mita

Psssssst! That beautiful tibbie girl is in South Australia (down south!). Seriously, tho', I'm so impressed how people can identify your clipped Afghans. Fair enough....with hair on, their elegance is unique. But, 'Saluki' clipped? I'd expect that to 'throw' ID (it would have with me!). I love kids, tho' for IDing dogs. They make up labels. Folk next door had 3 nice grandchildren visiting from Sydney. Man at the back gave them Sunday morning entertainment, by sitting them up high to watch him hydrobath his little tribe of racing greyhounds. The kids were glued to the spectacle.....& how each grey did a post-bath victory lap around the big backyard. No matter how much we told them they were 'Greyhounds'.....to the kids, they were The Dogs With the Long Legs. Now back in Sydney....after their holiday in Qld took in every theme park & beach.....those kids still keep talking about the highlight for them. Watching The Dogs With The Long Legs getting bathed & having a run. They'd call your dogs, The Dogs With The Long Legs With Fur On.

Well, there's a lickle smoochie faced Tibbie girl that a good breeder wants to retire to the best of homes! Wearing her full fur. Seriously it was amazing you picked the breed minus fur....when most people can't pick a tibbie a la natural.

I followed your reference & it was interesting. SM is not a breed specific problem., but also found in some other smaller breeds...& with more domed heads, too! And not even just a dog problem. It said in the CKCS, SM can be associated with an abnormality in the occipital bone. No mention, specifically, of head size/general conformation in making a diagnosis....but just gave details of the difference with this bone. http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:M0Bmw...p;client=safari More evidence for how shallow & narrow that BBC program was.

Ofcom could only adjudicate on what was said in the BBC1 program....not comment on what was not said. So Ofcom didn't point to what was ignored in the program. The extent of work the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club had done....& is still doing....re any health problems in the breed. And there's a great account of that, in the Dog Genetic Health section of the Kennel Club website. http://www.doggenetichealth.org/cavalier_k...paniel_club.php In a later statement, the program producer said she's gone for examples that would whip up attention. Which means this program was not a documentary....which gives wide coverage of a subject. It was narrow strike & burn for effect Imagine how different a true documentary would have been, if a full & accurate account of events re Cavs, had been given. Just as the Cav Club Chairperson describes.

I got a forwarded email of an originating email about this - the original said "pass on to anyone that may be interested" (or something along those lines. Doesn't sound like a 'closed shop' event to me. Read what I wrote. I did not say this seminar (or any seminar) was a 'closed shop' for attendance. In fact, I said they may well have a mailing list to notify various people of the event. What I did say was that outsiders are invited, specifically, by the institution's staff to present papers at a seminar. There is not a general call for papers. Presentations from any outsiders are by invitation only. The email you got was an invitation to attend & to pass that on to others.....not a specific invitation from the staff to present a paper.

I found there's a NZ Companion Animal group that hosted a 2009 conference. But their brief is more towards welfare. I'd argue, tho', that dog welfare has to take in the complex issues associated with the breeding & raising of dogs. Lots of hard evidence point to both being significant for dogs as companions. Not just the warm fuzzies as presented in a TV ad, with just the right dog, behaving like just the right dog. http://nzcac.org.nz/companion-animal-conference-2

This seminar' is, like all university seminars, an 'in-house' event of the AWSC. It reflects an in-house staff party line. You might hope the ANKC would be a member on some advisory committee associated with the AWSC. But, even if it were, a seminar program is a staff decision. Any advisory committee has little teeth in a university where academic freedom reigns supreme. But money 'talks' these days. And I'm struck by the type of language being used....which sounds like the 'spin' of advertising. Like producing the ideal dog for Australia If I remember correctly, it was 2 private organisations which were supplying the funding for that. (And, god help me, the commercial interest by KS, in producing the less 'scenting' beagle with a shorter nose. Please do not tell KS, how our 2 dogs brilliantly scent tracked a burglar far out into the black night, enabling him to be identified. The police praised them mightily. Those dogs were short-nosed tibbies.) Supply some money for purebred research & watch any researchers, anywhere, falling over each other to sign up. Which is why I prefer research grants to go thro' the ACR (Australian Research Council), for funding, where proposals are ranked by independent experts & the money comes from the public purse.

