"breed Id" Threads

[Purdie]

Rather than starting multiple 'wotami' threads, what if there was one permanently pinned in General. That way, there's only one 'wotami' thread instead of a new one popping up every 3 seconds.

Nice idea, but would get mighty hard and laborious to follow once the thread has a number of "wotami's" on the go at the one time.

Maybe a new sub-forum then?

no, this is a purebred dog site.

Yes it is,But i can also go to the news forum and read about a horse swimming in the ocean or go off topic and read about cats and goldfish.

The M&M thread is hard to find for ppl new to the forum.I think the what breed threads will continue to pop up so an M&M area that is easier to find may be the go.

Has anyone asked Troy about it.

[Steve]

But this isnt about reading about a dog which is not purebred or is purebred - its about asking people what breed or breed cross a dog is - the repercussions for purebred dogs by people calling something a breed or breed cross is potentially huge and its ALWAYS just a guess.

[mita]

I also think that, from a rescue perspective, 'wotami' threads could be very useful ..perhaps a system like the breeders' thread ?

Good on you for posting the rule about no 'What's in my dog?' threads.

But you're right about how important 'wotami' can be in rescue.

Rescuers see so many dogs that come with no background information. It challenges them to know all sorts of breeds....and some dogs can be purebreds of a less common breed, or a purebred but not show quality, or an ungroomed example of a p/b.

My own breed is vulnerable for being mislabeled...tibetan spaniels get called pekes, peke crosses, shih tzus, shih tzu crosses, cavalier crosses. I'm always grateful when an eagle-eyed DOLer queries if there's a mislabelling on a rescue list. 'Spotters' have never been wrong yet!

One DOLer famously saved a p/b tibbie from being sold from a pound as a peke....while the owner was still searching for it (including phoning the pound). The pound had labelled it a peke. A DOLer spotted the error & the pound notified. Fortunately there was a day cooling-off period before the new purchaser could pick it up. Tib was returned to a very grateful owner.

Edited May 25, 2012 by mita

[sheena]

I also think that, from a rescue perspective, 'wotami' threads could be very useful ..perhaps a system like the breeders' thread ?

Good on you for posting the rule about no 'What's in my dog?' threads.

But you're right about how important 'wotami' can be in rescue.

Rescuers see so many dogs that come with no background information. It challenges them to know all sorts of breeds....and some dogs can be purebreds of a less common breed, or a purebred but not show quality, or an ungroomed example of a p/b.

My own breed is vulnerable for being mislabeled...tibetan spaniels get called pekes, peke crosses, shih tzus, shih tzu crosses, cavalier crosses. I'm always grateful when an eagle-eyed DOLer queries if there's a mislabelling on a rescue list. 'Spotters' have never been wrong yet!

One DOLer famously saved a p/b tibbie from being sold from a pound as a peke....while the owner was still searching for it (including phoning the pound). The pound had labelled it a peke. A DOLer spotted the error & the pound notified. Fortunately there was a day cooling-off period before the new purchaser could pick it up. Tib was returned to a very grateful owner.

Wouldn't the pound be able to tell what sort of dog it is by it's microchip?? I thought all microchip registrations had to have down "breed type" & if it were a p/b tibbie, then wouldn't this be on it's microchip records. Maybe now that ALL puppies have to be microchipped before sale, then there will be no more guessing "what breed" if the dog ends up in rescue.

[mita]

Wouldn't the pound be able to tell what sort of dog it is by it's microchip?? I thought all microchip registrations had to have down "breed type" & if it were a p/b tibbie, then wouldn't this be on it's microchip records. Maybe now that ALL puppies have to be microchipped before sale, then there will be no more guessing "what breed" if the dog ends up in rescue.

There's differences among the states.....especially about mandatory microchipping. In states where it hasn't been mandatory, dogs still turn up, not microchipped. The example I gave was from Q'ld where microchipping has been a gradual development and there are still dogs (including purebreds) that are not microchipped. You'll notice someone has posted another thread where RSPCA Qld is conducting microchipping 'clinics' around regions of Brisbane to assist in a 'catch up'.

There's also movements of unmicrochipped dogs between states....and microchips that have 'moved' in a dog's body.

For a number of reasons, there can still be instances where a dog of a certain breed (including less common ones) can turn up with no background information. Tho', it should be getting less common.

