WoofnHoof

Absolutely, why spend time trying to standardize the dog population to suit people who are only going to stuff up the 'perfect' dog anyway? I know the ARG has done a lot of work on this 'perfect pet dog' concept and while it's useful to know the sort of dog the average Joe is wanting in terms of working out which breeds are best suited in a general sense and promoting those breeds rather than having them buy an unsuitable breed. But at the end of the day though it's still a cop out for irresponsible owners, they can put in an order for their 'perfect' dog, non shedding, great with kids, medium size etc etc but they still get to dump it if it craps in the wrong spot on their lawn or they go on holiday and are too cheap to pay for boarding. There is simply no responsibility on the owner's part, no onus on them to learn about the dog, or the breed, or management, or training or anything really. While I do see the relevance of testing and making life easier for shelters who have the hard job of choosing which dog is the most rehomable, the amount of variability in dogs just makes me wonder how applicable all these tests are in the grand scheme of things. There is no guarentee that the perfect dog that was the most rehomable according to the test still isn't going to bite some feral kid that sticks a pencil in it's ear. It's not going to guarentee the dog stays perfect after it spends a year or so in the backyard with little to no interaction. So is it really going to achieve the desired outcome of no bouncing back to the pound if there is no standardized test of the owner's suitability?

To me standardisation is about getting rid of individual differences to get statistically signficant results, since matching dogs to owners can really only work on a case by case basis I fail to see the relevance or practical application of a standardised test for dogs from a wide range of breeds and backgrounds.

Agree - and a test for each breed is wildly impractical anyway, especially since most of the animals that come through will be cross breeds. So you'd be pouring resources into developing a test for a dog that pops up, say, once a year? Once every 5 years? But a standardised test seems impractical to me anyway given the vast differences between breeds and crosses, so what is the point other than covering asses in case someone gets bitten?

A Hairier of Huskies A Chortle of Chihuahuas A Voltaire of Vallhunds :)

Thanks zeebie I've put the Qld one in my favourites :)

It's all well and good to say that a standardised method is useful in pounds in getting dogs that suit Joe Blow who can't be stuffed doing their own breed research. What if the research ends up being used by councils etc to apply to the general population? I think the whole concept of standardisation is problematic when you are dealing with a variety of breeds. How about creating a standardised test for Joe Blow to assess their suitability to cope with the dog they want to buy? Ultimately you can have the most adoptable dog in the world but it doesn't matter if Joe is a numpty who knows nothing about dogs and doesn't need to know in order to adopt one. Personally I feel all this research into temperament testing is a waste of time and resources and does nothing to address the disposable mentality of the general public towards pets. I've come across people who have owned huskies in the past, it ran away, it escaped etc etc, the slightest bit of breed knowledge would have told these people not to buy a husky in the first place and if they still wanted one to have a bit of understanding of the breed and cater for it's needs. The breed is the most critical factor in the behaviour and temperament of the dog and yet it is largely overlooked in favour of standardizing all dogs. Makes no sense to me.

It seems to me a cumbersome and error prone way to do it though, by standardising it generically it primes the tester to have a preconceived concept of what is 'correct' or 'good' behaviour which you then have to try and undo/negate by putting it in a breed context. I'd rather see it go the other way around if it's going to be done at all so the tester is primed to look at specific behaviours within the context of the breed first and foremost. It's not about homes vs laboratories it's about not creating a bias against certain breeds because their behaviour is not consistent with the generic 'ideal' dog concept. Like I said I think this should all be considered secondary to the education of the home, if they want a dog of a certain breed they need to understand and accept the breed characteristics, not have a preconceived generic idea of what a dog should be and assume the dog will be that without fully understanding the characteristics underlying those breeds.

If they want to standardise temperament testing they should at the very least use the breed standards as a reference point, that's no help for crosses of course but at least with purebreds it should be using the correct reference point rather than a 'one size fits all' temperament test. There are hundreds of breeds all bred for different purposes with different temperament types, it's ludicrous to suggest that a one size fits all approach is logical or even remotely useful in this context.

