mita

Maybe if costs can be modelled to see if, by making dog rego more affordable & a once only matter.....it would eventually lessen dog management expenses? Just a thought. Coming from someone who's reduced council impoundment costs for quite a pile of dogs....simply because those dogs had a rego tag linked into a current data base. Cost to council.....one phone call to the owners. It was the same kind of cost modelling that one of the US cities did. They worked out that, by the municipal authorities providing low cost or no cost desexing of pet dogs, their dog management costs were hugely lessened over time. I can look up the reference for that. That's the same idea behind the 2 councils in central Qld providing for discounted desexing ( for certain categories).

I agree about not assigning all responsibility to the Council. But I don't blame someone for not leaving collar on at home either. Compulsory (and well enforced) microchipping should be the standard everywhere, IMHO. Disagree. Dogs are usually at home before they go missing. Tradespeople leaving gates open, wind blowing gates, dogs digging under fences etc etc etc. So an owner bears full responsibility when their dog manages to get out (or be left out) without their collar showing ID disk, rego tag....& even the tag which shows they're microchipped. What do you expect the council to do.....notice your dog is getting out & come round to your place, find its ID collar & put it on? I make it a standard practice to put our dogs' collars back on immediately after a bath. The one occasion when our dogs got out (tradesperson leaving 2 gates ajar), I got a phone call within 5 minutes from a person nearby. She had the dogs safe. We live near shops which seem to attract lost dogs.....& have found many trotting by over the years. Every one of them had a current Brisbane or Pine Rivers rego tag on their collar. Both councils then contacted the owners who arrived pretty promptly to collect them from us. On another occasion a person from the Caboolture council even helped track down, from an expired rego tag, the owners of a dog, who had moved to Brisbane. Which is why I'd like to see the system of registration made affordabe & easy for dog owners. I also like the idea of lifetime registration which seems to be available in NSW.

I just wanted to know if the science / study could be located; had a name, jist etc lilli, I love the little blue guy. Haven't seen him before.

If an impounded dog can be PTS in 3 days when it doesn't have ID or microchip or reggo...who cares if it's desexed or not desexed? If an owner doesn't want to have a dead dog, then the owner has to get on to the ID, microchip, & reggo. Anything that can highlight those facts....and simplify & cheapen getting it done....would be helpful. I think, in the Brisbane area, if a dog's owner has a Breeder/Show licence, then they don't pay the more expensive fee for an undesexed animal. Could that apply in the Ipswich area so the registered show breeders wouldn't be penalised for having undesexed show dogs? All purely pet dogs should be desexed IMO. A couple of councils in Central Qld provide a contribution to the desexing of dogs belonging to pension card holders (maybe others, too). The system is handled for the Council by a rescue group....Capricorn Animal Aid.

Good on you for coming on the Net to discuss the case. To be honest, it is an owner responsibility to get their dogs registered/microchipped because no matter how careful we are, accidents & stuff-ups happen and dogs can get out. I know, from being on these forums, that perfectly healthy, young, well-behaved & even purebred pet dogs have been picked up in the Brisbane area. And after 3 days in the clink & unclaimed (no ID, no microchip, no reggo) , have been PTS. Which has terrified me witless about putting an ID disk on our dogs' collars, & getting them microchipped & registered with the council. I got a new adult dog from NSW last week....& the race to get all her Qld stuff in order has taken more time & paperwork than getting a new baby registered. Changing microchip details, getting her desexed, getting her ownership changed on her pedigree papers, getting a copy of the council registration form, photocopying piles of papers to do with all this....even getting a money order because the Brisbane Council requires that kind of payment for first registration. And also getting her an ID disc with name & phone no to put on her collar as soon as she was delivered to Brisbane airport. And all that cost heaps, too. Even tho', it can make the Council seem like an evil pet dog killer.....people have to know all this is necessary so their lost dog doesn't get PTS. My question is....can all this be made a bit easier and/or cheaper? For the average Joe Blow Public. Even tho' frankly I don't know how myself. I know I'm talking about Brisbane Council, but all those things have to be done in Ipswich, too. The idea about your Council linking up with the RSPCA Qld Lost & Found data base would be great. The folk who run that are a legend at persistence. Also the idea of setting up a website with pics, like Canberra would be excellent, too.

