'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[mlc]

Additionally, as the promotion of cross bred dogs is against the rules of this forum, I can see no reason why the promotion of a seminar to promote crossbred dog breeding is not also against the rules of the forum, so I will discuss this matter with Troy, and perhaps he will nuke the thread.

All topics being presented at the seminar are about dogs. The findings being reported apply to dogs. Including pedigree dogs.

The seminar's aim is not about promoting crossbred dogs.

[Crisovar]

Additionally, as the promotion of cross bred dogs is against the rules of this forum, I can see no reason why the promotion of a seminar to promote crossbred dog breeding is not also against the rules of the forum, so I will discuss this matter with Troy, and perhaps he will nuke the thread.

All topics being presented at the seminar are about dogs. The findings being reported apply to dogs. Including pedigree dogs.

The seminar's aim is not about promoting crossbred dogs.

And yet your key speakers are ........................

[WreckitWhippet]

Additionally, as the promotion of cross bred dogs is against the rules of this forum, I can see no reason why the promotion of a seminar to promote crossbred dog breeding is not also against the rules of the forum, so I will discuss this matter with Troy, and perhaps he will nuke the thread.

All topics being presented at the seminar are about dogs. The findings being reported apply to dogs. Including pedigree dogs.

The seminar's aim is not about promoting crossbred dogs.

Hmm let's see, there won't be anything favourable to report about our pedigree dogs will there ? of course the cross bred mongrels will come out of this smelling like roses.

My crystal balls smells the stench of PDE fall out, a British report and the pungent odour of the 10 point plan

[Christina]

Ah a seminar. How excitement.

.

This seminar is NOT a promotion of cross bred dogs - it is an opportunity for us all to get together and talk and for you (along with all other stakeholders) to have input and take part in discussions and learn more about what canine research is being done in Australia right now. By listing this invitation here I was hoping to encourage that.

I thought making defamatory posts was not permitted in this forum. I really just wish we could all get along!

It does appear to be so. The speakers chosen reflect this.

I, & am sure many others, would attend gladly if the focus was ANIMAL WELFARE, it is that organisation running it.

The seminar is about breeding etc.

Managing dogs going from homes into kennels ?

Shouldn't it be about dogs going from shelter to new homes ? Educate the owner to be, not research the dog.

What about analysing Why were the entire dogs responsible for the bites. In that particular study.

Did they have a particular type of owner? How did their children behave ? What was the home environment ?

Its all a bit like blaming a car of a certain design, which the owner has the choice of buying.

Then when they crash because they drove like an idiot & couldn't handle it. Blame the car.

So, let us produce an idiot proof car.

My posts are not intended to be defamatory. They are an honest opinion based on what is being presented & what Animal Welfare is supposed to be.

The situation is that are millions of dogs ( & more cats ), dumped, surrendered & destroyed daily. Mainly because the owners did not want them, could not cope with them, impulse bought, can't afford them, didn't get the brand they liked etc etc.

A low number would be due to owners death, emigration & genuine distress circumstances.

There are many instances of abuse, neglect & cruelty by people to dogs.

How does this seminar help them, the animals ? I really don't understand. Can you explain the points raised ?

[Nekhbet]

I'll see if I can wangle my way to coming

I think a few people that appreciate pet/working dog should be there as well. There is more to a dog then just lounging around. We loose valuable genetics to cross breeding and 'pet' breeding only as well as the restriction on dog sports and training methods

[Sheridan]

Additionally, as the promotion of cross bred dogs is against the rules of this forum, I can see no reason why the promotion of a seminar to promote crossbred dog breeding is not also against the rules of the forum, so I will discuss this matter with Troy, and perhaps he will nuke the thread.

All topics being presented at the seminar are about dogs. The findings being reported apply to dogs. Including pedigree dogs.

The seminar's aim is not about promoting crossbred dogs.

The presence of McGreevy and Schoeffel would indicate otherwise. McGreevy never seems to waste an opportunity to stick the boots in. And there seems to be some question over Bennett.

I am, by the way, still waiting on your link to where McGreevy praises pedigree dogs. Can't you find one?

Were your seminar balanced I'm sure more would consider going. Why hasn't, for example, Peter Higgins been invited? Someone who can read a standard and actually understand why dog breeds have particular traits? Cos the ones I've listed don't seem to.

I thought some registered breeders were supposed to be part of this. Who are they and what do they breed? And if the purpose is not to pedigree bash, what exactly is the purpose? Cos I'm not getting it from what's been spruiked thus far.

