'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[mita]

No pistols drawn, KK. It's all about content.

Their position re registered purebred dog breeding is actually a key point.

Because the title of their seminar was about 'building' better pet dogs.

Registered breeders of purebreds, breed & raise pet dogs. And an alternative model of breeding pets was being presented.

If, at best, purebred breeding was dismissed with anecdotal evidence of a 'good job', the phrase, 'dammed with faint praise', fits.

There actually is some scientific evidence .....which if presented....would provide insights for breeding any puppies in a welfare model.

I think the title was just "building better dogs". I think 3 of the 4 keynote speakers all owned purebred dogs. And certainly some of the student presenters also owned purebred dogs.

Yes, 'building' was the word & its why I keep putting it in inverted commas (& with a sic, after it). An inappropriate word to describe what is a developmental process. A development that continues until a dog draws its last breath (same as for humans).

'Building' something, implies an end point, when something has been completed.

The speaker they chose to illustrate purpose for breeding.....was the woman who commercially breeds pets. By jiggling purebreds & mixedbreeds.

As you've pointed out yourself....they tended to separate 'show' dogs into a category outside the loop of pets.

I've pointed out that show dogs, military dogs or just full-time pet dogs.....are all companions to people. And it's with people they develop their personalities....as well as their tasks.

This direction from this seminar is towards creating false boundaries among all the dogs that are destined to live alongside people. And putting up, for illustration, the work of someone who has set up an association of (specially) pet breeders. As if registered breeders or purebreds do not also breed pets. As do the military dog folk for the first 12 months.

[gundoglover]

Something to keep in mind is that just because someone is a key note speaker doesn't mean that us scientists hang on every word they say. It is about the quality of the arguments and the quality of the science. Personally I am as critical, sceptical and questioning as my current knowledge allows. Some presenters make me gasp in awe, others make me dismissive and yet others encourage a little of both. I'll leave it to your imagination on where I stand at the moment

Yes, particularly these days when universities are expected to be more self-funded. A controversial keynote speaker can attract media interest & therefore funding through advertisers. All the scientific conferences & seminars that I have attended have the disclaimer that the views of the speakers are not the views of the hosting body.

[mita]

Something to keep in mind is that just because someone is a key note speaker doesn't mean that us scientists hang on every word they say. It is about the quality of the arguments and the quality of the science. Personally I am as critical, sceptical and questioning as my current knowledge allows. Some presenters make me gasp in awe, others make me dismissive and yet others encourage a little of both. I'll leave it to your imagination on where I stand at the moment

Yes, particularly these days when universities are expected to be more self-funded. A controversial keynote speaker can attract media interest & therefore funding through advertisers. All the scientific conferences & seminars that I have attended have the disclaimer that the views of the speakers are not the views of the hosting body.

A fair point, gundoglover. The siren call...

But if a university has, & values, their position of high rating for research, they watch their own standing in the scholarly community like a hawk.

There's also a difference between a controversial speaker who is presenting a novel view but within the parameters of scholarship...& someone who just thinks they're on to a good idea.

[WoofnHoof]

You can learn plenty about breeds without joining a breed club. Try breed specific chat lists and forums - there are heaps of those.

Just what I need more time sitting at the computer

Forums are fun but they are no substitute for real life hands on getting out and about with your dog but since I'm just the owner of a dodgy pet shop dog I should just crawl back under my rock hey?

It's been fun but I really have to go we have gotten a bit OT anyway.

[KismetKat]

Yes, 'building' was the word & its why I keep putting it in inverted commas (& with a sic, after it).

I really think you're reading too much into it - to me it was just a catchy alliteration.

One speaker did refer to the title - but I can't remember exactly what they said.

The speaker they chose to illustrate purpose for breeding.....was the woman who commercially breeds pets.

She wasn't there to "illustrate purpose for breeding", she was there to present a model for better practices in commercial dog breeding. The main thrust of the entire day was, afterall, about dog welfare.

