# Should breeders be breeding these dogs?



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Molly pre and post surgery.
Dog Can See Clearly Now The Skin Has Gone - Yahoo! News UK










Molly needed this "face lift" so that she could see.
I see so many breeds of dogs with folds of loose skin and very red eyes. As the redness is at the very least conjunctivitis or even worse ulceration and serious infection, is it correct that breeders should be breeding them at all?


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2010)

I was just about to post this myself.

I was /facepalming/

No they should not and it says its due to *"the dog's disability was caused by severe inbreeding."*

Shame on them and those who support this by buying these dogs!


----------



## Jamie760 (Oct 14, 2010)

I disagree with this.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

This is very sad for the dogs that have to go through this


----------



## oohmygod831 (Oct 14, 2010)

I saw this in the paper today and the result of this dog app is overbreeding,i had a friend with 1 and she never had any problems although looking at that poor dog broke mt heart and made me wonder why,at least she had good owners who have paid 2 end her pain.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

oohmygod831 said:


> i had a friend with 1 and she never had any problems


Exactly. Let's get it into perspective - this is an extreme case and to say all shar peis suffer like this is nonsense. Equally, it is just as nonsensical to say things like _"is it correct that breeders should be breeding them at all?" _and _"Shame on them and those who support this by buying these dogs!"_

If the tabloids reported a golden retriever had to have an operation for hip dysplasia (just to pluck one random breed and one random problem out of the ether) would you be asking if it were correct to breed golden retrievers at all, or saying that those who buy golden retrievers are shameful?

No, of course you wouldn't. The most you would be saying is that it would be unwise to breed from those particular lines. And that is all you should be saying about this dog.

I don't know much about shar peis, but I do know enough to understand that breeders are breeding away from these excessive folds of skin.

Here are excerpts from the breed standard:

_Function of eyeball or lid in no way disturbed by surrounding skin, folds or hair. Any sign of irritation of eyeball, conjunctiva or eyelids highly undesirable. Free from entropion._

_some loose skin under neck permitted, but this should not be excessive._

_Forelegs completely wrinkle free when mature._

_hocks well let down without excessive wrinkling or thickening_

_Adult dogs should display moderate wrinkling over shoulders and base of tail. Excessive skin on body when mature highly undesirable_.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Definitely NO - but hasn't the breed standard for this breed been recently altered by the Kennel Club? I expect it will take time for us to see some improvement though!


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I realise you will always stick up for breeders, and there is nothing wrong with that.

However there does appear to be a head in the sand attitude, or a collective delusion perhaps that some of these "malformed" dogs are happy and healthy. 
Breeders need to realise that the puppies they produce are suffering. It may not be apparent when they sell them at 8+ weeks, but the sins of the parents are being visited upon the children.

These loose skinned faced dogs, (and there appears to be a growing popularity of these breeds) have eye problems unless bred very, very carefully.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I realise you will always stick up for breeders,


No I won't - I abhor bad breeding practices just as you do. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough that I think whoever bred this pup should no longer breed from these lines so this will not happen again. However, I will always speak out against unfairness - and tarring all breeders of this breed with the same brush is unfair. It is exactly the same as saying that because one golden retriever has hip dysplasia, no-one should breed golden retrievers.



lauren001 said:


> However there does appear to be a head in the sand attitude, or a collective delusion perhaps that some of these "malformed" dogs are happy and healthy.
> Breeders need to realise that the puppies they produce are suffering. It may not be apparent when they sell them at 8+ weeks, but the sins of the parents are being visited upon the children.
> 
> These loose skinned faced dogs, (and there appears to be a growing popularity of these breeds) have eye problems unless bred very, very carefully.


And my point is that most of them are bred carefully to avoid this. Thinking that just because the odd one that makes the media because of something like this means that all loose skinned breeds suffer from this, and trying to make out that breeders are not breeding carefully to avoid this, is just as much of a "head in the sand" attitude as thinking there are no problems.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

This situation like others will only be corrected by puppy buyers voteing with thier feet and doing thier research in to who are the top quality breeders of the shar pei, in the miniture schnauzers as breeders you have to ensure that there are none of the eye conditions in the bitch or sire before mateing, if these tests arent carried out then theres no guarantee the pups arent going to suffer from the eye conditions themselves, so again puppy buyers should only buy from breeders who carry out the eye checks on thier breeding dogs and the litters produced, a little side step sorry but this was just to point out there are problems in lots of breeds and bred unethicaly problems can become huge, i dont think its about a particular breed not being bred but the puppy buyer holding many of the keys to ousting out poorly bred pups from unscrupulous breeders


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

mitch4 said:


> This situation like others will only be corrected by puppy buyers voteing with thier feet and doing thier research in to who are the top quality breeders of the shar pei, in the miniture schnauzers as breeders you have to ensure that there are none of the eye conditions in the bitch or sire before mateing, if these tests arent carried out then theres no guarantee the pups arent going to suffer from the eye conditions themselves, so again puppy buyers should only buy from breeders who carry out the eye checks on thier breeding dogs and the litters produced, a little side step sorry but this was just to point out there are problems in lots of breeds and bred unethicaly problems can become huge, i dont think its about a particular breed not being bred but the puppy buyer holding many of the keys to ousting out poorly bred pups from unscrupulous breeders


Good point Mitch - rep coming your way for that!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

mitch4 said:


> This situation like others will only be corrected by puppy buyers voteing with thier feet and doing thier research in to who are the top quality breeders of the shar pei, in the miniture schnauzers as breeders you have to ensure that there are none of the eye conditions in the bitch or sire before mateing, if these tests arent carried out then theres no guarantee the pups arent going to suffer from the eye conditions themselves, so again puppy buyers should only buy from breeders who carry out the eye checks on thier breeding dogs and the litters produced, a little side step sorry but this was just to point out there are problems in lots of breeds and bred unethicaly problems can become huge, i dont think its about a particular breed not being bred but the puppy buyer holding many of the keys to ousting out poorly bred pups from unscrupulous breeders


No secret I totally agree with this - and have repeated so many times that the power to stop ALL these bad breeding habits lies securely in the hands of the puppy buying public.

