'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[poodlefan]

Perhaps veterinary research can explain to me how any pup reared in a commercial breeding facility is going to receive the care, attention and socialisation it requires to make it the best possible prospect for a family day.

Research exists to show that pups whelped and raised outside traditional domestic environments miss out on important experiences in their first two months of life.

Clearly the American Veterinary Association holds this view. Here is their policy paper on the subject. There is plenty of research out there about this. Here is a link to more. You don't have to be a scientist to make the link between a puppy whelped and raised with minimal human contact and a dog with a lifelong suspicion of handling and strangers though.

You can talk about ethics in the commerical raising and sale of pups till the cows come home but you can't get past the fact that these pups are not well set up to live as family dogs.

Dog trainers know this. Good ANKC breeders know this. I hope we see some research on this done here in Australia before anyone embraces puppy farming.

As far as I'm concerned an ethical puppy farmer is an oxymoron. You don't give a damn about dogs and treat them like units of production.

Edited February 14, 2010 by poodlefan

[gundoglover]

Steve,

Your inbox is full, so I couldn't PM you. I'll try to put my thoughts on this carefully for this public forum. It seems to me that pedigreed dog breeders, showies & triallers are at risk from two opposite directions: the Animal Rights lobby, that wants an end to all pet ownership, and the pet cross-breeders, that want to make money and take over what is left of the pet market for pedigreed puppies. It is in the interests of both groups to spread disinformation about pedigreed dogs and pedigreed breeding and to highlight the worst outcomes of pedigreed dogs.

It has been suggested that given the Animal Rights infiltration of some RSPCA's that we should look to the National Farmer's Federation to help us because they are also targeted by Animal Rights factions. However, the NFF is more likely to assist the commercial pet cross-breeders because they are running commercial businesses, farming puppies much like pig farmers. To the NFF I imagine that we hobby breeders are too disorganised.

The ANKC & CC's are not rich enough - they don't have anything like the assets & income of organisations like PETA or NFF. They are also just as disorganised as their constituency. Pedigreed dog breeders cannot agree amongst themselves about the way forward, so how can the bodies that represent them? The bringing in of a Neuter Championship in 2010 provides the possibility of engaging the broader pet owning public in our sport and may be a useful initiative, as is the recording of health tests with the registration for some breeds (on the advice of their breed councils), even though these are hotly disputed by the current show & breeding fraternity.

So, who else is there to support pedigreed dog breeders? Maybe our satisfied customers in the pet market? We do need a powerful lobby that politicians will listen to. We need an alternative welfare-oriented view to re-engage RSPCA, if possible. Maybe the RSPCA's request for input into their Puppy Farming paper is an opportunity for this. The MDBA is the beginning of a step in this direction but it is small. It has the advantage of bringing together breeders, pet owners and rescuers that agree to adopt a responsible code. So the potential for a broad base is there. I do hope that you & goldchow & the others are able to find a way to maintain your heart, reach the general pet-owning public & find a way through this broad base to reach the ears of the politicians. If we are to save our beautiful breeds and our engaging hobby-sport, we will need to educate and engage the politicians and the voters on which they depend.

[WoofnHoof]

As far as discussing the standards here with non breeders, I sometimes fail to understand why they don't grasp the concept of the standards, and conformation as applied to dog breeds. Yet they appear to understand it as applied to horse breeds.

Draught horses may be cow hocked - the additional leverage is handy when they are pulling, and they wont be going fast - walking or trotting usualy, mostly walking, but they need exceptional pulling power. They have straighter shoulders, thicker necks, thicker gullets and long, powerful quarters.

Cow hocks are not required in riding horses because a horse with cow hocks doesn't go as well in the faster paces, and because the hock is off centre, there are potential problems because of the additional strain.

Draught horses have placid temperaments usually, amd riding horses are not so placid - because the extreme placidity in a draught horse (cold blood) would not be suitable for a riding horse (hot blood).