As you've pointed out yourself....they tended to separate 'show' dogs into a category outside the loop of pets.

Not quite, what they did separate out was breeders who bred only for show and, more to the point, show wins. Two comments were made about this - the first one already discussed about them selling pets, and a second comment (and this one was made a couple of times) that in some breeds this leads them to breeding for extremes that were not good for the dog healthwise.

This direction from this seminar is towards creating false boundaries among all the dogs that are destined to live alongside people.

I hadn't thought of it from that angle, but now that you've articulated it I would have to say I thought the seminar was actually about pulling down boundaries, not creating false ones. That's my impression anyways

[espinay2]

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

Ah but globally many jobs still do exist. And many jobs go through cycles when they are more or less popular/important/required. There can be geographical shifts too with the importance in different locations changing. We need to look at the breed globally, not just right here in our own backyard. The genepool is a global one. Perhaps I am more alert to this than some as we have a smaller genepool in my breed so it is imperative to look at more than what is right here in our own country. We have to be very careful of the presumption that we have the right to change things because it doesn't suit us here in this location at this point in time (particularly with a breed that was not developed here and was imported here because they are what they are). What gives us the right to change it? shouldnt we also be talking to those who DO use the dogs - what do they think of these plans? Who is to say when and how we will need those traits? Where will we get them from once we mess with the genepool and don't have them any more? Who is to say what we will need dogs to do in 20, 30, 50 years time? At the moment we have breeds that can adapt to every role we can currently think of. If we mess than that we may be cutting our nose off to spite our face all in the name of a 'more amenable pet'. We need to think further and wider than out own backyard.

[poodlefan]

You can learn plenty about breeds without joining a breed club. Try breed specific chat lists and forums - there are heaps of those.

Just what I need more time sitting at the computer

Forums are fun but they are no substitute for real life hands on getting out and about with your dog but since I'm just the owner of a dodgy pet shop dog I should just crawl back under my rock hey?.

No need to play the martyr. I've never said anything derogatory about your dog. It's not his fault he ended up where he did or if he has health issues. I've met many lovely BYB dogs, petshop dogs and DD. It's their breeders that I take issue with, not the dogs themselves.

The more you learn now about dog breeds , the better the choice you'll make in your next dog.

Getting out and about with your current dog won't help you pick that one. If you want to get out and about, train this one - you'll get to see so many different breeds and meet a lot of very knowledgeable dog folks.

No one gives a damn about the origins of your dog in dog sports - its what you can do as a team that matters.

Edited February 14, 2010 by poodlefan

[KismetKat]

You can learn plenty about breeds without joining a breed club. Try breed specific chat lists and forums - there are heaps of those.

Just what I need more time sitting at the computer

Forums are fun but they are no substitute for real life hands on getting out and about with your dog but since I'm just the owner of a dodgy pet shop dog I should just crawl back under my rock hey?

It's been fun but I really have to go we have gotten a bit OT anyway.

And I, apparently, am the owner of a 'dodgy' rescue dog even tho he came thru breed-specific rescue and they know who bred him.

But if PF can't see the benefit of breed associations swelling their coffers with an ancillary membership model, which may well encourge people like me to join who also have "bunny" tatooed across their forehead and happily volunteer to help organise events, produce newsletters and raise funds, and then run events that attract far more than the usual 6 suspects who usually attend (who, funnily enough, are all committee members), which all then leads on to having pet owners who are better educated, are aware of things like puppy farms, and generally become more resposible dog owners with a good knowledge of their chosen breed - well who are we to argue?

[Sheridan]

The speaker they chose to illustrate purpose for breeding.....was the woman who commercially breeds pets.

She wasn't there to "illustrate purpose for breeding", she was there to present a model for better practices in commercial dog breeding. The main thrust of the entire day was, afterall, about dog welfare.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have chosen a puppyfarmer if they wanted to promote dog welfare. It hardly makes for credibility.

