'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[huski]

The more I think about "modifying" purebred dogs to turn them into different shaped animals with one placid, biddable temperament, the more it gets up my nose.

Thousands of years (in some cases) of selective breeding have got us to where we are.

This sounds a tad contradictory to me...haven't humans "modified" wolves through the process of domestication to turn them into the different shapes and sizes that we see in the "pure" breeds we have today? The process of domestication required that only those individuals with placid natures who showed less fear of people were selectively bred together. Species (including us and dogs) continue to evolve in order to adapt to a changing environment. Nothing stays the same forever!!! And NO!!!! I am NOT AGAINST PURE BREEDS...I LOVE them and I've owned them all my life

PF is referring to those who think that we should get rid of the so called problematic or less desirable traits in our dogs, like a beagle's drive to scent, to make them a generic soft tempered ideal family pet.

These people want to change the very things about our breeds that make them what they are.

I don't want one generic dog that is the "ideal Australian pet" because I don't believe there is one dog that could possibly suit everyone. I don't want the very things that make my breed what it is to be bred out because it makes them easier for people who aren't suited to them in the first place to handle. I don't see my beagle's drive to scent as a problem, but an excellent demonstration on selective breeding and an example of her ability to fulfill her original purpose.

Not to mention the fact that each purebred has been designed and bred for a purpose - it wasn't just dogs who had placid natures and less fear of people who were bred from when developing each breed. There are many breeds where placidity is not a or the most desired trait. I would suggest that in most cases a dog's working ability was by far the most prized factor when it came to breeding.

I don't want all purebreds to be the same, do you?

[BJean]

The more I think about "modifying" purebred dogs to turn them into different shaped animals with one placid, biddable temperament, the more it gets up my nose.

yay PF

and moreover, what is bidability?

you can have DA dogs that are extremely bidable and you can nervous dogs that are extremely bidable

you can even have some dogs that are so friendly and so bidable that they are almost idiotic

evrything that you think you might 'exclude' to breed 'bidable'

can actually coexist with bidable quite well.

it's not really 'bidability' or 'friendliness' ar any other amiable euphemism that makes

a dog good with children, safe with the infirm etc

but rather its a dog's nerve which determines its dependability and predicatability (and the dependability and depth of 'bidability')

all other traits fall into place with nerve -

because its nerve which dictates how a dog's innate responses will interact and be expressed.

Edited January 14, 2010 by lilli

[Kelpie-i]

Petbehaviourist: This sounds a tad contradictory to me...haven't humans "modified" wolves through the process of domestication to turn them into the different shapes and sizes that we see in the "pure" breeds we have today? The process of domestication required that only those individuals with placid natures who showed less fear of people were selectively bred together. Species (including us and dogs) continue to evolve in order to adapt to a changing environment.

Petbehavourist, much has been learned since the "dogs are from wolves" theory and No, we did not domesticate or "modify' the wolf as was first believed. Since wolves are naturally fearful of humans, it was only those wolves who were less fearful of humans that took to scavenging around the early human settlements. Without wanting to go into a huge amount of detail as to why they changed shape, a natural evolution began taking place and the proto-dog of some 15,000 years ago formed. This process was NOT by the hand of humans though athough humans did inadvertently play a part!!!

However, it was these proto-dogs that were later modified by humans based firstly on natural selection ie the dog’s genetic disposition as well as their tendencies not to be fearful of humans, and then based on the dog's natural instincts ie guarding and chasing etc, which we moulded/modified etc to become the many wonderful breeds we have today.

What I am guessing is that this man-made process of ‘creating’ dogs to suit our requirements may just be happening all over again. And they say history never repeats!!

Edited January 14, 2010 by Kelpie-i

[Steve]

Alright Ill bite.When you breed two breeds of dogs I didnt realise it was kind of like mixing paint.You know you ad a bit of white and you get less black and various shades of grey.I thought when you were playing with genetics you would get some with traits like Mum's and some with traits like dad's.

If you wanted to breed dogs with less of one trait and be even partway confident of which bits were in there or watered down.I assumed you would have to select the dogs with lessened scenting drive over several generations. How do you get the beagle with less scenting drive rather than the cav with more? How do you know whether all of your pups turn out that way or not given that the scenting thing doesnt cut in properly until they are older?

So is this true? Is scenting instinct simply lessened by mating a high scent dog with one with no scent? Will every puppy in this match have less scenting ability than a beagle ?

