'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[labsrule]

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).

Yes, but I mean a representative from outside the Veterinary fraternity, like a representative from ANKC/Dogs VIC.

[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).

Yes, but I mean a representative from outside the Veterinary fraternity, like a representative from ANKC/Dogs VIC.

She's not a vet. She's an academic at Monash with a background in behavioural neuroscience and psychology. She established the Anthrozoology Research Group there.

[KismetKat]

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.

I did once talk to one of them about joining, but as I don't have papers for my 'pet' they conceeded there was limited appeal for me to do so as there were no real benefits for me. If I had a 'papered' pet it would be different.

This is why I am suggesting a 2-tiered membership model - of course a breed club would not want to see people without registered dogs taking spots on a committee.

But heck, I'll have another chat with them the next time they run an event (cos they do run ones and invite us pet owners, just there's only so many times one can enter a waggiest tail contest and not start to feel there should be more to this competition stuff

Edited February 14, 2010 by KismetKat

[labsrule]

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).

Yes, but I mean a representative from outside the Veterinary fraternity, like a representative from ANKC/Dogs VIC.

She's not a vet. She's an academic at Monash with a background in behavioural neuroscience and psychology. She established the Anthrozoology Research Group there.

Ok, then outside the Veterinary and University fraternity Let me make it a bit clearer, a representative of Registered Purebred Dog Breeders, i.e. representative from ANKC or DogsVic

[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).

Yes, but I mean a representative from outside the Veterinary fraternity, like a representative from ANKC/Dogs VIC.

She's not a vet. She's an academic at Monash with a background in behavioural neuroscience and psychology. She established the Anthrozoology Research Group there.

Ok, then outside the Veterinary and University fraternity Let me make it a bit clearer, a representative of Registered Purebred Dog Breeders, i.e. representative from ANKC or DogsVic

Or MDBA? Aren't they currently doing some research projects?

Perhaps the ANKC could sponsor a future seminar.

[Steve]

A part of the discussion on the day was that breeders who are members of the ANKC are not able to breed with their primary goal to breed nothing more than pet puppies.

Because we were in Victoria I will use the code of ethics for Vic dogs as reference but they are all the same and to me dont stop anyone from breeding pet puppies if they dont show.

20.1.11 A member shall breed primarily for the purpose of improving the quality and / or working ability of the breed in accordance with the breed standard, and not specifically for the pet or commercial market.

Now all that says to me is that a breeder needs to consider what comes next after this litter they are working on as well as the current litter. The opposite to the way a first cross breeder works because they are only interested in one litter and there is no expectation that their puppies will be used for breeding on with. That they can breed to supply pets as long as they dont compromise on the health, temperament or standard with no concern for how that will impact on the breed or the dogs that are used for breeding from the mating.It doesnt say they cant breed if they dont show or if they have goals as their priority other than how it will do in a show ring that they cant remain within the code of conduct. All it says to me is that you have to consider the standard as well as what ever else you are going for.

Personally I cant imagine why anyone who breeds purebred dogs would want to breed pets and not care whether the pups resembled the breed in how it looked or behaved because the major reason purebred dogs make good pets is the ability to predict how they will look and act. So I wouldnt want that clause changed as it ensures breeders at least consider how the dogs shape up according to the standard as part of what they do. I certainly never want a commercial target being the primary consideration either.But that doesnt say you have to loose money or not make money as long as you cover the other stuff.

Yet some breeders including at least one of the presenters definitely believed that if they bred pups as pets rather than as show dogs that the code of conduct prevented them being members.

There were calls for members to petition the CCs to have these clauses changed to allow people to breed pet pups.

Yet in other parts we were told we get what we select for and part of what we select for is being able to ensure each dog is as expected according to its breed.If our primary goal is amicability but we never considered the standard after a few generations they would all look like silver foxes!Wehave to cosider them both or end up with generic dogs. Because we all know that the majority of our pups go to pet homes we already consider their pet potential when we breed them even if we are hopeful of a champion.

Breeding with consideration for the breed standard doesnt say thats all you can breed for it says not specifically for the pet or commercial market.

I feel like Im missing something - whats the problem?

Edited February 14, 2010 by Steve

[KismetKat]

Steve - from my memory that wasn't actually part of any presentation - it was point brought up at the very end of the day at question time by a member of the audience - a girl who bred dashunds as pets. She stated that according to (clause 5 I think she said) she was not allowed to breed unless she also showed so now she was no longer a member and now she did lots of crossing of her dashy's with different coats.