Can it be so hard to grasp that if horses bred for different jobs have different conformaton and temperaments, dogs bred for different jobs are exactly the same.

You might want a longer neck in a saluki, to balance him, and so he can look around when he is running, (I hope) but you don't want a particularly long neck in a retrieving breed, because he needs strength in his neck to be able to carry game, maybe for long distances, and if his neck is overlong, that strength wont be there.

The Shetland Pony originated in the Shetland Isles, a bare and cold place, without a lot of feed. The ponies were used as general purpose farm animals, pulling logs and rocks, pulling carts, being used to ride from a to b - as transport. So they were multi use. Every feature in the Shetland standard describes a pony which, although small, is strong enough for multi tasking, and placid enough to pull a cart without kicking it to pieces and strong enough to carry a man or a load of firewood, hardy enough to survive the winters, and thifty enough to survive on minimal grass.

That is often the case with breed classes but most horses are still working animals, their role has changed though, and as a result the breeds are changing. The thoroughbreds in Australia are now being infused with imported warmblood blood due to the change in the eventing format in recent years which has placed more emphasis on technical aspects than on speed and endurance. Showjumpers are importing warmbloods and breeding them with local TBs and heavy horse crosses to create a hardier animal with lots of scope. Dressage horses in Europe are infused with TB (and have been for many years) to add the extra pizazz that the sport has demanded in recent years (Eg the new imported dressage stallion Lauries As is 25%TB). When the sport changes the breeding strategies have to change with them or be left behind. Take out the working aspect and you end up with the kind of animal you see in a lot of QH halter classes, that resembe cattle more than horses because someone decided giant muscles and tiny feet were great, my friend bought an expensive halter bred QH (very famous lines apparently) and it has the worst feet and legs the farrier has ever seen.

There is no point breeding a horse according to the sport as it was 20 years ago, for a sport like eventing where the endurance phase has been signficantly reduced, you need to breed for the sport as it is now, which is one where the dressage and showjump phases are now major aspects, in the past if you had a horse that blitzed the cross country you could afford 15 rails in the showjump, that has changed dramatically in the past 10 years.

It would be great if dogs could still play a role in the jobs they were bred to do but the truth is many of those jobs no longer exist and I think it's important to breed for the role dogs have now, not the role they had 100 years ago, some breeds can transfer those skills well as you see with labradors excelling as guide dogs, but if someone were breeding a labrador with very high retrieving instincts, it may not be able to suppress those instincts well enough to do it's new job as a guide dog. I suspect that the guide dog breeding programs would be breeding away from the strong retrieving traits because that is a distraction from the new role they have as guides.

[mita]

Both Helen Bennett and Mike Gollard made comment that perhaps people who breed show dogs shouldnt breed pet dogs and KateS requested that registered breeders should be more open to selling their breeding dogs to commercial breeders.

There's the answer to the question I've been asking. A university seminar showcases a direction which is believed to be of interest.

And out of the horses' mouths, here's the direction being reflected in choice of presentations....breeding of show dogs should not involve preparing/supplying them as pets. ('Pets' being companion animals to people, who largely share their domestic & interest lives with them.)

So an alternative pet breeding/supply system was also presented.....one where breed standards can be jiggered with & breeds crossed.

(The underlying implication is that purebreds need much fiddling with to make them good, consumer-approved pets. Sound familiar from somewhere else?)

No research evidence presented (as far as I can see) WHY this should be so.

But there's evidence WHY it doesn't need to be so.

The University of Qld's research found that registered breeders of purebreds, significantly prepared their puppies better to be companion dogs, via socialisation.....than unregistered breeders outside the system.

But then an understanding of the need & nature of socialisation seems to have gone under the radar at that seminar. Both in terms of the development of dogs' learning to be companion dogs to humans... & the very limited practice described by the 'pet' breeding person ( only handle puppies daily.) Dogs, like children, aren't 'built'.....they develop as a result of heredity and learning experiences from the environment they encounter....& which is provided by people.

