mita

There's the answer to the question I've been asking. A university seminar showcases a direction which is believed to be of interest. And out of the horses' mouths, here's the direction being reflected in choice of presentations....breeding of show dogs should not involve preparing/supplying them as pets. ('Pets' being companion animals to people, who largely share their domestic & interest lives with them.) So an alternative pet breeding/supply system was also presented.....one where breed standards can be jiggered with & breeds crossed. (The underlying implication is that purebreds need much fiddling with to make them good, consumer-approved pets. Sound familiar from somewhere else?) No research evidence presented (as far as I can see) WHY this should be so. But there's evidence WHY it doesn't need to be so. The University of Qld's research found that registered breeders of purebreds, significantly prepared their puppies better to be companion dogs, via socialisation.....than unregistered breeders outside the system. But then an understanding of the need & nature of socialisation seems to have gone under the radar at that seminar. Both in terms of the development of dogs' learning to be companion dogs to humans... & the very limited practice described by the 'pet' breeding person ( only handle puppies daily.) Dogs, like children, aren't 'built'.....they develop as a result of heredity and learning experiences from the environment they encounter....& which is provided by people. All dogs that will be a companion alongside humans....pet, show, even military....require the same process of early socialisation & then towards their 2nd & 3rd years, Where the Davis University Vet School points to the maturing of personality growth.....yes, that's right, it's not fixed at birth. I've already illustrated how the puppies bred/raised to be military dogs at Amberley, first have the same exemplary experiences of being a pet. So, having said all that, why would 'show' dogs be regarded as off-limits for a life as a pet? Speaking personally, I have 3 ex-show dogs at my feet (sourced from registered breeders who socialised their dogs well & which are exemplary pets). So I don't even have anecdotal evidence of WHY I should apply to the 'professional' pet breeder for a 'ideal' pet.) This forum....specialising in the welfare & development of purebred dogs....has been used to invite people to presentations which only bear out these directions.

Steve, I totally understand where you're coming from, both as the CEO of the MDBA and as a person.

What a great loss to her family & to the world of purebred dogs. Bless you, Jan, & may you rest in peace. My deepest sympathy to her husband, Peter.

A spot on comment. Especially given that dealing with any incidence of HD in a bloodline is greatly helped in purebred lines. Because incidence can not only be checked by depth of breeding, but more specifically by breadth (littermates of the parent dogs). Also heritability is not the only factor in HD. There is also the matter of diet & type of exercise in the young dog at the vulnerable stage when there's a difference in growth between tissue & bone.

Good point Steve - and I'll definitely clarify that nor am I suggesting anyone's breeding programs should be altered based only on my research project! Which is why every study is placed in a context of a literature review of what's already been published... & which would have significance for the hypothesis being tested. And it's why peer review of research reports are critical to the process of science. Scholarly work has significance when it's been opened to that. What journal was your research published in?

Yet this DOL forum has a stated purpose to develop purebred breeding via the registered system. Where there's much work already done to improve the health & welfare of various breeds, is currently being done....& needs to be done. There's also research findings of much interest. There's also great potential to carry out rigorous research because the registering system allows tracing via both depth & breadth of breeding. Which has been much lauded by researchers investigating the conditions that humans share with dogs. But now, matters on this forum have been turned to a commercially inspired supply system of 'pet' dogs. Implying that this is the one system for breeding & supplying pets, at a 'professional' level. Yet, there is evidence that the purebred system does better than the unregistered one in preparing well socialised puppies to be companion dogs. What is next required is collecting data to see if this translates into a lower dumpage rate. (The earlier research raises a fair hypothesis for testing this.) You may well care for the welfare of crossbred puppies....& so would any genuine animal lover. But this thread has seen the hijacking of the specific purpose of this forum....the further development & promotion of purebred dogs.

She is a sweetie but still very timid. Not with mum though, she's great with mum. She will let me pat her as long as I reach down from the table and stroke her. If anyone apart from mum looks at her, she will bolt into the bedroom and jump in her bed. I was surprised how easy she learned toilet training, smart little girl. No accidents at all after she realised where the other 2 dogs go. She walks on the lead fine as well. eta: see how timid she is with me, I had to corner her in the fernery outside to take a photo. She ran in there and wouldn't come out until OH and I left. This was last year though and she is getting better. Ping, a tibetan spaniel in Brisbane, was rescued in an RSPCA raid on a horrendous puppy farm some years back. When Ping was with her foster-carer, people would visit to apply for adoption. But she'd scuttle under a cupboard & hide. A couple I know adopted her because the husband lay down on his stomach on the floor for ages just gently talking to her. Eventually she came out. That was years ago & Ping is much better. But she still can get frightened & bolt for cover if she gets overwhelmed. Ping was parti-coloured, mainly white with red-gold markings. For the first 4 months, we all thought she had orange legs. Gradually the orange faded. Turned out to be staining because she'd lived at the puppy farm, past her knees in faeces & urine.