And I will go one step further and add that this should be the case with ALL breeds, not just the ones severely affected by problems.

PF and BYB do it for the money - if no-one buys their pups, then there will be no income - which will ultimately do one of two things

a) put them out of business
b) force them to get their act together and do things properly, responsibly and ethically


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> Molly pre and post surgery.
> Dog Can See Clearly Now The Skin Has Gone - Yahoo! News UK
> 
> 
> ...


Two words!
Absolutely not!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Good point Mitch - rep coming your way for that!


Thankyou


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

swarthy said:


> No secret I totally agree with this - and have repeated so many times that the power to stop ALL these bad breeding habits lies securely in the hands of the puppy buying public.
> 
> And I will go one step further and add that this should be the case with ALL breeds, not just the ones severely affected by problems.
> 
> ...


Agree totally puppy buyers need to be certain with all breeds they may be buying, unfortunately cost comes in to it for some and the price of a well bred puppy is sometimes out of a persons financial budget, saveing a larger amount for some people is either not possible, or not in thier mind set, as we seem to have become a society where immediate gratification is wanted and saveing for a year would be seen as unthinkable, we saved for ages for our last two pups as even before we knew the pups we were going to have, we knew wed be getting pups at some point and as we would only go to a spot on breeder knew wed have to pay for the quality we were going to get from this breeder


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

mitch4 said:


> This situation like others will only be corrected by puppy buyers voteing with thier feet and doing thier research in to who are the top quality breeders of the shar pei, *in the miniture schnauzers as breeders you have to ensure that there are none of the eye conditions in the bitch or sire before mateing*, if these tests arent carried out then theres no guarantee the pups arent going to suffer from the eye conditions themselves, so again puppy buyers should only buy from breeders who carry out the eye checks on thier breeding dogs and the litters produced, a little side step sorry but this was just to point out there are problems in lots of breeds and bred unethicaly problems can become huge, i dont think its about a particular breed not being bred but the puppy buyer holding many of the keys to ousting out poorly bred pups from unscrupulous breeders


The eyes of these dogs are perfectly fine they are not going blind because of eye disease as in the conditions eye tested for in other breeds ie PRA or cataracts, they are going blind because they have loose skin in their eyes, or their eyes don't work properly as the laxity of the skin around the eye doesn't allow lubrication and proper draining as in normal dogs.

I am not just targetting the Shar-pei breed but all breeders that are breeding looser and looser skin around the face causing eye dis-figuration and secondary eye disease.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Is there a way to guarantee avoiding the looser skin around the eyes, is it definitely a condition caused by poor breeding or is it something that can arise even in well bred litters from time to time


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

Most of the Breed standards have been altered (maybe not officially as yet but are practised now) to judge the dogs in a "new type". The problem is ALWAYS blamed on the show breeders by people who don't really understand.... Fair enough, there are a few show breeders who are unethical, but whenever a breed has bad publicity its always show folk who get the blame for creating "mutants", when in actual fact the majority of health problems are BYB and PF who think they know what a particular dog (breed) should look like, but inactual fact get it all wrong.

There was recently someone on here that had a "poor health" type breed, who thought they knew everything about the breed and how it should look, until it was pointed out by someone who actually knew what they was talking about.

If you look on pets4homes there are always adverts for "very wrinkly" sharpei pups... This is undesirable in the showing world. The ar permitted to have a few wrinkles on their forehead, 3 on their withers and 2 on the base of their tail.... all this business about more wrinkles is nonsense.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

mitch4 said:


> unfortunately cost comes in to it for some and the price of a well bred puppy is sometimes out of a persons financial budget, saveing a larger amount for some people is either not possible, or not in thier mind set, as we seem to have become a society where immediate gratification is wanted and saveing for a year would be seen as unthinkable, we saved for ages for our last two pups as even before we knew the pups we were going to have, we knew wed be getting pups at some point and as we would only go to a spot on breeder knew wed have to pay for the quality we were going to get from this breeder


In my own experience, PF bred dogs are often of a very similar price to their pedigree KC registered pups 

The trouble is, even if the pups are cheaper, all too often it's a false economy - the dog on this thread has already cost more in vets bills than it cost to buy - my friends 'bargain basement' pup has cost over £20K in vets bills so far 

There are some that will argue if you cannot afford the price of a pedigree pup, then you should question whether you can afford a dog at all.

Personally, I feel if someone has a loving home to offer and they are not fussed over the background of the dog / can't afford a well bred puppy - then go to rescue.

I was talking to an old family friend today at my sisters wedding - and she has finally convinced her hubbie to get a dog.

After some discussion around their lifestyle etc - the easy option would have been to add her to my waiting list and sell her a pup - I KNOW it would be loved and well cared for - but I 'think' I've persuaded her to look at rescue, in particular retired greyhounds / greyhound rescue.



Tanya1989 said:


> Most of the Breed standards have been altered (maybe not officially as yet but are practised now) .


I am pretty sure most of the revised breed standards have now been ratified


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2010)

mitch4 said:


> Is there a way to guarantee avoiding the looser skin around the eyes, is it definitely a condition caused by poor breeding or is it something that can arise even in well bred litters from time to time


Nope! that is what makes it really sad! the breeders breed for more wrinkles! the more the merrier! More wrinkles mean more money!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Nope! that is what makes it really sad! the breeders breed for more wrinkles! the more the merrier! More wrinkles mean more money!