All dogs that will be a companion alongside humans....pet, show, even military....require the same process of early socialisation & then towards their 2nd & 3rd years, Where the Davis University Vet School points to the maturing of personality growth.....yes, that's right, it's not fixed at birth.

I've already illustrated how the puppies bred/raised to be military dogs at Amberley, first have the same exemplary experiences of being a pet.

So, having said all that, why would 'show' dogs be regarded as off-limits for a life as a pet? Speaking personally, I have 3 ex-show dogs at my feet (sourced from registered breeders who socialised their dogs well & which are exemplary pets). So I don't even have anecdotal evidence of WHY I should apply to the 'professional' pet breeder for a 'ideal' pet.)

This forum....specialising in the welfare & development of purebred dogs....has been used to invite people to presentations which only bear out these directions.

Edited February 14, 2010 by mita

[poodlefan]

It would be great if dogs could still play a role in the jobs they were bred to do but the truth is many of those jobs no longer exist and I think it's important to breed for the role dogs have now, not the role they had 100 years ago, some breeds can transfer those skills well as you see with labradors excelling as guide dogs, but if someone were breeding a labrador with very high retrieving instincts, it may not be able to suppress those instincts well enough to do it's new job as a guide dog. I suspect that the guide dog breeding programs would be breeding away from the strong retrieving traits because that is a distraction from the new role they have as guides.

You couldn't be more wrong.

The kennel that produces some of Australia's top working Labrador retrievers is the very same kennel that has provided the foundation stock for both Guide Dog and Customs dog breeding programs. National Retrieving Champions and guide dogs are coming out of the very same bloodline.

Maybe you need to meet some of those retrieving trial dogs before you write them off as not being able to work with high levels of distraction. They are expected to ignore rabbits they spring on their way to retrieve their birds - and they do.

It is that desire to "work" that can be channelled by talented trainers in new directions. Guide dogs, assistance dogs, drug detecting, bomb detecting... these are NOT low drive dogs. Stable temperaments in the field become stable temperaments in busy urban environments as both dogs need to concentrate on the task they have been given.

A dog with no drive to do anything is a dog that cannot be trained to do much either. You build focus and effort by rewarding the dog's drive.

The answer to providing family pets as I've repeatedly stated is not to dumb down the dog but to match the dog and the family. I leave you to contemplate reducing the retrieving instinct in breeds developed to do just that with soft mouths and very high levels of bite inhibtion. It is not coincidence that sees the Retrievers as some of the world's most popular family pets.

Edited February 14, 2010 by poodlefan

[WoofnHoof]

Steve,

Your inbox is full, so I couldn't PM you. I'll try to put my thoughts on this carefully for this public forum. It seems to me that pedigreed dog breeders, showies & triallers are at risk from two opposite directions: the Animal Rights lobby, that wants an end to all pet ownership, and the pet cross-breeders, that want to make money and take over what is left of the pet market for pedigreed puppies. It is in the interests of both groups to spread disinformation about pedigreed dogs and pedigreed breeding and to highlight the worst outcomes of pedigreed dogs.

It has been suggested that given the Animal Rights infiltration of some RSPCA's that we should look to the National Farmer's Federation to help us because they are also targeted by Animal Rights factions. However, the NFF is more likely to assist the commercial pet cross-breeders because they are running commercial businesses, farming puppies much like pig farmers. To the NFF I imagine that we hobby breeders are too disorganised.

The ANKC & CC's are not rich enough - they don't have anything like the assets & income of organisations like PETA or NFF. They are also just as disorganised as their constituency. Pedigreed dog breeders cannot agree amongst themselves about the way forward, so how can the bodies that represent them? The bringing in of a Neuter Championship in 2010 provides the possibility of engaging the broader pet owning public in our sport and may be a useful initiative, as is the recording of health tests with the registration for some breeds (on the advice of their breed councils), even though these are hotly disputed by the current show & breeding fraternity.