[BJean]

I thought making defamatory posts was not permitted in this forum. I really just wish we could all get along!

oh so do I!

Troy why is this thread still here?

I'm with Jed -

it really ought to be removed, afterall DOL is about pedigree dogs

and the voice and reach of DOL (and its pedigree dogs) shouldn't be (ab)used to push McGeevy's barrow.

Edited January 12, 2010 by lilli

[WoofnHoof]

Additionally, as the promotion of cross bred dogs is against the rules of this forum, I can see no reason why the promotion of a seminar to promote crossbred dog breeding is not also against the rules of the forum, so I will discuss this matter with Troy, and perhaps he will nuke the thread.

All topics being presented at the seminar are about dogs. The findings being reported apply to dogs. Including pedigree dogs.

The seminar's aim is not about promoting crossbred dogs.

The presence of McGreevy and Schoeffel would indicate otherwise. McGreevy never seems to waste an opportunity to stick the boots in. And there seems to be some question over Bennett.

I am, by the way, still waiting on your link to where McGreevy praises pedigree dogs. Can't you find one?

Were your seminar balanced I'm sure more would consider going. Why hasn't, for example, Peter Higgins been invited? Someone who can read a standard and actually understand why dog breeds have particular traits? Cos the ones I've listed don't seem to.

I thought some registered breeders were supposed to be part of this. Who are they and what do they breed? And if the purpose is not to pedigree bash, what exactly is the purpose? Cos I'm not getting it from what's been spruiked thus far.

Dr Bennett is a breeder of purebred dogs she advertises on dogzonline I posted a link to her profile in the other thread but of course that was ignored because it didn't support the conspiracy theorists.

As mlc stated before the speakers who have been invited are actively involved in the AWSC who are the ones running it, maybe Peter Higgins and the ANKC and MDBA should look into having some involvement in this group since it is an area of interest?

[Christina]

I thought making defamatory posts was not permitted in this forum. I really just wish we could all get along!

oh so do I!

Troy why is this thread still here?

I'm with Jed -

it really ought to be removed, afterall DOL is about pedigree dogs

and the voice and reach of DOL (and its pedigree dogs) shouldn't be (ab)used to push McGeevy's barrow.

I think its good that it is here.

If it is just advertised generally people will not get to see the other side of it all & how promoters of the pedigree dog breeds see it all & voice their opinions. How would we all know about it if not for this post ?

As pedigree dog owners/breeders & others with an interest in them we should ALL also be concerned about animal welfare.

For all dogs regardless of breed.

This affects us, in public perception of dogs & breeding by an organisation with huge public influence.

We need to know about this.

[sandgrubber]

Do you have any further info on exactly what topics Goddard is speaking on?

Mike Goddard's abstract reads:

Genetics of Dog Behaviour and Breeding Programs to Improve Canine Welfare

The most important step in any breeding program is to decide on the objectives. Since most puppies sold become pets, the main objective should be to breed dogs that become successful pets. Two sets of traits contribute towards this – behavioural traits and health traits – and both of these also impact on the welfare of the dog. Some abnormalities are due to a single mutant gene such as progressive retinal atrophy (PRA). In many cases the mutant gene is recessive so a dog can carry the mutant gene but appear perfectly normal. In some cases there are DNA tests to detect such carriers. However most diseases are due to many genes and environmental factors (eg hip dysplasia and epilepsy). In these cases the best strategy is to estimate the overall genetic merit of the dog for each trait and select those with highest merit. This would be helped greatly by calculating estimated breeding values for each dog for each important trait but to do this would require that a central registry was kept of dogs' status for traits such as HD and epilepsy. Among behavioural traits, fearfulness, aggression and over excitability are undesirable traits. They are also controlled by many genes and by environmental factors and the best way to improve them is to select animals with desirable estimated breeding values for these traits.

O.K. Nothing new there - what is the aim of the seminar.

Actually, there is something new and significant. From what DOL'ers repeatedly say, the health and temperament message needs to be put out to the DD community . . . and there are still some in the pedigree community who could stand to hear it as well. I would love to see some organisation working for quality control in cross breeds . . . or for all dogs equally. In my experience in kennels, some DD's are wonderful, healthy pets and quite healthy, while others seem to be the result of breeding two dogs that no reputable pedigree breeder would think of using. No better, and no worse than pedigree dogs.

