'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[centitout]

My "pet" show bloodhound,who was shown once but will be going again this year.These are the show dogs that arent suitable for pets right?

They have more socialisation right from birth,than a dog who has a quick pat once a day when fed-if its lucky.How the hell does that make it a better "pet" for a family.

All of my dogs are pets first,show,trail etc way down the list,as are most registered breeders.

[poodlefan]

Can someone please explain to me in very small words how pups bred in sheds for profit that are last seen by their breeders at 6 weeks are more suited as pets than pups bred for exhibition at shows and to provide future generations of purebred dogs?

Edited February 14, 2010 by poodlefan

[WoofnHoof]

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.

I have experienced this too, all smiles until they ask where your dog is from, I am tempted to lie next time someone asks just to see what it's like to not have that stigma attatched.

[Jed]

Not what someone reading Kate's website is going to learn is it?

Well, Ive always looked warily at small dogs ever since reading the Cordoba study. Just joking.

This is why it puzzled me that a university would ask her to present, re a model for producing pets.

There's lots of sound research which points to the human factor in how dogs' personalities are developed. That should have pride of place in any scientifically sound rationale behind any system of raising puppies & young dogs. Gawd help me.....the military dog people provide a brilliant model based on that. Now if only every puppy destined to be a pet could enrol from birth to 12 months up at Amberley. Just joking again.

And there's already useful assessment tools & guidelines re personality & behaviour (just check out Davis Uni Vet School info on that).

Of course, there are heritable aspects involved in personality. Another reason why sound selection for breeding decisions are critical. Incidentally, 'show' people would have a vested interest in breeding towards a sound temperament. For the simple reason, the showing of dogs requires extensive socialisation around people & other dogs.

Answering the bolded piece - because my dear, they have an agenda, which has nothing to do with published studies or truth. It consists of hyperbole and spin.

They are not interested in the truth, or published research.

I have had a few dogs from people who were the ultimate show breeders. One came from "the winningest kennel in Qld" according to the ads, and in fact. Another came from someone who lives to show. Every dog on the pedigree is a gr. ch. All my dogs are pets, and those two are two perfectly satisfactory, charming, trainable, kissy pets.

WoofnHoof

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.

Published RSPCA figures show that purebred dogs comprise less than 1% of dogs in pounds. Their figures also show that purebred dogs are the easiest to rehome.

So that shoots that argument down in flames.

As to the warmbloods. You are arguing off the subject. The warmblood is a x between hot and cold blood. And you are talking sport horses. As someone who wanted a kangaroo dog would use a greyhound, a pointer, a pit bull - or whatever he thought would do the job, so people who want to compete at high level use the crosses which will produce a performance horse.

If you want a mixed breed dog, get one. That seems to be what you are arguing for.

Thoroughbreds are used for racing. Arabs are used for endurance over thoroughbreds. Clydesdales are used for farm work and pulling heavy carts. Hackneys are used for harness when something more flashy is required. Quarter horses are used for short races, and cutting.

Spikes Puppy

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,

In fairness, they are the same ones who do not treat owners of pedigree dogs from another state/another kennel/a competitor's line nicely either.

It's a people thing. They are the same ones who see someone who is obviously at their first show and not speak to them or point and giggle.

It's a people thing.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Jed

[Jed]

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).

STONE THE CROWS AND STARVE THE LIZARDS. THERE IS NO MODEL FOR COMMERCIAL PUPPY FARMERS.

DOGS ARE NOT AGRICULTURAL ANIMALS FULL STOP

THOSE PEOPLE CAN PONCE ABOUT AND POSTURE AS MUCH AS THEY LIKE (READ: TELL LIES) BUT THERE IS NO MODEL WHICH IMPROVES THE LIVES OF DOGS CONSTANTLY TORTURED BY THEIR LIVING CONDITIONS TO MAKE SOME SLEAZE BAG A QUICK BUCK.

NO PROPER "ANIMAL WELFARE" UNIT WHICH HAD ANY UNDERSTANDING OF DOGS WOULD EVEN ALLOW A FRIGGIN PUPPY FARMER IN THE UNIT NEVER MIND PRESENTING A "PAPER" AT A SEMINAR.

DOG HELP US ALL, AND PARTICULARLY THE POOR LITTLE DOGS.

WHAT CAN YOU BE THINKING?

[Steve]

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". :D

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).

STONE THE CROWS AND STARVE THE LIZARDS. THERE IS NO MODEL FOR COMMERCIAL PUPPY FARMERS.