Kennel Associations could well mount some seminars which (like all seminars) presented a position. In this case, the best of the research around, about purebred dogs. Sure could do with some spreading! And they could be brave & invite an outsider like KS to present her mixed-breeding views in a panel format. (If someone with such an opposite view would accept an invitation!). BUT a conference would present numbers of positions (so long as the papers could demonstrate they were based on evidence). There you'd have presentations which would show opposite points of view. Usually places like Universities are good for mounting conferences.....because that's the job of a university, to weigh different sides up. Don't know if any Australian University would pick up that tab, tho'. Costs a lot more to get a wide range of presenters from a variety of sources. But these issues desperately need getting out into the open....via full, frank & informed debate.

This thread is about a specific seminar at Monash University. Any outside speakers are invited to a seminar, to support the in-house staff position being presented. Dr Peter Higgins, in his capacity as PR vet for a Kennel Club, was obviously not invited. A whole list of other people who'd have an academic or stakeholder interest in the issues, were also not invited. As is the wont with seminars....which are much, much narrower than conferences. Have they asked to go on the "seminar invite/notification" list though? Would they not be like me, who did this? Should they wait for a special invitation? There's a difference between invite & notification. Seminars only invite outsiders to present work.....when that work follows on from some direction the in-house staff is taking. I have no idea if Monash University has a mailing list which notifies outside stakeholders that they are holding a seminar....& inviting them to attend, not perform (as is the wont for seminars). And, if so, I have no idea whose names are on it. My argument is that the issue they're covering is far too complex for a simple one-dimensional seminar. Should be opened up far more widely via a conference form. Good conferences are expensive to mount, however. And I don't know who'd pick up that task.

CAWE is a 'Chair' re animal welfare at UQ. It's not the same as the Centre for Companion Animal Health (CCAH) at the UQ, which produces highly relevant research relating to the interface between humans & companion pets....and also the appalling problem of so many being PTS is shelters & pounds. The CCCQ works in cooperation with such research.....& also in matters like the world standard advancement re deafness in dogs (thanks to the ACD club). The latter had great significance, too, re deafness in humans.

This thread is about a specific seminar at Monash University. Any outside speakers are invited to a seminar, to support the in-house staff position being presented. Dr Peter Higgins, in his capacity as PR vet for a Kennel Club, was obviously not invited. A whole list of other people who'd have an academic or stakeholder interest in the issues, were also not invited. As is the wont with seminars....which are much, much narrower than conferences.

You've checked that there was actually a call for papers? That's the protocol for a conference. Because conferences want a wide offering in research directions, as well as depth re specific issues. This Monash activity is a seminar. Seminars are in-house, with staff featuring (as in this case) plus invited speakers who illustrate further the in-house position. I wish to heaven there were a conference on the topic of the breeding & raising of companion dogs. And, to go far out, I'd like to see health & adjustment issues relating to companion dogs coming under the aegis of the National Health & Medical Research Council. Why? Because there is strong evidence of the link between the health & well-being of humans, with companion dogs....in all sorts of situations where they interface. Right down to post traumatic stress being detected in shelter/pound workers who have to PTS hundreds of rehomeable pets.

Pity that KS wasn't a regular reader of DOL. It's been pointed out here, many times, that dogs on all sorts of community registers, like council registration etc, are given description options....Primary Breed & Secondary Breed. Purebreds, of course, are in option 1 only. Mixed-breeds are inserted with a breed in both options. However, when breeds are 'pulled' for data purposes (like records of bites, dangerous dog warrants), the Option 1 (which has often been anyone's guess for mixed breeds) only comes up. And it's from sources such as this, that mixed breeds can suddenly morph into purebreds for data purposes. Quite right, too. The US Veterinary Association's Task Force looking into dog bites in the USA, suggested that going down the breed route as a primary 'cause' for dog bites/attacks, was a dead end re prevention, based on the evidence. And then there's the University of Cordoba study across pure breeds & mixed breeds, which concluded that owner factors were far more significant in the development of aggression in dogs, rather than breed per se. That's why 'better' dogs are developed via learning, rather than simply 'built'. Interesting that the U of Q study found that breeders of purebreds tended to far more socialise their puppies than unregistered breeders....thus lessening the development of aggression towards humans. Then there's the health/conformation 'problems' so much said to be associated with purebreds. Have a look at the Denmark study of longevity in dogs, both purebred & mixed breed....with causes of death factored in for attention (like hip dysplasia & spinal disease). Amazingly, the oddest 'built' dog, the Dachshund, came out in a bunch of pure breeds which trumped both mixed breeds & other purebreeds in the longevity stakes. All of this would suggest, that there might be a lot more complexity in the breeding & raising of companion dogs, than one ideological position. And that's why I'd like a much wider input from a greater variety of sources, in any seminar which looked at companion dogs.