If that is true, then it is only true of pfs and bybs. According to the breed standard, show shar peis are penalised for excessive wrinkles, so show breeders won't be doing this.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I believe the KC did change the breed standards as with many other breeds after the Panorama programme. 
*
Under the "strict new rules", the standard for Shar Pei dogs will no longer include exaggerated folds of loose skin across its neck, skull and legs and breeders must stop encouraging "excessive weight" in Labradors. *

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...breeding-rules-after-BBC-suspends-Crufts.html


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

> Is there a way to guarantee avoiding the looser skin around the eyes, is it definitely a condition caused by poor breeding or is it something that can arise even in well bred litters from time to time


I would guess it is a fault that is in the breed and it depends on how ethical breeders are as regards breeding from these dogs.
I would presume that if you select against using dogs for breeding with eye problems eventually you get to a stage where most dogs are clear-eyed. However excessive folding of the skin and droopy eyes are a feature in many of these types of loose skinned breeds, so although the dogs may be happier as regards their eyes with less wrinkles, the owners and breeders may not be.








Neopolitan Mastiff - red eyes again - entropion/dry eyes are known issues.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I believe the KC did change the breed standards as with many other breeds after the Panorama programme.


Which Panorama program was that then? Must have missed that one. Did anyone else see it? :lol:

I'm guessing you meant Pedigree Dogs Exposed, but that wasn't a Panorama program. It was made by Passionate Productions Ltd - so if you can't even get that bit right, how accurate do you think the rest of your post is?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> However excessive folding of the skin and droopy eyes are a feature in many of these types of loose skinned breeds, so although the dogs may be happier as regards their eyes with less wrinkles, the owners and breeders may not be.
> 
> Neopolitan Mastiff - red eyes again - entropion/dry eyes are known issues.


show me a breed standard that demands excessive wrinkles as i cant find any.

Show people who usually get the blame for issues like this are breeding dogs they can acheive success with and as Spellweaver has already stated excessive wrinkles are penalised so an exhibitor would be shooting themselves in the foot essentially, please dont try and drop this at the showring door.

_owners and breeders may not be._
what owners/breeders exactly? I dont know any sensible person who cares more about their dogs image than health

And btw Lauren, you are aware that entroption/3rd eye prolapse/scrolling cartilage etc can happen in any breed arent you?
I know of a member on another forum who's malamute suffered from cherry eye.
Oh and dry eye is most common as a result of removing the tear duct, very seldom occurence otherwise

Dogs suffering from the above conditions should not be bred from as although there is no proof atm they are hereditary there you are running the risk that the progeny may need vetinary help due to the issues later on in life and as Tanya informed me, any surgery to correct such issues means the dog cannot be shown, so no, the dog in the pic shouldnt be bred from.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Have I mentioned show dogs?


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

This is a difficult one id imagine that as puppys theres no way of telling till around say 6 months maybe, how many facial wrinkles the pup will have, now breeders keep on thier breeding pups or buy them in from young ages 8/10 weeks old, as you say eyes can be tested for conditions but you cant test a pup to see how many wrinkles it will have when older, so id then assume that breeding this breed could run in to lots of money, if youv bought in a bitch or stud and then find when they are older they have too many facial wrinkles, youd be in the position of having dogs you wouldnt want to breed with, youd then see breeders needing to re home older pups as theyd then need to start the process again with further pups, they couldnt keep them all and they would want to continue breeding and for the good of the breed theyd need to, so people would then have to accept that breeders would be in a position where theyd need to re home these older pups, im sure breeding out more wrinkly dogs will take many years. 
I dont know if iv worded this to make any sence i hope its made a little bit of sence lol


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I am well aware that any dog can get entropion. 
What I am concerned about is the number of dogs I see with red eyes, drooping eyes, eyes with poor eye lid cover causing dryness, weeping eyes and eyes that are compromised by folds of skin.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> Have I mentioned show dogs?


you mention breeders in almost every post. What other reasons are there for breeding dogs other than showing/working?
Coz theyre cute, coz i want one just like mum, coz i want to make money?

hence why my reply was about show breeders, people that actually care and try and avoid such issues.
So what breeders are you referring to exactly? Both Spellweaver and I have already replied with our opinions from an exhibitor perspective


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I am well aware that any dog can get entropion.
> What I am concerned about is the number of dogs I see with red eyes, drooping eyes, eyes with poor eye lid cover causing dryness, weeping eyes and eyes that are compromised by folds of skin.


Do you really see that many Lauren? Where do you see them? I regularly see dogs such as neopolitan mastiffs etc at shows - and yes they have loose folds of skin, but I've yet to see one with eye trouble.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2010)

This story raises many questions..

The most obvious being:
Do owners not re-search breeds and breeders before buying dogs? Because health problems happen in every breed.

If I bought a breed of dog that had a chance of having multiple eye problems including Entropion and Primary Lens Luxation I would know that at some point my dog might have those problems in the future.

Also why buy a dog that has so many skin rolls? 
I would much rather buy one like this.








Than this.









Anyway, I do think that breeders should not breed dogs to the point they cant see however I would love to find out if they bought from a good breeder or one of those BYB's.

If the public refused to buy such sick dogs then the breeders would stop breeding them.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

In the first photo the dog looks relaxed and beautiful

in the second he/she looks stressed

But i know very very little about this breed so would not like to comment on which one is to standard but i know id opt for photo number one if i were chooseing a dog of this breed, its a beautiful breed and would be a shame if it fell mainly in to the wrong hands


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

That poor dog  I'm glad it can see now!

