DogsAndTheMob

Fools and their money are soon parted, indeed! But the animals are the real victims. Increasingly, causes are marketed for financial gain, with no consideration for the animals’ suffering. Some of them are obviously not in the animals best interest, like the three-legged foal being kept alive in the US. Others are not so obvious; I look sceptically at an elephant sanctuary that occasionally appears in my FB feed. The elephants look so thin that I wonder if they’re confined to the sanctuary or lured to stay there by nutritionally inadequate hand feeding, when wider roaming would be in their best interest. I try not to engage with those posts in any way, because the in FB algorithm, engagement = profit. The other cause from which we’re thankfully insulated in Australia is international dog rescue. For a while, international dog rescue from third world countries was heavily promoted in a North American forum for a popular dog breed, and skeptics were slammed. I didn’t get involved in the debate, but I worried that even if they were initially rescuing true strays or meat market dogs, the potential for profit would create an industry of breeding or stealing dogs for the rescue market.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9l74wvd7o BBC uncovers the scammers exploiting dogs to elicit donations from animal lovers

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2520476-oldest-known-dog-extends-the-genetic-history-of-our-canine-companions/

You’re probably right. I’ve never volunteered in rescue, so I haven’t seen the worst results of this. I’ve volunteered in dog training clubs, where the biggest problem is people who have bought or rescued big, strong energetic dogs that need more exercise, better training and a “job” to exercise their minds. Some of them will have bought on impulse but many don’t have the knowledge to choose a puppy whose needs they can meet.

I’d rather impulse buy a puppy than a pair of shoes. But, seriously, although some people certainly have more money than sense, lack of knowledge is a bigger problem. You might say I’ve impulse bought several of my dogs. The time has been right, there’s been a puppy available and I’ve purchased it. I’ve had the advantage of knowledge from a lifetime interest in dogs and participation in dog sports and from a university education which included subjects such as genetics. I know how to interpret pedigrees and I’ve seen how behavioural quirks can differ between and within bloodlines. I have a long list of breeds that I would never want to own for health and/or temperament reasons and a shorter list of breeds that I would love to own but will not, because I can’t meet their needs. With the exception of one puppy that had unforeseeable health problems, I’ve been happy with all my dogs. Like me, I think many pet purchasers make what seems like an impulse purchase when the time is right. They’ve moved into their own home; their youngest child has started school or left home, or they have retired but are still fit enough to raise a puppy. (Considering the benefits of raising a puppy when working from home, even COVID purchases might have seemed logical.) Like me, they may have had disappointing experiences with breeders’ waiting lists so they see no benefit from waiting. But dogs (with the exception of their own dog) aren’t a central interest in their lives, so they lack knowledge and relevant knowledge is not always easily available to them. Most breed specific books and websites are generic, with just the pictures and a few key facts changed to suit the breed. When I was growing up, there were excellent books about individual breeds, written by breed experts, but those are long gone. I’d love to see more books published about specific breeds, by people who are knowledgeable about all aspects of the breed, not just niche interests such as conformation showing or specific dog sports, and whose dogs’ lives are similar in fundamental ways to those of pet purchasers. (It has long baffled me that breeders whose dogs live in kennels feel able to say that their dogs are suitable for pet homes.) Some ethical breeders provide information on the pros and cons of their breed. That’s wonderful and kudos is due to those breeders but the downside is that people may turn to less ethical breeders with glossy websites. They don’t know that puppy mills and scammers often invest in the most convincing websites. In summary, I don’t think we should be so quick to castigate pet owners for “impulse purchases.” They face worse problems when buying a puppy than I face when buying a car. @tdierikx I thought this was worthy of a separate discussion.

The use of a survey is another problem with this study. I suspect that some doodle purchasers are be very different from purebred dog purchasers. To put it cynically, the purchaser who expects a teddy bear is likely to be more disappointed than the purchaser who expects a dog.

Here’s an interesting commentary on the study. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid033uGAXnGk3eYQ4jmksmrUwRR26Ho2h85uYa1xP24tiuJxZzyBffDwm5jx5EMH8hN4l&id=100063568663018 @tdierikxThe study reference is at the bottom of this FB post.

Here’s a link to the Royal Veterinary College page describing the survey. https://www.rvc.ac.uk/research/facilities-and-resources/animal-welfare-science-and-ethics/news/new-rvc-study-challenges-common-beliefs-on-desirable-behaviours-in-designer-doodle-crossbreeds?fbclid=IwdGRjcAQpXaRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA8xNzM4NDc2NDI2NzAzNzAAAR6BlYPVgEL-CgcZMdQLEtdiso34Gj93rCqaZiozHIT-FX_jV-UU5zSW9M5vQg_aem_IBJa_8UV9kiDMjaA5WnJEQ A few thoughts… Firstly, are oodles more likely than purebred dogs to come from puppy mills? I’ve read some appalling descriptions of puppy mill conditions which made me wonder how any puppy could emerge mentally sound from that situation. Secondly, do oodle owners really know what mix of breeds is in their dogs? I suspect that commercial oodle breeders are more interested in producing what they can breed easily and marketing what sells than in accurately describing the puppies. An admixture of a more feisty or reactive breed in a supposed cavapoo or labradoodle would explain a different temperament. Thirdly, has the method of analysis affected the outcome? It looks as if they’ve taken responses on a large number of mostly ordinal scales (eg never, seldom, sometimes, usually, always), aggregated the data, then condensed it into a smaller set of ordinal responses (same, better, worse). There’s a lot of scope for information loss, loss of nuance and cherry-picking of the data and outcomes. And the headline is a huge generalisation! Efited to add that I think most people buying oodle puppies cannot know what they’re buying AND are likely to be supporting animal cruelty. I have purebred dogs because I like to choose my puppies carefully for health, temperament and proveably ethical, humane breeding. However, I do get tired of unthinking oodle-shaming and I hate sloppy research and reporting.