New Problem To Address

[Esky the husky]

What breeders need is a voice, a face.

A person out there in the media, oosing with charisma getting the word out there about pedigree dogs.

There's the Burke , Dr Harry and That Bondi dude.

But who is out there for the breeders?

[Steve]

What breeders need is a voice, a face.

A person out there in the media, oosing with charisma getting the word out there about pedigree dogs.

There's the Burke , Dr Harry and That Bondi dude.

But who is out there for the breeders?

Well that begs the question - why arent the breeders out there for the breeders. How long do they have to wait before they work out that their CCs are not going to do it for them and do something ?

[shortstep]

What a cop out.

Ok if you think so.

It makes no difference really, as you are going to get your wish and we will all see what happens.

Maybe you see a future of perfectly healthy giant danes, all breed by great breeders following the magic breeding proticals (which will be set up to do away with all problems attributed to breeding to standards, extremes, show and purity). I hope you are right.

[Jed]

With all due respect, the CCs, MDBA will not solve this problem

"Something" should have been done years ago, it is too late now.

Doesn't matter what anyone says, pedigree dogs are on the way out. There will be no fighting or screaming, or prising breeders' fingernails off doorways as they strive to hang on, because they will let go, as many have already let go.

So when the regulation which breaches the breeders own personal code of ethics is part of their COE, they will quit

Breeders have been aware of the coming problems for ages.

Now they are doing their "dream" matings, or importing lines they always wanted, so they will have dogs to show when they cease breeding. These are good breeders, producing good and sound dogs, who will not be told by an outside body how to do something they have done successfully for years.

Many have already walked away - the ANKC registrations are about the same as they were years ago (the number of years depends on the breed) and those numbers have been boosted by people (I wont dignify them by calling them breeders) who are producing numerous pups for export to Hawaii.

Many reputable Cav breeders will not breed until there is more knowledge of SM - so they will not breed again.

Personally, I just cannot see Judy Gard taking breeding advice from the RSPCA.

Shortstep

did you se the study where the olfactory center has moved to a different place in the brain!

Hmm, did you see any proof that the olefactory centre was elsewhere x years ago? And with NO MRIs, how did they deduce where the olefactory centre was ?

SM - Griffons, Cavaliers, Bostons, Poodles, Chihuahuas, Maltese, Pomeranians - and more - have SM. The reason why the Cav got such excess publcity is because the BREEDERS, OWNERS, AND CLUBS WORLDWIDE donated quite a lot of money particularly to Claire Rusbridge for research to get to the bottom of this disease. And because there is a dedicated effort, with subsidised scans etc (paid for by breeders), which no other breed has, the poor old Cav got ALL the bad press.

[shortstep]

I cant see it going that way - at least not in the near future and what happens over the next few months in the UK will be worth watching but I have no doubt that some breed standards will be reassessed and judged not to be best for the welfare of the dogs and some practices which breeders have used as tools to identify and eliminate problems will be outlawed.

oh I think it will take some years. It might be that it happens here suddenly, even before in the UK. I think we are very vulnerable for sudden unexpected changes. I used to think they would go after a breed first, but now I think it is going to be pug faces in any breeds. We will see what happens.

[Greytmate]

What breeders need is a voice, a face.

A person out there in the media, oosing with charisma getting the word out there about pedigree dogs.

There's the Burke , Dr Harry and That Bondi dude.

But who is out there for the breeders?

Well that begs the question - why arent the breeders out there for the breeders. How long do they have to wait before they work out that their CCs are not going to do it for them and do something ?

Some breeders are good at breeding. Some breeders are bad at breeding but good at marketing.

Who is waiting for who? Are they waiting for themselves?

You have done something Steve, you have taken the first step that needed to be taken. You formed the MDBA.

I feel its a bit pointless to be having a discussion about 'us' and 'them' and 'we' and 'they'. We need to define those people.

And let's define a brand before we even think about approaching people to endorse it.

[sparkycat]

Well what exactly is the image you want to project?

If we use DOL main page for example.

