gundoglover

Great letter on an important topic. You have outlined the problem clearly and provided an action for Dogs NSW and ANKC to consider.

Yes, particularly these days when universities are expected to be more self-funded. A controversial keynote speaker can attract media interest & therefore funding through advertisers. All the scientific conferences & seminars that I have attended have the disclaimer that the views of the speakers are not the views of the hosting body.

The Neuter Championship was decided at the ANKC Conference and will come into effect on 1st July 2010: "1.8 New Championship Title for Neutered Dogs It was resolved that a new Championship Title be implemented for Neutered dogs from 1 July, 2010. The title will be designated “Neutered Champion”. The source document is available at: http://www.google.com/cse?q=ANKC+Neuter+Ch...70&ie=UTF-8

Steve, Your inbox is full, so I couldn't PM you. I'll try to put my thoughts on this carefully for this public forum. It seems to me that pedigreed dog breeders, showies & triallers are at risk from two opposite directions: the Animal Rights lobby, that wants an end to all pet ownership, and the pet cross-breeders, that want to make money and take over what is left of the pet market for pedigreed puppies. It is in the interests of both groups to spread disinformation about pedigreed dogs and pedigreed breeding and to highlight the worst outcomes of pedigreed dogs. It has been suggested that given the Animal Rights infiltration of some RSPCA's that we should look to the National Farmer's Federation to help us because they are also targeted by Animal Rights factions. However, the NFF is more likely to assist the commercial pet cross-breeders because they are running commercial businesses, farming puppies much like pig farmers. To the NFF I imagine that we hobby breeders are too disorganised. The ANKC & CC's are not rich enough - they don't have anything like the assets & income of organisations like PETA or NFF. They are also just as disorganised as their constituency. Pedigreed dog breeders cannot agree amongst themselves about the way forward, so how can the bodies that represent them? The bringing in of a Neuter Championship in 2010 provides the possibility of engaging the broader pet owning public in our sport and may be a useful initiative, as is the recording of health tests with the registration for some breeds (on the advice of their breed councils), even though these are hotly disputed by the current show & breeding fraternity. So, who else is there to support pedigreed dog breeders? Maybe our satisfied customers in the pet market? We do need a powerful lobby that politicians will listen to. We need an alternative welfare-oriented view to re-engage RSPCA, if possible. Maybe the RSPCA's request for input into their Puppy Farming paper is an opportunity for this. The MDBA is the beginning of a step in this direction but it is small. It has the advantage of bringing together breeders, pet owners and rescuers that agree to adopt a responsible code. So the potential for a broad base is there. I do hope that you & goldchow & the others are able to find a way to maintain your heart, reach the general pet-owning public & find a way through this broad base to reach the ears of the politicians. If we are to save our beautiful breeds and our engaging hobby-sport, we will need to educate and engage the politicians and the voters on which they depend.

Yes, that makes sense. After all, they may go off for a week's hunting but would then come home. And your last sentence is very true!

The guarding breeds are expected to bond with a family so the response of the GSD's and Boxers fretting for their puppy families makes sense. I am surprised at the Golden Retrievers fretting. Given that retrievers were developed as breeds that could be borrowed by any shooter who wanted a pick-up dog, they were originally selected for the friendliness and willingness to go with anyone to do the work. The response of the Labradors is much more what I would have expected of all the retrievers, and other gundogs, too, for that matter. It's worrying if some lines of Goldens have lost that.

Unless you are feeding the meat with milk or adding a tsp of bonemeal, the meat without the bone is not balanced for calcium. For fish, I'd recommend sardines because they have the bones in them so a bit more balanced for calcium than tinned tuna.

They may be research suggesting that cross-bred offspring have reduced incidence of HD than their parent breeds, however, this is not zero incidence, so relying on the hybrid vigour argument without health checking the parents, would still be foolish, and promoting such pups as being free of heredity diseases simply because they are cross-bred is highly misleading. There are lines within the pedigreed pure-breeds that consistently produce better hips than their breed averages without having to resort to cross-breeding. They do so by health-testing and breeding from stock with hips better than average. This doesn't mean that they will never produce the occasional pup with poor hips, but then if the claim for improving hips by cross-breeding is that the resultant pups have reduced likelihood of HD, this is no improvement over careful selection from health tested pedigreed lines.

There is a lot of misinformation about hybrid vigour. Hybrid vigour applies for fertility and growth factors and MAY have some relevance for some immune diseases. The hybrid vigour argument does NOT apply for diseases like PRA, HD, etc, because these are in so many breeds of dog. Unless it can be established that the contributor genes for these diseases have different modes of inheritance in the two breeds to be used for crossing, with no overlapping genes, then relying on the crossing to eliminate the problem is foolish. The only way to reduce the likelihood of passing on these widespread canine genes is to health check the parents, just like with the pure breeds. And these tests need to interpreted by specialists, ie, opthalmologists, radiographers, accredited in these fields. As has been posted before, anyone wishing to cross-breed can do so through the CC's by presenting a clear argument as to the purpose of doing so.

Usually a farmer will buy in stud rams or bulls to produce cross-bed lambs or calves. It is rare that they would buy a stud ewe or cow and then usually to breed their own purebred ram or bull. I guess if we want to accommodate this F1 pet market idea (not sure that we do), but if, then it would be more sensible to allow pedigreed studs to be used - less impact on the purebred gene pool that way. With the added advantage that at least the pedigreed studs could have known health checks, etc., so would be better for this purpose than selling puppies to cross-breeders.

