'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[KismetKat]

I did not mean to imply the day was unimportant - just to put the day in perspective as there have been many posts attacking for the day for not being scholarly enough, no peer review stuff, why a non-academic was there, hidden agenda cos of who might have paid for lunch, etc. etc.

Erny - I agree that there are points and issues raised in this thread would be valuable reading for students and researchers alike. However sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to the actual seminar is not one of them

Spike's Puppy no we did not take out the WT title (waggiest tail) title at Bayside - thus I am obviously a disgruntled customer And to whoever asked "why not have a breed club and committee full of non-reg pet owners (Rebane was it?) I think it would be a bad idea as a vastly changed membership base, and being in positions of control, could erode the original ideals of the club.

[espinay2]

Just out of curiosity, who did pay for lunch/provide funding/sponsor the event?

It is one of the things I always check when looking at any scientific/scholarly paper etc or any event - who provided the funding.

After all, if the findings sponsored by the egg board say eggs are healthy and we should eat lots of them, you need to take that recommendation in context

[mlc]

Just out of curiosity, who did pay for lunch/provide funding/sponsor the event?

Hi there,

lunch was provided by the Petcare Information and Advisory Service (PIAS), who often provide such support for the AWSC's activities about companion animals.

The rest of the costs were covered by the Animal Welfare Science Centre who regularly host these kinds of seminars (as you can see here: http://www.animalwelfare.net.au/new/new.html)

As previously mentioned, there was no hidden agenda here, and there were no deliberate exclusions. If anyone wishes to register their interest to present at a future AWSC seminar, they are very welcome to and can do so by contacting the AWSC's executive officer Jeremy Skuse at [email protected].

Cheers

[Rebanne]

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.

How do you know the ANKC's platform is well known to all given that you just said the bit I bolded?

[Rebanne]

Spike's Puppy no we did not take out the WT title (waggiest tail) title at Bayside - thus I am obviously a disgruntled customer ;) And to whoever asked "why not have a breed club and committee full of non-reg pet owners (Rebane was it?) I think it would be a bad idea as a vastly changed membership base, and being in positions of control, could erode the original ideals of the club.

But that's what you want, a breed club that caters for your un papered dog. And I didn't say full of non-reg pet owners either.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Rebanne

[KismetKat]

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.

How do you know the ANKC's platform is well known to all given that you just said the bit I bolded?

Well everyone there is involved in research about dogs. The whole day was about dogs, not chickens. The ANKC has a code of ethics that's been around quite a while hasn't it?

Also consider the numbers. Steve has stated that purebred dog breeders only supply 10% of dogs - much of the rest must come from (and I think this was a term Pauleen used) "for profit" breeders. Given the volume of puppies produced by "for profit" breeders then someone from that industry proposing a code of ethics would make an interesting speaker.

Rather than stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen - why not critique the proposal? Surely, in part, that's what the day was about. Something is presented, you critique it. I asked earlier about the aspect of the code that said bitches should be desexed and retired to pet homes on a "7 litters or 7 years of age, whichever comes first" basis. Is that good or bad? 7 litters seems a lot to me but the only personal experience I have is my cat who was retired to this pet home at 5 years of age and having had only 3 litters. The breeder did not like them having too many litters as it takes so much out of them (and yes, coming here after weaning her final litter I would have to say she looked pretty skanky - it was only the next winter that she really bloomed again).

I have a query about the stats posted on this thread that only 1% of purebreed dogs are relinquished to pounds. How do you know that? Are you basing this figure on dogs relinquished to pounds with their papers?

Rebane - re the club thing you obviously don't see where I am coming from. Perhaps if you read some of the earlier posts on this topic including those written by the mal owner.

[Sheridan]

Just out of curiosity, who did pay for lunch/provide funding/sponsor the event?

Hi there,

lunch was provided by the Petcare Information and Advisory Service (PIAS), who often provide such support for the AWSC's activities about companion animals.

The rest of the costs were covered by the Animal Welfare Science Centre who regularly host these kinds of seminars (as you can see here: http://www.animalwelfare.net.au/new/new.html)

As previously mentioned, there was no hidden agenda here, and there were no deliberate exclusions. If anyone wishes to register their interest to present at a future AWSC seminar, they are very welcome to and can do so by contacting the AWSC's executive officer Jeremy Skuse at [email protected].