I get the idea that this is about show dogs. 3 different things right off, the point score system, the breed show pictures, the show scene magazine.

Then when I look at a few of the listing I mostly see dogs in show stance and words about show champions. So the impression is totally these are show dogs.

I have often said that a lot more time needs to be spent worrying about what the people who own our dogs worry about. They want great pets.

Dogs they can jog with. Dogs that will play nicely with their children. Dogs that are good companions in the home. Dogs they will take for walks.

I do not see any pictures of dogs and people doing any of these things on the home page of DOL.

No article about which breed was voted the best jogging companion, no story about how Robby the Lab is the perfect companion when the family goes camping. No picture of dogs cuddled up watching TV with the kids. No poll asking you to vote for which is the best dog friendly city in Australia.

To me this is marketing the dogs correctly, to the people who will own them, doing what they will be doing with them. Dogs shows have nothing to do with their interest and these days is not something always associated with good thoughts.

Anyone see the insurance commercial with Brian ( wolfhound I think) in the red sports car. Who wouldn't want one. But take that same dog and show him stacked at a dog show and you changed the whole image. How about the Lab tested puppy, nobody wants a lab stack at a dog show but chasing toilet paper rolls around the house, now that is a fun dog.

Very well expressed !

[shortstep]

Shortstep

did you se the study where the olfactory center has moved to a different place in the brain!

Hmm, did you see any proof that the olefactory centre was elsewhere x years ago? And with NO MRIs, how did they deduce where the olefactory centre was ?

SM - Griffons, Cavaliers, Bostons, Poodles, Chihuahuas, Maltese, Pomeranians - and more - have SM. The reason why the Cav got such excess publcity is because the BREEDERS, OWNERS, AND CLUBS WORLDWIDE donated quite a lot of money particularly to Claire Rusbridge for research to get to the bottom of this disease. And because there is a dedicated effort, with subsidised scans etc (paid for by breeders), which no other breed has, the poor old Cav got ALL the bad press.

Hi Jed, it was McGreevy. I can hunt around for the link again if you like. I posted it in the News a few months ago.

I think it was only in a different location in the pug faced breeds, but you need to read it to be sure Jed. I mostly remember that more research was going on to see what if any problems this might be creating for the dogs.

here it is

Breeding Is Changing Dog Brains, Scientists Find

ScienceDaily (Aug. 2, 2010) — For the first time, scientists have shown that selective breeding of domestic dogs is not only dramatically changing the way animals look but is also driving major changes in the canine brain.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/...00802091205.htm

here is the actual paper

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%...al.pone.0011946

Edited November 20, 2010 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i dont think it is all doom and gloom and if we think that way then we are defeated before we start.

[Jed]

Hi Shortstep, yep I saw that thanks, by McGreevey. Although he stated the olefactory centre was removed, he failed to illustrate how he could prove it had moved, which I was remarking on. Although I may have missed it.

Edited to say - I try not to read McGreevey, life can only be depressing to a certain level

Edited November 20, 2010 by Jed

[Jed]

i dont think it is all doom and gloom and if we think that way then we are defeated before we start.

We have been defeated for years.

[mita]

Jed's got a good point that something weird happens in the world of pure-bred dog breeding.

Responsible, knowledgeable breeders put their heads together to deal with a problem that can turn up in their breed.

They cooperate with researchers to get more reliable information on the nature of the problem & possible screening.

And nothing lends itself better for research than the registering of purebred dogs across & thro' generations.

Researchers at Sydney Uni, delving into diseases that commonly affect humans & dogs, rave about what this opens up for them in tracking & controlling conditions. I still have the article from The Australian where these researchers did their raving in praise of purebred dog breeding.

So work like this in purebreds is well reported. Then a funny thing happens... the particular breed gets branded as the sole source of that problem. You know, like labradors & hip dysplasia.... But, as one of the best US researchers pointed out. Other breeds, mixed-breeds & cats get hip dysplasia, too.

Purebred dog breeding, & its benefits, need to be better conveyed to the public.

Best person I've heard talking about purebred dog breeding was a Victorian Rottie breeders on Radio National.