So, who else is there to support pedigreed dog breeders? Maybe our satisfied customers in the pet market? We do need a powerful lobby that politicians will listen to. We need an alternative welfare-oriented view to re-engage RSPCA, if possible. Maybe the RSPCA's request for input into their Puppy Farming paper is an opportunity for this. The MDBA is the beginning of a step in this direction but it is small. It has the advantage of bringing together breeders, pet owners and rescuers that agree to adopt a responsible code. So the potential for a broad base is there. I do hope that you & goldchow & the others are able to find a way to maintain your heart, reach the general pet-owning public & find a way through this broad base to reach the ears of the politicians. If we are to save our beautiful breeds and our engaging hobby-sport, we will need to educate and engage the politicians and the voters on which they depend.

Sorry I know that this wasn't directed to me I just wanted to point out that there was a thread a while back discussing neuter classes, as well as unregistered pet and amateur classes from memory it was roundly shot down, I seem to recall someone saying they didn't want to see their 'pet' dogs in the ring (actually I think it was a bit harsher than that but you know what I mean). Engaging pet owners is a great idea and IMO the only way to gain strength in numbers but there is a culture here that is very hard to crack. I recall in that thread someone from the UK mentioned that they reguarly hold unregistered pet and amateur shows over there they are a great way for people to get out with their dogs and learn a bit about showing and handling.

I'll see if I can track down the thread.

[gundoglover]

Sorry I know that this wasn't directed to me I just wanted to point out that there was a thread a while back discussing neuter classes, as well as unregistered pet and amateur classes from memory it was roundly shot down, I seem to recall someone saying they didn't want to see their 'pet' dogs in the ring (actually I think it was a bit harsher than that but you know what I mean). Engaging pet owners is a great idea and IMO the only way to gain strength in numbers but there is a culture here that is very hard to crack. I recall in that thread someone from the UK mentioned that they reguarly hold unregistered pet and amateur shows over there they are a great way for people to get out with their dogs and learn a bit about showing and handling.

I'll see if I can track down the thread.

The Neuter Championship was decided at the ANKC Conference and will come into effect on 1st July 2010:

"1.8 New Championship Title for Neutered Dogs

It was resolved that a new Championship Title be implemented for Neutered dogs from 1 July, 2010. The title will be designated “Neutered Champion”.

The source document is available at: http://www.google.com/cse?q=ANKC+Neuter+Ch...70&ie=UTF-8

[KismetKat]

So, having said all that, why would 'show' dogs be regarded as off-limits for a life as a pet?

No-one said that. They repeatedly said that most breeders do a very good job.

However there was one comment about breeders who breed only for wins in the showring and have taken their eye off the ball (or even don't care) as to how good their dogs are as 'pets'. The jist was (and correct me if I'm wrong those who took notes), if you are that sort of breeder then don't sell to pet homes and cull.

[WoofnHoof]

It would be great if dogs could still play a role in the jobs they were bred to do but the truth is many of those jobs no longer exist and I think it's important to breed for the role dogs have now, not the role they had 100 years ago, some breeds can transfer those skills well as you see with labradors excelling as guide dogs, but if someone were breeding a labrador with very high retrieving instincts, it may not be able to suppress those instincts well enough to do it's new job as a guide dog. I suspect that the guide dog breeding programs would be breeding away from the strong retrieving traits because that is a distraction from the new role they have as guides.

You couldn't be more wrong.

The kennel that produces some of Australia's top working Labrador retrievers is the very same kennel that has provided the foundation stock for both Guide Dog and Customs dog breeding programs. National Retrieving Champions and guide dogs are coming out of the very same bloodline.

Maybe you need to meet some of those retrieving trial dogs before you write them off as not being able to work with high leve of distractions. They are expected to ignore rabbits they spring on their way to retrieve their birds - and they do.

It is that desire to "work" that can be channelled by talented trainers in new directions. Guide dogs, assistance dogs, drug detecting, bomb detecting... these are NOT low drive dogs. Stable temperaments in the field become stable temperaments in busy urban environments as both dogs need to concentrate on the task they have been given.