Yes, the dogs weren't sociialised. Yes, dogs in conditions like that aren't socialised. RSPCA inspector says this by way of explantion to viewing public. So? Following schnauzer's comment. I know of a breed rescue which was in contact with the RSPCA inspector in this raid. And they spoke highly of him. It's not the RSPCA which can stop puppy farms/mills from starting. It's changes in the law that's required. I've posted earlier that the law should allow Dpt of Primary Industries Inspectors to keep an eye on any places from which puppies are sold. In this case, it seems the person was a hoarder, not a puppy seller. Animal hoarders can be hard to identify. They choose isolated places to live & don't mix with other people. Usually, they're sussed out by accident. Seems in this case, someone came upon the place & tipped off the RSPCA.

The Tibetan Spaniel breed has its own international data base for each country. Sort of thing registered breeders do. http://www.tibbies.net/itswp/health-tests

Why did a university give her a platform? Unchallenged by any presentation about registered breeding?

I'd hope so, too. Great if UQ would mount a seminar or conference. UQ has a strong research base re socialisation. Which was the elephant in the room re the 'Better Dogs' seminar. IMO from reports here. It's also the home of the study which found that registered breeders tended to socialise their puppies best & control numbers of litters. And they have data on why people dump dogs in pounds. Socialisation is about what people do for dogs & dumping is what people do to dogs. Can't separate human behaviour from dog welfare. Another elephant in the room.

Well I've been accused of promoting crossbreeds just for reporting what I heard. I think board moderation was even being suggested. True - but people aren't reading what is posted by people there and just posting from their own assumptions about what they assume was said. Really, while some aspects of what was said was cotroversial and confronting, overall what was said was reasonable and backed up by studies. But some people want to say the studies are wrong. Oh, fine, KK. I understand you were just reporting what was said. But it's a tricky one when one of the presentations was so clearly commercial & based on no research-based rationale. I'm being repetitive, but I can't understand why a university would invite someone with that background of belief/practice re dog breeding to talk at a science-based unit. Frankly, that person's work should be more a subject for study than a presentation. To be fair to you, tho'....I couldn't be making this statement if you & other people hadn't told me what she said! I do have big question marks with what's been reported about the dog behaviour data collection study. . No nasties on either the researcher, or on the people who attended who've given their impressions. But it really needs critiquing. That's par for the course re research papers, tho'. ADDED: Was the director of the Animal Welfare Science Unit asked WHY the person, with her particular beliefs about breeding, was invited to be a presenter? Seminars showcase a direction in which research & theoretical thinking are heading. So who thought that the person would be talking to their sense of where dog breeding might be heading? It couldn't have been for the purpose of making comparisons.....because no one representing registered purebred breeding was invited to present a paper.

Just remember how calm the final panel question time was - anyone and everyone I spoke to was predicting it would be a fiery event and that was during lunch before Kate (the most controversial) spoke. I would have questioned the study about collecting data on dog behaviour. Very challengeable, from descriptions posted here. Has nothing to do with 'us' & 'them'. It's about content.

Dissing the presenters... or critiquing what was reported to be presented? And, very briefly introduced here. I take your point that there's a difference. Most posters seem to have stuck with the second, tho'. When any of the research work is presented/ published, the whole point is to open it to critique. It's what university scholarship is about. People are taught to be critical re content. I can't understand why anyone would diss the people who DID attend. It seems they're being helpful in passing on their impressions.

My guess she was honest yesterday. Bear in mind her website is designed to cater to her 'market' - of course you tell fibs when marketing something ;) glad you find the telling of lies to be funny. Wonder if the people who feel duped find lies funny as well. Wonder if the dogs that may now be neglected because of such lies find life funny. It escapes me why this presentation was given at a university-based seminar.

My comment still holds true. What's her rationale & aim in collecting data on whatever behaviours she's observing & calling what & recording how? She would need to provide that information if people are going to use it (for whatever purpose she intends it). Read steve's post (#465). When it comes to analysis of the data it will obviously be more complex that what I am about to say - but we were shown a few video's of some trial tests. One dog wouldn't go near the "stranger" even with the owner present. Once the owner left the dog growled at the "stranger". OK, I'm thinking "not amicable" here. One dog was shown jumping up on the stranger trying to lick him. OK we need a score of "over" amicable? ;) Peace, KK. I wasn't getting into the amicable debate. I'm only interested in her presented reasons for collecting the data & what purpose she intends to use it for. That is, rationale & aim. Which is why I've said I'll have to wait until her research report is published in a journal.