She was talking about the Vic Dogs pet therapy team. The interviewer expressed surprise that....gasp! a Rottie visited elderly people.

The breeder gave the best summarised explanation of what went into the healthy, well socialised breeding of purebred dogs, like her Rotties. Bloody brilliant...she was articulate & sounded like a thorough caring professional. But who would have heard her, tucked away for 15 minutes on Radio National?

[shortstep]

Hi Shortstep, yep I saw that thanks, by McGreevey. Although he stated the olefactory centre was removed, he failed to illustrate how he could prove it had moved, which I was remarking on. Although I may have missed it.

Edited to say - I try not to read McGreevey, life can only be depressing to a certain level

Ditto and why I am having problems answering you...LOL

um yes, well maybe too simplistic on my part but wolves brains are like dogs with long noses brains. There is no pug face in wild dogs?? so 1 + 1 = the change ???

here is a bit of what he says, enjoy lol

But how could skull shortening affect cerebral organization? Studies of human craniosynostosis [22], [23] and immature head banding [23] suggest that the development of brain shape and size is closely interrelated to the configuration of dura matter as well as the co-developing cranial vault. Changes to any of one of these factors can lead to changes in the others [22]. Differences in canine skull length resulting from artificial human selection pressures may have led to alterations in cerebral development most evident in brachycephalic versus dolicocephalic dogs. Specifically, rostral intracranial volumetric restriction during development of short-skulled dogs may explain the combination of axis rotation and olfactory bulb repositioning. Regodon et al (1993) also noted that reduced skull length in brachycephalic dogs gives rise to a more perpendicular development of the cranium relative to the facial axis [5]. These anatomical adaptations could hence represent a biological solution to a ‘space problem’. The olfactory bulb seems to have migrated to a potential space ventral to the orbital frontal cortex, thereby freeing the anterior pole for normal development of the frontal cortex. Alternatively, animals at the dolichocephalic end of the spectrum may have sufficient ‘spare capacity’ in the cranial vault to permit olfactory bulb development almost directly anterior to the frontal lobe. Either of these possible explanations relies on an evolutionary and developmental preference to preserve frontal lobe volume. Future studies could therefore directly compare frontal lobe morphology in brachy- and dolichocephalic dogs.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I think some of the pressures are not to do with the pure breed issue at all, but to do with the "thereoughtabealaw" mentality which is fueled by talk radio and politicians who spend more time on media alerts than policy development. Laws are often spoken of in popular culture as if their existence means compliance and appropriate sentencing when you have non-compliance. We know that isn't ever going to happen and so does your average punter when a rapist walks off with a suspended sentence. It's the doublethink that is hard to cut through.

It's a cliche rooted in truth that those who are responsible are law abiding, and they will stop their breeding if the law constricts enough, whereas those who are not responsible don't bother. Without an effective compliance regime, which there rarely is given restrictions on funding for regulators, you get the irresponsible running free.

Perhaps something we could do every time a new law is proposed is ask the Minister responsible how much funding is being given to compliance activity for existing laws. How many existing pet owners have been audited/sentenced/warned under current laws. Get in your opposition Senators ear around the time of your state budget estimates hearings. Ask annoying questions about the budget spending on compliance. Ask how compliance activity for any new law will be funded. Talk about funding gaps in other areas.

[shortstep]

What makes you say that? How would you define an expert?

Sorry meant to answer this and got side tracked.

An expert in this tense is anybody except an experienced breeder of the breed in question (and has some sort of social, ethical, community, legal or science background that might have some input).

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

lets not bother, i mean we are already defeated , now that's a cop out

[LizT]

This is a very hard issue to solve. There are alot of public people with strong opinions on breeders often fueled by that horrible tv show. Ive had friends tell me that they deliberately bought a dog which is 'purebred' from a non- registered breeder to avoid unreputable breeders (what a joke)!

I think purebred dogs need some publicity on the positives, the good things breeders do and an expose on puppy mills and pet shops.

We need more events with purebred dog open to the public where people can meet the dogs and people. Also there needs to be more encouragement of newbies in the hobby.