I've already mentioned on a previous thread that this kind of language....even tho' 'ideal' in now placed in inverted commas....is not in line with the science IMO. Has anyone looked up what 'ideal' means? It means existing only as an idea. Last time I looked, 'companion dogs' were real. If a student came to my desk with a paper with the word 'ideal' in the title (& hence, hypothesis), he/she'd be sent away with a dictionary & to rethink. The present language smacks more of the commercial advertising world , rather than academic study. IMO, again. And if someone came with the notion of a seminar about improving the breeding & raising of companion dogs.....but with the title 'Building Better Dogs'...I would point out how that language is mechanistic. Sounds like a seminar in an engineering department, working with spare parts to build a clockwork dog. 'Building' is not suitable for a creature that, like humans, develops via learning, with a host of attendant variables. Nekhbet's picked up this point, precisely....in her comment that dogs aren't operated by batteries. Having said that, it seems this event is a joint effort by some people at both Monash University & Sydney University. Fair enough, it's their show...& their ideological position. I'd wish, however, for a much wider representation of views, positions & speakers (which is why I like the inclusion of Dr Mike Goddard from Melbourne University. Now, his work is interesting IMO).

A prize will be in the mail to you, dog geek (I wish!!!! ). That is indeed a Tibbie which has been clipped. First time I left our 2 tibbie girls at the groomers for a summer clip, I felt like a breed-destroyer. There's no reason to clip-groom a Tibbie. When I came back, I saw 2 gorgeous little dogs that looked a million dollars. Tibbies have firm, well-shaped bodies under their fur. So they don't look like plucked chickens. They show the sturdiness which must have allowed them to survive in the harsh climate of Tibet. When I'd take the clipped Tibbies out walking, they'd get so much admiration. People would say they looked like pretty, small golden bulldogs. But no one ever then guessed ' Pekes' (which they did, when they had their fur on!).

I've just quoted one section of your post, but I thought it was all Very reassuring for a dog owner to have their pet stay at a kennels where the staff has insights & attitudes like yours. I wondered, too, if the size of the kennels, precludes the personal touch.....or if a kennel of any size can be committed to it.....if that's the kind of service they love providing. Our shelties used to go to a nearby kennels, which was in its early days. But has since grown into one of the major boarding kennels around Brisbane. When our shelties went there, the personal touch was amazing. First time I picked up our 2 shelties, the co-owner remarked how much our p/b sheltie girl was so un-sheltie like in her behaviour, while our little male sheltie was. He said that Shelley reminded him so much more of an outgoing Border Collie the way she acted. He said, for example, when he was sitting next to her, she'd lean all her weight against him. And he said he found the BC's tended to do that. I had no idea if this was a BC trait or not....but I was so taken how he'd figured out how different our Shelley was.... he must have spent time with her, to find that out. And while, we were fixing up the bill with his wife... he & Shelley were sitting together out on the steps.....with Shel leaning in against him as if they were the greatest friends. Both shelties, too, had been beautifully brushed....no extra charge.

I agree, Jed, the average researcher beavering away in universities doing spot-on studies, is not usually talking to the public media. But some who want to raise their funds for their research from the public.....make great efforts to get 'stuff' into the media. Dr McG asked for public donations for his research. I wish the AKC & their spokesperson Dr Peter Higgins would set up an Advisory Committee....& get some other people who know the research world, on it. There's great things being done... & known... re purebreds....here in Australian universities (apart from the lone Dr McG). And a lot, too, overseas. And get a media-savvy AKC person to talk long & loudly to the media. Peter Higgins, himself didn't do a bad job on the panel following the BBD doco screening. He was the only one who let the hysteria & hot air go by, & kept saying it came down to decisions about breeding.....& getting the knowledge/experience which helped people do that. In fact, that's at base the huge strength of pedigree breeding. It's so controllable.. Yes, the Denmark study was interesting re dachies (I can never spell it, either). Dachies, poodles & shelties were among a bunch of pure breeds that came out way ahead of other purebreeds & mixed breeds re longevity (with cause of death factored in). Only qualifications would be: . it applied to the genetic pool in Denmark . the study was done in the early 2000's, so is a bit middle-aged in research terms I agree with you, too, about the place of diet & exercise. Among the number of suggestions, the Tufts Uni researcher made, was that diet can help regulate the 'normal' tissue/bone growth differing rates in young dogs, which set up conditions where the likely genetic triggering for HD can then affect. And also to watch the kind of exercise the young dog has, during that vulnerable time. That Tufts paper was also a bit middle-aged in research terms....but it points to the directions which are being further studied.

