sandgrubber

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.

I let mine work such issues out on their own. Give them options, but let them make the decision. If you want to train the pup, rather than going natural, I'd suggest crate training.

I agree... I would not eat it but I do agree with your comments. The difference is the extent to which you feel compassion and empathy with the animal that's being eaten. If I kept sheep as pets, I would probably feel different about eating lamb, and I certainly wouldn't want to export any of my little lambs to the Middle East. My nephew went vegetarian after the pet pig ended up in the freezer. I have four chocolate Labradors, so brown dog wouldn't be my menu pick. I don't judge anyone for eating dog. I just wouldn't send a puppy to a place where dog is eaten without very strong assurance that the puppy buyers would recognise the adult dog as a sentient being (not a status symbol) and value it for life.

Vaccination is your best first line of defense . . . also avoiding places where dogs are walked (specifically, where dogs do their business).

Completed the survey. I think everyone needs to stand up for the idea that a dog should not be condemned to death (or confinement as 'dangerous') without a fair trial. I'm reminded of a recent local story where dog bit child and got the green needle. After the lethal dose was administered they discovered that the poor dog's ear was full of staples . . . it bit the kid only as a last resort in attempt to escape torture. Mindless slinging of the 'dangerous' label helps neither dogs, nor people.

Sorry to be humourless. I've been accused of being a BYB etc on DOL and it tends to depress one's senso fo humour. I don't see democracy at threat. But I wish to whatever one wishes to that people would provide evidence when they make strong assertions. I see both sides slinging a lot of . . . ok I'll be polite and call it mud. Until we have better reporting systems and decent prevalence data and a way to tie the disease to the pedigree, in my books it's all 'speculative' . . .or BS, depending on your level of crudity. If I read another study trying to make sense of 'incidence' X breed data I think I'll puke. Surprise, surprise, surprise. If a breed is popular and there are lots of pedigree dogs in the breed, the number of reported diseases is relatively high. If the breed is relatively rare, not so many genetic defects have been reported. TOTAL ABSURD POPPYCOCK. We need to understand what genetic diseases pose the greatest threat to what breed . . . and design strategies accordingly. I think it's great that Bateman came out strongly in favour of compiling prevalence data.

One my worst nightmares. My Labs love to pick things up. It's a worry to see that this one didn't have instinctual fear of snakes, or not enough to override the retrieve drive and soft mouth. Great dog. So glad he survived.

Done. I think this should be posted on the General Forum as it looks like they're proposing a broad erosion of a dog's rights . . . beyond BSL. Eg, a dog biting a child, because the child is torturing it, would be at risk under proposed rules. Dogs deserve some right to a fair trial before getting the death penalty, or a lifetime of home detention under the 'dangerous' label.

If you don't want to be accused of kidnapping but want to send a message, how about trapping the cat (in a humane trap) and putting a note around its neck saying that next time it gets caught you're sending it to the pound. Or simply taking the trapped cat next door and telling the neighbor to their face that the next time won't be so nice.

The relevant part of the video begins about 2/3 of the way through the posted video clip. Dying pink, orange, magenta and day-glow green . . . result looking like some child's toy. I wouldn't give a hoot if dye went hand in glove with quality care and upholding of health and breed standards, but I sort of doubt it. The business isn't just grooming. .. they also sell 'pedigree' dogs, at high prices. He notes that dogs are becoming a status symbol in China. So it's sort of a pet-shop that merchandises dogs + grooming saloon. Hard to see how such an enterprise can be supported without a good network of puppy farms . . . in a country where values also allow for the eating of dog and place a premium on accumulating wealth. I'm pretty open minded and not anti-Asian. But I'd have to see pretty good documentation showing that care standards are high and 'pedigree' means 'good pedigree, including relevant health tests' before I could be enthusiastic about the thing. A later segment of the show included interviews of people in a restaurant that specialises in dog. The customers report that 'brown' dog is best, followed by 'black', with white at the bottom of the list.

NOT!!!!!!

Did anyone catch the 'dog' segments on Paul Merton In China 6:10pm Sunday, 17 Jan 2010 Documentary CC PG I was at once grossed out and amazed to see all the 'pretty' punk dyed poodles. Worst of all was hearing that the guy had forty some dog grooming parlours (sp?) and was planning to hit 60 by the end of the year. No way am I exporting to China!!!! Not to mention the follow up segment where he goes to the restaurants specialising in dog meat dishes.