A dog with no drive to do anything is a dog that cannot be trained to do much either. You build focus and effort by rewarding the dog's drive.

I'm fine with being wrong It's great that labs and some other breeds can transfer their skills, but again these are in working situations. Many pet dogs don't have a 'job' to do, what happens then? High drive dogs need jobs to do how many jobs are there for them in a pet home?

I would like to see what percentage of each litter of each breed go to working homes and what percentage go to pet homes. Either way it's not the working dogs contributing to the pound stats is it? (With the exception of greyhounds of course but that is for different reasons) If the aim of all this is to reduce deaths in pounds then we need to acknowledge that they are being dumped from pet homes therefore there is a problem. I know it's not the fault of the dog or even the breeder, but we may need to accept that the role of the pet dog may not be consistent with the traits of a working dog.

Case in point is the tibbie breeder who debarked some dogs, the original role of the tibbie as I understand it was to warn of intruders to the palaces they lived in, therefore this drive to bark which was useful in the past has become a liability in the current situation. I am neither for or againt debarking it's just an example of where a trait that was useful in the past is now working against the breed and the dogs, as many barkers are threatened with baiting from less than understanding neighbours. Even dog people on here have said that some neighbours dogs barking drives them bananas, how do you change that without having to debark while still remaining true to the original purpose of the breed? The tibbie breeder was not accused of neglecting to train her dogs so they would bark less, because its a trait within the breed that can't reliably be trained out, nor is it fair to try to train it out of the dog since it has been deliberately bred into them.

I hope I'm making sense here my point is that a dog and a breed is not just one trait, but a dog can be dumped because of one trait.

[Mystiqview]

The beagles in the pounds wouldn't be there had they been bred by responsible breeders, who ensured that they screened their puppy buyers properly and took back any dog they bred should it need rehoming.

Which is the code of ethics suggested by Kate. While she was probably the most controversial speaker of the day, one of her main points is that breeders should have a lifetime responsibility of the dogs they breed and ensure the owner is educated about the breed (or cross). In the question time at the end, when queried about pet shops selling pups, she went on to say that as pet shops where the ones making the profit, then the pet shops should take on the 'responsibility' of this lifetime guarantee.

Good grief.

Is she really that ignorant?

I have come into this discussion only today, so may be a bit late here. I agree breeders need to be responsible to the dogs they breed. But where do you draw the term "Lifetime". If the owner lies to the breeder and there is only so much you can do to screen buyers.. It can happen to the best of people. PEOPLE LIE!! You think you have done what you can, told them the good, the bad and the very ugly about the breed. Done all the relevant health tests necessary and think you have sold a puppy to a wonderful home where it will be loved and adored. They mistreat that puppy in what ever fashion possible. IE: Abuse it, don't look after it, abandon it, breed with it every season without giving the puppy a chance to recover from the last litter. Whose responsibility is it then?? The breeder for not screening enough? or the people who have done the wrong thing?

Scenario two: You have done all the health tests. And things should be clear and good. Some obscure condition comes up that no one would have known it would happen. Whose responsibility is it then?

There has to be a balance where RESPONSIBLY is taken by the people needing to take responsibility for the animal. I know it is a fine line between breeder and owner. But there are many aspects a breeder does not have control over, once the dog leaves their care.

[KismetKat]

I recall in that thread someone from the UK mentioned that they reguarly hold unregistered pet and amateur shows over there they are a great way for people to get out with their dogs and learn a bit about showing and handling.

As the owner of a pedigree rescue dog that I can't prove is a pedigree (tho rescue 'know' that he is as they recognise by looking at him which breeder he came from) I would love to be able to do this. It would be a hands-on way to learn more about the breed that I have come to love as any future dogs I get will be this breed. It would also give me a good reason to actually join the breed club - but as it stands there is no incentive for me to pay up and join as they club doesn't offer much for 'pet owners' and offers nothing for those of us that don't have a bit of paper.