The pics are awesome. Those camels actually look pretty.... very well cared for. Maybe that's why they're not smelly.

Amen to that.

I didn't explain myself well, Steve. I meant a mini-puppy farm more in how its run....not the size of the property.

Steve, mini-puppy farms is my own term for someone who keeps a smaller number of dogs & whose main priority is to sell the offspring for profit. But who doesn't put socialisation as the very core of the activity. I've always said....& the research would support me....that even if such breeding is done in pristine surroundings, but there's no grasp re companion dogs needing to learn socialisation from a key young age....towards the maturing of personality in the 2nd or 3rd year...then that's still puppy farming. I don't know where Kate's practices lie, in this regard....but I would have expected that to be a central issue in any presentation re a model for breeding. Without such a core to breeding & raising dogs, it would be the same as clean, neat little sheds for raising chickens.

Ah, thanks for this, Steve. Now I get where the connection would be, why the lady was invited to be a presenter.

Mita - the full title of the seminar was "building better dogs - Using what we've learned about genetic and experiential effects to improve dog welfare" not "building better dogs - let's repeat what we already know and have known for years". From looking at the invite sheet, Kate was the only presenter who was not an academic researcher. Which is not what I thought would be at a university seminar. However, she was presenting something "new" in that she presented a model for commercial dog farmers, a model which, while not ideal, is much better than the reality of a puppy farm with cages and limited human contact. So it certainly fitted in with the idea that the seminar (improving dog welfare). I appreciate reading your answers, KK. I've already referred to hereditary factors and experiential learning being the cues to human's developing dogs best fitted to live alongside them. Socialisation of puppies & young dogs are therefore key variables. Welfare-based breeding would need to stress that. And has already been studied in that registered breeders have been found to socialise puppies better than unregistered ones. Yet this seminar over-looked such research. Which would actually give data for any welfare model. Kate's model is more of accommodation rather than one with a core stressing socialisation & personality growth. A sort of mini-puppy farm in the backyard....based on some erroneous beliefs about purebred dogs. And where jiggling & mixing of breeds will 'correct' those 'deficiencies'.

The place of universities is to present material in a scholarly context. The material presented by the breeding lady does not meet that criterion. So you're saying, forget scholarship, bring in to universities to speak, anyone who just thinks 'Oh, that's a good idea I've got!'....because it will get bottoms on seats leading to more research money. Universities with a record for scholarship don't have to get money like that.

At last. Someone from the world of registered dog breeding who doesn't roll over & show their tummy. One comment. This seminar was run at a unit called the Animal Welfare Science Unit at Monash University. But reflects the directions of whosoever got the idea to hold the seminar & what directions it should take & who should speak at it. It does not represent the entire body of research from veterinary science institutions around Australia & the world. In fact, what I've quoted to support my concerns, comes from that general literature.

Some good points mita. Just on this last bit, again we now have a HUGE over-emphasis on a very small single point. The 'daily contact' was just one sentence in Kate's presentation about her proposed code of ethics for commercial breeders. So it's really taking things totally out of context that the seminar was somehow advocating this for good puppy rearing. As a topic, puppy rearing was not discussed at all. KK, the point of the seminar was 'building' better dogs....i.e., making them better fitted to live alongside humans. The issue of socialisation of puppies & young dogs towards maturing of personality, is the absolutely central point to that. This seminar & the puppy raising lady missed it totally. In fact, if a welfare model of raising puppies/dogs towards a better life, is to be proposed....the entire 'how/what' to do, would progress from that. And its in fact a key indication of puppy farming.

I'll be sending in a submission to the RSPCA's call for comments re puppy farming. Best place for some of these issues, now.