The non-pedigree dog community seems to be gaining market share from the pedigree community. I think behooves the pedigree dog community's interest to listen, look, and not prejudge.

I congratulate mic for keeping his or her cool in the face of hostility.

[Erny]

Actually, there is something new and significant. From what DOL'ers repeatedly say, the health and temperament message needs to be put out to the DD community . . . and there are still some in the pedigree community who could stand to hear it as well. I would love to see some organisation working for quality control in cross breeds . . . or for all dogs equally. In my experience in kennels, some DD's are wonderful, healthy pets and quite healthy, while others seem to be the result of breeding two dogs that no reputable pedigree breeder would think of using. No better, and no worse than pedigree dogs.

The non-pedigree dog community seems to be gaining market share from the pedigree community. I think behooves the pedigree dog community's interest to listen, look, and not prejudge.

I congratulate mic for keeping his or her cool in the face of hostility.

All this aside (not to suggest no or low irrelevance to breeders' views), the notion of what might be done with the results of the studies and the control that may feasibly be imposed on all dog breeders and those who purchase, is the part that to me, is a major (read : VERY major) concern. No-one seems to be belying that concern. I keep thinking that notion keeps getting (and will keep getting) swept under the rug. As though it might be a forgotten thought. Until 'they' CAN. Until 'they' DO.

I mean .... what about the suggestion of breeding a Beagle without the 'sniff' genetic? Makes me think of genetically modified vegetables. We want our dogs. We want them for all the variation in genetic attributes they provide. We don't want the proto-type toy dogs symbolised on the flier to this seminar. And I'm not seeing any assurances and/or guarantees that this is not where these studies will ultimately lead.

[Nekhbet]

I dont understand ... if you want a companion, low drive easy dog then get a companion breed. There are plenty out there.

Cant be bothered training, raising a pup, toilet training etc then get a toy dog with batteries.

why are we wasting time trying to change working breeds into zombies. Ignorant and lazy people are the ones we should be trying to change, not try and change the dogs to suit them. Saying that even the best genetics can be ruined by lack of socialisation/poor raising from the breeder and no/poor training from the new owner ... so what then? All dogs on Valium? Start breeding for no teeth?

It irks me that they're trying to bland down a predatory, pack animal.

[mita]

Tammie King – Monash University - Identifying ‘ideal’ companion dogs for Australia

I've already mentioned on a previous thread that this kind of language....even tho' 'ideal' in now placed in inverted commas....is not in line with the science IMO. Has anyone looked up what 'ideal' means? It means existing only as an idea. Last time I looked, 'companion dogs' were real.

If a student came to my desk with a paper with the word 'ideal' in the title (& hence, hypothesis), he/she'd be sent away with a dictionary & to rethink.

The present language smacks more of the commercial advertising world , rather than academic study. IMO, again.

And if someone came with the notion of a seminar about improving the breeding & raising of companion dogs.....but with the title 'Building Better Dogs'...I would point out how that language is mechanistic. Sounds like a seminar in an engineering department, working with spare parts to build a clockwork dog. 'Building' is not suitable for a creature that, like humans, develops via learning, with a host of attendant variables.

Nekhbet's picked up this point, precisely....in her comment that dogs aren't operated by batteries.

Having said that, it seems this event is a joint effort by some people at both Monash University & Sydney University. Fair enough, it's their show...& their ideological position. I'd wish, however, for a much wider representation of views, positions & speakers (which is why I like the inclusion of Dr Mike Goddard from Melbourne University. Now, his work is interesting IMO).

Edited January 13, 2010 by mita

[Elenbah]

.

The non-pedigree dog community seems to be gaining market share from the pedigree community. I think behooves the pedigree dog community's interest to listen, look, and not prejudge.

I congratulate mic for keeping his or her cool in the face of hostility.

Could it be at all possible that a good percentage of purchases from the non-pedigree dog community are purchased with the attitude that it's just a dog, does not require much to look after and if it does not work out it can easily be replaced, hence the large dumpage rate of cross bred dogs we see every day end up in shelters?... That easy come easy go kind of attitude...

[sandgrubber]

I dont understand ... if you want a companion, low drive easy dog then get a companion breed. There are plenty out there.

Cant be bothered training, raising a pup, toilet training etc then get a toy dog with batteries.

why are we wasting time trying to change working breeds into zombies. Ignorant and lazy people are the ones we should be trying to change, not try and change the dogs to suit them. Saying that even the best genetics can be ruined by lack of socialisation/poor raising from the breeder and no/poor training from the new owner ... so what then? All dogs on Valium? Start breeding for no teeth?