DOGS ARE NOT AGRICULTURAL ANIMALS FULL STOP

THOSE PEOPLE CAN PONCE ABOUT AND POSTURE AS MUCH AS THEY LIKE (READ: TELL LIES) BUT THERE IS NO MODEL WHICH IMPROVES THE LIVES OF DOGS CONSTANTLY TORTURED BY THEIR LIVING CONDITIONS TO MAKE SOME SLEAZE BAG A QUICK BUCK.

NO PROPER "ANIMAL WELFARE" UNIT WHICH HAD ANY UNDERSTANDING OF DOGS WOULD EVEN ALLOW A FRIGGIN PUPPY FARMER IN THE UNIT NEVER MIND PRESENTING A "PAPER" AT A SEMINAR.

DOG HELP US ALL, AND PARTICULARLY THE POOR LITTLE DOGS.

WHAT CAN YOU BE THINKING?

Id love to be a fly on the wall when you get to hear the taped seminar

[WreckitWhippet]

I can feel the shock waves from Jed exploding from here

[Jed]

SBT, you are oh so right.

It's unfortunate that people who do evil are often assisted by those in positions of trust or respect. They legitimatise the evil, so the unknowing are deluded.

One would assume that people who have written books on dogs, and written papers used by governments to make decisions on dogs, would know enough about dog psychology not to support puppy farmers.

That they either do, and support them regardless, or don't know, in contravention to the respect they are given, makes me consider them as bad as worse than a puppy farmer.

And that's pretty bad.

I cannot tell you how bad that makes them, because I would have to use words which would have me banned from this forum, and I would have to use a LOT of them.

I can almost (almost) understand people who run puppy farms. I believe they have little knowledge or dogs, and little understanding of them, that they believe keeping hundreds of them as agricultural animals is ok - if you don'r know much, you might think it is ok. However, people who have done studies on dogs -- such as veterinary surgeons -- have more knowledge that your basic greedy numpty puppy farmer - and know that what they are doing is wrong, yet not only still do it, but work to try to convince others that it is correct.

These people are much much worse.

Dog save me, and save the poor little dogs too.

Steve

Id love to be a fly on the wall when you get to hear the taped seminar

I shall never hear it. When I want to know how to "build better dogs" I shall do as I have always done. I shall ask a proper ANKC breeder, maybe a judge, because I know any advice I am given will be relevant and correct, and more importantly, will not involve suffering for poor dogs. And I know by taking their advice, I will never do anything which deliberately harms a dog. And by taking the advice of people who have been breeding dogs for 40, 50 years, and bred heaps of champions, and more homely family pets with excellent health and temperament, I will know I am getting advice from people with runs on the board.

Be pleased I didn't actually attend. There could have been a lot of hectoring and incoherent shouting!!

I didn't go to the seminar, and I've not commented on it here to any degree - but there is no agreeing with a "model" puppy farm. And someone needed to say it. What a bloody oxymoron. It doesn't matter how much gold you wrap it in, it's still rotten to the core, in every single aspect.

It's like an ethical burglar, or a model serial killer.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Jed

[centitout]

Is this vet (kate?) from condobolin-i thought someone said on here that she was.I am going over to see my vets tomorrow and will ask about her.

There are a few puppy farms around that area unfortunately,there is definately another one at condo,as she was bringing her dogs to my vets.One of the male "studs" was sick,but she only wanted to spend maximum $500,the only reason she spent that was because the vets argued he deserved it,poor bugger.

[Steve]

Is this vet (kate?) from condobolin-i thought someone said on here that she was.I am going over to see my vets tomorrow and will ask about her.

There are a few puppy farms around that area unfortunately,there is definately another one at condo,as she was bringing her dogs to my vets.One of the male "studs" was sick,but she only wanted to spend maximum $500,the only reason she spent that was because the vets argued he deserved it,poor bugger.

Yes Kate is from Condobolin.

[Jed]

Gee, Centitout, that's a "model" puppy farmer, to spend $500.

Most of them wont spend anything. They ring up pet owners who advertise adult, preferably registered dogs, portray themselves as model pet homes, with lovely children yearning for just that dog.

Adult dogs are better, they work immediately, don't have to wait for them to mature.

Take the dog, chuck him in the sheds with the bitches, and if he wont perform, it's a bullet and chucked out the back somewhere. When he is past it, same end. If they have enough bitches by him, same end. And they scour the papers again for another registered dog.

Meanwhile, the pet owner, who needed a new home for the dog, believes nice Scampy or Buffy is living the life of Riley, going on outings with the kids, drives in the car, to the beach while he's locked in a dungeon, suffering every single day.

Shame the presentation on dogs going from pet homes to kennels didn't touch on that. Would have agreed with the general ethos of the seminar.

[Sheridan]

Is this vet (kate?) from condobolin-i thought someone said on here that she was.I am going over to see my vets tomorrow and will ask about her.