I think temperament testing as a whole can be fraught with danger for many breeds, this tendency to want to standardize everything sounds good for the bean counters and pen pushers but it isn't necessarily correct for the dogs and the owners IMHO. At the end of the day the only thing that will prevent dog attacks is education of owners, education about breeds, temperament, management and welfare. Anything else is a waste of time again IMHO. Rather than spending time and research trying to standardise the vast variety of temperaments that exist in the canine population I would rather see a standardised education and examination program for owners, breeders and the general public.

I'm not sure about the safety/security of cloud services but I think they would be very useful for protecting photos and documents (scans) in the rare event that a disaster occurs so quickly you can't get home to save them, might be worth looking at that as well?

Sounds like not that much is different from the horse registries, the powerful ones play by their own rules and everyone else can (and do) kiss their ass. I agree though education as always is key.

Yep pretty straightforward. It would be easy enough to prevent double ups with ethical breeding practices enforced by ruling anyway such as no coloured to coloured breedings, anyone found to be in breach (whether they are registering the progeny or not) should be kicked out of the club for practices that are detrimental to the breed. Mind you the fact that there are breeders pumping out crosses and not getting kicked out of the club for it doesn't give me a lot of faith in the ability of the club to take a firm stance on these things.

Those are some badass pugs you have there! I've never heard of a chi surviving in the wild so I would classify being a chi as a lethal condition lol

Yes, I was wondering why these predominantly white, potentially deaf and blind dogs are referred to as "lethal white" when they do not, in fact, die unless put down. If they had to survive in the wild they would certainly die therefore it is a lethal condition. If that's the critera for 'lethal' then it would apply to pretty much all toy breeds, there are a lot of breeds that couldn't survive in the wild for all sorts of reasons. To me lethal means it dies as a direct result of the condition, failure to survive in the wild would be an indirect consequence and as I pointed out could apply to any number of characteristics so it doesn't make much sense to me to use that terminology.

I agree Steve, colour and quality are not mutually exclusive, quality suffers when breeders don't have it a priority in their programs and that can happen whether they are breeding certain colours or not.

Possibly not but I would still maintain that colour is largely an arbitrary consideration in many cases, and while that may have been fine back in the days standards were written (remember that some human colours were also prejudiced against back then) these days if there is no good reason to exclude them and there is enough support to include them then a revision of some of these standards might be a reasonable thing to consider. As I pointed out earlier in the thread many colours have persisted in breeds despite no active selection for them so they must be considered intrinsic and in many instances it appears that there is no logical reason for the exclusion other than personal preference, and preferences are subject to change especially over such long periods of time. I think each breed needs to be looked at separately, because each will have it's own history and reasons for colour. I'm not in favour of breeding for colour at all, but I think it's fair enough to want to breed for strong pigment (really dark noses) and away from too much depigmentation, because there are pretty good reasons for pigment beyond the aesthetic. I think there is a lot of waste happening in breeds where a colour gene is allowed to be expressed in some dogs and not others. Even if these mismarked dogs are popular as pets, they are mostly removed from the gene pool of breeding dogs, and that is to the detriment of the breed. I don't think it is always personal preference that leads to decisions being made. Parti poodles are very pretty dogs, but there are still good arguments for not breeding piebald dogs to each other. I tend to agree with puglver, old decisions shouldn't be overturned on a whim, because there are long-term consequences which will affect different breeds in different ways. I totally agree each breed and colour needs to be assessed on it's merits, I don't know much about the pied genetics so it would come down to those who do. But in the case of the breed I am interested in, the white shep, there appears to be no detrimental effects of the cream colour (apparently it is the same gene that is found in yellow labs from memory?) and it does appear to be pure preference which has resulted in a signficant split and ultimately the necessity of a second breed simply because of the colour issue, thus narrowing the gene pool (and options for buyers) on both sides of the fence.