Edited January 14, 2010 by Steve

[Are You Serious Jo]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand why we don't like or support puppy farmers, which one of the speakers are.

[WoofnHoof]

Why is everyone assuming that anyone wants to change the current breeds, maybe some people want to use dogs from the existing breeds to create new ones, as people have done for many years and still continue to do in the case of developing breeds. If you want to start a new breed you don't go all the way back to wolves do you, no you start with the types of dog which are closest to what you want to achieve.

[Erny]

And you don't see the very real future potential for, instead of "Breed Specific Legislation" (which is a failed legislation anyway - no surprises there), "Behaviour Specific Legislation"? That's almost even more scarey, if not just as.

[WreckitWhippet]

Why is everyone assuming that anyone wants to change the current breeds, maybe some people want to use dogs from the existing breeds to create new ones, as people have done for many years and still continue to do in the case of developing breeds. If you want to start a new breed you don't go all the way back to wolves do you, no you start with the types of dog which are closest to what you want to achieve.

and for those who do nothing but f1 crosses and rob the pedigree gene pool ?

[Cosmolo]

It worries me as to who will decide what traits are desirable and what traits are not.. Who decides what is 'better', i don't want anyone making that decision for me, i can choose when i choose from the hundreds of different breeds available or the individuals i see in pound and shelter situations.

[Christina]

Alright Ill bite.When you breed two breeds of dogs I didnt realise it was kind of like mixing paint.You know you ad a bit of white and you get less black and various shades of grey.I thought when you were playing with genetics you would get some with traits like Mum's and some with traits like dad's.

If you wanted to breed dogs with less of one trait and be even partway confident of which bits were in there or watered down.I assumed you would have to select the dogs with lessened scenting drive over several generations. How do you get the beagle with less scenting drive rather than the cav with more? How do you know whether all of your pups turn out that way or not given that the scenting thing doesnt cut in properly until they are older?

So is this true? Is scenting instinct simply lessened by mating a high scent dog with one with no scent? Will every puppy in this match have less scenting ability than a beagle ?

Its a very long process with lots of dogs (or whatever animal), checking all pups until breeding age, keeping those with qualities desired & getting rid of the rest. Then do it again & again etc until desired trait breeds true. Trouble is genes are funny things & do not always pass on in the desired way.

To obtain desired result can take a lifetime unless one uses 1,000's of dogs.

Apart from the fact that using 2 breeds doubles/increases the chance of all genetic conditions/faults/defects as 1 breed may carry something the other does not, & vica versa , so you are introducing it into each dog & not all are testable, epilepsy for example, you just have to wait & see if it occurs, then breed each dog with a different mate & hope it doesn't skip a generation, or scrap both.

Its a hit & miss minefield really & certainly not in the interests of the welfare of dog. What happens to the mistakes ?

New breeds have been created & some breeds miniatured & made toy but we really have enough now.

There is a dog for everyone already, they just have to choose carefully.

[Steve]

Why is everyone assuming that anyone wants to change the current breeds, maybe some people want to use dogs from the existing breeds to create new ones, as people have done for many years and still continue to do in the case of developing breeds. If you want to start a new breed you don't go all the way back to wolves do you, no you start with the types of dog which are closest to what you want to achieve.

I have seen information written by someone who is telling us that they know these things better than us .That if they mate a beagle with a cav the resulting puppies are easier to live with .This isnt about a new breed its written as support of only F1 crosses.

If anyone wants to start working on a new breed Id bend over backwards to help them - thats not what this is about.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Steve

[felix]

It worries me as to who will decide what traits are desirable and what traits are not.

Market of course. Depending on what can you sell the best.

[Ceilidh]

So is this true? Is scenting instinct simply lessened by mating a high scent dog with one with no scent? Will every puppy in this match have less scenting ability than a beagle ?

Absolutely!!!! In the same way that crossing a lab with a poodle will produce all non shedding pups! Predictability Steve, predictability.

[Quickasyoucan]

The more I think about "modifying" purebred dogs to turn them into different shaped animals with one placid, biddable temperament, the more it gets up my nose.

yay PF

and moreover, what is bidability?

you can have DA dogs that are extremely bidable and you can nervous dogs that are extremely bidable

you can even have some dogs that are so friendly and so bidable that they are almost idiotic

evrything that you think you might 'exclude' to breed 'bidable'

can actually coexist with bidable quite well.

it's not really 'bidability' or 'friendliness' ar any other amiable euphemism that makes

a dog good with children, safe with the infirm etc

but rather its a dog's nerve which determines its dependability and predicatability (and the dependability and depth of 'bidability')all other traits fall into place with nerve -

because its nerve which dictates how a dog's innate responses will interact and be expressed.

