'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[mlc]

I would love to be able to follow this up a bit with Mia because the testing process and what comes out of that would be good to look at with several other start points so we could look at stress levels in kennelled breeding dogs over breeding dogs kept in a backyard type setting- maybe the difference in samples taken from one dog in both situations or a lot of dogs in both situations.

I also have a bunch of questions regarding the kennel set up of the guidedogs and time frames for when they are in certain areas and interacting with staff and other dogs etc.

One of these days Id like to catch up with Mia and sort of dig around in the topic a bit more.

Thanks for your interest in my research and sorry I was running about flat chat most of the day and not able to spend much time chatting - the day absolutely flew past for me! I'd be more than happy to catch up and chat further any time you like Steve

I have some journal articles about dogs kept in backyards from Amanda Kobelt's PhD research several years ago. Happy to forward them to you if you like?

Email me at: [email protected]

[Steve]

I would love to be able to follow this up a bit with Mia because the testing process and what comes out of that would be good to look at with several other start points so we could look at stress levels in kennelled breeding dogs over breeding dogs kept in a backyard type setting- maybe the difference in samples taken from one dog in both situations or a lot of dogs in both situations.

I also have a bunch of questions regarding the kennel set up of the guidedogs and time frames for when they are in certain areas and interacting with staff and other dogs etc.

One of these days Id like to catch up with Mia and sort of dig around in the topic a bit more.

Thanks for your interest in my research and sorry I was running about flat chat most of the day and not able to spend much time chatting - the day absolutely flew past for me! I'd be more than happy to catch up and chat further any time you like Steve

I have some journal articles about dogs kept in backyards from Amanda Kobelt's PhD research several years ago. Happy to forward them to you if you like?

Email me at: [email protected]

Thank you - Email on its way.

[corvus]

I would love to be able to follow this up a bit with Mia because the testing process and what comes out of that would be good to look at with several other start points so we could look at stress levels in kennelled breeding dogs over breeding dogs kept in a backyard type setting- maybe the difference in samples taken from one dog in both situations or a lot of dogs in both situations.

I also have a bunch of questions regarding the kennel set up of the guidedogs and time frames for when they are in certain areas and interacting with staff and other dogs etc.

One of these days Id like to catch up with Mia and sort of dig around in the topic a bit more.

Thanks for your interest in my research and sorry I was running about flat chat most of the day and not able to spend much time chatting - the day absolutely flew past for me! I'd be more than happy to catch up and chat further any time you like Steve

I have some journal articles about dogs kept in backyards from Amanda Kobelt's PhD research several years ago. Happy to forward them to you if you like?

Email me at: [email protected]

I'm hoping to look at things like this in my PhD that I'm starting at the end of March. Would I be able to get hold of the journal articles as well, Mia?

[Steve]

I thought I heard Kate say she had bred 3000 dogs.... at which point my head actually exploded.

I would liked to have asked if she tested her breeding stock for PRA.

I thought she said she did. I could be wrong though ....

So they have actual certificates from a certified opthamologist then? Not just a quick look by herself? If they have the certification,at least its a very basic something,bu ti doubt it.

They would argue there is no need as PRA is a single gene issue and their idea is that these dont show in F1 crosses.

Also not all DNA tests have been developed yet for most breeds but the hybrid vigour thing with PRA would be the most powerful argument against them testing or profiling a pedigree of the parent dogs etc .

Elfin who works in an eye clinic is clearly seeing that they forgot dogs are the same species and they are breeding dogs with problems they were confident they wouldnt get in first crosses.

Our survey is showing similar and skin problems in F1 crosses are showing way too high.They also have a fair showing of HD and patella and elbow issues. Kate S gave stats for her dogs which have been diagnosed with HD but there's a fair argument that would challenge that because they are pets and unlikely to be scored unless they show sure serious signs of a problem. Purebred labs are scored as a matter of course so many more are in the count. When they compare that figure to labs [as she did ] there are several bumps to take into account. Such as how many have been screened and a bunch of other stuff. The figures tell us nothing and until there is better research its a crap argument. Its all in the way you say it too.If she is right and there is less HD in these crosses than in labs the big question which wasnt mentioned was whether they had less incidence than the other parent - a mini poodle. Also the survey she uses for her figures is old and the dogs being surveyed were all still pretty young. Id like to see a recent one but how many were sold through pet shops and how many would they be able to track and there's too many variables including what they are scoring them against and who is doing the diagnosing etc. It means nothing.