It irks me that they're trying to bland down a predatory, pack animal.

Pedigree dog registration numbers -- eg, the decline of the GSD, doberman, and many long-haired breeds, shows pretty well what the public wants in dog temperament. The semi-surprise is the rising popularity of the SBT . . .who in my experience, tend to have never-failing friendly energy, be larrikins, and sometimes be scrappy when it comes to other dogs. Guess Aussies are willing to put up with a mild tendency to DA to get a crazy little, ever-enthusiastic, short haired ball of energy.

I don't think anyone is proposing to breed the 'guard' out of all guard dogs, or the 'herding/high energy' out of working herding dogs. Just to help people who like some breed or other, but want non-working lines that will be more appropriate as pets achieve that objective. I think there are many who like aspects of, say, the kelpie, but don't want to end out with a dog that goes neurotic through being confined to a back yard with no work to do, or a bluey who doesn't hock-bite strangers who appear in its territory. As a boarding kennel operator who tries to see dogs as social animals, I see loads of dogs from herding dog breeds that become fence fighters, barkers, and semi-neurotic, and loads of staffie crosses that can't be mixed with other dogs because the fighting side of the SBT character is too strong. As a Labrador breeder, I know most breeders who work with my breed will cull any dog from their breeding program if that dog shows signs of HA or DA. And glory hallelulah if anyone finds a 'biddability' gene (I doubt it will happen). I would be grateful for the development of genetic screening problems that would permit identification of such dogs before they reach maturity . . . so that their genes will not be passed on and their temperament faults can be used to advantage by placing them with a family that likes Labs, but would like more of a guard dog. I also think that APBT people would be in much better shape re BSL if there were a way to select out the 'pit' temperament factor. Pitties are often lovely dogs . . . but some do carry the fighting dog tendency in a big way.

Edited January 13, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Quickasyoucan]

I find something quite creepy in the title "Building Better Dogs", these are dogs, not buildings..

That said, if the seminar was in Sydney I would go, I would hope that I was given the chance to air my misgivings about the lack of "welfare" involved in mass random breeding of companion animals in "farms" and be provided with a response that might address my misgivings.

I would love to see the welfare of companion animals properly addressed but I believe it goes far beyond an idealistic concept of the building the perfect 'companion animal'.

I am sure if our companion animals could speak they would say appalling rate of euthanasia in Australia even compared to countries like the UK is probably the most pressing welfare issue they come across, there isn't much "well" in being dead.

The treatment of companion animals by the public after they are purchased is also a huge issue. The ideal "companion" animal is not just "bred" it is "made" by the people who bring it up. The concept of "Building Better Dogs" takes the responsibility away from the pet owner when every person who has any smidgeon of an idea about dog behaviour knows that, whilst genetics plays a part, environment plays a huge role in whether a dog becomes a good canine citizen or a bad one.

It scares me that people seriously think they can breed something that automatically morphs into the perfect companion without any thought that some input or work might be needed on their part.

The point of origin and nature of origin is of course important, health, breeding environment, follow up from reputable breeder for the lifetime of a dog. As I've said before I don't have a problem with the proper regulation of ALL breeders, but it has to be fair, equitable and with the best interests of the dog in mind not some agenda driven legislation that benefits a few.

[Jed]

mlc

Jed - I'd love to see you there and have a chat over lunch.

Thank you. I love learning, I love a good seminar. Alas, there's not much for me there - we already have a central registry, its called the ANKC, I know what happens to house dogs which go to kennels, from reports of Dr Bennet's seminar in Tas, I would think it was a waste of my precious time, Dr McGreevey's views are well publicised. I hear he is interesting, but flawed.

This seminar is NOT a promotion of cross bred dogs - it is an opportunity for us all to get together and talk and for you (along with all other stakeholders) to have input and take part in discussions and learn more about what canine research is being done in Australia right now. By listing this invitation here I was hoping to encourage that.

Oogh, canine research, I like that. Will someone be able to tell me about new breakthroughs in the identification of the gene responsible for RD, or luxating patellas, or even the mode of inheritance? That's the type of research I love to hear about - the sort that will make me a better breeder.

If it's not a promotion of cross bred dogs, representatives from the ANKC should have been invited.

If it walks like a duck, quacks, looks like a duck, it's a duck, pure and simple.

