sandgrubber

Should note that temperament is a mix of heredity and environment. To wit, Belyav's extraordinary experiments with domestication of foxes, where friendliness to humans and playfulness were found to be highly heritable traits. As breeders, we should be selecting for temperament as well as worrying about puppy socialisation, lest our breeds shift from tame to a somewhat more feral state. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox

Radical animal libbers think ALL domestication is exploitation. But going toward center from the extreme, killing domestic animals to eat them . . . or feed them to your dog . . . is a form of exploitation no? Milking a rabbit doesn't kill the animal, and if things are set up well, will result in the animal living a long, healthy life . . . certainly a better life than the average battery hen.

In WA you are not allowed to build a kennel within 10 m of a residence, and if you have more than two dogs . . . or in some shires four . . . they expect a kennel and want you to be in a kennel zone (read dog ghetto). Makes it hard for breeders who want to have three or four or five dogs and do puppy raising in the house. Stupid stupid rules!!!!! The pedigree community hasn't enough clout, or enough focus to get the laws changed . .. maybe it's worth turning to the animal welfare community to find political support???? :D

If someone is a full time stay-at-home breeder, 26 pups if managable, especially if the bitches are experienced and the litters large. Lots of pooh to pick up, though, if they all hit 6 to 8 weeks at once, and lots of puppy buyers to deal with. Not my cup of tea. If the breeder has a lot of other responsibilities and are away from the house/property a lot, they will probably have a decline in survival rate. Breeders hate loosing pups, so most of them stay below the number they can manage well.

Please elaborate your logic. Not clear what you are saying. I think what Steve may be saying is that you are all asking for regulation on what should and should not be bred- just because YOU don't like these crossbreeds/mixes you don't think they should exist. Is that not a form of BSL??? (Steve, correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I read it :D ) I understood it that way too. Guess I was confused cause I -- and some others posting -- don't seek such legislation . . . rather for an acceptance that old breeds might disappear and new breeds may appear . . . some of them through crossbreeding. Dog roles change. Dog breeds need to change also. The 'breed standard' doesn't easily allow for change. So of course people move outside the framework of pedigree breeding.

I'm not Jodi . . . but suggest that there's a story about a dog fighting ring stealing dogs, and the police being unwilling to investigate. Include a sad story and a number for people to call if they have information. That would boost readership in the local fish wrap :D and might actually help the situation. Someone else may have better suggestions . . . I'm not an expert . . . but this does sound like a cast that needs public attention. I'm confused, i was replying to Jodi1981 but i'm sorry, i dont think its funny what you just said about the boosting readership. Just think how you would feel if someone made a joke about your missing dog, and think about the fact that it may be used for baiting... ETA: sandgrubber, something like that would not normally bother me but i am worried about the dog. And the paper idea sounds great ill talk to my sister about it. Sorry to be cynical at the wrong time. I find that papers are only interested in stories that readers find interesting. I do think your story falls into this category, so you may find local papers interested. I didn't mean it as a joke. It is a very serious situation. The sad conundrum is that it is often easier to get a situation taken seriously if you are able to embarass the authorities by going public . . . and the media live by selling copy.

Please elaborate your logic. Not clear what you are saying.

Another annoyance for many workers is the owner. I'm an owner. I don't make large profit margins and can't pay high wages. Most of the people I hire love dogs and would like to spend all their time working with the dogs. Unfortunately, I have to push them to do things like filling in and screening off the holes the dogs have dug in the lawn or cleaning up the kitchen. Not fun jobs. And there's always tension about how long it takes to do a task , eg, give a dog a hydrobath. I give free hydrobaths to dogs in kennels for more than five days. I don't intend that to be a 30 minute bath than includes grooming, cutting out gnarls, etc. Kennel hands often -- and I respect them for it -- want to do it right. Sometimes there are also tensions about dog welfare. Many kennel owners are more bloody minded than I am and define 'exercise' as letting the dogs run in a yard for 15 to 30 minutes a day while the kennels are hosed down. Many kennel hands see what this does to the dogs and find it really unpleasant to be part of the system. Bottom line: before you take on a kennel job, make sure you and the owner/manager have harmonious notions of how a dog should be treated. It's a rough trade, and owners are rarely skilled people managers . . . so turnover is pretty high and there are a lot of frustrations.