Luna has a little red in the corner of her eyes but that's it... I'm worried now


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Which Panorama program was that then? Must have missed that one. Did anyone else see it? :lol:
> 
> I'm guessing you meant Pedigree Dogs Exposed, but that wasn't a Panorama program. It was made by Passionate Productions Ltd - so if you can't even get that bit right, how accurate do you think the rest of your post is?


I did and it was aired originally in 2008.
Mutations in pedigree dogs 'must be bred out' - News, Pets - The Independent

Why so defensive? I wasn't accusing anyone!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I did and it was aired originally in 2008.
> Mutations in pedigree dogs 'must be bred out' - News, Pets - The Independent


Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Passionate Productions

Maybe Panorama aired the programme on their behalf (although I get the feeling not) - or the media are so tuned in to Panaroma being the main instigator of televising anything they believe should be in the public eye, that the media failed to do their research (which if this was the case would be more than a little ironic really given the subject matter )

=================================

I have to say, I am not overly keen on the way 'breeders' are all lumped into one bag by some people - likewise, I am not keen on the way people single out 'show breeders' as being the villans.

The real villians here are people who breed solely on fashion - and that DOES NOT, for the majority of breeds, include show breeders,and most definitely not most working breeders.

In the main, the show world has been a massive driver in terms of breeding for healthier dogs, most of which go into pet homes - the working world is now catching up - yet - people STILL single out the show-world as the 'bad guys.

=========================

When will people get the message that, in the main, PF and Back Yard Breeders producing puppies to 'fashions' are a much bigger industry than the show or working worlds - these breeders producing solely for 'customer demand' - i.e. the general puppy buying public

Once again, we come back to the same simple fact - if people didn't buy these dogs, there would be no market for them, and hence, breeding would stop.

While knowing little about some of these breeds, I do take on board that some of these problems may not highlight themselves until the pup is somewhat older - but - if all this is hereditary and 'bred in' - didn't the puppy buyers see mum and at least pictures of dad? wouldn't this be sufficient to highlight there could be potential issues

Or - do these puppy buyers LIKE the parents - and having done insufficient research subsequently lay ALL the blame at the breeders door when things go wrong


----------



## sharpeilover (Aug 9, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> I realise you will always stick up for breeders, and there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> However there does appear to be a head in the sand attitude, or a collective delusion perhaps that some of these "malformed" dogs are happy and healthy.
> Breeders need to realise that the puppies they produce are suffering. It may not be apparent when they sell them at 8+ weeks, but the sins of the parents are being visited upon the children.
> ...


This picture is NOT a Shar Pei of any form!!

Looks more like a blood hound!!

My 4 yes!! Four Shar Pei are all free from entropic surgery and I've met many more shar pei without the bad eyes!!

Any breeder of shar pei out there knows the newish rules on eyes and there fore has adjusted!!


----------



## sharpeilover (Aug 9, 2010)

mitch4 said:


> Agree totally puppy buyers need to be certain with all breeds they may be buying, unfortunately cost comes in to it for some and the price of a well bred puppy is sometimes out of a persons financial budget, saveing a larger amount for some people is either not possible, or not in thier mind set, as we seem to have become a society where immediate gratification is wanted and saveing for a year would be seen as unthinkable, we saved for ages for our last two pups as even before we knew the pups we were going to have, we knew wed be getting pups at some point and as we would only go to a spot on breeder knew wed have to pay for the quality we were going to get from this breeder


Bad news Mitch, in the Shar Pei buyers world YOU DO NOT GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!! Out of my 4 the best temperament and type wise (and the one most admired by passer by's) was my cheapest!!! 
The one I paid more than double for well, I've a sad feeling she won't live long and the breeder she's from is no help at all. 
The CHEAP puppy I bought, well the breeder is there day and night for me and the puppy is amazing!!

Unfortunatly some so called breeders are just in it for the money and they think if the charge high prices people think they are getting the best! Like I did!!


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Well, where to start. I am fairly new here and haven't got to grips with the quoting etc, so bear with me. I wish I knew how

This is my breed and yes, I show. There are many ethical breeders who do their utmost to produce good healthy pups with clear eyes and it is working.

You will know if a pup will have excess eye skin when they are only a few weeks old, although not to what extent in adulthood. The 2 pics posted are of 1st, an adult, 2nd pic a pup. As the skull grows, the wrinkles are less exaggerated. In my experience the picture of the pup will have grown up and will have good clear eyes

Technically, not a hereditary condition. You can breed dogs with very good eyes and moderate wrinkly and produce a pup like Molly or breed dogs like Molly and produce clear eyes. Although I am not saying it is ethical to breed very heavily wrinkled dogs, far from it


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

pearltheplank said:


> Technically, not a hereditary condition. You can breed dogs with very good eyes and moderate wrinkly and produce a pup like Molly or breed dogs like Molly and produce clear eyes. Although I am not saying it is ethical to breed very heavily wrinkled dogs, far from it


is it the 'wrinkles' are not hereditary? i.e. for example, in my own breed, sometimes two 'features' appear on pups, zips on their face and white flashes on their chests - quite often with no real obvious origins.

I know zips and flashes are not potentially damaging to the dog in the same way that wrinkles *might* be (the zips and flashes often appeal to puppy buyers - but are so random you could never breed to produce them - and TBH wouldn't want to - because while neither are faults as such, they are undesirable in the showring) just curious whether the same principle applies?


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

No, I was meaning entropian caused by excess skin is not technically hereditary. Obviously, the wrinkles are but to what degree is determined by the dogs individual level of hyaluronan (mucin) which in effect produces the wrinkling

Although with alterations to the breed standard calling for less wrinkles, which I personally agree with, in the show ring there are still some heavily wrinkled dogs and are winning or at least placed.