All of this is hard to do but i think we need to do it.

Mdba is doing a good job so far but i think you guys need some more publicity so that people (not in the dog world) learn about you etc

We need more members - members equal votes.

Well then we need to make things more attractive to people who buy dogs on LR. They have a door slammed in their faces if they even show the remotest interest in becomming a breeder or wanting a dog to Show. Everone runs around in circles yelling BYB, or Puppy Miller at the first inquiry!! No wonder membership has dropped.

[moosmum]

I agree that the pure bred dogs the public see are generaly seen in a "Show Dog" context and they need to be promoted more for what they were bred for,or as family dog/companions.

The only people who can effectivley do this are their owners and breeders,but as to how,thats going to vary with breed and how much people are willing to get behind their breed.

And yes,promote the progress that has been made.

But,speaking as someone who gave up on owning my choosen breed as a pure bred,I see some changes are badly needed.

I kept this breed for 20 years,not as a breeder but as a working dog.When I needed another and looked for it,I was told by the breed club I would not get one to fill my needs.

My needs fit in with the breed standard for this dog.

This is a breed I love.I did not give up lightly and searched for 6 years to find dogs that would fill my needs( I may possibly have had better luck had I known of DOL)

All I found was that the breed was in even worse shape than I thought,with a shortened life span and miriad health problems.

So I do think breeders need to take some responsibility too for public perception.Not all breeds,and not all breeds equaly,but they do need to be able to step back and look criticaly at their breed,and be honest with themselves about the best steps to take in REALY fixing the worst problems at least.Then lobby their registrars and members to act, before its too late.

As a horse breeder,I can say that D.N.A on file is becoming a very common tool in confirming pedigree.

That all stallions must pass a veterinary certificate of soundness before offspring can be registered,with different breeds often having additional checks added to the certificate.

Out crossing is not viewed with the same horror in species bred for a specific purpose 1st,ie goats,horses,cattle,sheep and is often a very valuable tool in species who viability is treatened.

This is done in a very controlled way,breeders still have the choice to use these animals or not in their own programs.

I am NOT anti pedigree by any stretch.But I have come to see that the pedigree dog world operates by by rules that rarely apply to any other species bred by man and in many cases,its proving detrimental.

Often breeders have very little real understanding of the origins and creation of their own breeds,or how much they have changed over time.

A standard that askes for,say a sloped back may never have envisioned the degree that occurred over time.(this is just an example picked out of the air and should be considered made up)

My intention is not to offend here,though no doubt many will be offended.

[shortstep]

I think some of the pressures are not to do with the pure breed issue at all, but to do with the "thereoughtabealaw" mentality which is fueled by talk radio and politicians who spend more time on media alerts than policy development. Laws are often spoken of in popular culture as if their existence means compliance and appropriate sentencing when you have non-compliance. We know that isn't ever going to happen and so does your average punter when a rapist walks off with a suspended sentence. It's the doublethink that is hard to cut through.

It's a cliche rooted in truth that those who are responsible are law abiding, and they will stop their breeding if the law constricts enough, whereas those who are not responsible don't bother. Without an effective compliance regime, which there rarely is given restrictions on funding for regulators, you get the irresponsible running free.

Perhaps something we could do every time a new law is proposed is ask the Minister responsible how much funding is being given to compliance activity for existing laws. How many existing pet owners have been audited/sentenced/warned under current laws. Get in your opposition Senators ear around the time of your state budget estimates hearings. Ask annoying questions about the budget spending on compliance. Ask how compliance activity for any new law will be funded. Talk about funding gaps in other areas.

Well said and I agree.

[mita]

Some level-headed thinking about welfare issues & purebred dog breeding come out of Scandanavia (they seem less prone to hysteria than the UK).

Neat paper prepared by the Norwegian Kennel Club & the Clinical Sciences section of the Norwegian Vet School.

http://www.actavetscand.com/content/50/S1/S6

(I just patted my tibbie girl on the head, she came from Scandanavia & her dad was a Norwegian Champion! )