I'm not Jodi . . . but suggest that there's a story about a dog fighting ring stealing dogs, and the police being unwilling to investigate. Include a sad story and a number for people to call if they have information. That would boost readership in the local fish wrap :D and might actually help the situation. Someone else may have better suggestions . . . I'm not an expert . . . but this does sound like a cast that needs public attention.

I don't see how people can bemoan the pending extinction of some breeds and condemn the process that may create new breeds. The modern environment does offer niches for new breeds. As an aging Labrador breeder, I'd love to find a breed that was Lab-like in temperament and intelligence, but smaller, with a thinner coat. The ADF preferred Lab X kelpies in Vietnam (plenty to be found in rescue . .. no deliberate breeding involved) . . . Lab for temperament, kelpie for lightness, quickness and endurance in hot weather, both breeds highly trainable. There would be strong demand for a breed that was not allergenic but didn't have the grooming requirements of the poodle or lagotto. Perhaps one could be developed using hairless bloodlines. There's a wonderful spaniel X border collie who comes to my kennels. She has all the quickness and agility of a BC but lacks the herding drive and intensity that often makes herding dogs difficult in the 'burbs. The rat terrier is essentially a mixed breed dog that has settled down into a predictable type over 100 yrs or so (terrier mixed with a bit of beagle and some whippet, plus who knows what else) . . . for that matter, the Lab is essentially a mixed breed dog with leading input from the St John's dog of NE Canada, plus various gun dog breeds . . . with 200 yrs or so for lines to stabilise. I'm not saying that selective breeding doesn't work . . . just that cross breeding has had some successes. I agree with others, continual F1 crosses are not a good thing, and the creation of a new breed should be done with a distinct niche for the breed. It should also be recognised that many breeds' original niches are gone or disappearing fast . . . cart dogs, dogs that go to ground for badgers and fiercer pray, temple dogs . . . and not very many people want high maintenance dogs. It wouldn't work to selectively breed for, say, Labrador, that was smaller, lighter, and lacked a dual coat. You'd be slammed for working away from the breed standard. But there is a ready market for such a dog.

My least favourite are ones who refuse to desex their mixed breed males and allow you to watch a dog become progressively more difficult to handle and more aggressive toward other dogs as it comes back on successive stays. Also unpopular are those who chisel hoping to get a refund or get someone to pay vet or grooming costs. Eg, had someone very upset cause their dog Border Collie (who had been in for three days) came home 'covered with dags' all down his back. We didn't notice dags . . . but there's no way a BC will develop serious dags in three days. People with undisciplined kids are also a pain. We let people come in and see where their dog will be staying and meet the dogs it will be playing with if it is to be socialised in the exercise yard. . . or choose which kennel run their dog will stay in. This often causes a bit of commotion, but makes the customer feel more comfortable. The exercise can get crazy if naughty kids are running around wanting to meet all the dogs, opening gates, etc. By in large, though, I find our owners are great people, and I consider meeting the owners, and especially seeing the reunion of dog and owner at pickup, to be among the positive things in kennel life.

Check out the National Geographic article in the link. Apparently the Russians are already milking GE mice to make drugs . . . Also great trivia . . . . A rabbit, for instance, can produce an average of 120 milliliters of milk a day. In the modified rabbits, each liter contains 12 grams of human C1 inhibitor, according to Pharming spokesperson Marjolein van Helmond.

I'm a breeder who runs a boarding kennel. I use several vets . . . two practices mainly. I love my mobile vet cause she is pragmatic and commonsense and tries to keep costs low, and when she can't help, she suggests going elsewhere. Great, also, that she comes to me and will often do quick diagnoses of a couple dogs without charging a bundle for each. Result: often I'm able to tell a boarder that a vet looked at their dog and bill them only for meds and not the consult fee . . . or half-price consult fee cause a couple dogs got quick consults. She also does things like using Amoxiclav instead of Clavulox. Same drug. Different packinging. Amox is about half as expensive as Clav. My breeder / repro specialist is great cause they do the procedures I require all the tiime. They do a great job. They give good breeder discounts. This is especially true with Ceasarian sections, which they can do after hours (for a fee) and do with great speed and top-grade results, but also true of progesterone tests, spey jobs, and hip and elbow Xrays. I will not work with a vet who doesn't explain what they are doing and why and will not take the effort to try and educate me about the problem the dog is having.

