'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[Rebanne]

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.

If you are not prepared to join your breed club how do you know they have nothing to offer you? You would get a newsletter I assume you would have fun days organised for you. I am a member of a sighthound club in another state, will most likely never ever get to one of their shows or fun days but so what, I am supporting my breed by being a member regardless. it's not always about what you can get out of things.

[Steve]

You also have to consider that Kate has credentials in Vet Science and at the seminar she said she majored in genetics

so she fitted in I guess.

[Steve]

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.

Be careful - she didnt say she would refund she said she would take em back - there is a difference.She also didnt say the pet shop would refund either just that they would take the role of the breeder in taking them back or working with a shelter.

[mita]

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).

I appreciate reading your answers, KK.

I've already referred to hereditary factors and experiential learning being the cues to human's developing dogs best fitted to live alongside them.

Socialisation of puppies & young dogs are therefore key variables.

Welfare-based breeding would need to stress that. And has already been studied in that registered breeders have been found to socialise puppies better than unregistered ones. Yet this seminar over-looked such research. Which would actually give data for any welfare model.

Kate's model is more of accommodation rather than one with a core stressing socialisation & personality growth. A sort of mini-puppy farm in the backyard....based on some erroneous beliefs about purebred dogs. And where jiggling & mixing of breeds will 'correct' those 'deficiencies'.

[Rebanne]

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.

And you know this how??

[Steve]

Mita I dont think Kate was speaking about mini puppy farms - she was talking about any breeder who breeds dogs for profit as their main priority.

She also said she didnt like the term puppy farmer and preferred pet puppy breeder because the term puppy farmer was associated with dirty conditions etc.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Steve

[mita]

You also have to consider that Kate has credentials in Vet Science and at the seminar she said she majored in genetics

so she fitted in I guess.

Ah, thanks for this, Steve. Now I get where the connection would be, why the lady was invited to be a presenter.

[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.

If you are not prepared to join your breed club how do you know they have nothing to offer you? You would get a newsletter I assume you would have fun days organised for you. I am a member of a sighthound club in another state, will most likely never ever get to one of their shows or fun days but so what, I am supporting my breed by being a member regardless. it's not always about what you can get out of things.

I am planning to join my local sibe social club (and not just because they have shirts ) I was referring to the clubs that don't cater for owners of unregistered dogs, such as the one KK was referring to for her breed where she was told that there was nothing there she could participate in with her unregistered dog other than the 'waggiest tail' classes.

The Chihuahua club of QLD has fun days but you can't enter an unregistered dog. When I pay for membership I like to be able to participate not just sit on the sidelines for the next 10 years till I get a registered dog.

[mita]

Mita I dont think Kate was speaking about mini puppy farms - she was talking about any breeder who breeds dogs for profit as their main priority.

She also said she didnt like the term puppy farmer and preferred pet puppy breeder because the term puppy farmer was associated with dirty conditions etc.

Steve, mini-puppy farms is my own term for someone who keeps a smaller number of dogs & whose main priority is to sell the offspring for profit. But who doesn't put socialisation as the very core of the activity.

I've always said....& the research would support me....that even if such breeding is done in pristine surroundings, but there's no grasp re companion dogs needing to learn socialisation from a key young age....towards the maturing of personality in the 2nd or 3rd year...then that's still puppy farming.

I don't know where Kate's practices lie, in this regard....but I would have expected that to be a central issue in any presentation re a model for breeding.

Without such a core to breeding & raising dogs, it would be the same as clean, neat little sheds for raising chickens.

[Rebanne]

I am planning to join my local sibe social club (and not just because they have shirts ) I was referring to the clubs that don't cater for owners of unregistered dogs, such as the one KK was referring to for her breed where she was told that there was nothing there she could participate in with her unregistered dog other than the 'waggiest tail' classes.

The Chihuahua club of QLD has fun days but you can't enter an unregistered dog. When I pay for membership I like to be able to participate not just sit on the sidelines for the next 10 years till I get a registered dog.

Then join the club and work to get things changed instead of sitting on the outside whining about things.

ETA in fact start your own club then you can run it the way you want until someone comes along to challenge you.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Rebanne

[Steve]

I dont think she has a mini puppy farm in the back yard .She said she was on a large property with closest neighbours 7 kilometres away and to breed the numbers she has I wouldnt describe that as mini. Though I guess its all relative and there are some much bigger than that.

[jaymatt]

Mita...

[mita]

I dont think she has a mini puppy farm in the back yard .She said she was on a large property with closest neighbours 7 kilometres away and to breed the numbers she has I wouldnt describe that as mini. Though I guess its all relative and there are some much bigger than that.