If a particular State's law requires all puppies be microchipped before sale, it can only be a good thing. As far as I know, all the microchip data bases require a breed label be recorded.

Edited May 25, 2012 by mita

[tdierikx]

Microchipping has been mandatory in NSW for some good long time now, yet we are still seeing many animals turning up in pounds without chips... we also see dogs with chips, but nothing has been entered into the register...

All well and good to have a mandatory rule, but until it's policed properly, it's not going to be effective, is it?

Also - NSW CAR registry insists on at least one "breed" being identified on the chip... when I was entering my camp dog Pickles (who would make a Heinz 57 look like a pedigree/purebred) I didn't have the option to put "unknown/unknown" as the cross. Seriously, in Australia, we have "camp dogs" - literally born in camps in the outback - why can't that be a "breed" on our registries?

Listing "breed" as "camp dog" or "unknown" and then having the "identifying features" section allow room for a decent description of the dog's size/shape/colouring/markings, would be a much more effective way to identify each individual dog, no?

BTW - I have no idea what breeds are in Pickles' mix, and I don't really care - she's one of a kind really... *grin*

T.

[Florise]

I don't understand why these threads would be an issue. What better place to ask "what breeds are in my dog?" than on a forum full of purebred enthusiasts?

[Salukifan]

I don't understand why these threads would be an issue. What better place to ask "what breeds are in my dog?" than on a forum full of purebred enthusiasts?

Let me break it down for you.

"what breeds are in my dog?"

purebred enthusiasts

You want people passionate about purebred dogs to assist crossbred dog owners to ascribe breeds to theirs? Before you know it, the X disappears from the dog's description and forum posters are talking about "my Biddleonian Retriever" or "my X cross Y breed" or describing their dog's behaviour according to breeds that may or may be part of their parentage. It's a slippery slope.

I don't mind these threads. I contribute to most. What I DO mind (and I expect others are saying the same) is when the actions and behaviour of such dogs are sheeted home to such breed descriptions when there is no way of verifying them. Purebred SBT owners must rip their hair out over this one.

Mind you, at least some of the more knowledgeable purebred enthusiasts can attempt to talk people out of describing their dogs as F1 crosses of two fairly rare purebreds. Success in this area has been patchy though.

[tdierikx]

Funnily enough though, the general public tends to ascribe to the "it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck - therefore it must BE a duck" theory...

My Lab X girl looks "all" Lab... and no-one ever asks me if she's a cross. However, she definitely has some traits that are definitely NOT very Lab at all... I know that her "undesirable" traits come from an outcross somewhere in her "lines" with a Dingo - but if she ever ended up in a pound, or in rescue, she'd be put forward for adoption as a "pure" Lab - based only on what she looks like and her general happy and outgoing nature. Imagine the new owner's surprise if she then decided to show her nasty side when challenged by an alpha dog on her new home turf... it's not pretty, I can tell you!

T.

[RuralPug]

Thanks everyone, as far as I am concerned the original question has been answered, and I won't be asking this question on DOL.

I would like to say that I can't agree with those who don't like mutts labelled as a fluglehound X or whatever because they worry that if the mutt has a bad temperament or some other fault it will then be attributed to all fluglehounds...personally I don't think that set of mind should be encouraged at all because it leads to BSL.

We all know that it is perfectly possible for any purebred pedigreed dog to become a menace if it is treated badly, or has a brain tumour etc - should that reflect badly on every member of that breed as well? I feel that the emphasis should be on the deed not the breed, in which case mis-labelling should not matter.

[Greytmate]

We all know that it is perfectly possible for any purebred pedigreed dog to become a menace if it is treated badly, or has a brain tumour etc - should that reflect badly on every member of that breed as well? I feel that the emphasis should be on the deed not the breed, in which case mis-labelling should not matter.

No, That is wrong.

If you breed for specific temperament, you are more likely to get that temperament. Brain tumours are quite rare.

While mistreatment will harm any dog, not all respond to that by becoming a menace. Some will, some won't, it depends on the basic temperament they inherited. Some breeds/lines have traits that others don't. That is what purebreeding is.