Thankyou for this detailed summary. One question that I'd have liked to be able to put if I'd been there, was whether the proposed code for commercial breeder's would require health testing of the sire & dam & whether the speaker health-tested her own stock. Do you remember if this was touched during the seminar?

Sounds like you are on the right track with diet & the daily weight gains are encouraging. The main problem with HD & over-nutrition is rolypoly puppies with more weight than their legs can carry. It is actually very possible that your puppy is refusing kibble because he associates it with being sick. So, maybe give him a break from the kibble & reintroduce later if you want it to be a part of his diet. Dogs can thrive without kibble. If your puppy is now the biggest in the litter, I would seriously consider reporting the pet store - a whole litter of underweight goldens means long term under-nutrition of the dam & puppies. You've rescued your puppy but maybe you can do something to stop more puppies ending up in his situation who may not be so lucky.

Good luck. Let the steward & the judge know that you are new to trialling. Most will be helpful & explain things as you go.

Etiquette is in the section titled " Exhibitors and Handlers"

There is a pdf for Obedience on the ANKC website under Rules: www.ankc.org.au/Rules.aspx These apply in all states and territories.

I forgot to answer your question about quantities. I'd feed him all he'll eat four times a day, given his low weight. For a rule of thumb, a four month old golden requires as much food as an adult, so at 8 weeks you'd feed about half an adult's portion - but he has a lot of growing to make up, so feed him quality food as much as he'll take. He may find the biscuits too hard if he is teething - try soaking in milk or yoghurt. You can give him sardines every other day, with coddled egg (yolk runny) and liver on the alternate days to supplement the canned food/kibble. I feed completely raw from weaning, so can't really help you with the amount of canned or kibble, but I'd feed him as much as he will eat to try to make up for his under-nutrition.

You don't mention how often a day you feed him. A golden should weigh about a kilo for each week of age up until about 6 months old. So, your pup weighs half what he should for his age. You don't mention how often you feed him, nor if you are adding milk to his diet. With such an underweight pup, I suggest feeding 4 times a day, adding milk to the canned/kibble. A whole tin of sardines is good for him, as is chopped liver. You can also start him on raw chicken necks and raw lamb ribs cut into individual ribs with the meat & fat left on - this will be good for his teething. By the way did you report the pet shop to the RSPCA? And you can probably claim the vet bills from the pet shop if you take them to Fair Trading. Given the pup's low weight, I expect that he will never make full size & I guess that you realise that you've taken on a dog that is likely to have problems for the rest of his probably shortened life. Good luck and best wishes.

There is some evidence from recombinant experiments, eg, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1461880/ This research with plants shows that inbreeding depression is not random, but is increased for linked genes (ie, genes on the same chromosome). The more closely linked the lower the recombination rate for genes and the greater the depression associated with inbreeding. So, from this we would expect stronger effects of inbreeding depression for kangaroos (fewer chromosomes, therefore higher degree of linkage, lower rate of recombination for most genes) than carp.

I think that angelsun is referring to dogs having 78 pairs of chromosomes and humans having 46 pairs of chromosomes, the theory being that breeding closely related dogs is potentially less problematic than breeding closely related humans together. The concept of linkage supports this view. Linkage refers to genes that are on the same chromosome and therefore tend to be assorted together during reproduction. The closer together that the genes are on the chromosome the more likely that they will be passed on together to the next generation. This is because when the chromosomes come together in sexual reproduction they cross over each other and recombine, hence the study of recombinant molecular genetics. However, what this means for inbreeding is that with many more chromosomes than humans, there is a reduced likelihood of selecting for one gene and doubling up on an unwanted gene just because they happen to be on the same chromosome. The greater the number of chromosomes the less linkage for the genes. It still happens but is less frequent. So, in theory it should be possible to inbreed more closely with dogs than humans before defects occur in the offspring.

No, of course I don't criticize you for intervening to help a suffering creature, if you can. I've done so myself. I just object to labels like "biological xenophobia" being bandied around. And I admit to a flaw in my character that when I see an extreme view being stated, I find it difficult not to point out the logical consequences of adopting such a position.

Shel & Pink Panther, I accept the criticism of taking things to the extreme in my posting above. But then responding to the OP's request for some understanding of the need to humanely reduce the numbers of pest species (that is seriously impacting on native bird life) by accusing such advocates of "biological xenophobia" is pretty extreme, too. I also accept the charge of using imprecise language by referring to parasites, vermin and other pests by the imprecise (and, incorrect) term of vermin. The statement that we need to have a vet present when destroying vertebrates is news to me - why then is mice & rat poison sold in supermarkets without any such warning that a vet must be present when employing the product? Lighten up, guys. The middle path is usually the sensible one in the end.

I wasn't suggesting that we adjust DOL for people's individual life-styles and choices. However, if geography dictates a maximum number of shows for a significant minority of DOL people, then it seems to me that it would be fairer to set that number as the limit rather than picking an arbitrary number.

If there are exhibitors who only have 24 shows each year within driving distances of where they live, then the results from the best 24 for DOL pointscore would be fairer than arbitrarily selecting 30 or 40 as the cut-off.

Shel & Pink Panther, Biological xenophobia indeed! I do hope that you practise what you preach thoroughly and do not do anything to reduce the capacity of all species to thrive to the best of their ability, including those that most humans actively practise biological xenophobia against: mice, rats,cockroaches, flies, mosquitoes, ticks, lice, intestinal worms, maggots, etc! If so, I imagine that your households and bodies are now over-run with vermin doing what comes naturally.

I agree with sandgrubber's comments. I think that the CC's are looking at banning close matings because (a) they are rare, and (b) it is seen to be politically correct and possibly expedient to do so.