[Crisovar]

It's time to grow up, enter the realities of the real world and be an adult. Change what you can for the betterment of dogs whatever way you can. Be a grown up and think of the dogs.

It may come as a surprise to you petal but GOOD breeders are already doing it.

We don't need a puppy farmer who has bred (god I can't even write that) that many puppies tell us how to do it.

[Steve]

When Kate S said out loud she was O.K. if several purebred dog breeds were to become extinct you could feel the whole room shudder. The heat coming from a couple of GSD breeders when she said the poor dogs because of what had been done to them almost scorched the paint off the walls too.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Steve

[Crisovar]

The reality is that they're trying to improve their image. You need to look past the pretty words and see the practices - they aren't changing. When Kate removes every derogatory comment on her website about purebred dogs then maybe I'll take her seriously.

Yep, I actually went onto her forum once as a PB breeder, what a joke.

There was no respect for the PB world at all, none, not even a faint whiff.

So unless someone has taken her hard drive and reformatted her she is the same anti PB (unless she needs to buy one to breed) Mutts are superior campaigner she always has been.

Read her website.

[Steve]

Does anyone know anything about The Companion Animal Breeders Association?

[deerhound owner]

Kate's presentation was "a model for an association of professional pet dog owners" not "why everybody should buy a crossbreed cause they are so much better". As a pedigree dog owner I don't agree with many of the things she herself does, but I am interested in the development of anything that may improve the health and welfare of crossbred puppies because I care about DOGS, not just the pedigree ones.

We all know there are so many great breeds out there that everyone should be able to find one to suit them but the reality is some people do all their research and decide they want a crossbreed. I know someone who hired a pet search company to find her the exact crossbred puppy she wanted. Do we have the right to say "no you cannot have that because I don't agree with it"? Instead should we not be supportive of something that allows pople who do want a crossbreed to find one that has had all the relevent health tests, has been raised in a good environment, and comes with a the knowledge that the breeder will take responsibility of the dog if for any reason they cannot keep it.

Instead of shooting the messenger, prehaps we could critique the code of ethics she is proposing and possibly even come up with some suggestions on how to improve it or make the logistics work. With the 7 litter/7 years thing, she did say that no one has done any research to say what is the optimal number of litters without compromising the bitches or puppies health and she would be very happy to change it if research did show that that was too many.

I will start: There was the suggestion that puppies that are sold to petshops at a reduced price should hand the lifetime responsibility of the puppy onto the petshop as they were the ones making the profit. Do you think that if this was made compulsory for all pet shops, that they would be much more careful about where they sourced their puppies? Would this force the people supplying puppies to pet shops to lift their game? Would restirictions have to be made as to what avenues the petshop could use to rehome a returned dog eg: not just dump them at pounds etc.

A second suggestion was that dogs must be kept in social groups of no more than 4 bitches, but not alone either. Do you think this is an appropriate number, or should it be focusing more on the amount of space each dog has?

Anyway just some opening thoughts to hopefully get people talking about improving the welfare of the dogs out there that don't have lifes as spoilt as the majority of our dogs

[BJean]

Instead of looking at the development of an amicability test in a breeding setting, maybe think about how it could be used in pounds or rescue environments. If we take the two video examples given:

If person X came into the shelter and was looking for a pet that was going to be a good "guard dog" (I use that term very losely), he may be after a dog that doesn't think every person is it's best friend and is wary of strangers and will vocalise when they come near, then the pound can say with some confidence, dog Y (the GSD in the video) would likely be the most sitable dog for you.

on the other hand if person Z comes in and is after a 50kg lap dog that thinks every person it meets is it's new best friend for ever and in need of a face wash, then the pound can say Dog A (the deerhound) would probably suit you well.

In this senario it doesn't matter what factors have contributed to the test score, just that the test now accurately reflects that particular dogs behaviour in that particular setting. The degree to which past socialisation as apposed to gentics has influenced it's score means nothing. It's also not to say that either dogs behaviour could not be altered by training etc but it gives a baseline for the person looking for the dog. It also does not say that one or the other is worse or better.

How can a dog's past socialisation or genetics mean nothing in these two scenarios?

Why would a guard dog not behave as the dog in the second scenario?

The dog in the second scenario behaves the way it does because it has the confidence and self-assurity to do so. It says nil about its propensity for DA or HA over time or under different circumstances.

Im probably looking at this in too much detail for the purposes and intended audience of the test/study,

but I dont see how any of the above scenarios read true.