I distinctly remember the clause 5 thing taking Pauleen totally by surprise as she breeds but doesn't show.

After that I lost the ability to track what was being said as too many people were talking at once. The "discussion" then got shut down by the compare as the dachsy girl wasn't asking a question, but taking a platform.

Edited February 14, 2010 by KismetKat

[labsrule]

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).

Yes, but I mean a representative from outside the Veterinary fraternity, like a representative from ANKC/Dogs VIC.

She's not a vet. She's an academic at Monash with a background in behavioural neuroscience and psychology. She established the Anthrozoology Research Group there.

Ok, then outside the Veterinary and University fraternity Let me make it a bit clearer, a representative of Registered Purebred Dog Breeders, i.e. representative from ANKC or DogsVic

Or MDBA? Aren't they currently doing some research projects?

Perhaps the ANKC could sponsor a future seminar.

Ok, so who sponsored the Building Better Dogs Seminar? - the puppy farmers group?? is that why they took centre stage? and no Purebred Breeders representative outside the Veterinary/University fraternity where offered a presenters spot to challenge them?

[Steve]

Yes I remember that breeder but Pauline was aware of this already as I have had a conversation with her about it on a previous occasion so I dont think it was a surprise to her.She made comment about how we could have that changed if we petitioned the Ccs. Lesley and I also had a conversation with Pauline regarding this after the seminar where she most definitely believed that as she bred primarily for pets that she would be considered breaching the code of conduct.

[Sheridan]

Yes I remember that breeder but Pauline was aware of this already as I have had a conversation with her about it on a previous occasion so I dont think it was a surprise to her.She made comment about how we could have that changed if we petitioned the Ccs. Lesley and I also had a conversation with Pauline regarding this after the seminar where she most definitely believed that as she bred primarily for pets that she would be considered breaching the code of conduct.

Yes, but she shouldn't worry given some breeders seem to smash the code of conduct into little pieces without anything happening to them. If breeding dogs without showing them is considered to be a heinous crime and exporting to a pet shop in Hawaii is not then the system is truly broken.

[KismetKat]

Thanks steve.

Labsrule - well someone payed for lunch! And they did state who sponsored the lunch but can't remember who it was.

Surely these types of seminars are all about presenting "new" stuff so unless the ANKC had some new research to present, or a new code of ethics, then no reason to invite them to speak. Kate did have something "new" to present. Also, it's not the place of universities to censor debate.

Probably helped to have someone controversial there too - look at how many bums on seats they got! 250!!! I gather from speaking with a couple of Monash people that is pretty unheard of. In fact one person said getting just 100 would have been significant. More people means more publicity to the uni, which may lead on to more research money.

[Steve]

This forum is a tough crowd KK .

In my opinion it wasnt kate who dragged em in.I would have gone whether she was there or not.

[labsrule]

Thanks steve.

Labsrule - well someone payed for lunch! And they did state who sponsored the lunch but can't remember who it was.

Surely these types of seminars are all about presenting "new" stuff so unless the ANKC had some new research to present, or a new code of ethics, then no reason to invite them to speak. Kate did have something "new" to present. Also, it's not the place of universities to censor debate.

Probably helped to have someone controversial there too - look at how many bums on seats they got! 250!!! I gather from speaking with a couple of Monash people that is pretty unheard of. In fact one person said getting just 100 would have been significant. More people means more publicity to the uni, which may lead on to more research money.

What new stuff to help "Build Better Dogs" - a Code of Ethics that passes the buck to the Pet Shop to take responsibiliy to take back & rehome the puppy farmer's rejects from disillusioned or irresponsible owners

Mmmmm your last para and you wonder "why some posters are dismissive and even antagonistic of the science researchers" - credibility is sure being diminished by posts like the one above.

Time to take my dogs out for a walk and get away from this nonsense.

[mita]

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.

KK, the point of the seminar was 'building' better dogs....i.e., making them better fitted to live alongside humans. The issue of socialisation of puppies & young dogs towards maturing of personality, is the absolutely central point to that. This seminar & the puppy raising lady missed it totally.

In fact, if a welfare model of raising puppies/dogs towards a better life, is to be proposed....the entire 'how/what' to do, would progress from that.

And its in fact a key indication of puppy farming.

[Erny]

I could only gather from that to mean that the Pet Shop would have to be able to move returned dogs on to somewhere else. So what difference then, if they can do that, to the pet dog owner surrendering to a shelter?

They get their money back from the pet shop.