Cheers

Given how long this thread is now, can you just remind again us why a puppyfarmer was allowed to use your forum as a platform?

[Jed]

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 wasn't replying to the seminar, I was replying to your post

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).

If you think a puppy farm in any way, shape or form fits in with "improving dog welfare" you want to get a grip. Calling it "commercial dog breeding" simply puts a label on a disgusting practice which causes immense suffering. DOGS are companions, they are not agricultural animals. "While not ideal" is simply spin for disgusting and barbaric.

You can call it what you lilke, it's still disgusting ant totally revolting to anyone with any notion about dogs.

Judging by some of the rubbish sprouted by some of those involved in the seminar, (not at the seminar), they have NFI what the ANKC's stance is.

Of course there is an agenda. I've seen enough agenda's to know whether there is an agenda or not. And of course they are denying it - well, they would, wouldn't they? And I'm not the only one who thought that - why do you think there were 250 in the audience? I can tell you it wasn't to hear any words of wisdom from the puppy farmer. Most of the people who attended have forgotten more than the puppy farmer knows or will ever learn.

If you are a puppy farmer, you didn't pass "GO" in the welfare stakes.

If you lie down with camels, you get camel fleas.

What I said in an earlier post applies to those conducting and at the seminar.

If you are the religious ladies sewing group, and you have seminar, you do not invite Chopper Reid or the town prostitute. If you do so, your credibility plummets.

Same deal. If you run a seminar on the welfare of dogs, and you invite someone to legitimize their practices, your credibility plummets.

As it deserves to.

[Jed]

Sorry, KK forgot to answer this. 1% was a figure publkished by the rSPCA. I added the link once, no idea where it is now. I would imagine their rationale would be if it looks purebred, it is. Don't imagine too many turn up with papers at the pound, though some do. Suppose some crosses look like pure, classified so, some pures look like crosses, or they have no idea what they are, so they classify as they see it.

[Are You Serious Jo]

What is so hard to understand, no one is interested in taking onboard anything that allows puppy farms to continue, if they were concerned about welfare they'd be pushing for banning them, not supporting them to grow even bigger.

No puppy farms ever, NO PUPPY FARMS EVER. You want to act in the best interest of dog welfare then fight their existence, not invite their flippin spokesperson to your seminar.

[SpikesPuppy]

Spike's Puppy no we did not take out the WT title (waggiest tail) title at Bayside - thus I am obviously a disgruntled customer And to whoever asked "why not have a breed club and committee full of non-reg pet owners (Rebane was it?) I think it would be a bad idea as a vastly changed membership base, and being in positions of control, could erode the original ideals of the club.

But that's what you want, a breed club that caters for your un papered dog. And I didn't say full of non-reg pet owners either.

Should a breed club only be about pedigree, papered animals or should it be about the breed and educating people on said breed ?????

[Rebanne]

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.

How do you know the ANKC's platform is well known to all given that you just said the bit I bolded?

Well everyone there is involved in research about dogs. The whole day was about dogs, not chickens. The ANKC has a code of ethics that's been around quite a while hasn't it?

Rather than stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen - why not critique the proposal? Surely, in part, that's what the day was about. Something is presented, you critique it. I asked earlier about the aspect of the code that said bitches should be desexed and retired to pet homes on a "7 litters or 7 years of age, whichever comes first" basis. Is that good or bad? 7 litters seems a lot to me but the only personal experience I have is my cat who was retired to this pet home at 5 years of age and having had only 3 litters. The breeder did not like them having too many litters as it takes so much out of them (and yes, coming here after weaning her final litter I would have to say she looked pretty skanky - it was only the next winter that she really bloomed again).

Just because someone is researching dogs doesn't mean they know anything about the ANKC.

I answered what I thought about breeding some poor bitch until she has had 7 litters or 7 years, also about vaccinating 6 week old puppies, plus keeping dogs outside in backyard type like enclosure.

If you don't like what your breed club is doing then join it and try and change it from the inside, no use sitting outside and whinging. If you try and fail at least you would have tried.

[poodlefan]

Spike's Puppy no we did not take out the WT title (waggiest tail) title at Bayside - thus I am obviously a disgruntled customer And to whoever asked "why not have a breed club and committee full of non-reg pet owners (Rebane was it?) I think it would be a bad idea as a vastly changed membership base, and being in positions of control, could erode the original ideals of the club.

But that's what you want, a breed club that caters for your un papered dog. And I didn't say full of non-reg pet owners either.