There are a few puppy farms around that area unfortunately,there is definately another one at condo,as she was bringing her dogs to my vets.One of the male "studs" was sick,but she only wanted to spend maximum $500,the only reason she spent that was because the vets argued he deserved it,poor bugger.

But isn't she a vet herself? Why would she need the services of another vet?

Or do I have her confused with someone else?

[labsrule]

Totally agree with you Jed and one of the reasons that I was so incensed when reading this thread was the fact that this low life puppy farmer is a Vet and I believe is one of the reasons why she was invited to present at this seminar - after all, the seminar was conducted by the veterinary fraternity at Monash under the guise of "animal welfare" - that is a joke . Animal welfare and puppy farmers make strange bedfellows!!

A Vet knowingly causing abject misery to so many dogs over so many years in the pursuit of greed is reprehensible and unforgiveable and so to is the invite extended to this puppy farmer by Monash Animal Welfare Science Centre to present "A model for an association of professional pet dog breeders", whilst excluding the registered purebred dog breeding community . I find this whole thing outrageous, insulting and so unethical it beggars belief ;) and this leaves a sour taste in my mouth with regards to veterinary science research and I doubt I will ever participate again in any uni research dog studies and will be most vocal in my opposition to funding in areas linked to puppy farmers, as I cannot/will not support organisations or institutes that give any credence to puppy farmers in any way shape or form .

[centitout]

Is this vet (kate?) from condobolin-i thought someone said on here that she was.I am going over to see my vets tomorrow and will ask about her.

There are a few puppy farms around that area unfortunately,there is definately another one at condo,as she was bringing her dogs to my vets.One of the male "studs" was sick,but she only wanted to spend maximum $500,the only reason she spent that was because the vets argued he deserved it,poor bugger.

But isn't she a vet herself? Why would she need the services of another vet?

Or do I have her confused with someone else?

there is another biggish p/f there,she doesnt use Kate for vet services as she doesnt do any vet work there as far as i am aware.

[Guest Tess32]

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

I don't see much in the club right now that suits a pet owner.

Although the day outs have been good and certain members have been very encouraging.

Overall though there is not much benefit in joining. Maybe there should be a committee change :D

[KismetKat]

I think it is a shame that people's opinions of this seminar are so intransigent they won't even bother to listen to what was actually said. Many posts on this thread have been assumptions, guesses, words put in people's mouths that weren't said and things blown out of all proportion. You really need to listen to what was actually said.

There has also been a lot of crap said about the university ran this seminar, why they invited who they did, and talk of hidden agendas.

I've now asked someone who works in the postgrad sector about these types of seminars. Basically departmental seminars (which this was) generally only expect an audience from within the department. They provide a platform to give postgraduate students a chance to present their work and gives them practice for this which can help when they go off to more "scholery" (as one poster here put it) conferences and seminars. The seminar gives students and researchers a chance to check out what they're all doing and perhaps gain different perspectives about things from their fellows and the audience..

It is very common to invite 1 outside speaker (say from industry) that has a platform to present. I stand by my 'guess' that Kate was invited over the ANKC as Kate had something new to present where the ANKC's platform would already be well known to all.

It is insulting to make the claim that the University invited this person as they endorse her stance. Universities invite speakers of all stripes and persuasions, they are meant to be places for robust debate.

[SpikesPuppy]

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

I don't see much in the club right now that suits a pet owner.

Although the day outs have been good and certain members have been very encouraging.

Overall though there is not much benefit in joining. Maybe there should be a committee change

KK- did your dog win the waggiest tail comp at Bayside last year? If so, she beat mum's girl

The Collie Club has a LOT more to offer it's members than, say, the Border Terrier club. At least they have members comps and the thing like the Collies by the Bay etc as well as organising things like seminars and several breed/members comps throughout the year.

The Border club has very little to offer it's pet members (although we have 3 fun days a year, though attendance is dropping off with each one, as is membership :D ), but the catch-22 with that is, if pet members don't join, we don't have the funds to offer anything else for them?? We wanted to have a terrier racing day or something but that costs money to hire equipment & venue, which we, as a club simply do not have

Put it this way, the membership fee for the BT club does not even cover the cost of printing/posting the club's newsletter :D And repeatedly, we have asked for submissions of stories, photos of pets etc but no one participates and so the newsletter is often full of show brags. It's all we have!

[labsrule]

I think it is a shame that people's opinions of this seminar are so intransigent they won't even bother to listen to what was actually said. Many posts on this thread have been assumptions, guesses, words put in people's mouths that weren't said and things blown out of all proportion. You really need to listen to what was actually said.

There has also been a lot of crap said about the university ran this seminar, why they invited who they did, and talk of hidden agendas.