Well said Lilli and IMO I think it is the stafford's strong nerve that makes it good with children, it is also the same strong nerve that was part of what made it such a good fighting dog in the past. Take away the strong nerves and you might get a nervous but perhaps, "biddable" pet, I would rather expose a child to a strong nerved dog than a nervous one any day.

In fact the more I have learnt about dogs and the more that I understand about behaviour the more it makes one of my prime "must haves" in a dog good nerves, regardless of breed, cross breed etc. It fits with my lifestyle, not because I will constantly allow a dog to be taunted by children but because my dog will be exposed to children in public and with relatives.

I was lucky with my dog, who is a crossbreed with a somewhat stafford appearance as he has the great nerves what the horse people would probably call "bombproof". As and when I get another dog though, I will either be going to a reputable breeder and doing a lot of research so that I get support and the predictability of a purebred or I will be enlisting the services of a professional to ensure that any rescue I take on has the temperament that is suitable for my lifestyle.

[Nancyk]

Here's my two cents. I think that you'll find that the seminar has been put on primarily as a venue for the uni students to present their research papers and the academic keynote speakers to meet some of the "publish or perish" requirements of their jobs.

However, this is an opportunity for reputable breeders to be represented (at least on the panel), and I would suggest that Vic Dogs, ANKC, MDBA provide volunteers to the organizers for the panel.

I think it is far too late for additions to be made to the panel.

However I do think its great that the MDBA are attending. I requested at the DogsNSW board meeting yesterday that a representative from each state cc and someone from ANKC attend. It was a big ask, however it was approved that I will attend on behalf of DogsNSW and I can only hope that reps from other states will go.

So I will be going with an open mind, taking copius notes and perhaps learning a few things that may help us move forward in the plight our purebred registered dogs are facing.

[WreckitWhippet]

Good on you Nancy

[Erny]

Good on you Nancy

X 2

[Steve]

You O.K. for a ride from the airport Erny?

[mita]

Here's my two cents. I think that you'll find that the seminar has been put on primarily as a venue for the uni students to present their research papers and the academic keynote speakers to meet some of the "publish or perish" requirements of their jobs. The signs of this are:

1. it is free

2. only local speakers are presenting keynote papers.

If this is the case, then the uni won't have been interested in looking far & wide for appropriate, knowledgeable speakers & there wouldn't be funds to pay for high profile overseas (or even local) invited speakers. I understand that lunch is being provided so that is where any sponsorship moneys will go.

It's already been noted that a 'seminar' showcases the direction of studies in a university department.

By the way, presenting a paper at a seminar does not meet 'publish or perish' requirements. Getting the research paper published in a peer-reviewed journal meets that requirement.

I've made my thoughts clear about the kind of language being used in an academic setting. The notion of ideal being pursued in a scientific study . I notice, after my pointing that out, the word ideal's been placed in inverted commas... 'ideal'... thus compounding the issue. By implying that ideal is being used, but not in its usual sense. Language in scientific studies must be clear & indicate phenomena that are open to observation & measurement. Vague terms, which might have a place in philosophy, don't lend themselves to that.

The link they've tried to make is with the results of a survey where Australians nominated their idea about the kind of dog they'd like. Which are actually perceptions of reality. Not, reality. Yet this study makes a leap from those perceptions....past testing them against reality... to a notion of ideal.

Also this university seminar includes a presentation by a person who is breeding crossbreeds....cavs & beagles....based on notions like a dog with a shorter nose, will less go sniffing around. Making it more user-friendly for pet owners. Frankly, that person can entertain whatever notions she likes.

BUT there are requirements of scholarship when a notion is being presented in a university setting. 'Just seems like a good idea ', is not sufficient. A rationale for the idea is required....& that means showing that there's sufficient in the published research literature so far, for that notion to be reasonable to investigate & measure. If the presentation about the cross-breeding does not proceed from such a rationale....what's it doing in a university seminar?

Academic freedom does not mean freedom from the requirements of scholarship.

Edited February 8, 2010 by mita

[Kissindra]

nicely put Mita