[poodlefan]

But if PF can't see the benefit of breed associations swelling their coffers with an ancillary membership model, which may well encourge people like me to join who also have "bunny" tatooed across their forehead and happily volunteer to help organise events, produce newsletters and raise funds, and then run events that attract far more than the usual 6 suspects who usually attend (who, funnily enough, are all committee members), which all then leads on to having pet owners who are better educated, are aware of things like puppy farms, and generally become more resposible dog owners with a good knowledge of their chosen breed - well who are we to argue?

Despite you labelling me as generally an argumentative person, I will have to disappoint you. I see many advantages in it. What I dont' see is motivation or scope to do it in most breed clubs now.

Feel free to join up and organise it though. It seems to me that you're claiming you'll do a far superior job of it than current club committees can. Big talk - lets see if you can deliver.

I look forward to seeing you getting involved. What breed have you got again?

Edited February 14, 2010 by poodlefan

[espinay2]

I don't see how a breed club hopes to grow and gain new members if they offer no support for owners of unregistered dogs, passing up an opportunity to educate about breeds and good breeders seems a little wasteful to me.

Breed clubs offer support for their members. Most clubs are small in membership and have an ever smaller number of their members who are actively involved in doing things (sometimes only 2 or 3 people do 99% of the work). Most clubs are desperately crying out for people to become involved and help them do things - they cant do things with out the manpower. the vicious cycle is that without pet members (and ones willing to help out) they cant run events for pet members. Most are flat out running an annual show though many try to run things like grooming days where pet owners can come and learn how to groom their dogs (I know several breed clubs who have run these types of days) or fun days (have run one of them myself and with limited help and lack of interest from pet owners - we widened it to all breeds to get the numbers- we didnt try again even though we would have liked to), taking part in parades and expos (help of pet owners at the pet expos and other info stalls would be greatly welcomed I suspect! Having been involved in quite a few of these I know we welcomed with open arms anyone willing to come along and help out). Truth is, the breed club will run things for pet owners if pet owners are willing to help out organising them and if they have a membership to aim the activities at. There is only so much the members of a club can do, and if they try to run events and dont get the support they often dont try again. Clubs need willing workers, full stop. If you want to see these things happen in a breed club ,then join and help them make it happen.

Edited February 14, 2010 by espinay2

[mita]

Yes, 'building' was the word & its why I keep putting it in inverted commas (& with a sic, after it).

I really think you're reading too much into it - to me it was just a catchy alliteration.

One speaker did refer to the title - but I can't remember exactly what they said.

The speaker they chose to illustrate purpose for breeding.....was the woman who commercially breeds pets.

She wasn't there to "illustrate purpose for breeding", she was there to present a model for better practices in commercial dog breeding. The main thrust of the entire day was, afterall, about dog welfare.

As you've pointed out yourself....they tended to separate 'show' dogs into a category outside the loop of pets.

Not quite, what they did separate out was breeders who bred only for show and, more to the point, show wins. Two comments were made about this - the first one already discussed about them selling pets, and a second comment (and this one was made a couple of times) that in some breeds this leads them to breeding for extremes that were not good for the dog healthwise.

This direction from this seminar is towards creating false boundaries among all the dogs that are destined to live alongside people.

I hadn't thought of it from that angle, but now that you've articulated it I would have to say I thought the seminar was actually about pulling down boundaries, not creating false ones. That's my impression anyways

Good to read your comments, KK.

I have an academic reason for rejecting the word 'building', in an academic context, to describe something that's a developmental process. It shows the conceptualisation behind what was to be presented. I've already pointed out that the key factor, in any dog, living alongside humans...the growth of personality via interactions with humans....was not a key factor at that semimar. And it should be, because by 'better', they mean better equipped to live closely alongside humans.

I looked up the conference publications for that unit & there's no emphasis on that issue re companion dogs. So it's not surprising, it didn't figure largely.

http://www.animalwelfare.net.au/comm/comm08.html

I beg to differ on the breeding lady.....she was the only speaker who illustrated a purpose for breeding....& that was labelled 'pets'.