I found a Video shop that rents CM DVD's. I would rent rather than buy. I doubt there's any difference between the US and Oz versions, other than different cautions about piracy and maybe some format differences that your player may or may not be able to handle. I like CM, but as a Labrador person, I don't find his approach is generally required with my breed. Dominance is a pretty weak trait in some breeds, and I generally find it hard to tell who is alpha with my group (six girls and me) . . . even though I break all the rules about who eats first, etc. Daily walkies, on the other hand, works great for me.

Trouble is they had no protection system. Leaving a dog they didn't know alone with 2 very young children and toys, after having revved the dog up by playing? I'm sorry but in any one's world that is pure negligence. They are happy to blame the dog and label it dangerous, and by the extension the people who gave him to them for not warning them it was dangerous. I hope people reading the article have enough sense to see through that and not be blinded by a very reasonable sympathy for the child - which I share. A lot of people don't know much about dogs. They've had good experiences with one. They expect the next one to be the same cause it's the same breed. I agree, it's gross ignorance. But I don't think blaming them helps anything. However, recommending behavioural assessment before adoption is a win, win. It would be a bigger win if the recommendation was to keep a close eye on a new dog with kids. That didn't happen. Not good. But not the time rub the family's face in it either.

Better to have concern shown at the outset, when it's easy to set forth guidelines for what is 'humane' than to allow the drug companies to define things and then end out with a big mess where animal libbers are attacking laboratories with a good deal of public support and resulting in a widescale break down. I'm not fond of rabbits, and have no problem with them being milked. But if an additional 20% spent by the drug companies will end out with the milked rabbits leading happy lives, great. I don't think it will greatly affect the price of any drugs made from rabbit milk. The marketing and development costs for such products vastly outweigh the costs of production, so an increase in production costs is not big deal . . . and it will allow the drug company to advertise that they take good care of their bunnies so everyone wins.

The parents should be blaming themselves! They left a 4yr old and a 6yr old alone with an unfamiliar dog that they'd had for less than an hour, that is what the story should have focused on - children need to be supervised with dogs. I don't think the blame game is useful. Blame just makes the blamed person feel like shit and makes everyone resent one another. Focus should be on what went wrong and how to prevent it, and accepting that no protection system will be 100% effective. People should be warned against taking older dogs without asking questions and assuming that because the dog is such-and-such a breed that it will be like their old beloved dog of the same breed. Each dog is an individual. Before adopting, ie, making a long term committment to living with the dog, you must assess the individual temperament, and if your ability to assess temperament isn't wonderful, better to get a behavioural assessment than end up with a 'lemon' that someone else couldn't cope with and is, with best of intentions, fobbing off on anyone willing to take the bait.

I think this sort of attitude is the only way that pedigree registrations will begin to rise. I'm an immigrant and one of my strong impressions about Australians is that they hate snobbery and arrogance. Beauty is great, but better beauty running along the beach than on the catwalk. Showing, in my experience, has an unfortunate tendency to create a snobbish, competitive culture that seeks elevation by putting others down, and excludes the pet owner. In other words, pure arrogance. I expect that pedigree registrations will continue to decline without widespread understanding, among breeders, that most people want a good, healthy dog of some breed type or another as a pet, or companion animal, or friend, or whatever. Pedigree breeds are great, form a public perspective, cause they give you a 'menu' of characteristics to choose from. Mix breeds are more like a soup kitchen menu, where you get whatever is served up. DD's are gaining turf cause they are somewhat predictable and aim for the more popular menu choices (eg SWF's). We need to make sure that the pups we sell will be the sort that make people want to come back for a repeat and recommend us to their friends when they want a pup.