Should a breed club only be about pedigree, papered animals or should it be about the breed and educating people on said breed ?????

A breed club should be many things Spikes but in the end it is what members are prepared to put the time and effort into making it. Why non-members who don't contribute financially should have any expectations about what a bunch of volunteers on very limited funding should do for them is a bit perplexing. It's the breed clubs that do pet expos and showcase their dogs. I"m sure most of us have been involved in staffing breed stands at some time or another.

Dogs Vic have started their companion dog program. Some breed clubs have fun days and open days. But in the end these things come down to tasking the same hard working people to do more.

We hope to get lure coursing up and running in Canberra this year for the Hound Club. Anyone who expects to rock up and have a go without becoming a member is in for a rude shock. Even from an insurance/liability perspective, that would be a nightmare.

Edited February 15, 2010 by poodlefan

[Rebanne]

Spike's Puppy no we did not take out the WT title (waggiest tail) title at Bayside - thus I am obviously a disgruntled customer And to whoever asked "why not have a breed club and committee full of non-reg pet owners (Rebane was it?) I think it would be a bad idea as a vastly changed membership base, and being in positions of control, could erode the original ideals of the club.

But that's what you want, a breed club that caters for your un papered dog. And I didn't say full of non-reg pet owners either.

Should a breed club only be about pedigree, papered animals or should it be about the breed and educating people on said breed ?????

IMO a breed club should be about the breed. And plenty say if you can't provide the papers then you can't prove your dog is that breed but plenty don't have that attitude either. Seems the BT club has tried their best to get owners of pet dogs interested, from what you have said, but have not succeeded despite all their efforts. But it cuts both ways. Those whinging their breed club has nothing for them now should join and try to get their voice heard. They may fail, they may not, but some aren't even trying. They could join the club, offer to help out, organise fun days etc. I've owned an unpapered purebred GSD and never felt like I was frowned on. I have also owned an papered GSD not bred by anyone in the breed club ( shock horror no tattoo ) and yes I was frowned upon but I still joined the club.

[Rebanne]

A breed club should be many things Spikes but in the end it is what members are prepared to put the time and effort into making it. Why non-members who don't contribute financially should have any expectations about what a bunch of volunteers on very limited funding should do for them is a bit perplexing.

you said it so much better than me

[poodlefan]

I don't know what folk think breed clubs are.. they aren't huge organisations with a lot of funding.

The ones I'm involved in have less than 100 members (one only has about 25) and a couple of $K in the bank. The people who do the work can be numbered on the fingers of one hand.

Breed clubs don't cost sheep stations to join. Is $10 or $20 a year too rich for people? Most folk wouldn't think twice about spending that on a takeaway meal.

Many purebred dog fanciers and breeders started off with unpapered or crossbred dogs. Those who would write off such an owner are very very short sighted. But there's a difference between welcoming such members and welcoming the breeding practices that see your breed of choice exploited.

Edited February 15, 2010 by poodlefan

[Miranda]

Our breed club has two pet owners on committee, neither of them show or do anything with their dogs other than keep them as companions. We put on a members fun day every year which includes a bbq lunch, games, grooming, handling classes, beginners agility and a members competition which any dog may enter. We also conduct two field training days which all dogs are welcome to attend, an obedience trial, an open show, a champ show and this year we are holding a 'winter walk' for members, a walk followed by a get together at a dog friendly cafe. Pet owners are always made welcome by everyone in the club and we do in fact have a 'breeder joined' scheme in place which encourages every breeder to join up their puppy buyers for one year including those who purchase puppies on limited register. Just about every breeder in Australia takes advantage of this scheme which ensures that new owners receive the club's newletters and are aware of the activities available. However we find that the majority of pet owners show very little interest and few renew their membership after the first year regardless of how much effort we make to welcome them and involve them in the club.

There are no BYB in our breed so all pets are registered, but we do very occasionally have a member with a rescue dog and the owner certainly isn't stigmatised just because his or her dog's pedigree is unknown. None of my breed are ever found in pet shops, but it is a fact that every animal purchased from a pet shop ensures that more puppies will be produced to replace them and that anyone who purchases from a pet shop is helping to keep puppy farmers in business and thus directly contributing to the exploitation and suffering of hundreds of dogs.