Hold that good thought! If you were out walking & met this dog, what would you say she is?

Yes, PM, maybe looking at it as an opportunity might overcome the annoyance. I understand the kind of reactions you get...I'm forever being asked by people if my tibbies are pekes. Only problem I have, is the danger of collapsing from shock, whenever a stranger DOES say, 'They're tibetan spaniels!' Usually turns out, one of their rellies or friends has a tibbie. And then they go on about what a lovely dog it is. I can enjoy listening to that.

Bit O/T, but that expression jarred on me, too. Was in a local petshop which sells puppies (had to be for a certain item). Assistant asked what kind of dog I owned. I said, 'Tibetan Spaniel.' Her face lit up...'You'll be pleased to know that we've got some puppies, Tibetan Spaniel cross Chihuahua 'coming in'. It was like a designer muesli, or something, arriving in a truck. Pleased? I told her that, like Queen Victoria, I was not amused! And why! So I'd say your victory was a big one!

Pity there isn't another academic public voice in Australia who presents a tempering view to what Dr McG propogates. There certainly is research out there which does. I've already posted work by a researcher from Tufts Uni which cuts across the attribution that purebreds should carry the can for hip dysplasia. It's pointed out HD is a condition also found in mixed-breeds, small & large dogs....& cats. Yet Dr McG speaks loudly about a certain conformation in dogs...especially in certain purebreds...being the cause. Which can't be a sole variable.....because how to explain cats (who don't look like labradors)???? Not surprisingly the condition is far more complex than only a body shape...& research is beavering away uncovering knowledege that's useful for selection for breeding... & for diet and exercise guidelines for young dogs in the critical period when bone growth & tissue growth, aren't at the same rate. Also purebreds like dachies would seem to break all the 'conformation' rules.....with their long backs & short legs. But interesting research from Denmark found dachies to be among a bunch of pure breeds which had the best longevity stats than mixed-breeds & other purebreds. And that research included hip dysplasia & spine problems in cause for death. The Danish study, which covered thousands of dogs (pure & mixed), is worth looking into. In the aftermath of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed furore, Dr Peter Higgins representing the AKC spoke more sensibly than anyone else on the panel. He's a veterinarian, not an academic....but his remarks were in the direction of seeking out the best of knowledge & selecting wisely for breeding. I just wish there was another voice coming from Australian universities, supportive of that direction.....apart from Dr McG. As much as I understand & agree with the OP article's concerns, I don't think the author's means of expressing them, is helpful. Why bring in 'green' zealots & the issue of climate change? And her strident call about keeping regulation out of bedrooms. As much as I understand her strong feelings to protect the many positives of purebred dogs, it comes across as 'pull up the drawbridge' hysteria. Reactionary, rather than proactive. Purebred dogs need a more reasoning voice than hers, too.

Wheres the fun in that? It is much more fun to start a hysterical thread on DOL. ummm hello ranger.. there is a guy walking along the road with his dogs off their leads... no I don't know who he is, I don't know his address... oh hang on.. I will ask him to stay put until you arrive Well, you could have tricked him, by asking for his name & address to send the drugs to. And maybe the next 'old bitty' you consider calling a 'stupid old git' will be carrying an umbrella with a brick inside. Can't judge by appearances, you know.

Neat way of setting up a boundary in what is, after all, a public park.

I'd only add....one well socialised with children.

No, we can't be mad. There's too many of us. I'm loving this thread. Keep saying, 'Me, too!' to just about everything posted. Just a tiny thing to add. My tibbie girls are a a bit low to the ground....& don't like the grass ends tickiing their bottoms when going to the toot. So I have my own electric mower, for no other purpose than to keep the grass very short in the part of our yard where they go. And a 'path' mown short leading up to it. That's between the regular times the blokes mow all the yard with a ride-on.