Randomly cross breed dogs have an average chance of becoming a menace if mistreated. After all the effort put in to obtaining a certain temperament in a purebreed, if others are allowed to claim that 'brand' for their own cross breed dog, the good reputation of the breed can suffer.

If you think mislabeling doesn't matter, you are saying that the differences between breeds don't matter and good breeding doesn't matter either. That is harsh on all breeders that strive to improve their breed in temperament and conformation. People buying dogs should be aware that breed does matter and that different breeds have different tendencies.

[Weasels]

You want people passionate about purebred dogs to assist crossbred dog owners to ascribe breeds to theirs? Before you know it, the X disappears from the dog's description and forum posters are talking about "my Biddleonian Retriever" or "my X cross Y breed" or describing their dog's behaviour according to breeds that may or may be part of their parentage. It's a slippery slope.

I don't mind these threads. I contribute to most. What I DO mind (and I expect others are saying the same) is when the actions and behaviour of such dogs are sheeted home to such breed descriptions when there is no way of verifying them. Purebred SBT owners must rip their hair out over this one.

Mind you, at least some of the more knowledgeable purebred enthusiasts can attempt to talk people out of describing their dogs as F1 crosses of two fairly rare purebreds. Success in this area has been patchy though.

I have dogs of unknown provenance, but it matters very much to be to be able to guess at their lineage. At the most practical level, because they must be at least an "apparent mix of herding breeds" to be permitted to enter ANKC herding trials. But more fundamentally, it helps me provide them with appropriate stimulation, activities and training for their temperament which I interpret through the assumption of "sheepdog". Personally, I think that me making that assumption is in the best interests of my dogs, although admittedly mine are more obviously at least majority one breed than a lot of the mixes that come through rescue.

We all know that it is perfectly possible for any purebred pedigreed dog to become a menace if it is treated badly, or has a brain tumour etc - should that reflect badly on every member of that breed as well? I feel that the emphasis should be on the deed not the breed, in which case mis-labelling should not matter.

No, That is wrong.

If you breed for specific temperament, you are more likely to get that temperament. Brain tumours are quite rare.

While mistreatment will harm any dog, not all respond to that by becoming a menace. Some will, some won't, it depends on the basic temperament they inherited. Some breeds/lines have traits that others don't. That is what purebreeding is.

Randomly cross breed dogs have an average chance of becoming a menace if mistreated. After all the effort put in to obtaining a certain temperament in a purebreed, if others are allowed to claim that 'brand' for their own cross breed dog, the good reputation of the breed can suffer.

If you think mislabeling doesn't matter, you are saying that the differences between breeds don't matter and good breeding doesn't matter either. That is harsh on all breeders that strive to improve their breed in temperament and conformation. People buying dogs should be aware that breed does matter and that different breeds have different tendencies.

They are still animals though, with 78 chromosomes and almost 20,000 genes and god-knows-how-many variations of each gene which are shuffled randomly and possibly mutated at each generation. And a fuzzy thing like temperament could have so many genetic, epigenetic and environmental influences that the permutations, even in a fairly linebred animal, are incalculable. Not to mention that not every breeder even worries about temperament Yes limiting dogs to reproducing within their own breed increases predictability, but I'm not sure over-selling them as completely predictable is a necessary part of promoting purebreds.

As a side note, I'd hate to think of a situation where we had to breed dogs to be tolerant of mistreatment

[RuralPug]

We all know that it is perfectly possible for any purebred pedigreed dog to become a menace if it is treated badly, or has a brain tumour etc - should that reflect badly on every member of that breed as well? I feel that the emphasis should be on the deed not the breed, in which case mis-labelling should not matter.

If you breed for specific temperament, you are more likely to get that temperament. ...... After all the effort put in to obtaining a certain temperament in a purebreed, if others are allowed to claim that 'brand' for their own cross breed dog, the good reputation of the breed can suffer.

If you think mislabeling doesn't matter, you are saying that the differences between breeds don't matter and good breeding doesn't matter either. That is harsh on all breeders that strive to improve their breed in temperament and conformation. People buying dogs should be aware that breed does matter and that different breeds have different tendencies.

So are you saying that you think tha BSL is correct? That you think the government is correct is saying that all members of such-and-such a breed have such-and-such a temperament? Therefore if a purebred pedigreed dog SHOULD prove to have a bad temperament, for whatever cause, would you then be happy for all members of that breed to be so labelled? Or in that case would you then cry "deed not breed"?