As for the rest of this unbelievably offensive thread as far as I'm concerned all puppy farmers are the scum of the earth regardless of how hard they try to legitimise themselves and sanitise their operations, as someone else very succinctly stated I'd rather eat my own vomit than have anything to do with them. As for the ridiculous comment that registered breeders should make their dogs available for breeding well quite frankly I'd rather euthanase all my dogs and give up breeding all together. Puppy farmer+animal welfare..............what a load of unadulterated crap!

[SpikesPuppy]

Rebanne & Poodlefan- I agree with everything you both said. I've been on the committee of the BT club for the past 5 years so I know exactly how difficult it is etc.

But I guess, it saddens me to think that *any* breed club will stigmatise a proud dog owner (who, let's face it- if they have taken the time to seek out and contact the breed club they can't be that bad??) just because of where they got their dog from (like I said, I've been on the receiving end of this).

I certainly don't agree with non-members getting the benefits that members do, but I guess I see it from both sides- if the club is not offering something to you, as a pet owner, why would you spend that money? I also agree with pet owners joining the committee but I imagine in a larger club (such as the Collie Club), there would be a bit of a tussle for spots on the general committee, and a pet owner, especially a novice pet owner, may not be voted in or accepted onto the committee.

We have one pet member on our committee this year The rest are breeders/exhibitors or sports members.

I personally have found the Collie club to be excellent and very welcoming and they put on a great deal of events for everybody throughout the year (including members' & breed comps, the Fun Days as well as running breed stands and having the rescue section), but they have the numbers to do so. The Border club tries and mostly do a good job but we just don't have enough resources to do more, and yes, it is frustrating.

As for puppy farms, I've said it before but I still believe we, as pedigree dog fanciers, need to focus solely on our own dogs and promoting & improving them & their image without worrying about what the unethical folk are doing. Yes, it sucks & it hurts but the ONLY WAY we will win and keep our pedigree animals will be if we can show the public exactly why they are better. I got a great puppy enquiry the other day- when discussing why they wanted a BT (after their beloved x breed rescue dog passed away), they cited predictable temperament (having young children), predictable size & coat type and the HEALTH predictability. I had to supress a squeal of excitement- all is not lost

The one and only reason I can see for Designer Dogs and puppy farms success is the publicity they have gotten and the misinformation given out about them (hybrid vigour, low or no shedding, perfect combination with all the good points and no negatives about either breed etc).

But we have one up on these folk- we are able to sell our dogs by telling the TRUTH and being HONEST about their traits, coat type and to a large degree, health!!

And within our own community, we need to IMO remove the stigma attached to breeding for the companion market. Some will disagree and at the end of the day, it's what you want to do with your own dogs but as long as it's done within health and CoE guidelines and the homes are THERE I think more breeders need to be able to breed a litter of quality pets if they feel they can/want to. I know some breeders already do this, but they are often looked down upon as wannabe puppy farmers or inferior breeders. But why??? What is so wrong about providing responsible people with quality, true to the standard & healthy, happy well socialised pets????? I know technically it's against the CoE (breeding only to improve the breed etc), but I don't believe it should be.

[poodlefan]

SP:

And within our own community, we need to IMO remove the stigma attached to breeding for the companion market.

I think that should start with shattering the fallacy that breeding to improve the standard and to provide the next generation of the breed is somehow incompatible with breeding family companions. If you want a scientific basis for that then the UNQ study is the place to start.

Most of the breeding dogs I know are family companions too. The same cannot be said for those dogs unfortunate enough to be owned by "commercial breeders". If your breeding dogs spend their lives in sheds and paddocks, how would you know what their temperament is really like anyway?

[SpikesPuppy]

SP:

And within our own community, we need to IMO remove the stigma attached to breeding for the companion market.

I think that should start with shattering the fallacy that breeding to improve the standard and to provide the next generation of the breed is somehow incompatible with breeding family companions. If you want a scientific basis for that then the UNQ study is the place to start.

Most of the breeding dogs I know are family companions too. The same cannot be said for those dogs unfortunate enough to be owned by "commercial breeders". If your breeding dogs spend their lives in sheds and paddocks, how would you know what their temperament is really like anyway?

I agree!! Sorry, I didn't realise that sounded as if I thought the two were incompatible- I purely meant that people should be able to breed a litter without any intention of retaining a puppy for themselves or to go to a show home if they wish to do so carefully & responsibly.

Edited February 16, 2010 by SpikesPuppy