Factors which contribute to the test score matter because those factors are the other facets of the dog's psyche. Which together with how the dog receives strangers in a neutral environment, over which it has not developed a sense of ownership (the amicability test exampled above), make the total dog.

Time and situation are very important for a dogs responses, becauses so much of their response is instinctive,

whereas with humans, so much of how we behave is cultural and etiquette norm.

We might have a base personality, but we hide it well - dogs dont. what you see is what you get, but if you're only looking for a friendly face on the day, its all you'll see, because you wont look at what else the dog can tell you.

I have difficulty with the human-dog pych attributation of Monash -

because I dont believe dogs' 'amicablity' is constant across time and situation.

Their base instincts are, but not a multi-faceted end product like amicability.

Edited February 13, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

I note the people on this board most disinclined to take anything said 'onboard' and make quick smart posts dissing the presenters (and even the people who DID go) weren't actually there.

Of course not.

I had an ACDC preparty to attend and then a great night out woo hoo

not so good the next day though

I'm not critical or the attendees (thanks for sharing )

or even the Presenters' effort;

the logic and functionality of the ideal amicability test/study I am trying to understand.

Edited February 13, 2010 by lilli

[deerhound owner]

How can a dog's past socialisation or genetics mean nothing in these two scenarios?

Why would a guard dog not behave as the dog in the second scenario?

The dog in the second scenario behaves the way it does because it has the confidence and self-assurity to do so. It says nil about its propensity for DA or HA over time or under different circumstances.

Past socialisation and genetics mean everything in this situation if you are trying to work out WHY a dog reacts in a certain way in a certain situation. If you are trying to develop a measure of HOW a dog reacts, why it does so is not so important. For example if you want to measuring how interested dogs are in playing fetch you need to develop some measure of "fetch interest" possibly the number of times they will fetch an object or the speed at which they fetch or a combination of both. The fact that a labrador is likely to be more interested in fetch than a greyhound doesn't effect your goal of measuring "fetch interest". Factors affecting your now measurable quality of fetch interest (such as breed) can then be the subject of future study.

Factors which contribute to the test score matter because those factors are the other facets of the dog's psyche. Which together with how the dog receives strangers in a neutral environment, over which it has not developed a sense of ownership (the amicability test exampled above), make the total dog.

She did mention that in future they would like to develop tests that look at other aspects of behaviour but they have to start somewhere.

I have difficulty with the human-dog pych attributation of Monash -

because I dont believe dogs' 'amicablity' is constant across time and situation.

Their base instincts are, but not a multi-faceted end product like amicability.

Unfortunately "believing" something doesn't hold up in the scientific world, you have to be able to prove it and the only way to show that 'amicability' is not constant accross time and situation is to be able to measure 'amicability' and then look at it at different time points and situations.

[Erny]

Kate's presentation was "a model for an association of professional pet dog owners"

I think that was "a model for an association of professional pet dog breeders".

I will start: There was the suggestion that puppies that are sold to petshops at a reduced price should hand the lifetime responsibility of the puppy onto the petshop as they were the ones making the profit. Do you think that if this was made compulsory for all pet shops, that they would be much more careful about where they sourced their puppies? Would this force the people supplying puppies to pet shops to lift their game? Would restirictions have to be made as to what avenues the petshop could use to rehome a returned dog eg: not just dump them at pounds etc.

This is the part I don't understand how it is going to make anything better. I raised this in an earlier post. Kate did say that breeders should offer the lifetime guarantee that they will take back dogs they have bred, but commented that in the case of Pet Shops, "they would probably have to have an arrangement with a shelter".

I could only gather from that to mean that the Pet Shop would have to be able to move returned dogs on to somewhere else. So what difference then, if they can do that, to the pet dog owner surrendering to a shelter?

With this in mind, I raise the question of whether that arrangement would actually make it emotionally easier for people to return their unwanteds back to the pet shop and would therefore potentially do so more readily, relieved of the guilt they might otherwise have of doing so themselves -vs- trying to do something about the reason for feeling they don't want their dog anymore.

So, if not shelters, what avenues COULD pet shops have that is going to be in the interests of the dogs' welfare?

Edited February 13, 2010 by Erny

[gundoglover]

They would argue there is no need as PRA is a single gene issue and their idea is that these dont show in F1 crosses.

Also not all DNA tests have been developed yet for most breeds but the hybrid vigour thing with PRA would be the most powerful argument against them testing or profiling a pedigree of the parent dogs etc .

Elfin who works in an eye clinic is clearly seeing that they forgot dogs are the same species and they are breeding dogs with problems they were confident they wouldnt get in first crosses.