If I knew how to post pics, I would put up mine to show the difference between her as a pup, 8 weeks or so and now at 3 years. To show how they grow into the skin and my girl has not needed any medical intervention with her eyes


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

sharpeilover said:


> This picture is NOT a Shar Pei of any form!!
> 
> Looks more like a blood hound!!
> 
> ...


Did I say the problem is just in Shar Peis?, I am not just criticising excessively wrinkled Shar Peis.
The pup is a Neopolitan Mastiff another breed that appears to be full of wrinkles whose skin is also loose and whose eyes appear to be suffering.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I did and it was aired originally in 2008.
> Mutations in pedigree dogs 'must be bred out' - News, Pets - The Independent
> 
> Why so defensive? I wasn't accusing anyone!


Not defensive at all - I was actually laughing at the fact that you put up a quote for a journalist who GETS IT WRONG about who produced the program and then expects readers to believe that the rest of his report is accurate. I'm now also concerned at the fact that, despite being given the correct information in my earlier post, you are yet again posting incorrect information on an open forum like this instead of checking out the real facts for yourself. Swarthy has given you the link to the real producers - read and learn! :lol:



swarthy said:


> Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Passionate Productions
> 
> Maybe Panorama aired the programme on their behalf (although I get the feeling not) - or the media are so tuned in to Panaroma being the main instigator of televising anything they believe should be in the public eye, that the media failed to do their research (which if this was the case would be more than a little ironic really given the subject matter )


No, Panorama had nothing at all to do with it. I wish they had. Panorama is an established program with journalists who know how to research properly. If Panorama _had_ made the program, it would have been a much more balanced program made to inform and would not, as Jemima Harrison (the producer of PDE) has openly admitted she did on Champdogs forum, been deliberately biased in order to shock.

Misinformed people like Malmum who perpetuate the idea that there is a link between Panaorama and PDE are unwittingly giving the program kudos it does not merit.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I know the program was out to shock and it did a good job, IMO as it shocked some to think again about what they were actually doing. Many were content to sit on their laurels and turn a blind eye to those who were knowingly breeding unhealthy dogs, so was it a bad thing?

No-one would even be talking about it now if all it did was rubber stamp those who think it fine to ignore health issues "for the good of the breed" or because they don't want their breeding businesses ruined.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I know the program was out to shock and it did a good job, IMO as it shocked some to think again about what they were actually doing. Many were content to sit on their laurels and turn a blind eye to those who were knowingly breeding unhealthy dogs, so was it a bad thing?
> 
> No-one would even be talking about it now if all it did was rubber stamp those who think it fine to ignore health issues "for the good of the breed" or because they don't want their breeding businesses ruined.


Who did it shock into rethinking?
You really are showing your ignorance.
Are you active in the dog world at all, i have the feeling you're not.

Have you heard of "Fit For Function"?
The KC has been in talks with numerous breeds in order to improve them health wise and this is long before these bullsh!t "documentarys" were aired. Anyone who is involved in the dog world would know this - in fact it was in DW over a year before the doc aired!!
All the docs did was thrust it into the spotlight for the ignorant to pass their judgement

Have you heard the latest info on the GSD issues? Well no because its not dramatic enough to be entertaining. Try here
Kennel Club - fit for function fit for life


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I know the program was out to shock and it did a good job, IMO as it shocked some to think again about what they were actually doing. Many were content to sit on their laurels and turn a blind eye to those who were knowingly breeding unhealthy dogs, so was it a bad thing?
> 
> No-one would even be talking about it now if all it did was rubber stamp those who think it fine to ignore health issues "for the good of the breed" or because they don't want their breeding businesses ruined.


I think I'm gonna go hang my washing out and come back to about 50 pages of the same old argument.........


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I know the program was out to shock and it did a good job, IMO as it shocked some to think again about what they were actually doing. Many were content to sit on their laurels and turn a blind eye to those who were knowingly breeding unhealthy dogs, so was it a bad thing?
> 
> No-one would even be talking about it now if all it did was rubber stamp those who think it fine to ignore health issues "for the good of the breed" or because they don't want their breeding businesses ruined.


Anybody can ignore all the salient facts and produce a program that shocks. I could, for example, decide that I wanted to make a name for myself by letting the public know that internet forums about pets were promoting hatred about overweight people instead of talking about pets. I could do this by producing a program about Petforums and choosing to mention only the threads that have posts and pics mocking the overweight. I could interview posters such as Rona who have been upset about the posts, and report only the parts about her being upset and wondering whether it is worth posting again, and not report the parts about how she enjoys the rest of the forum and how excellent she finds it. I could completely ignore all the posts from people who were not offended. I could then "forget" to mention that these mocking posts were few and far between, and that the majority of posts were from caring, informed people with a wealth of information about animals at their fingertips. My resulting program would shock those people who thought that such forums were helpful, and it might make all sorts of human rights groups and consumer groups jump on the bandwagon to get such forums closed down, or reformed. Hey presto, I've got me a program that shocks - but I haven't got me a program that tells the truth.

Now that is exactly what PDE did. They showed something that was happening in a very small minority of cases (the boxer and the cav weren't even show dogs) and it ignored the rest, the majority, all the good. They interviewed people and then viciously edited the interviews so that they showed only the bits that fit in with their scenario. Yes, it shocked - but it was not the truth.

If it had told the truth, people such as yourself would not be under the impression that a) All pedigree dogs were mutants b) the people who were breeding unhealthy dogs were in the majority c) breeders of show dogs were the ones breeding unhealthy dogs (in a balanced program the finger would have been pointed firmly at puppy farms) d) blind eyes were being turned e) breeders of pedigree show dogs were all ignoring health issues because of their businesses.e) the Kennel Club was to blame for all this (in fact the KC have been actively promoting dog health for years)

If the program had given a balanced view, people like yourself would know the truth, instead of half-truths and downright lies designed to shock and raise viewing figures.