[Sheridan]

So, having said all that, why would 'show' dogs be regarded as off-limits for a life as a pet?

No-one said that. They repeatedly said that most breeders do a very good job.

However there was one comment about breeders who breed only for wins in the showring and have taken their eye off the ball (or even don't care) as to how good their dogs are as 'pets'. The jist was (and correct me if I'm wrong those who took notes), if you are that sort of breeder then don't sell to pet homes and cull.

So the recommendation was to kill puppies? Hmmmm ...

BTW, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how getting into bed with puppyfarmers is supposed to cure protein losing diseases in wheatens. Have you not responded because you simply have no justification for posting such nonsense? I can only assume so.

[mita]

My appologies for the confusion, I used crossbred as an example as that seemed to be the main reason people were shutting down communication on what is a very important topic. A large proportion of commercially bred dogs are purebred so I don't think a discussion on improving the welfare of commercially bred dogs (not a promotion of) can be seen as going against the forum aims.

No worries, deerhound....I get what you're saying & thanks for the further info.

We'll have to differ on this. But I've been speaking about registered purebreds as pets.....that are directly available thro' the system of registered breeders.

UQ research very clearly studied that cohort.

The material & direction presented at that seminar were commercial supply of pet dogs (outside that system) & was a promotion of it, by publicly discarding the value of non-commercially supplied registered purebreds as pets.

How puppies are bred, raised & sold is of enormous welfare interest. But the already studied welfare benefits to puppies from registered breeders are not acknowledged in that seminar material. Rather 'show' dogs are seen as not being in the loop at all.

Edited February 14, 2010 by mita

[Mystiqview]

So, having said all that, why would 'show' dogs be regarded as off-limits for a life as a pet?

No-one said that. They repeatedly said that most breeders do a very good job.

However there was one comment about breeders who breed only for wins in the showring and have taken their eye off the ball (or even don't care) as to how good their dogs are as 'pets'. The jist was (and correct me if I'm wrong those who took notes), if you are that sort of breeder then don't sell to pet homes and cull.

I can agree with this in part. Especially if cosmetic surgery is taking place to make the dog "CORRECT" for the ring. They need to look at their breeding practices and the dogs they are using. If cosmetic surgery is needed to produce a structurally sound dog, then they need to either stop or get better dogs to address the issue of the problem, not continue breeding with it and producing more of it.

[KismetKat]

BTW, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how getting into bed with puppyfarmers is supposed to cure protein losing diseases in wheatens. Have you not responded because you simply have no justification for posting such nonsense? I can only assume so.

Sheriden my point was about dialogue needing to be opened up, and while I threw in "pet shops" the main thrust is that many posters in this thread have been dismissive and even antagonistic of the science researchers, yet who would you need to speak to about your protein losing disease...?

[WoofnHoof]

I recall in that thread someone from the UK mentioned that they reguarly hold unregistered pet and amateur shows over there they are a great way for people to get out with their dogs and learn a bit about showing and handling.

As the owner of a pedigree rescue dog that I can't prove is a pedigree (tho rescue 'know' that he is as they recognise by looking at him which breeder he came from) I would love to be able to do this. It would be a hands-on way to learn more about the breed that I have come to love as any future dogs I get will be this breed. It would also give me a good reason to actually join the breed club - but as it stands there is no incentive for me to pay up and join as they club doesn't offer much for 'pet owners' and offers nothing for those of us that don't have a bit of paper.

Same here QLD has a husky and mal social club which runs an informal show like this once a year I would love them to meet more often as I couldn't get to it last year, but if I get there this year I will let you know how it goes. I think it's a great incentive

[mita]

So, having said all that, why would 'show' dogs be regarded as off-limits for a life as a pet?

No-one said that. They repeatedly said that most breeders do a very good job.

However there was one comment about breeders who breed only for wins in the showring and have taken their eye off the ball (or even don't care) as to how good their dogs are as 'pets'. The jist was (and correct me if I'm wrong those who took notes), if you are that sort of breeder then don't sell to pet homes and cull.