I have been involved in breeding and showing dogs for over half a century and I simply don't have the faith in breeders that you do. Individuals yes, but not all and not en masse, sadly. I am sure that most of us can think of lines within our own breed that tend to different temperaments from other lines, although how much this is actually due to nurture plus the tendency of the breeders concentrating on that line to choose certain homes, I don't know.

You are wrong if you believe that I think good breeding doesn't matter. I think it is the MOST important factor, but I do not fall into the trap of assuming that all breeders of any one breed are good breeders and that is why I encourage puppy buyers to research breeders as well as breed.

Any excellent breeder is entitled to defend their own kennel name and lines, defending the breed as a whole without admitting that there are ignoramuses and downright bad apples also breeding that breed is simply naive, most especially in the more popular breeds.

There could be a case for very rare breeds, but you seem to be claiming that the reputation of a breed will never ever suffer from

the misdeeds of one of that breed but only ever from a lookalike mutt described as that breed? That is a very very dangerous assumption. Also you seem to be saying that a hardwon "good" reputation for a breed could never be overturned by uncaring or ignorant purebred breeders leaping on to a popularity bandwagon?

More correct in my view is the assumption that a dog with GR CH or CH or titled dogsport ancestors in every line is very very likely going to have a good temperament. I honestly think that that is what should be pushed and not just "pedigreed"or "purebred" because that label alone cannot guarantee temperament any more than a random mutt can have temperament guaranteed.

Perhaps I am wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. But the observations that I have made over the years and the thought that I have given this matter means that an enormous amount of conficting data would be needed for me to revise my opinion.

Edited for clarity. Sigh. More than likely failed at that, too.

Edited May 25, 2012 by RuralPug

[Sheridan]

Look, just set up a poll. First question: should there be a pinned wotami thread on DOL. Second question: which forum should it be in.

Should there be a majority in favour, then Troy can be asked to pin a thread.

It's quite simple and then this thread doesn't have to devolve into a pro/anti BSL thread.

[Steve]

Thanks everyone, as far as I am concerned the original question has been answered, and I won't be asking this question on DOL.

I would like to say that I can't agree with those who don't like mutts labelled as a fluglehound X or whatever because they worry that if the mutt has a bad temperament or some other fault it will then be attributed to all fluglehounds...personally I don't think that set of mind should be encouraged at all because it leads to BSL.

We all know that it is perfectly possible for any purebred pedigreed dog to become a menace if it is treated badly, or has a brain tumour etc - should that reflect badly on every member of that breed as well? I feel that the emphasis should be on the deed not the breed, in which case mis-labelling should not matter.

I dont believe that this mind set leads to breed specific legislation - breed specific legislation is already here and if we didn't all agree that some breeds do behave somewhat differently to others then none of us would breed or own purebred dogs .

Whether we agree with it or not the reality is that pure breeds and purebred breeders are being judged by the variables which show in dogs which they don't breed. This is done via council regs ,public perception and pedigreed dogs exposed.

We have enough to answer to already without having to defend our breeds when a bunch of people on an internet forum decide a dog looks like a certain breed or breed mix .

Sure it shouldn't be happening but when something goes wrong or when dogs behave in a certain way,or develop certain diseases the rest of the world judge them based on what they are called. You and I can see the stupidity in this but stand back from this .

I have a breed which is pretty scary when you encounter them but they are gentle and do all they can to stand back yell at you and dont bite unless there is heaps of warning and no choices left to protect their herd - mix that size and look up with a cattle dog temperament and those hearing the Maremma or Maremma cross just took a chunk out of someone all they hear is Maremma .

Staffy cross is only heard as a staffy. Its not about how you and I - purebred breeders see it or hear it but people taking rescue dogs do make decisions on whether they will take a dog based on what they expect of the breed or breed cross its called.

A bunch of people saying I think it looks like a Golden retriever cross are not getting what they have at least some expectation of if its a Maremma cross .

If naming them doesn't mean that this puts at least some expectation on them why name them?

SM is being talked up in cavs and there is a high incidence of MVD but you mix a beagle with a cav and most of them look like beagles - before you know it their health stats tell the world that beagles have it too = bad purebred breeders who in breed.