belated response on the question of prevalence . . . I have a pretty good idea of what my own dogs are most at risk for. I don't object to well-justified regulations on breeding from dogs who carry genetic diseases. But the Labrador is probably the single most common pedigree dog in the world. Labs have registered most every genetic disease found in dogs. Many of these are incidences in a specific bloodline in a specific part of the world (eg, we had a few cases of late onset deafness in WA that seemed to be genetic. There don't seem to be any records of this problem in Labs elsewhere. It would be stupid for the entire Lab population in the US, Canada, and Europe to have to be screened when there seems to have been a minor problem . . . five or six dogs total . . . in WA). There are huge numbers of pedigree Labs, and the genetic diversity in the breed is extremely broad. So most of the genetic diseases registered have prevalence of less than 1:1000 . . . and many may be less than 1:10,000. I do not want to be saddled with doing 20 genetic tests for diseases that 'have been recorded' in the breed . .. much better to be able to prioritise testing and require it only where prevalence was relatively high, say 1% or higher.

In principle, I'm in favour of mandatory desexing . . . having breeders hold permits to keep entire dogs. But this is an awful way to do it . . . generates a maximum amount or resentment . . . haphazard in implementation. . . . poor opportunity for education . . . doesn't create an opportunity to maintain some low level of health and welfare check on breeding dogs. On the other hand, when my bitches come in season, I'd be stoked to know that if I call the ranger on a wandering dog, he'll loose his nuts. Great incentive to entire dog owners to make sure their fences are tight. Btw, what do they do with bitches? Just open her up without knowing if the bitch has already been done? I would be really irritated to find that someone had opened up a girl who had already been done.

I'm flummoxed with using quotes on this system. Quoting myself: "I personally think Limited Registration, and spey/neuter contracts are a good thing, and it's going to take a lot more evidence than is presented in these two articles to convince me that the decline in pedigree dog registrations was caused by animal lib people foisting their ideas off on breeders." Jed, I find your story plausable and entertaining, but I still haven't seen any evidence that the animal libbers are behind the changes of attitude. Pray tell, how did the animal rights people convince Australian pedigree dog breeders to become more snobbish and less generous about breeding dogs that will become good pets? 'Don't breed unless you show' hardly seems like an RSPCA or PITA mantra. Modern animal rights people favour a more natural dog breeding environment . . . no kennels, family around, parents selected cause they are much loved and easy to live with. Could it be that the animal rights people just a convenient scape goat for a decline in pedigree registrations caused by a complex interchange of factors. 'Old Maid' was a terrifying label in the world I grew up with. I don't think it helps to blame someone for a rotten marriage by finding some group responsible for throwing the label around . . . much better to aim to raise children who can see through labels and think for themselves. But I'm a bit drunk and running on. Steve: As a scientist, I would expect, for someone to consider themself an expert on pedigree dog breeding, that they can at least read and cite the relevant peer reviewed literature, eg. in genetics and hereditary diseases, particulary as applied to Canis sp. I've had some depressing experiences in the canine world finding that supposed 'experts' (including an all-breeds judge of some repute) lack basic science education and do not match up to my own paltry understanding of the dog genome and its implications. And I do feel incompetent in my understanding of genetics: I get a headache when I look at Nature Genetics cause I don't even understand the abstracts much of the time. Some supposed experts don't even seem to understand old-fashioned autosomal recessive genes -- ie, Mendelian inheritance as I learned it in 10th grade biology in 1961. I find that most supposed 'experts' start looking glassy-eyed when I work through the extremely simple probabilities of autosomal recessive inheritance or ask questions about the mathematical derivation of the COI. What good is some computerised formula if you don't understand what's behind it? I don't see any evidence in the bio posted that suggests Dr B would have a good grasp of modern genetics, or would attend lectures given by leading geneticists . .. or enough understanding of statistics to critically evaluate studies he might read. I would expect him to be a master of the politics of the pedigree dog world. He may know more about delivering puppies and selecting conformation in the wet than any published authority . . . And I remain disappointed that no one seems to be picking up on the Bateman Report: Chapter 2 – Assessment of Animal Welfare (see http://dogbreedinginquiry.com/publication-of-the-inquiry-report/). As stated in the first words of the Ch 2 abstract: "The science of animal welfare and the freedoms that should be granted to sentient animals are reviewed." Is it the case that people don't give a hoot what Bateman said or what evidence and reasoning he presents . . . they just want to see how the recommendations come out?