Now, you may prefer to have the thrill of shock-horror tactics.

Me, I prefer the truth.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think I'm gonna go hang my washing out and come back to about 50 pages of the same old argument.........


Put on the popcorn ............ :lol:


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

The KC has been motivated by the program, there is greater public awareness of health in dogs.
Pedigree Dogs Exposed: A Positive Moment for Canine Health

The "ignorant" public have every right to know what practices were being condoned and how dogs in certain breeds were suffering at the hands of breeders.

The issues of the outlandish shapes dogs are now being bred into, is a subject quite rightly for public discussion and it was brought to the attention of many by the programme. Many who thought it OK that dogs look and act in certain ways, realised that they did so because they are fundamentally unhealthy due mostly to the breeders who bred them.

The "ignorant" public at the end of the day, are the customers and although it is always good for business people to have the "ignorant" public be in the dark as to how they operate, in this day and age, businesses need to be more transparent, businesses need quality control and businesses need to be able to justify their actions to anyone who delves deeper.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

That programme was after sensationalism and boy did it get it.

Definition of a breeder from Wikipedia
A breeder is a person who practices the vocation of mating carefully selected specimens of the same breed to reproduce specific, consistently replicable qualities and characteristics.

Unfortunately, all BYB's and puppy farms are doing is producing pups and term themselves as breeders

At the end of the program I believe they say 'Adopt, don't buy' but all that is doing is fuelling the BYB and PF's. I am not saying, don't rescue because all the dogs deserve good homes but the BYB and PF far outweigh the good ethical breeder in many, many breeds


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Does it really matter who produced the programme? Surely the most relevant point is the programmes content not who aired it!

Whether the programme (by whoever) was a fair representation or not, the KC took action, surely that in intself speaks volumes.......... doesn't it?

I don't think the finger of blame can always be pointed at byb's & pf's - I mean how many of theses actually show dogs? The programme specifically chose to mention dogs from the show ring and the breed standards they had to follow - hence why certain organisations pulled out of Crufts!


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2010)

I dont think its fair that all breeders should be lumped together.

At the end of the day the woman who bought the dog bought it a month ago, so she knew exactly how it looked so no excuse for thinking it would grow into its skin laps.

Pedigree dog has 'extreme' facelift that allows her to open her eyes and see for the first time | Mail Online



> Ms Walsh bought Molly for £500 just last month, but has already shelled out £720 in vet bills.
> 
> She now plans to sue the owners, from Wales, who sold her the pet, claiming they were not honest about her state of health./QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Haven't managed to get the washing out yet, but have had a bath, which cleared my head a bit, here's my two penneth worth.....

The article states severe inbreeding, and yet obviously we don't have any idea to what extent, nor who the breeder is. Without knowing this, I don't think it's fair to comment, nor is it fair to just google, and choose images to represent a breed, and form a basis that they shouldn't be bred because they are obviously unhealthily wrinkly, if that's a term. 

If this breeder who is inbreeding, had bred the healthiest sharpei in of our day, the likelihood is we would never have had any knowledge of this, not condoning the use of 'inbreeding' by the way, nor do I want to get into a discussion about what is close, the KC have set their limits and I'm quite happy that they have done so.

Finally, leaving the uknown extent of inbreeding aside which we don't know so can't comment on, if this person had gone to a breeder with healthy sharpei stock, and this is an unfortunate one off, the breeder can't really be blamed if they were doing everything right and by the book. If they went to a byb, or worse, and bought the pup from parents that were similar in appearance, then really, it's the puppy buyer that is at fault for driving the fashion towards excess wrinkles, so they can't then blame the breeder for their problems.

As for PDE, the backlash against all pedigree breeders did more harm than good, leading Joe Public to believe all pedigrees are unhealthy, inbred with genetic faults. You only have to look at the opinion of many posts on here to see how many believe that myth, and the myth that all cross breeds are more healthy overall. Who benefited? Not the ethical pedigree breeders, many of whom were already doing their best to use appropriate health testing to use towards breeding decisions. The main benefactors were those that were able to tell the puppy buying public, their dogs didn't need health testing, because they weren't pedigrees, or show dogs, so didn't suffer the same health problems as highlighted on PDE. Sadly, so many people STILL believe this downright lie!!!   

To Malmum, just saw your comment, yes it does matter who produced the programme, JH's company (forget the name) that produced PDE is a business, it is out to make money, and sensationalism (not facts) sell  

And edited to add, the PDE programme did not prompt the KC to take any action, the KC was already taking steps to change breed standards, and set up the health test database etc, etc, none of the measures the KC have taken were in any way influenced by the PDE programme to my knowledge, anyone able to actually back this type of statement up factually? 

Right, must go hang my washing out, not sure if it's worth it now but I think I will make the most of the bit of sunshine we've got here today


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I dont think its fair that all breeders should be lumped together.
> 
> At the end of the day the woman who bought the dog bought it a month ago, so she knew exactly how it looked so no excuse for thinking it would grow into its skin laps.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think you've just unwittingly fallen into the trap that many do, the sad type of PDE myth, not all sharpei's are unhealthy, nor pugs. Some breeds have more health tests available, smaller gene pools, different health tests relating to different problems, etc, etc, but no entire breed is unhealthy? There are a couple where bottle necks mean that a genetic condition has become widespread, and breeders are aware of this, and taking measures to try and resolve the problems. But I think it's unfair to say you buy a sick breed at your own risk, any one buying a pup should go to someone who produces healthy examples of that breed, more difficult with numerically smaller breeds, which is why there are a lot of byb's and puppy farmers willing to step into the breach, particularly for fashionable breeds of dogs, that command a high price.