I get it and understand why its done but I want to protect my breeds and I think that allowing someone to call mongrels which may have any number of mixes in there by the name or part name of what people think they look most like it is not good for my breeds

You cant have it both ways if you feel it encourages BSL at least it allows the breeds to be judged on their own actions because the alternative is no purebreds and just a generic mutt - which by the way is what some animal rights groups have as their stated goal.

I don't think those who have the general intention of promoting purebreds as a common denominator which attracts us here should participate in this because our breeds are fighting for their survival and we should promote them as being unique because we know what they are and we can predict their reactions to certain conditions and stimuli.

[Steve]

We all know that it is perfectly possible for any purebred pedigreed dog to become a menace if it is treated badly, or has a brain tumour etc - should that reflect badly on every member of that breed as well? I feel that the emphasis should be on the deed not the breed, in which case mis-labelling should not matter.

If you breed for specific temperament, you are more likely to get that temperament. ...... After all the effort put in to obtaining a certain temperament in a purebreed, if others are allowed to claim that 'brand' for their own cross breed dog, the good reputation of the breed can suffer.

If you think mislabeling doesn't matter, you are saying that the differences between breeds don't matter and good breeding doesn't matter either. That is harsh on all breeders that strive to improve their breed in temperament and conformation. People buying dogs should be aware that breed does matter and that different breeds have different tendencies.

So are you saying that you think tha BSL is correct? That you think the government is correct is saying that all members of such-and-such a breed have such-and-such a temperament? Therefore if a purebred pedigreed dog SHOULD prove to have a bad temperament, for whatever cause, would you then be happy for all members of that breed to be so labelled? Or in that case would you then cry "deed not breed"?

I have been involved in breeding and showing dogs for over half a century and I simply don't have the faith in breeders that you do. Individuals yes, but not all and not en masse, sadly. I am sure that most of us can think of lines within our own breed that tend to different temperaments from other lines, although how much this is actually due to nurture plus the tendency of the breeders concentrating on that line to choose certain homes, I don't know.

You are wrong if you believe that I think good breeding doesn't matter. I think it is the MOST important factor, but I do not fall into the trap of assuming that all breeders of any one breed are good breeders and that is why I encourage puppy buyers to research breeders as well as breed.

Any excellent breeder is entitled to defend their own kennel name and lines, defending the breed as a whole without admitting that there are ignoramuses and downright bad apples also breeding that breed is simply naive, most especially in the more popular breeds.

There could be a case for very rare breeds, but you seem to be claiming that the reputation of a breed will never ever suffer from

the misdeeds of one of that breed but only ever from a lookalike mutt described as that breed? That is a very very dangerous assumption. Also you seem to be saying that a hardwon "good" reputation for a breed could never be overturned by uncaring or ignorant purebred breeders leaping on to a popularity bandwagon?

More correct in my view is the assumption that a dog with GR CH or CH or titled dogsport ancestors in every line is very very likely going to have a good temperament. I honestly think that that is what should be pushed and not just "pedigreed"or "purebred" because that label alone cannot guarantee temperament any more than a random mutt can have temperament guaranteed.

Perhaps I am wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. But the observations that I have made over the years and the thought that I have given this matter means that an enormous amount of conficting data would be needed for me to revise my opinion.

Edited for clarity. Sigh. More than likely failed at that, too.

Yes I agree with you - but there are two different issues here. Its bad enough for me that I have to answer for and defend my breed against those who breed them and who haven't given a fig about what is best for the dogs as an overriding goal in their breeding decisions without having my breeds judged based on what other idiots do when they let their dogs mate with any old dog in the neighbourhood just because it happens to look like my breed according to opinions on an internet forum.

A dog of any breed is supposed to be easily identified as part of that group without any doubt by the person doing the looking - some of us will say we also want to see the papers as their definition of purebred is even tighter - its why its so hard to get a new breed recognised and its why I breed purebred dogs and not cross bred dogs - because I think this is important . It tells people by just knowing the breed what management issues they may face and what will be most likely needed to live happily ever after with the dog. If someone needs to come to an internet forum and ask then surely its not a case of just looking and knowing without doubt what breed a dog belongs to.

Its a free world and if someone wants to play this game here or anywhere other than my playground all power to them but it still annoys the crap out of me.