Ok - so that is supposed to make the pet shop more careful about who they sell to? (I'm asking, not challenging - just to make sure I understand properly.)

I'm thinking that this would make it all the more attractive for people to purchase from pet shops. They are more easily accessible and on top of that, a "life-time money-back guarantee?" Wow!! That makes it easy to buy a pup with even less care and responsibility being adopted than it already is, by many more people.

That being the case, I don't think a pet shop would care too much about puppy/dog returns and cash back. The more they would sell, the more money they'd make and the amount of returns likely to represent a smaller percentage of profit.

And the 'ease' with which the pups/dogs could be returned by their owners (with a "money-back offer", to boot!!!), and then shuffled off to a shelter is likely to increase the numbers of surrendered dogs.

I don't see this as being good for dogs.

The speakers talked of owner-education. Start at the place where the problem really begins. The above scenario is coming across to me as a 'curtain' that hides what is really going to happen in terms of dog welfare.

But I seem to be grasping at understanding a few things that were mentioned at the seminar (and already brought up by me in previous posts). So maybe this is one more thing I am just not seeing clearly.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Erny

[mita]

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

At last. Someone from the world of registered dog breeding who doesn't roll over & show their tummy.

One comment. This seminar was run at a unit called the Animal Welfare Science Unit at Monash University. But reflects the directions of whosoever got the idea to hold the seminar & what directions it should take & who should speak at it.

It does not represent the entire body of research from veterinary science institutions around Australia & the world. In fact, what I've quoted to support my concerns, comes from that general literature.

[KismetKat]

KK, the point of the seminar was 'building' better dogs....i.e., making them better fitted to live alongside humans. The issue of socialisation of puppies & young dogs towards maturing of personality, is the absolutely central point to that. This seminar & the puppy raising lady missed it totally.

In fact, if a welfare model of raising puppies/dogs towards a better life, is to be proposed....the entire 'how/what' to do, would progress from that.

And its in fact a key indication of puppy farming.

Mita - the full title of the seminar was

"building better dogs - Using what we've learned about genetic and experiential effects to improve dog welfare" not "building better dogs - let's repeat what we already know and have known for years".

From looking at the invite sheet, Kate was the only presenter who was not an academic researcher. Which is not what I thought would be at a university seminar. However, she was presenting something "new" in that she presented a model for commercial dog farmers, a model which, while not ideal, is much better than the reality of a puppy farm with cages and limited human contact. So it certainly fitted in with the idea that the seminar (improving dog welfare).

[mita]

Surely these types of seminars are all about presenting "new" stuff so unless the ANKC had some new research to present, or a new code of ethics, then no reason to invite them to speak. Kate did have something "new" to present. Also, it's not the place of universities to censor debate.

Probably helped to have someone controversial there too - look at how many bums on seats they got! 250!!! I gather from speaking with a couple of Monash people that is pretty unheard of. In fact one person said getting just 100 would have been significant. More people means more publicity to the uni, which may lead on to more research money.

The place of universities is to present material in a scholarly context. The material presented by the breeding lady does not meet that criterion.

So you're saying, forget scholarship, bring in to universities to speak, anyone who just thinks 'Oh, that's a good idea I've got!'....because it will get bottoms on seats leading to more research money.

Universities with a record for scholarship don't have to get money like that.

[Rebanne]

Why not have a "companion dog" club attached to the breed club? Let anyone with that breed dog join and have activities and fundraisers. Engage the pet owners of the breed. And even if they got their dog from a pet shop you might well find they'll get their next dog of that breed from a registered breeder.

I didn't need to join a breed club to help me decide that my next dog, after owning a purebred but unregistered dog, was to come from a ANKC registered breeder. I was smart enough to make that decision for myself. And when I did finally join the breed club of my chosen breed back then they were more than happy to add a column to their newsletter called country capers, where people could send in their results from various country shows and trials etc instead of just news from the various branches. All it needed was for someone, me, to write in and ask.

[Sheridan]

Mita - the full title of the seminar was

"building better dogs - Using what we've learned about genetic and experiential effects to improve dog welfare" not "building better dogs - let's repeat what we already know and have known for years".

From looking at the invite sheet, Kate was the only presenter who was not an academic researcher. Which is not what I thought would be at a university seminar. However, she was presenting something "new" in that she presented a model for commercial dog farmers, a model which, while not ideal, is much better than the reality of a puppy farm with cages and limited human contact. So it certainly fitted in with the idea that the seminar (improving dog welfare).

A better model would be that puppyfarmers like her would be shut down for good. That would improve dog welfare no end.