact the results too. Im not knocking Mias study Im simply saying that when it means how you are going to manage your breeding program we cant afford to just do as we are told and hear one study result and not challenge and think hard on what we know too and we need to challenge it all a bit.

I promise you that just when you think you have the answers when you breed dogs something new comes along or you have new science to poke at.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Steve

[Sheridan]

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, we can.

No you can't.

From your own sig

Two health issues known in wheaten terriers are diseases where protein is lost from the intestine (protein losing enteropathy—PLE) or from the kidneys (protein losing nephropathy—PLN).

There is no cure for PLE or PLN but regular testing can ensure that your wheaten is clear at the time of the test (testing cannot predict if your dog will develop PLE/PLN). If your wheaten is at risk from these diseases, early diagnosis will be crucial to the management of their long-term health.

Most of the health information about PLE/PLN comes from the US where research for both diseases is advanced, although the mode of inheritance is still unknown. Not all the North American tests are available in Australia and the language of the US testing protocols can be different to that used in Australian veterinary medicine

The information on the website has nothing to do with puppyfarming. Indeed, many a wheaten owner in America has been devastated by the death of their wheaten from PLE or PLN because they bought their dog through a place or person supplied by a puppyfarm. Do you think that puppyfarmers test for PLE/PLN? Do please explain to me how joining ranks with puppyfarmers will cure kidney and intestinal diseases in wheatens. There are a number of research programs, none of which has anything to do with puppyfarmers, and everything to do with the lead taken by registered breeders from all over the world. The open register of affected wheatens is run via the American wheaten club not by puppyfarmers. The genetic research fund is not funded by puppyfarmers, though no doubt they have the money to fund a geneticist's research; why do you think the puppyfarmers don't do that? Every single research fund there is about wheaten health has no connection with puppyfarmers.

I'm failing to see your point of citing my website so do please explain it.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Sheridan

[WoofnHoof]

Lol steve now you sound like me when I start on about the latest equitation science

[Steve]

I just wish that everyone who is coming to the table was a little bit humble and accept that we all have our own knowledge base and not be too quick to ignore what we may be able to contribute.Just as we have a lot to learn from them they too need to see that they may have a bit to learn from us.Even just simple basic errors and assumptions in what they think our codes of conduct say and what we can and cant really do starts it all in a negative block.

[Jed]

I didn't go to the seminar, so I don't have anything useful to say. I do have a couple of observations on matters discussed here.

KismetKat

Tho Kate's proposed code of ethics for commercial dog breeders (and making pet shops responsible for lifelong commitment) would mean the end of puppy farmers and pet shops sourcing pups at 6 weeks age.

Very few joined the association prior to the COE being posted. I think even fewer will join now. Most of those people aren't interested in COE's or assocations. There is no benefit for them.

I could be wrong. It will be interesting to see what the future brings.

I have no idea why Kate S believes that registered breeders should sell her dogs so she can improve her breeding stock. To most registered breeders, she, and those like her, are akin to the antiChrist, and the notion of her improving her pups via quality registered dogs equates registered breeders denegrating their stock, which they have spent years breeding to the high standard they have.

And Cavalier breeders, in particular, would not only eat their own vomit in preference, but would probably euth their dogs before they'd let someone use them to breed cross breds, particularly someone breeding in volume.

For a registered breeder, buying a quality cavalier from a recognized kennel a huge effort, as breeders are so wary of people like her taking the dogs and keeping them in kennels and breeding the guts out of them. And some of them have been lied to, and found their little bitch, that they so proudly bred, and thought they'd sold to be a well loved pet in a family home was living down at the kennels, producing crossbreds.

People like her must buy from pet shops, or puppy farms, or by lying their heads off to breeders.

And that isn't going to change any time soon. Completely different set of values and morals.

It is lack of knowledge which sees them saying that there is a divide between pet and show dogs, and the marketplace needs purpose bred "pets". At least 90% of registered breeders expect to, and do, sell their pups to pet homes. Check out the DOL breeders pages for puppy ads. Nearly every ad is geared to the pet market, and nearly every ad encourages purchase by pet owners.

There are several very successful show kennels who are very reluctant to sell show dogs - they prefer their pups to go to pet homes.

Most of the people on this board do too. We are breeding PETS - and yes, we probably do show them, but if the dog has the conformation and temperament of the standard, it should make an excellent pet. And they do.

Re the NSW regulations - it is much easier to keep concrete hygenic, and there is less chance of worms proliferating on concrete. If you keep dogs on grass, you never eradicate the worms. When the regulations were formulated, it is obvious that the psychological, mental and physical needs of the dogs were not factored into the equation.

The people framing the legislation went for the most obvious thing - "perceived" health and hygeine - without considering the other things.

One size laws don't fit all, and until legislators realise that there is more to breeding dogs than having hygenic conditions, the lives of breeding dogs can never be optumum - due to the regulations

Re 7 litters: back to back litters: breeding till 7. Some dogs/breeds could have 7 litters, and could have litters till 7, 8 or 9.