I've already pointed out that registered breeders also provide pets... one of their purposes for breeding. But only one source was highlighted for practical example at the seminar.....& it's one that doesn't have research into it.

There is, however, research into registered breeders. If so many 'show' people breed their dogs only for 'show' (& that somehow deprives the puppies) , how come the data collected by the U of Q showed that registered breeders significantly socialised their puppies more than unregistered breeders?

And from the grasp of socialisation shown in this seminar, in general, & in the breeding lady's presentation, in particular...her model fits into the latter category.

In a seminar which includes a 'model' for breeding pets.....there should have been acknowledgement of that existing 'purebred' trend towards better socialisation, so the data could inform other welfare models.

I'll also differ with you about the setting up of boundaries between categories of dogs. Without any presentation of evidence, statements were made about showdogs.

Given that the seminar never got into the basic factor of what it takes for dogs, any dogs, to be companions alongside people....the impression is left that the only model for producing pets, given at the seminar, will prepare puppies in terms of welfare.

Edited February 14, 2010 by mita

[WreckitWhippet]

The speaker they chose to illustrate purpose for breeding.....was the woman who commercially breeds pets.

She wasn't there to "illustrate purpose for breeding", she was there to present a model for better practices in commercial dog breeding. The main thrust of the entire day was, afterall, about dog welfare.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have chosen a puppyfarmer if they wanted to promote dog welfare. It hardly makes for credibility.

[mita]

I'll be sending in a submission to the RSPCA's call for comments re puppy farming. Best place for some of these issues, now.

[KismetKat]

Clubs need willing workers, full stop. If you want to see these things happen in a breed club ,then join and help them make it happen.

Bit hard with attitudes like this

If you want to be accepted into the fold, start with the affiliated dog training clubs and make your next dog one with a pedigree.

And yes, you are right that it is only ever a small number of members who actually do stuff. I've been one of them in the affiliated obedience club I used to be a member of.

But I don't think breed clubs would want to be flooded with pet members, at least not as full members. To encourage pet members, but keep to their own goals as breeders and breed associations, they really need to set up a cheaper ancillary type membership. Perhaps a member or 2 from the "companion' section could then be invited into general committee positions to help with events planning etc. You need the 'setup' before you can encourage pet members (and as breed clubs don't have this set up, explains why they tend to be, let's call it 'less encouraging" about getting pet owners to join).

[KismetKat]

Given that the seminar never got into the basic factor of what it takes for dogs, any dogs, to be companions alongside people....the impression is left that the only model for producing pets, given at the seminar, will prepare puppies specifically for that, in terms of welfare.

Some good points mita. Just on this last bit, again we now have a HUGE over-emphasis on a very small single point. The 'daily contact' was just one sentence in Kate's presentation about her proposed code of ethics for commercial breeders. So it's really taking things totally out of context that the seminar was somehow advocating this for good puppy rearing. As a topic, puppy rearing was not discussed at all.

[labsrule]

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...?

Is it any wonder when this seminar is obviously oriented towards the views of the low life puppy farmers of crossbreeds, by giving one of these low life’s a platform to extol the virtues of crossbreeding over purebred breeding and to denigrate purebred breeders who were not given the same opportunity to present at this seminar and to challenge this low life puppy farmer’s controversial points of view .

These low life puppy farmers profit from the misery of these poor, unfortunate dogs being “farmed” commercially and don’t give a toss about their health, living conditions and misery they subject them to . How could a veterinary scientific community who runs a seminar on “Building Better Dogs” be respected and be seen as credible, when the very community that does really care for their dogs, that provide the necessary health tests and home reared living conditions and necessary socialisation and spend their lives trying to improve and better their breeds are excluded from presenting at this seminar . However, the low life puppy farmers who in their pursuit of profit, breed some very questionable dogs, health wise and temperament wise, which is the opposite of “Building Better Dogs”, get to present at this seminar . This is perceived as an obvious bias towards the low life puppy farmers . Why is that, could it be that the low life puppy farmer representative is a Vet and therefore deemed more credible by the veterinary fraternity??