I didn't explain myself well, Steve. I meant a mini-puppy farm more in how its run....not the size of the property.

[gundoglover]

KK - your posts about the pressures on uni's is accurate. I can attest to that from non-dog-related academic activities. From the uni's point of view this was just a seminar to act as a vehicle for PhD students & try to get some funding for research. I've gone to some of these events for my non-dog-related work & experienced similar spottiness in presentation & quality of talks to that described by people who this seminar. For rigorous peer-reviewed research you need to go to the quality science journals.

The good news is that 250 people attended this seminar, and there can be no doubt that pedigreed-dog breeders are interested in these topics and willing to engage in serious debate. Uni's are also supposed to consult stakeholders to get ethics approval for their research. The attendance by the pedigreed dog breeders and owners makes it clear that we are stakeholders and should be consulted. I think this is a good thing and may lead to more informed research in future.

[Are You Serious Jo]

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.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on this thread.

[Sheridan]

Mita I dont think Kate was speaking about mini puppy farms - she was talking about any breeder who breeds dogs for profit as their main priority.

She also said she didnt like the term puppy farmer and preferred pet puppy breeder because the term puppy farmer was associated with dirty conditions etc.

How many breeding dogs does Kate Schoeffel have in her commercial breeding establishment, I wonder. Little doubt that she prefers to have a cute and cuddly title like 'pet puppy breeder' but a puppyfarmer is a puppyfarmer no matter how they dress themselves.

[mita]

. For rigorous peer-reviewed research you need to go to the quality science journals.

Amen to that.

[SpikesPuppy]

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.

Unfortunately, I know of a few breed clubs who don't welcome members unless they have a papered pedigree animal : Fortunately these seem to be in the minority but the fact is, they exist. So too bad for people who can't/don't have a dog but want to spend time with and learn more about a particular breed.

One of the BT clubs' life members never even owned a BT, but was very fond of them, as an example of the opposite end of the spectrum.

Until this year, our club Vice President was a pet owner (who, interestingly, only got his first ever pedigree dog a few months before being nominated/elected), and we have had pet owners on committee. Our club, however is one of the shrinking ones - we seem to lose members every renewal, which is disappointing, and finding committee members is nearly impossible.

We have an annual champ. show, but we also hold several 'Fun Days' where we have a free BBQ and some demonstrations (agility, grooming etc) and we also have a fancy dress contest. But the attendance at these are sometimes down to the 'die hards' and committee members only Very disappointing especially for the prospective buyers who are invited along.

However we are trying new things, new events to get people interested in the club (including holding one of our fun days in conjunction with the Geelong Highland Gathering which also has a Dog Match which has a class suitable for Limit/rescue/pet shop dogs, which we are encouraging

pet people' to do. I will also add, that our membership is only $25 annually for a whole family, which actually does not even cover the cost of printing/posting the newsletter!!! Our club runs at a loss in terms of members, we cannot afford to "do more" for people without them joining up.....

I will say though, many pedigree owners/breeders do NOT treat people who have a pet shop 'version' of their breed nicely at all- I understand they are frustrated that one of their beautiful breed was sold in such circumstances, but they sometimes seem to take it out on the owner, who is often a loving, knowledgeable & caring owner who only wants to know MORE!!! I say this because I experienced it with my pet shop pure breed. It was also interesting that when I took him to a show as a pup (to have a look and meet some more Newf owners etc), people came up and commented on him, asked who he was from etc. All happy happy, but a dark cloud, so to speak, would fall as soon as I mentioned where he was from Not everyone was like this, mind, but some were and it sure puts breeders and breed representatives in a bad light.

[Ellie]

How many breeding dogs does Kate Schoeffel have in her commercial breeding establishment, I wonder. Little doubt that she prefers to have a cute and cuddly title like 'pet puppy breeder' but a puppyfarmer is a puppyfarmer no matter how they dress themselves.

Yes, a puppy farm is a puppy farm, not matter how they like to gloss it over. Simply scum of the earth.

[Erny]

Be careful - she didnt say she would refund she said she would take em back - there is a difference.She also didnt say the pet shop would refund either just that they would take the role of the breeder in taking them back or working with a shelter.

Thanks Steve - I couldn't quite remember, and assumed "refund" must have been stated because KK stated that to be the case. If no refund is potentially being entertained, then in my mind, this would make the situation worse, as there is nothing the Pet Store would have to lose. Nothing major, that is, save for a 'surrender fee' to whatever shelter it strikes agreement with to take on 'returned dogs'.