KK, I was responding to Steve's note on the seminar.

Both Helen Bennett and Mike Gollard made comment that perhaps people who breed show dogs shouldnt breed pet dogs

If you heard something different.....that most (registered?) breeders do a good job.

Was there any evidence presented for that?

Because if there's evidence for a 'good job....it'd hold up some light of science in regards the welfare of dogs, in general. I've already posted that's how science works....it looks to what's been found so far.

So wouldn't that 'good job' be a logical place to look for data to construct a model re any dogs?

Edited February 14, 2010 by mita

[Sheridan]

BTW, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how getting into bed with puppyfarmers is supposed to cure protein losing diseases in wheatens. Have you not responded because you simply have no justification for posting such nonsense? I can only assume so.

Sheriden my point was about dialogue needing to be opened up, and while I threw in "pet shops" the main thrust is that many posters in this thread have been dismissive and even antagonistic of the science researchers, yet who would you need to speak to about your protein losing disease...?

Certainly not puppyfarmers or pet shops. How hilarious that people would go to someone like Kate Schoeffel. If I wanted to talk to anyone about protein losing diseases, I would talk to Dr Littman or Dr Vaden. They are the experts in the diseases, after all, which I'm surprised you didn't know since you took the time to read the website. Their names are on practically every page as the experts that vets have to contact for medical and dietary advice. If you're going to pull out examples to show people up I'd suggest you do a little research before you make a fool of yourself, eh?

[poodlefan]

BTW, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how getting into bed with puppyfarmers is supposed to cure protein losing diseases in wheatens. Have you not responded because you simply have no justification for posting such nonsense? I can only assume so.

Sheriden my point was about dialogue needing to be opened up, and while I threw in "pet shops" the main thrust is that many posters in this thread have been dismissive and even antagonistic of the science researchers, yet who would you need to speak to about your protein losing disease...?

You seem to be missing the point of my posts. I fully support scientific researchers.

I regard puppy farmers as the scum of the earth, ESPECIALLY when they make claims with no scientific grounding in order to denigrate purebred dogs and flog their own 'product'.

Or did you miss Kate's distortion of facts on her website when she claims:

Studies show that children get bitten by dominant purebred male dogs. Male dogs can make good children's pets if they are desexed.

An interesting manipulation of the studies when the first thing most dog bite researchers will tell you is that attribution of breed to a attacking dog is fraught with risk.

Why are people taking what this person says on face value when she makes claims with absolutely no basis IN scientific knowledge.

Edited February 14, 2010 by poodlefan

[poodlefan]

I recall in that thread someone from the UK mentioned that they reguarly hold unregistered pet and amateur shows over there they are a great way for people to get out with their dogs and learn a bit about showing and handling.

As the owner of a pedigree rescue dog that I can't prove is a pedigree (tho rescue 'know' that he is as they recognise by looking at him which breeder he came from) I would love to be able to do this. It would be a hands-on way to learn more about the breed that I have come to love as any future dogs I get will be this breed. It would also give me a good reason to actually join the breed club - but as it stands there is no incentive for me to pay up and join as they club doesn't offer much for 'pet owners' and offers nothing for those of us that don't have a bit of paper.

They frequently offer quite a bit for dogs of their breed with no papers. Breed rescues are often called upon to take on unpedigreed dogs that have fallen on hard times. Who do you think pays to take on dogs not bred or sold by their own memberships? Not the people who breed or buy them, that's for sure.

Seems to me that you need to ask not what the clubs should be doing for people who bought dogs from sources outside their memberships but what as a breed fancier you might be doing to assist your breed of choice.

You join a breed club because you love the breed, not because you gain personally from it.

Backyard breeders are the scourge of the purebred dog world - what do you really want breed club members to do for those who buy from people who do nothing but line their pockets at the expense of the breed club members love

Edited February 14, 2010 by poodlefan