I did a little study some years ago by observing 30 bitches which were bred back to back. It's not a scientific study, it was just for my education. Some bitches, after 4 back to back litters, missed having one or two seasons. Some bitches, on their 4th, 5th and subsequent litters, had fewer pups per litter (from 8 - 11 down to 3 - 4). From these later litters, the pups to my eye, were not as well grown and most were a bit "weedy" looking. I would have loved to follow these pups through the years, but that was not possible. Some bitches, after 4 or 5 litters, looked very old - some years older than their actual age.

Bitches were labs, GR and a few staffies and a few miniature poodles. Dogs were well fed on premium food, all health needs were attended to, and vet. care was given if necessary. The bitches themselves were reasonable quality, but not top quality dogs. Whether this influenced the outcomes, I have no idea, but I think perhaps it did.

I decided, after that, that a couple of back to back matings were ok, with the bitch having 12 months or so off before the next one, or only whelping annually. It also worked out more profitable to mate annually, but they were only my "projected" figures.

Conversely, if bitches are mated later (ie, 3 years or older) there seem to be more avenues for problems, and if bitches are left for 18 months to 2 years between matings, there seem to be difficult whelpings, and unthrifty pups, as well as the bitches not going into pup as readily.

However, it is generally accepted that young bitches have better pups, and this may have been one of the causes of the problems I saw.

I also projected figures on continous back to back, and annual matings, and there was likely to be more profit in annual matings. All things being equal. Smaller litter sizes could have been due to a number of other influences though.

So, on balance, I don't think all back to back matings, and 7 litters is best practice.

To do a proper study, you would need a control group, with related bitches of the same breed, not the randoms I followed. But that's the best I could do.

One factor which I noticed regarding the seminar, although I could be wrong, was that several people who presented seemed to have little knowledge of pedigree dogs, or the ethos of pedigree dog breeders.

Spikes Puppy - One show is one man's opinion on the day. Any breeder who is using that as a yardstick for selecting breeding dogs is on a hiding to nowhere. 100 shows are more of a yardstick. In the example you cited - the dog of incorrect temperament being strung up and beating a dog of better temperament. The judge may have decided that although the temperament was off, the conformation of the dog was good enough for it to win. Another judge may have come in with a different result. And I've been told by judges I respect that they do get an idea of temperament. Some don't know, as some don't know the breeds they are judging, but a lot do.

I wouldn' t select a dog solely on show results and I don't think anyone else would either.

For our best breeders,breeding is an art. If breeders want to use COI or EBV as a tool, they should be able to - they can do it now, but it should not be forced on breeders by people who have a different set of standards, and a different ethos, and don't understand purebred dogs.

From interactions with breeders, and dog owners, and my own dogs, I don't think purebred dogs have any big overall problems. There may be small problems in some breeds, and in some dogs, but overall I still believe that purebred dogs are better for health.

Steve - 630,000 pups bred annually? How was that arrived at?

Edited February 12, 2010 by Jed

[SpikesPuppy]

Thank you, Jed, for understanding where I was coming from and not seeing what I posted as an attack or ill-informed statement about shows as some posters did

The temperament thing just bothers me immensely as a Border Terrier that is aggressive in a working situation would be shot. No ifs or buts about it. And their temperament, coupled with their otter-like head are the two features that make them stand out in the Terrier group and more than their conformation the unique temperament was what made them popular as working animals despite the availability of other hot-headed terriers. They are allowed to respond if challenged/threatened but must never start something. But again, that is not mentioned in the standard and a judge really doesn't know any better unfortunately

I know you & other experienced people wont judge a dog solely on it's show results, but a message I often see here is that correct dogs win, the dogs who win are bred to the standard etc and are therefore perfect examples. While many may be, others are not and for a novice, I think the message can be confusing, ie: go to a few shows and see the same dog winning time and time again. Dog has poor or incorrect temperament but it's winning (winning = to the Standard) so where does the novice go?? To the top dog of course!! Because so much emphasis & faith is being put into Breed Standards by experienced breeders.

Don't get me wrong, anybody. I love my pedigree dogs and I adore dog shows and I do know there are many judges who are very good at what they do and many winning dogs ARE worthy, but I also see the downside and negativity of putting such emphasis on dog shows and breed standards when advertising pedigree animals to the GENERAL PUBLIC. Maybe it's just the terminology that I have an issue with? The technical 'showie' terms that are used with little or no explanation of what they actually mean. The quick references to the breed standard. Many pet owners/potential buyers don't know what a breed standard is???

From interactions with breeders, and dog owners, and my own dogs, I don't think purebred dogs have any big overall problems. There may be small problems in some breeds, and in some dogs, but overall I still believe that purebred dogs are better for health.

I do agree with this

[centitout]

I thought I heard Kate say she had bred 3000 dogs.... at which point my head actually exploded.

I would liked to have asked if she tested her breeding stock for PRA.

I thought she said she did. I could be wrong though ....

So they have actual certificates from a certified opthamologist then? Not just a quick look by herself? If they have the certification,at least its a very basic something,bu ti doubt it.