No, I have met many pugs and other breeds that have multiple health problems (including my cavalier) and they have been fine however there are breeds that are more prone to health conditions than others such as:
Pugs.
Cavaliers.
Shar Pei.
Bull dogs.

Not all dogs in these breeds will have problems however there is a higher risk.

I got a cavalier even though I knew they had risks of health problems and booom he has a heart condition but thats all thats wrong with him.

I have a GSD and she has AF but I would never sue someone over it. It was my risk.

I have met many healthy pugs, cavaliers, shar pei's and bull dogs but I have also met those that are not so healthy. 
So I decided not to get a pug as not to risk it. And got a more healthy breed instead yes Shelties still have health problems and there is a risk however there health problem list is much smaller.

I believe when you buy any dog you are risking health problems however if you go to a BYB or PF then you cant expect a good healthy dog. You cant just see a add in the paper for a pedigree dog and go get it even though it has obvious problems then sue the previous owners when you knew how it looked. Fair enough if it was a problem that could not be seen but being unable to open its eyes is pretty obvious imo.

Like I said if people stopped buying dogs from bad breeders then they would have no one to sell to and stop breeding but I highly doubt people will stop going to them.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> The KC has been motivated by the program, there is greater public awareness of health in dogs.
> Pedigree Dogs Exposed: A Positive Moment for Canine Health
> 
> The "ignorant" public have every right to know what practices were being condoned and how dogs in certain breeds were suffering at the hands of breeders.
> ...


Business people? Businesses?
I'll say it again, what type of breeder are you referring to exactly?

Most people i know dont consider dogs a business and i think its insulting you insinuate that.
The only people whom i would consder businesses are those who churn out litter after litter, Dogs4Us for example.
You are absolutely right the ignorant public are the customers. They are the ones who buy the "unusual" dogs. If the public didnt buy them there would be no demand for them and BYBs would not waste their time!

Dogs have always been up for public discussion and there has always been awarness in health problems within dogs, do you think people health test for a laugh? Its been brought to attention to the public by a very biased programme, why not give the other side of the story? Oh but thats not entertaining enough I suppose.

I have been involved with chihuahuas all my life and bred 2 litters. I chose to breed as i wanted to keep a pup to continue showing, which to me is one of the few valid reasons for breeding. My girls came from fully health tested and free whelping lines. I would never breed again from a bitch that had to have c-sections. In this i attempted to improve my line and health, not everyone is simply interested in money!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> Does it really matter who produced the programme? Surely the most relevant point is the programmes content not who aired it!


On the contrary, who produced the program is of the utmost importance - whoever produces the program hires the journalsist who do the research; whoever produces the program decides the content. A decent program maker such as Panorama is vastly different from shock-horror-attention-seeking program makers such as Passionate Productions, and would have shown an accurate, balanced, well-informed view. If Panorama had made the progam, you wouldn't be printing nonsense such as



Malmum said:


> I don't think the finger of blame can always be pointed at byb's & pf's - I mean how many of theses actually show dogs? The programme specifically chose to mention dogs from the show ring and the breed standards they had to follow


on a forum because you would have been informed by the program that a) breed clubs set the standards, not the Kennel Club, and breed clubs are made up of both people who show and people who don't show, and b) most show breeders breed healthy, happy dogs that are fit for function and that bybs and pfs are the source of most of ill-bred dogs

Neither would you also be printing nonsense such as


Malmum said:


> - hence why certain organisations pulled out of Crufts!


because, if it hadn't been for the lies told in the program, no-one would have pulled out of Crufts in the first place. (except Pedigree, who two years BEFORE the PDE program were withdrawing from sponsoring all dog showing and handling over the Crufts sponsorhsip mantle to Royal Canin (they are both owned by Mars; it was merely an internal shift)

And if Panorama had made the program, you would have also been informed about the Kennel Club's health initiatives that take place all the time, so neither would you be tempted to print such nonsense as



Malmum said:


> Whether the programme (by whoever) was a fair representation or not, the KC took action, surely that in intself speaks volumes.......... doesn't it?


So yes, who makes the program is important.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

The sharpei didnt originally have so many wrinkles and folds in the skin. Man as usual decided what was disireable and liked the look so bred them from more wrinkled specimins to achieve it more and more. Not only do they suffer from the eye problems they also suffer from skin fold pyoderma and dermatitis. Unless their skin is looked after very carefully. They also suffer from sharpei fever which can cause early death. Anyone looking for a pup should research their breeders and lines first very carefully.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

If the shar pei is fed a good diet, then no they don't have skin fold pyoderma or dermatitis. They do need not 'special' cleaning if they are kept fit and healthy, no more than any other breed

Yes, they can have eye problems and yes there is a hereditary condition called FSF which as you rightly say can cause early death. Unfortunately, at present there is no test for this but the researchers believe they have found the genetic marker and are working on a test

This one of the biggest problems that some breeders, namely BYB are unaware even of its existence, let alone withdrawing that dog from their breeding program because of the money they will lose. They churn out litter after litter of sick dogs

Potential buyers do not research enough and are taken in by glamourous websites. When there is finally a test, you can bet which breeders will be using it and which ones won't bother


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

sharpeilover said:


> Bad news Mitch, in the Shar Pei buyers world YOU DO NOT GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!! Out of my 4 the best temperament and type wise (and the one most admired by passer by's) was my cheapest!!!
> The one I paid more than double for well, I've a sad feeling she won't live long and the breeder she's from is no help at all.
> The CHEAP puppy I bought, well the breeder is there day and night for me and the puppy is amazing!!
> 
> Unfortunatly some so called breeders are just in it for the money and they think if the charge high prices people think they are getting the best! Like I did!!