I don't think it is a promotion of cross bred dogs, it's a promotion of animal rights and being further allowed to encroach on the purebred dog fancy. And yet another bashing of purebred dogs and their breeders, using skewed figures overridden by unbiased research which research will not be mentioned, to brainwash people into believing that purebred dogs have a myriad of problems which will be solved by some academics with an agenda and little practical experience. You were hoping for a good roll up to push your agenda.

Sounds like Don Burke revisited to me.

There's been a lot of positive feedback from people wanting to attend, although many PM's are because people are too hesitant to publicly say so.

Gee, many have said they will be attending. Perhaps the ones who have PM'd you are frightened you might bite them? Maybe work on your image a bit?

I thought making defamatory posts was not permitted in this forum. I really just wish we could all get along!

Absolutely not permitted, so you might try harder in future.

Does "all getting along" mean we all have to agree with you?

Erny - that bothers me too. No one is saying the right things *goes off to study Sun Tzu again*

Sandgrubber

Actually, there is something new and significant. From what DOL'ers repeatedly say, the health and temperament message needs to be put out to the DD community . . . and there are still some in the pedigree community who could stand to hear it as well.I would love to see some organisation working for quality control in cross breeds . . . or for all dogs equally.

I agree with you. Registered breeders are only as good as their integrity, mentors, source of learning, and will to learn. Some learn and succeed, some just do the same thing in the same place for years, some come, fail, leave.

As much as we like to bag the ANKC, it is working for health and quality in purebreds. There's a difference between working for health and quality and driving people out

Whether cross breds will come under a health and welfare umbrella is another matter. I think not. The purebred community has one goal, and one agenda, although both very broad.

The mong breeders have as many goals and agendas as they number.

In my experience in kennels, some DD's are wonderful, healthy pets and quite healthy, while others seem to be the result of breeding two dogs that no reputable pedigree breeder would think of using. No better, and no worse than pedigree dogs.

The worst of the pedigree dogs are better than the worst of the designer mongs, but the registered breeders do have an

organisation, which the mong breeders do not. And I very much doubt that most of the mong breeders want an organisation, they simply want to continue to do as they like, and rake in the moolah.

The non-pedigree dog community seems to be gaining market share from the pedigree community. I think behooves the pedigree dog community's interest to listen, look, and not prejudge.

the mongs already have the greater market share and have had for years. Few registered breeders give a rats about that. Supply and demand and promotion plays a large part in that. I don't see mongs as having any relevance to registered dogs, nor do I care what mong breeders do, except for damage done to the dogs. Mong breeders have different goals, different aspirations, different motivations.

I congratulate mic for keeping his or her cool in the face of hostility.

Hostility?

Unfortunately, most of the public does not understand about a lot of things about breeding dogs - not the mechanics, the things breeders stive for. I don't think they particularly want, or need to understand, although it is not "secret business". They do not understand the relevance of points in the breed standards, they do not understand that by changing a point, something else will be changed - and mostly, they don't care. They want a happy, healthy dog which fits their lifestyle, which suits their particular training style and which is easy for them to love.

Consider - the Cav standard calls for straight silky hair. Too easy. Some cavs have wavy hair. The wavy coat tends to be coarser. Not a big deal? Nope. Except that the straight silky hair knots less, holds the dirt less, smells less and requires less grooming. And if it knots, the knots are easier to remove. I know when I sell a pup with the hair type as required by the standard, it is unlikely that the dog will be at the groomers in a matted to the skin mess. It's only a small point, but it's a point which means the difference between success and failure for some owners. It is, in fact, a very important point, although very few owners realise it, and some breeders don't either, although the ones who have lived with both coats do know.

That's the kind of thing breeders know and strive for, but the public doesn't know. There are many many items like that with every breed, and these are often the things which highlight success or failure for the pet owner.

Boxers have a reputation for slobbering, but a boxer with a correct mouth and satisfactory flews slobbers very little if at all.

People don't understand the standards, they don't understand the difference between a coated dog they have to groom for a couple of hours a night, and one which is ok with a bit of a brush off every week. They think all boxers slobber.

I think it is rather sad that someone who doesn't seem to understand the standard wants to crossbreed dogs to change them. You should first understand that which you wish to change.

And puppy buyers generally are more satisfied with purchases from reputable breeders (read this forum for verification) and the majority of breeders do try very hard to do the right thing. A larger proportion than the mong breeders, as far as I can tell. Yep, some mongs are great but it's all Russian roulette, isn't it? Breeding purebred dogs shouldn't be Russian roulette.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Jed

[poodlefan]

Late to arrive in this thread. ;)

I'd love to come. Pity the damn thing is in Melbourne. Participation by purebed dog fanciers in such seminars is essential to ensure balanced views are put.