That is my current motto but I am scared that if they ever found out, they would take them off me. Mind you, my cats are all indoor only so nobody would even know they were there. I can't imagine how much breeders must be paying, especially when registering an entire pet is so expensive! I prefer: "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission."

I have a slew of titles, and a lot of peer reviewed articles and a couple of books to my name. I breed pedigree dogs. Does that make me an expert? Not at all. I'm just an opinionated person who likes to shoot their mouth off. Same with Dr B. His bio blurb looks like a middle-rank PhD who couldn't get tenure. I would guess his degree is in sociology, as the only peer-reviewed papers he sites are from Soc. journals of the 1970s. If it were in biology, I'd expect to see some citations from veterinary journals of the biological literature. His ideas about dog breeding seem libertarian to me: he seems paranoid about controls. We all do 'labelling'. It is not a conspiracy inspired by evil animal libbers. Look at the use of BYB and DD labels on DOL. Some people do sling the 'puppy mill' label around unfairly . . . but there's a lot of evidence to show that a fair fraction of the pups sold each year were born in establishments where large numbers of breeding bitches are kept in confinement and given little exercise of stimulation. If it's on the animal lib agenda to improve the welfare of dogs in such establishments, good for them . . . I think a lot of pedigree breeders would vote with them on this issue. The 'overpopulation' problem with dogs is real. A fecund bitch can easily produce 50 pups over her lifetime . .. and even a small breed with small litters can leave behind six to 10 pups. A dog can leave behind several hundred pups. The numbers of dogs pts annually because they didn't end out in a good home are huge . . . and there are clearly more pups born than there are good homes. A small minority of bitches, and an even smaller minority of dogs should be bred from. The more careful the selection of breeding animals, in terms of temperament, health and conformation, the better off we in the dog world will be. I personally think Limited Registration, and spey/neuter contracts are a good thing, and it's going to take a lot more evidence than is presented in these two articles to convince me that the decline in pedigree dog registrations was caused by animal lib people foisting their ideas off on breeders. Note, many of the 'endangered' breeds listed in Battaglia's Table one have actually seen a gain in numbers over the period covered by the data, most numbers jump around a lot, and I wonder if there is something else going on. I'm surprised to see the greyhound listed as a 'rare' breed. Perhaps some breeds are turning away from the AKC? I'd say the attitude that 'I only breed when I want to keep a pup' combined with condemnation of pedigree dog people who breed without showing do a lot more to decrease pedigree registrations each year than does any plot from the animal lib folks. The point is often made on DOL that it would be desirable if non-pedigree breeders were held to the same standards that most breeders hold themselves to. Fair point . . . and a point that Dr Bateson (whose academic credentials are far better than my own or Dr B's) takes on board. As for tying the Bateson report to animal libbers. . . it would be good to see some discussion of Chapter 2 of the Report, where Bateson discusses modern views of animal welfare. I, personally, was surprised and pleased to see reference to dogs as 'sentient' and deserving certain standards of quality of life.

Kennel stays don't have to be a bad thing from the dog's perspective. Shop around and make sure you like the kennel you use. For a longer stay, it's important that the dogs get stimulation and exercise. If your dog is dog-friendly, a kennel that sets up play groups is a good thing, especially for young energetic dogs: although the oldies often seem to get pleasure out of watching the other dogs. I would avoid a kennel that 'exercises' the dogs by letting them out for half an hour a day while their runs are cleaned and then locks them back up. We have had dogs stay for a year or more, and many stay for a few months. Many love it. I have had dogs jump out of the car and run back into the kennel (to be with their dog friends) while their owners were picking them up. Many of our regulars tell us that their dog picks up and starts looking happy when they get in range of the kennel. We get dogs that have been adopted from rescue quite often. The owners often worry that they will think they are being abandoned. In almost all cases, the dog has fit in well and had a good time.

I hope, at least, they're giving the pups a good clean Christian upbringing! Not saying I like the idea . .. but I'd say a Church pup is likely to be a bit better than a DD pup bred on a puppy farm and sold through a pet shop. At least it will be clear who is responsible if the pups have genetic health problems or go to their homes with parasites and disease.