I really think you're reading too much into it - to me it was just a catchy alliteration. One speaker did refer to the title - but I can't remember exactly what they said. She wasn't there to "illustrate purpose for breeding", she was there to present a model for better practices in commercial dog breeding. The main thrust of the entire day was, afterall, about dog welfare. Not quite, what they did separate out was breeders who bred only for show and, more to the point, show wins. Two comments were made about this - the first one already discussed about them selling pets, and a second comment (and this one was made a couple of times) that in some breeds this leads them to breeding for extremes that were not good for the dog healthwise. I hadn't thought of it from that angle, but now that you've articulated it I would have to say I thought the seminar was actually about pulling down boundaries, not creating false ones. That's my impression anyways Good to read your comments, KK. I have an academic reason for rejecting the word 'building', in an academic context, to describe something that's a developmental process. It shows the conceptualisation behind what was to be presented. I've already pointed out that the key factor, in any dog, living alongside humans...the growth of personality via interactions with humans....was not a key factor at that semimar. And it should be, because by 'better', they mean better equipped to live closely alongside humans. I looked up the conference publications for that unit & there's no emphasis on that issue re companion dogs. So it's not surprising, it didn't figure largely. http://www.animalwelfare.net.au/comm/comm08.html I beg to differ on the breeding lady.....she was the only speaker who illustrated a purpose for breeding....& that was labelled 'pets'. I've already pointed out that registered breeders also provide pets... one of their purposes for breeding. But only one source was highlighted for practical example at the seminar.....& it's one that doesn't have research into it. There is, however, research into registered breeders. If so many 'show' people breed their dogs only for 'show' (& that somehow deprives the puppies) , how come the data collected by the U of Q showed that registered breeders significantly socialised their puppies more than unregistered breeders? And from the grasp of socialisation shown in this seminar, in general, & in the breeding lady's presentation, in particular...her model fits into the latter category. In a seminar which includes a 'model' for breeding pets.....there should have been acknowledgement of that existing 'purebred' trend towards better socialisation, so the data could inform other welfare models. I'll also differ with you about the setting up of boundaries between categories of dogs. Without any presentation of evidence, statements were made about showdogs. Given that the seminar never got into the basic factor of what it takes for dogs, any dogs, to be companions alongside people....the impression is left that the only model for producing pets, given at the seminar, will prepare puppies in terms of welfare.

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. A fair point, gundoglover. The siren call... But if a university has, & values, their position of high rating for research, they watch their own standing in the scholarly community like a hawk. There's also a difference between a controversial speaker who is presenting a novel view but within the parameters of scholarship...& someone who just thinks they're on to a good idea.

I think the title was just "building better dogs". I think 3 of the 4 keynote speakers all owned purebred dogs. And certainly some of the student presenters also owned purebred dogs. Yes, 'building' was the word & its why I keep putting it in inverted commas (& with a sic, after it). An inappropriate word to describe what is a developmental process. A development that continues until a dog draws its last breath (same as for humans). 'Building' something, implies an end point, when something has been completed. The speaker they chose to illustrate purpose for breeding.....was the woman who commercially breeds pets. By jiggling purebreds & mixedbreeds. As you've pointed out yourself....they tended to separate 'show' dogs into a category outside the loop of pets. I've pointed out that show dogs, military dogs or just full-time pet dogs.....are all companions to people. And it's with people they develop their personalities....as well as their tasks. This direction from this seminar is towards creating false boundaries among all the dogs that are destined to live alongside people. And putting up, for illustration, the work of someone who has set up an association of (specially) pet breeders. As if registered breeders or purebreds do not also breed pets. As do the military dog folk for the first 12 months.

I think they were speaking anecdotedly, but am not sure. I'll look forward to the seminar being actually published so many things discussed here so far can be cleared up. It's too easy to take a single remembered comment, have it taken out of context, and then have a pistols at dawn argument over what was actually being said. No pistols drawn, KK. It's all about content. Their position re registered purebred dog breeding is actually a key point. Because the title of their seminar was about 'building' better pet dogs. Registered breeders of purebreds, breed & raise pet dogs. And an alternative model of breeding pets was being presented. If, at best, purebred breeding was dismissed with anecdotal evidence of a 'good job', the phrase, 'dammed with faint praise', fits. There actually is some scientific evidence .....which if presented....would provide insights for breeding any puppies in a welfare model.