I really hope that the Qld Uni study on the best source of family dogs rates a mention. The first differentiation that needs to be made for a family pet is between responsible ethical sources of dogs .. and the rest. If the BBC doco had bothered to make that differentiation I suspect purebred dogs would be in a better PR position now.

I also hope that studies linking life long fear of strangers to dogs not whelped and raised in domestic situations (eg. puppy farmed dogs) get a mention.

I hope that people focus on selection of a suitable family dog based on the degree of predictability of its characteristics. Knowing the likely arousal triggers, bite inhibition and drives of a dog can be very useful for a prospective family. You don't get that with an F1 hybrid of dissimilar breeds. Ask any Maremma/Golden Retriever cross owner.

And I hope that the idea of "modifying" breeds to produce a generic "Benji" dog is treated with the disdain it deserves. I'm sure Quarantine is happy with the Beagle as a scenthound. I'm sure that millions of Beagle owners are happy that a dog bred to hunt was selected for generation after generation for its affability with people and its ability to live among other dogs. If you dont' want a 'sniffy' dog don't buy a Beagle FFS.

Before F*cking around with breeds as our forefathers developed them, it may pay to reflect on all the attributes selected for that got breeds to where they are today.

I don't know where Kate Schofeild gets her stats on dog attacks and entire male purebred dogs. The entire male bit is right.. young ones too. The first statements made in most academic studies of the issue are about the lack of reliability of breed attribution to attacking dogs. Start with CDC in the USA and work down Kate - you wont' find a credible source to back up your assertion. Of course the fact that you sell all your crossbred baby pups desexed wouldn't have anything to do with it. Make sure you mention the HD issues in your F1 hybrid too Kate - we know you've bred HD affected dogs Oh and one more thing Kate, you don't support crossbreeding beyond F1. Where will the future generations of purebreds for your business be coming from?

Edited for spelling and sense.

Edited January 13, 2010 by poodlefan

[mita]

I don't know where Kate Schofeild gets her stats on dog attacks and purebred dogs. The first statements made in most academic studies of the issue are about the lack of reliability of breed attribution to attacking dogs. Start with CDC in the USA and work down Kate - you wont' find a credible source to back up your assertion. Of course the fact that you sell all your baby pups desexed wouldn't have anything to do with it.

Pity that KS wasn't a regular reader of DOL. It's been pointed out here, many times, that dogs on all sorts of community registers, like council registration etc, are given description options....Primary Breed & Secondary Breed. Purebreds, of course, are in option 1 only. Mixed-breeds are inserted with a breed in both options.

However, when breeds are 'pulled' for data purposes (like records of bites, dangerous dog warrants), the Option 1 (which has often been anyone's guess for mixed breeds) only comes up.

And it's from sources such as this, that mixed breeds can suddenly morph into purebreds for data purposes.

Quite right, too. The US Veterinary Association's Task Force looking into dog bites in the USA, suggested that going down the breed route as a primary 'cause' for dog bites/attacks, was a dead end re prevention, based on the evidence.

And then there's the University of Cordoba study across pure breeds & mixed breeds, which concluded that owner factors were far more significant in the development of aggression in dogs, rather than breed per se. That's why 'better' dogs are developed via learning, rather than simply 'built'.

Interesting that the U of Q study found that breeders of purebreds tended to far more socialise their puppies than unregistered breeders....thus lessening the development of aggression towards humans.

Then there's the health/conformation 'problems' so much said to be associated with purebreds. Have a look at the Denmark study of longevity in dogs, both purebred & mixed breed....with causes of death factored in for attention (like hip dysplasia & spinal disease).

Amazingly, the oddest 'built' dog, the Dachshund, came out in a bunch of pure breeds which trumped both mixed breeds & other purebreeds in the longevity stakes.

All of this would suggest, that there might be a lot more complexity in the breeding & raising of companion dogs, than one ideological position. And that's why I'd like a much wider input from a greater variety of sources, in any seminar which looked at companion dogs.

Edited January 13, 2010 by mita

[Sheridan]

I would suggest that this is because Kate Schofeild isn't selling marketing; what she's selling is mutts and her marketing ploy is to denigrate the 'stock'* from which she sources her 'material'.

* Stock because that's what dogs become when all you interested in is selling.