Thanks for the notice. So sorry to hear it's bad. Here's hoping it doesn't travel North.

Inbreeding depression is reduced viability (eg, low litter sizes or low survival rates offfspring) arising from inbreeding. Zookeepers worry about it a lot when they select mates for rare animals. Whether or not it occurs in pedigree dogs has been a subject of discussion on DOL. Note, the report also mentions the opposite effect. To quote: "When animal breeders wish to produce pure genetic lines, as they sometimes do, for example in laboratory animals, they will mate brother with sister generation after generation. Most lines die out due to the exposure of deleterious recessives that are normally hidden. However, any healthy lines that survive are likely to have lost many of the deleterious recessive genes they started with, a process known as genetic purging." hush your mouth, surely nothing good can come of :D shock horror, inbreeding The purpose of the quote was to show that the report gives a balanced, non-dogmatic position. Island biogeography is FULL of plant and animal populations that start from a single founder, and hence are highly inbreed. Eg, most of the native species in the Galapagos or the Hawaiian Islands descent from a few individuals that happened to drift to the island. Many of these are healthy and robust. Extreme inbreeding can produce healthy popuations, though, as I understand the academic research on the subject, it is more likely to lead to failed lines. My own bias is strongly against ANY dogma. Biology is wonderfully complex, and many 'rules' have exceptions. There may be cases where close inbreeding would be useful to rescue a rare breed with high incidence of some genetic problem.

It's not the electronics which will inject any scientific rigor into this enterprise. Do these folks....RSPCA UK, Sydney Uni & RVC ever talk to, or look at work, from other places? Denmark already carried out a useful study re cause of death & longevity, across purebreeds & crossbreeds. Interesting results there....a little bunch of pure breeds, trumped all the others. What is really funny & quite against the current bandwagon....the strangely shaped little dachshund with its long barrel body & short legs, came out in the top group. Now it could be worth doing similar studies to see if this is replicated in other countries with other genetic pools. Following on from this, then it's likely not a simplistic equation....that pure breeds have been developed into a state where genetic conditions, uniquely, abound. Which is why there's such good research IMO coming out of some of the top US university schools of veterinary medicine. Another issue that give me the scholarly chills.....is the RSPCA UK's bloke's reference to 'consumer pressure' as driving the project. Now that's a surprise....I'd expect it to be science, if a university is involved. Consumer perceptions about ideal dogs, should in itself be something to be critically studied. Not accepted as truisms. No wonder then that some riders on the bandwagon seem to be talking the language of advertising. I have seen the press do more damage than the RSPCA, and I wouldn't take any press release at face value. I would have to see the details before I concluded that this study wasn't about both pure breeds and F1/crossbreeds/DD's. As for scholarly chills . . . sounds like you haven't had a good bout with post modernist intellectuals who tell us that science is all value based . . . no one is objective . . . and that improvement comes from putting our biases up front for examination. Vet research is often funded by drug companies and pet food companies, so much veterinary research requires skeptical reading. I am much happier with 'consumer preference' as a driver, if it means complaints from puppy-buyers and voiced opinions of pet-owners, than I am with 'science' as established by some multinational conglomerate.

In my experience in Australian academia, the inclusion of a variety of stakeholders is widely advocated in forming advisory panels, and you don't get your grant funding if you don't get a broad mix on your advisory panel (especially for CRC's). Eg, a business advisory panel will have a few representatives from labour, a childcare advisory board will typically try to include interests of owners, parents, workers, and local government. I was working on bushfire research . . . we sought land owners, fire fighters, aboriginal representatives, tourism operators, research scientists, ecologists, local government, state government, national government . . . the whole kit and kaboodle. I see no problem with including a zoologist, geneticist, reproductive vet, a gene testing company rep, someone from a welfare organisation, or whatever on a dog breeding advisory panel if they have experience and credentials relevant to the problem. If I were picking a panel I might insist on a statistician with broad experience cause I see a high frequency of people drawing generalisations (on both sides) based on flimsy data and personal bias. I think it would elevate the debate if people could unite behind statistically defensible studies.