I can't speak for others but I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that people don't consider the realistic possiblity or probability of death. As a competent adult who is capable of assessing a situation and making a decision I would hope that people would respect my ability to do so.

It's a personal choice, people make choices every day that affect their lives and the lives of people around them. A person can only make the choice that feels right to them.

Possibly not but I would still maintain that colour is largely an arbitrary consideration in many cases, and while that may have been fine back in the days standards were written (remember that some human colours were also prejudiced against back then) these days if there is no good reason to exclude them and there is enough support to include them then a revision of some of these standards might be a reasonable thing to consider. As I pointed out earlier in the thread many colours have persisted in breeds despite no active selection for them so they must be considered intrinsic and in many instances it appears that there is no logical reason for the exclusion other than personal preference, and preferences are subject to change especially over such long periods of time.

It depends, in most cases colour is an arbitrary thing which rarely seems to have an impact on the ability of the dog to do the job it was bred to do. In cases where colour does impact on the function of the animal or is closely linked to a trait that impacts on the function then it is easy to understand why certain colours are excluded. However where there appears to be no impact on function the prejudice against certain colours does seem a little nonsensical, and of course in the modern era where rare colours are coveted such exclusion can prove detrimental to the breed as a whole. Of course all breeds were developed on the whim of humans you are right about that, but most people can agree on the original purpose or function for most of the traits that make a breed, colour seems to be one of the things that not everyone agrees on and I'd say that is because of the nature of the trait as not impacting as much on the function of the breed. That is why things like conformation and temperament take precedence in good breeding programs because they are what makes the breed more than anything else.

I agree, everyone will make their own choice for their own reasons, and that is why I think it is absolutely crucial that evacuation plans where there is advance warning cater for pets as much as possible so that there are fewer people who will ever be forced to make the choice.

Too hard to calculate a probability of dying in most situations, too many dependent factors. Either way I doubt I could live with myself if I left them, I would cling to whatever slim chance there was of suriviving or at least minimizing suffering. I don't have kids so the choice is somewhat less complicated for me than it would be for many others.

I would stay. In the case of evacuations I think it's negligent that government and council don't make reasonable allowances (by reasonable I mean if the facilities are available which can accomodate animals they should be utilised). I'm not talking about unreasonable demands I wouldn't expect extra facilities for horses for example (unless they already existed eg if a showground was an evacuation centre and already had plenty of yards available) but I think that a reasonable allowance should be made for the average pet. The government is happy to acknowledge the health and community benefits that pets and animals provide, so they should also acknowledge the role pets can play in how well an individual and community can recover from disaster and where reasonable accomodation can be made available it should be. I also believe that pet owners should be educated about the best strategy in a crisis, and be aware of where they can and should go if they have time to evacuate.

No idea to be honest, no one has been able to give me a straight answer. Some old biddy didn't like them. Yep. And I bet she had them and didn't win so the colours had to go. Lol sounds like the show world :)

I think this question of 'preferences' then affecting 'standards'.... which in turn, can have 'less desirables' amongst the... is the interesting one. How much, if any, comes from a popularity thing? And how much to some reference to place (& purpose?) of origin? It seems a shame for 'interesting' colours within a breed to be selected out if it's just an 'At One Time' popularity thing. To me that makes periodic Reviews critical. For example, Tibbies now are accepted in all the solid colours, shadings & partis. But I was surprised to find out that the very attractive (to me) liver or brown, was once 'not wanted'. (That's a bit like those lovely (to me) chocolate Poms which are making a 'comeback' after many decades.) "The B-series have two alleles, and affects the color of the darker pigment. The B-gene is the allele for black pigment in coat and snout, B is dominant towards b. The b-gene is the recessive allele for livercolour or brown. A puppy will only become livercoloured or brown, if both parents carries the b-gene. Earlier liver or brown was not wanted in Tibbies, but is now approved as a colour variation." Maybe it's just me... but how could this colouring have once been 'not wanted'? Reasoning?... popularity, or some connection to place of origin? Maybe cos they look cute enough to gobble right up? :D