Not confused but impressed me. You're on top of the research implications & the extent of current literature. A refreshing read in this thread. I'm not suggesting you incorporate this into your study.....but similar challenges are faced re research with very young children, like babies. And that's been battled away at for yonks now, so there's piles of stuff. And there's an emerging literature in looking at if & how dogs learn in a similar way to babies & toddlers. With sensible caution, of course.

Or reading the report for the research study about whatever with the 200 dogs. Look forward to hearing what peer-reviewed journal it gets published in.

Any further explanations about socialisation apart from daily handling by humans? Socialisation also includes the environmental sights & sounds where humans actually live. Any movement out of that backyard into, at least, sections of the house? With even wider range for the adult dogs? Best account of socialisation I've heard was given by the DogsVic rottweiler breeder on Radio National. And now what kirst-golden said above!!! Socialisation which is the learning process for dogs remains the poor relation. Yet, this is how dogs' behaviours are developed & shaped. Interestingly, researchers have put dogs up there as the animals whose learning style...& needs....are similar to pedagogy in young children.

My comment still holds true. What's her rationale & aim in collecting data on whatever behaviours she's observing & calling what & recording how? She would need to provide that information if people are going to use it (for whatever purpose she intends it).

...If only dogs pecked. A peck is a peck is a peck. No degrees of 'peck'. Interesting thing is that all the posters are actually filling in (from their own impressions) the rationale & aim which should be written to accompany this test, behavioral observation, or whatever the creator's named it. Currently, the slants are all over the place. From a test to help pick out dogs with desired (or non-desired) behavioral patterns... to a thesaurus of definitions about dog behaviour interpreted by the researcher into observable actions (& therefore believed to be of use to later researchers). No wonder people can't figure out what it's all about. They would need to read a rationale & aim.

It's the creator's responsibility to provide a manual for proper use. Which would need to include a rationale on which the testing protocol is based. And the rationale....not the test items....is the heart of the matter.

Actually, Erny, you're on to something that's true for testing of humans....say, intelligence. A test tests what the manual says it tests. It doesn't necessarily reflect what the testee does in real-life situations. And you've been talking about real-life situations for dogs. Like, there's evidence that people who showed better everyday decision-making skills were those who'd had signficantly fewer negative events in their lives....regardless of differences in intelligence test scores. So life events count for how people learn to think their way thro' everyday life. You've actually been saying it'd be the same for dogs. Yep....& some researchers are considering how to test for that with humans. But they're right in saying it would require a multimillion-dollar research program.

Have you noticed that show dogs have a wider life than trotting around the show ring? A life, where how they interact with humans on a wider scale is the key to their surviving. So, the fact that a dog is a show dog, doesn't negate the high requirement that a dog be bred & raised so that it's well socialised with people. Whatever breed it is. Where else would behavioral traits need to be more stable, than for dogs certified to do pet therapy work with the frail, elderly, sick children & psychiatric patients? The woman who heads the Dogs Victoria Pet Therapy team of dogs, spoke recently on Radio National. The canine members of that team....all Show dogs....defy the stereotypes which the Got To Alter Breeds to Make Pets brigade are peddling. These therapy dogs are un-lobotomized & un-breed altered purebred dogs, including rottweilers, great danes, kelpies....as well as a mastiff named Clinton. And other breeds, too. The RN announcer almost choked when he heard that rotties are in the therapy team. His impression, up to then, was that rotties hardly could make it as a pet, much less a therapy dog. But the Dogs Vic woman was brilliant. Explaining how these dogs were produced from good stock over generations & had been socialised with meticulous care. Resulting in dogs that were of the highest standard in the role of therapy pets. And much loved by the clients (Clinton the mastiff doing especially good work with psychiatric patients). She emaphasized that these dogs were still show dogs.....& the clients were delighted when the dogs 'brought' in ribbons they'd won at the last show. All of this contradicts one line being peddled at that seminar.....that 'pet' material is wanting within purebred ranks & across breeds. And, therefore, a lot of crossbreeding jiggling needs to be done. It's also in line with the 'study' direction at that unit which leaps straight from a survey of perceptions about dogs as pets, to an enterprise of building better pets. Leaving out any research into how those perceptions stack up with the current reality. Thereby serving to set stereotypes about dogs in stone. This nonsense is riding on an ideological bandwagon that started with the wretchedly biased BBC program.....& has proceeded from there, with the wobbliest of 'science'. It has far more to do with raising consumer 'wants' about finding an ideal pet.....& feeding consumers a line that there'll now be this unique way of building ideal pets. DDs revisited.