TSD, I totally understand your own personal respect for the huge challenges of science. But if it's a scientific setting, why put up a keynote speaker that would make the average scientist raise eyebrows. I've been noting that matters to do with the development of dogs' personalities didn't figure largely in any of the topics. When I'd expect, from the published literature, it would be a major feature re any seminar that was aiming at 'building' (sic) better pets. Had that been factored in, any speakers would be chosen to the extent to which they could illuminate or illustrate that.

Steven needs to add an "only" in that sentence. If they had actually said something that basically meant "if you show your dogs then don't sell dogs as pets" there woulda been a mass walkout! That's for that, KK. But you haven't picked up on my point that you also said the speakers commented that most registered breeders 'do good job'. But don't seem to have presented any scientific evidence of why they could say that. If such evidence exists, that would point to published data which would be useful in producing a general model. But if there's not evidence......why would they say that at a university seminar? A bit of popularism, perhaps?

Well, Ive always looked warily at small dogs ever since reading the Cordoba study. Just joking. This is why it puzzled me that a university would ask her to present, re a model for producing pets. There's lots of sound research which points to the human factor in how dogs' personalities are developed. That should have pride of place in any scientifically sound rationale behind any system of raising puppies & young dogs. Gawd help me.....the military dog people provide a brilliant model based on that. Now if only every puppy destined to be a pet could enrol from birth to 12 months up at Amberley. Just joking again. And there's already useful assessment tools & guidelines re personality & behaviour (just check out Davis Uni Vet School info on that). Of course, there are heritable aspects involved in personality. Another reason why sound selection for breeding decisions are critical. Incidentally, 'show' people would have a vested interest in breeding towards a sound temperament. For the simple reason, the showing of dogs requires extensive socialisation around people & other dogs.

Why are people taking what this person says on face value when she makes claims with absolutely no basis IN scientific knowledge. A scientific study from the University of Cordoba. Note crossbreeds were included but in much lesser numbers. Note 'purebreed specific' did not come out in the dog factors associated with aggression. But note most of all, the prime place of owner's actions. Breed has less influence on aggressiveness The Spanish researchers studied 711 dogs (354 males and 357 females) of which 594 were purebred and 117 were half-breed dogs older than one year of age. Among the breeds observed were the Bull Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the Alsatian, the Boxer, the Rottweiler, the Doberman, as well as apparently more docile breeds such as the Dalmatian, the Irish Setter, the Golden Retriever, the Labrador Retriever, the Miniature Poodle, the Chihuahua, the Pekinese, or the French Bulldog, which also exhibit dominant behaviour. According to Pérez-Guisado, certain breeds, male sex, a small size, or an age of between 5-7 years old are "the dog-dependent factors associated with greater dominance aggression". Nevertheless, these factors have "minimal effect" on whether the dog behaves aggressively. Factors linked to the owner's actions are more influential.

No-one said that. They repeatedly said that most breeders do a very good job. However there was one comment about breeders who breed only for wins in the showring and have taken their eye off the ball (or even don't care) as to how good their dogs are as 'pets'. The jist was (and correct me if I'm wrong those who took notes), if you are that sort of breeder then don't sell to pet homes and cull. KK, I was responding to Steve's note on the seminar. Both Helen Bennett and Mike Gollard made comment that perhaps people who breed show dogs shouldnt breed pet dogs If you heard something different.....that most (registered?) breeders do a good job. Was there any evidence presented for that? Because if there's evidence for a 'good job....it'd hold up some light of science in regards the welfare of dogs, in general. I've already posted that's how science works....it looks to what's been found so far. So wouldn't that 'good job' be a logical place to look for data to construct a model re any dogs?

No worries, deerhound....I get what you're saying & thanks for the further info. We'll have to differ on this. But I've been speaking about registered purebreds as pets.....that are directly available thro' the system of registered breeders. UQ research very clearly studied that cohort. The material & direction presented at that seminar were commercial supply of pet dogs (outside that system) & was a promotion of it, by publicly discarding the value of non-commercially supplied registered purebreds as pets. How puppies are bred, raised & sold is of enormous welfare interest. But the already studied welfare benefits to puppies from registered breeders are not acknowledged in that seminar material. Rather 'show' dogs are seen as not being in the loop at all.