Can one of you “science researchers” involved in this seminar please explain to the Purebred Dog Breeding Community why they (i.e. a representative) were not given an opportunity to be a Presenter at this Seminar, when the subject matter is essentially what “they live and breathe” and explain to them why a low life puppy farmer, who is the antithesis of everything they practice, was given the opportunity to extol her controversial views on dog breeding (farming), unchallenged .

[KismetKat]

Pauleen Bennett is a purebreed dog breeder. I think the guy from Sydney was too.

ETA: Pauleen had two of her puppies there. Very cute. Logotto's (hope I've spelt that right).

Edited February 14, 2010 by KismetKat

[espinay2]

But I don't think breed clubs would want to be flooded with pet members, at least not as full members. To encourage pet members, but keep to their own goals as breeders and breed associations, they really need to set up a cheaper ancillary type membership. Perhaps a member or 2 from the "companion' section could then be invited into general committee positions to help with events planning etc. You need the 'setup' before you can encourage pet members (and as breed clubs don't have this set up, explains why they tend to be, let's call it 'less encouraging" about getting pet owners to join).

To be honest, all the breed clubs I have been involved with (including one I was secretary of) would have LOVED to have pet members join and encouraged it no end. It has been a frustrating exercise trying to get them to join, even with lots of activities run with them in mind. The way most breed clubs are set up actively encourages pet members as well as breeder members. Many clubs are also heavily involved in rescue - taking on, rehabbing and rehoming rescue dogs from not only (or rather rarely) registered breeders - mostly the breeders of these dogs are unknown BYB's etc. Most smaller breed clubs (the majority) welcome pet owners on committees and many have them as major committee holders where those pet owners take an interest in actually being a member of a club. Breed clubs rarely have much money and what they do is limited by how many members are willing to help and how much help they give. Maybe it is the clubs in your breed (what breed is it?) that are 'less encouraging', I dont know? Please don't extend you own experences to include what you think all breed clubs do or how their constitutions work. Perhaps if you have some good ideas on how to run the breed club you could join and make the suggestions at their meetings? You have to remember though that breed clubs are set up to promote and support the responsible breeding and ownership of purebred dogs....and as a member you need to be willing to support that or I wouldnt reacommend joining one in the first place.

Edited February 14, 2010 by espinay2

[poodlefan]

Clubs need willing workers, full stop. If you want to see these things happen in a breed club ,then join and help them make it happen.

But I don't think breed clubs would want to be flooded with pet members, at least not as full members. To encourage pet members, but keep to their own goals as breeders and breed associations, they really need to set up a cheaper ancillary type membership. Perhaps a member or 2 from the "companion' section could then be invited into general committee positions to help with events planning etc. You need the 'setup' before you can encourage pet members (and as breed clubs don't have this set up, explains why they tend to be, let's call it 'less encouraging" about getting pet owners to join).

Have you ever been member of a breed club? Most struggle for any members and would welcome new blood with open arms. Any member of a breed club that isn't a breeder is a pet member aren't they? I know plenty of such folk in breed clubs including me.

Why would breeder's goals be different to pet members goals? Breed clubs exist to promote and support the breed - and most purebred dogs end up as pets.

Why don't you join your State breed club and make changes from the inside? You're not talking about huge memberships and separate sections anyway - many breed clubs would be lucky to have 50 members.

No reason why a "pet member" couldn't be a full committee member or even President if they want to be. Show folk and breeders aren't from Mars. They are pet owners too. They gush over puppies, play with their dogs and cry over dogs that have died just like "normal" people.

If you want to close the barriers between "them and us" perhaps you could stop viewing breed club members as different to you. The only difference between your situations in some cases is that you don't do any formal activities with your dogs. The fact that your dog doesn't have papers is no barrier to you joining and helping to promote your breed.

You learn very quickly that anyone prepared to put in is very welcome whether they have a Grand Champion or a pet shop dog.

Edited February 14, 2010 by poodlefan