I've now asked someone who works in the postgrad sector about these types of seminars. Basically departmental seminars (which this was) generally only expect an audience from within the department. They provide a platform to give postgraduate students a chance to present their work and gives them practice for this which can help when they go off to more "scholery" (as one poster here put it) conferences and seminars. The seminar gives students and researchers a chance to check out what they're all doing and perhaps gain different perspectives about things from their fellows and the audience..

It is very common to invite 1 outside speaker (say from industry) that has a platform to present. I stand by my 'guess' that Kate was invited over the ANKC as Kate had something new to present where the ANKC's platform would already be well known to all.

It is insulting to make the claim that the University invited this person as they endorse her stance. Universities invite speakers of all stripes and persuasions, they are meant to be places for robust debate.

I make no apology for having an "intransigent opinion" on this seminar, as a "puppy farmer" :D was given a platform at a Seminar on "Building Better Dogs" run by the uni's Animal Welfare Science Centre. This reason that you give that this puppy farmer was invited because she had "something new" to present, does not wash with me, as a puppy farmer does not give a toss about "animal welfare/building better dogs", they are in it for pure profit and subject their dogs to a life of misery, no matter what spin or sugar coating they try to put on it. :D

The only reason this "something new" to present by this puppy farmer has come about, is not due to the puppy farmers all of a sudden having a change of heart and deciding on their own, to try and improve living conditions for their poor dogs , it is because the RSPCA have puppy farmers firmly in their sights Puppy farmers concerned about animal welfare, don't think so . Maybe you all should read the RSPCA's PuppyFarm Discussion Paper

RSPCA'S PuppyFarm Discussion Paper

I agree that Uni's should be a place for robust debate, however, in this case, I believe the relevant stakeholders for this debate were not invited to present, so a pretty lopsided debate to me. I am still left shaking my head over the fact that a uni conducting a seminar on "Building Better Dogs" invited a puppy farmer, whose sole aim in life is to profit from their dogs' misery, to present at this seminar. Couple this with the fact that a representative from the Registered Purebred Dog Community, whose whole purpose is to promote excellence in breeding to produce temperamentally and physically sound pure bred dogs was excluded from presenting at this Seminar, then we are left to draw our own conclusions on the Uni's stance on this matter.

[Sheridan]

I think it is a shame that people's opinions of this seminar are so intransigent they won't even bother to listen to what was actually said. Many posts on this thread have been assumptions, guesses, words put in people's mouths that weren't said and things blown out of all proportion. You really need to listen to what was actually said.

Most of my information about the seminar has come from your posts. Make of that what you will.

Given some of your posts about this seminar and the utter nonsense you've posted about joining up with puppyfarmers because it's all about the dogs only makes me wonder about what your beef is. If it's all about the dogs, you don't join up with those causing problems. You avoid them.

There has also been a lot of crap said about the university ran this seminar, why they invited who they did, and talk of hidden agendas.

I've now asked someone who works in the postgrad sector about these types of seminars. Basically departmental seminars (which this was) generally only expect an audience from within the department. They provide a platform to give postgraduate students a chance to present their work and gives them practice for this which can help when they go off to more "scholery" (as one poster here put it) conferences and seminars. The seminar gives students and researchers a chance to check out what they're all doing and perhaps gain different perspectives about things from their fellows and the audience..

It is very common to invite 1 outside speaker (say from industry) that has a platform to present. I stand by my 'guess' that Kate was invited over the ANKC as Kate had something new to present where the ANKC's platform would already be well known to all.

It is insulting to make the claim that the University invited this person as they endorse her stance. Universities invite speakers of all stripes and persuasions, they are meant to be places for robust debate.

I don't know about hidden agendas but I think if striving for credibility on animal welfare issues, you don't invite someone without it.

[Erny]

KK - I don't get your point, either. Your more recent posts seems to suggest an air of "it's only a PhD presentation, so don't worry about it - no big deal, and why are people raising issues about content?"

What's the point of a presentation if discussion (whether that be a matter of poking holes in content, or supporting what was presented) can't or shouldn't be undertaken afterwards?

If it was just an 'exercise' to get an audience for the purpose of PhD presentation experience (ie talking in front of) then they could have arranged for other Uni Students to sit as audience, rather than drawing people away from their usual work and even from interstate.

What is it that you don't like about the matters people are raising? I think there's been some excellent points raised and many have been non-biased and sensible, acknowledging and recognising the points of others, but countering that with some backed-up explanation.

Is everything in your own posts exact to what was actually said in the seminar, or has there been room for your own interpretation and assumption of what they meant had some influence?

Actually, I think the points in the discussion of this thread would be very valuable and useful for any of the PhD students to read and follow and I would be very surprised if they haven't gained some excellent use from numerous of the thoughts that have been expressed throughout.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Erny