Our survey is showing similar and skin problems in F1 crosses are showing way too high.They also have a fair showing of HD and patella and elbow issues. Kate S gave stats for her dogs which have been diagnosed with HD but there's a fair argument that would challenge that because they are pets and unlikely to be scored unless they show sure serious signs of a problem. Purebred labs are scored as a matter of course so many more are in the count. When they compare that figure to labs [as she did ] there are several bumps to take into account. Such as how many have been screened and a bunch of other stuff. The figures tell us nothing and until there is better research its a crap argument. Its all in the way you say it too.If she is right and there is less HD in these crosses than in labs the big question which wasnt mentioned was whether they had less incidence than the other parent - a mini poodle. Also the survey she uses for her figures is old and the dogs being surveyed were all still pretty young. Id like to see a recent one but how many were sold through pet shops and how many would they be able to track and there's too many variables including what they are scoring them against and who is doing the diagnosing etc. It means nothing.

There is a lot of misinformation about hybrid vigour. Hybrid vigour applies for fertility and growth factors and MAY have some relevance for some immune diseases. The hybrid vigour argument does NOT apply for diseases like PRA, HD, etc, because these are in so many breeds of dog. Unless it can be established that the contributor genes for these diseases have different modes of inheritance in the two breeds to be used for crossing, with no overlapping genes, then relying on the crossing to eliminate the problem is foolish. The only way to reduce the likelihood of passing on these widespread canine genes is to health check the parents, just like with the pure breeds. And these tests need to interpreted by specialists, ie, opthalmologists, radiographers, accredited in these fields.

As has been posted before, anyone wishing to cross-breed can do so through the CC's by presenting a clear argument as to the purpose of doing so.

[Kissindra]

I can't find it in the 40 pages, but there was some mention of registered breeders (who breed and show) not selling pets, yet supplying breeding dogs for cross-breeding. Did I understand that correctly?

If so I can't get past the logic fail.

If the rationale is breeders who show don't breed dogs suitable for pets (cough BOLLOCKS cough), why on earth would dogs not suitable as pets be wanted as breeding stock for pets? or does F1 crossing solve all temprament issues too :D

Edited February 13, 2010 by Kissindra

[Sheridan]

There is a lot of misinformation about hybrid vigour. Hybrid vigour applies for fertility and growth factors and MAY have some relevance for some immune diseases. The hybrid vigour argument does NOT apply for diseases like PRA, HD, etc, because these are in so many breeds of dog. Unless it can be established that the contributor genes for these diseases have different modes of inheritance in the two breeds to be used for crossing, with no overlapping genes, then relying on the crossing to eliminate the problem is foolish. The only way to reduce the likelihood of passing on these widespread canine genes is to health check the parents, just like with the pure breeds. And these tests need to interpreted by specialists, ie, opthalmologists, radiographers, accredited in these fields.

As has been posted before, anyone wishing to cross-breed can do so through the CC's by presenting a clear argument as to the purpose of doing so.

Indeed, crossbreeding helps not a whit with some diseases.

[WreckitWhippet]

That might have been me Kissindra.

[Steve]

I can't find it in the 40 pages, but there was some mention of registered breeders (who breed and show) not selling pets, yet supplying breeding dogs for cross-breeding. Did I understand that correctly?

If so I can't get past the logic fail.

If the rationale is breeders who show don't breed dogs suitable for pets (cough BOLLOCKS cough), why on earth would dogs not suitable as pets be wanted as breeding stock for pets? or does F1 crossing solve all temprament issues too :D

Both Helen Bennett and Mike Gollard made comment that perhaps people who breed show dogs shouldnt breed pet dogs and KateS requested that registered breeders should be more open to selling their breeding dogs to commercial breeders.

Kate was there to propose what role a professional association could play in promoting the welfare of companion dogs by helping and registering responsible pet dog breeders.

She spoke of how she felt that the RSPCA and others [including us] had a perception that puppy farmers were people who kept filthy establishments and didnt have the welfare of their dogs as a priority.

In reality it wasnt that far removed from the motives the MDBA had when we started out. Just as we wanted to be able to say our members had agreed to a code of conduct harder than any other and that we would go further to screen and monitor their practices than the CCs do the aim of this group is to say their members keep clean establishments and they take socialisation etc into account in what they do. They are hoping to bring in purebred breeders, cross breeders and breeders developing new breeds - we aimed to bring in purebred breeders and people developing new breeds. Its about legitimising puppy farming and allowing those with higher standards to stand out from those on the lower end of the puppy farm group.Like it or not puppy farmers are here to stay so the theory is to try to lift the bar a bit.

I think its a good idea.

Im not sure how I feel about a commercial breeder being let off the accountability hook by selling to pet shops because obviously that may in fact increase rather than decrease animals going into pet shops but thats not my business.A commercial breeder with 300 breeding dogs can potentially breed a couple of thousand puppies a year and realistically I cant see them putting up their hands for ever to take em back. The work load involved in testing,screening buyers, having to take calls and answer that amount of enquiries and provide that volume of support is huge and it would take employing people just to cover it.That cuts into profits and would have them constantly being watched by the public because of the volume of people coming to their kennel to pick up dogs.Why on earth would they do that and not just drop their price a little and hand em over to a pet shop.?

The MDBA is the only dog group in this country which doesnt allow their members to sell to pet shops and we can legally stay that way without someone screaming breach of trade laws and restriction of trade and that ensures that no matter where our members sell their dogs they never get let off the hook for accountability and thats the way we like it.

[KismetKat]

I could only gather from that to mean that the Pet Shop would have to be able to move returned dogs on to somewhere else. So what difference then, if they can do that, to the pet dog owner surrendering to a shelter?

They get their money back from the pet shop.

The hybrid vigour argument does NOT apply for diseases like PRA, HD, etc, because these are in so many breeds of dog. Unless it can be established that the contributor genes for these diseases have different modes of inheritance in the two breeds to be used for crossing, with no overlapping genes, then relying on the crossing to eliminate the problem is foolish.

One of the presenters (Paul I think it was) stated that research findings found that HD was in fact reduced in cross-breed dogs even if both parent dogs were breeds prone to it.

One question for dog people who've been around awhile - just when did petshop puppies get SO expensive? Surely this is the driving factor of commercial puppy farms? Back in my youth pet shops sold pups for around $10 and the pet shops generally got them from locals who let their dog have a litter and then couldn't find homes for them all. I doubt commercial puppy farms existed back then - why would you when even the retail end only got $10 max for a pup and most people sourced pups thru FTGH. Another aspect to this, is the part played by vastly increased rates of desexing - perhaps this has been TOO successful?

[Steve]

I could only gather from that to mean that the Pet Shop would have to be able to move returned dogs on to somewhere else. So what difference then, if they can do that, to the pet dog owner surrendering to a shelter?

They get their money back from the pet shop.

The hybrid vigour argument does NOT apply for diseases like PRA, HD, etc, because these are in so many breeds of dog. Unless it can be established that the contributor genes for these diseases have different modes of inheritance in the two breeds to be used for crossing, with no overlapping genes, then relying on the crossing to eliminate the problem is foolish.

One of the presenters (Paul I think it was) stated that research findings found that HD was in fact reduced in cross-breed dogs even if both parent dogs were breeds prone to it.

One question for dog people who've been around awhile - just when did petshop puppies get SO expensive? Surely this is the driving factor of commercial puppy farms? Back in my youth pet shops sold pups for around $10 and the pet shops generally got them from locals who let their dog have a litter and then couldn't find homes for them all. I doubt commercial puppy farms existed back then - why would you when even the retail end only got $10 max for a pup and most people sourced pups thru FTGH. Another aspect to this, is the part played by vastly increased rates of desexing - perhaps this has been TOO successful?

It was Mike Goddard who spoke about HD being reduced.Purebred unpapered beagles sell for double what I charge in pet shops.

I rang a pet shop once who I was told had a litter of beagles and he told me he wouldnt buy a pup he couldnt make 500 dollars off.

So therefore someone selling to his pet shop would still get more for their pups than I ask for mine. Its not just desexing - its a gradual lowering of the purebred dog breeder numbers too.

Transpet - an agent for a pet shop in Hawaii pays about 100 bucks less for purebred main regsiter pups than most breeders charge.

Breeders take their pups to Transpet on Monday and if they fail the vet test due to heart murmurs, hernias etc they call into a particular pet shop on the way home and pick up the same money with no vet check and no disclosure. Happens every week but they are still getting as much as me without the accountability or the buyer contact and support.

Supply and demand - if you want a puppy where do you go to buy one ? Puppy farmers dont want to have you calling in and purebred breeders cant breed enough anyway. If they couldnt sell them they would be cheaper but they have people lined up for them.

A litter of beagles wouldnt stay in a pet shop for 24 hours.