Thats bad news, you are right though there are unsavoury charachters out there breeding and asking a lot of money for thier pups. Its such a mind field for puppy purchasers, i like to go on word of mouth and see the breeders dogs/pups go visit and gain a relationship of sorts with them before i even confirm i would like a pup from them, i also like it when they give me a hard time with fireing questions at me to see if im right for one of thier pups

May be im a bit behind the times as years ago BYB and Puppy farmers pups were always considerably cheaper than the good quality breeders but seeing some prices quoted for what appear to be less well bred pups shows that these puppy farmers/Byb are catching up in the prices and chanceing thier luck to get as much as they can 

I do hope you dog makes a good old age x


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

But this says that breed standards are owned by the KC and any changes must be approved by the KC, so how do breed clubs stand when they want a specific standard - they must have to get the KC's permission......don't they?
Kennel Club Breed Standards - The Kennel Club

BTW - whats wrong with you Spellweaver - I seem to have touched a nerve and don't know how! It's not a guilty concience is it?


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

Malmum said:


> But this says that breed standards are owned by the KC and any changes must be approved by the KC, so how do breed clubs stand when they want a specific standard - they must have to get the KC's permission......don't they?
> Kennel Club Breed Standards - The Kennel Club
> 
> BTW - whats wrong with you Spellweaver - I seem to have touched a nerve and don't know how! It's not a guilty concience is it?


No, the standards can't be practised until the KC clear them. The KC don't have control over the content of them as such, but if something within the breed standard is believed to be detrimental to the breed the KC will refuse to chnge them. Its the Breed clubs that dish out the standards though.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> BTW - whats wrong with you Spellweaver - I seem to have touched a nerve and don't know how! It's not a guilty concience is it?


What on earth are you talking about? Touched a nerve??    Guilty conscience??    You are not making sense. You posted something that was wrong - you ignored my explanation as to why it wa wrong and repeated the error - I thought we were happily discussing issues that arose from that - I've completely no idea why you feel the need to attack like this?


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

I understand that this is an emotive subject, but can we please try to keep this civil, respectful and a little less personal on the attacks.

Thanks.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> The "ignorant" public at the end of the day, are the customers and although it is always good for business people to have the "ignorant" public be in the dark as to how they operate, in this day and age, businesses need to be more transparent, businesses need quality control and businesses need to be able to justify their actions to anyone who delves deeper.


 who exactly are you referring to? hobby breeders / show breeders / a large percentage of working folk / responsible pet breeders?

NONE of these are breeding dogs as a business

Business = trying to make a profit

Do you have ANY IDEA how many litters a responsible breeder would need to produce to make even a small profit, never mind a living out of it.

Have you got any idea how much time and money is invested in a show or working dog before it is bred from? It makes for VERY scary reading.

Yes, there may be some breeders with established stud dogs who do make some money out of it - but - think on this

Few things get 'swept under the carpet' in these worlds, quite simply because word travels like wildfire - therefore it is not in anyone's interests to knowingly produce pups of questionable quality, conformation or health.

Yes, you can have the occasional dog who may develop bad hips or elbows - from good lines - but in isolation, means very little - as so many other contibutory factors come into play that are completely beyond the breeders control.

=========================

The breeders are accused of 'jumping down people's throats' but to be quite honest, it isn't difficult from reading certain posts and elements on this site, to see why.

Breeders ARE lumped in together - show breeders are frequently criticised for everything from the health of pups to getting rid of dogs who are no longer 'useful' - yet I seldom see such comments about the working fraternity - despite being told by a working person about my 'injured girl' - see that's the difference between you and us - she would be gone!!

==================

it does 'appear' there are a small minority of breeds which do have problems - but again - even that perception is to a large extent derived from the PDE programme - which - no question about it - was one-sided.

The dog that this thread was started about was 'apparently' 'inbred' - but if I had a penny for every time I've seen pet owners saying- gosh I've got the same dog twice in my 5 generation pedigree - is that inbreeding - it's difficult to even accept the opinion of the article writer without knowing the facts.

It might be an idea sometimes to remember that the media only print what makes good news - and that often leads to unbalanced, one-sided information, that the public eagerly digest.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Aside from all the bad issues along with breeding, there is another consideration to be taken into account - should breeders be breeding at the moment at all?

According to Dogs Today (November issue) probably not! 
Instead - the article (not me) says - breeders, added to which are good ethical breeders should be encouraging buyers to take rescue dogs and not add to the already overwhelming population of dogs bred in the UK today.

Food for thought or just not feasible?


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Aside from all the bad issues along with breeding, there is another consideration to be taken into account - should breeders be breeding at the moment at all?
> 
> According to Dogs Today (November issue) probably not!
> Instead - the article (not me) says - breeders, added to which are good ethical breeders should be encouraging buyers to take rescue dogs and not add to the already overwhelming population of dogs bred in the UK today.
> ...


Rescue dogs are not for everyone. Also what about people who want a certain breed but dont have any in rescues?

I was on the papillon rescue list for 5 years after 5 years I asked to be taken off the list so other people would get a shot.

Alot of people dont want cross's with children as they dont want a chance of a unpredicable dog. This I dont believe in however many people I speak to do believe that this is the case.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Malmum said:


> Aside from all the bad issues along with breeding, there is another consideration to be taken into account - should breeders be breeding at the moment at all?
> 
> According to Dogs Today (November issue) probably not!
> Instead - the article (not me) says - breeders, added to which are good ethical breeders should be encouraging buyers to take rescue dogs and not add to the already overwhelming population of dogs bred in the UK today.
> ...


This cant be the case for everyone as rescues have such stringent rules, plus as just said people want different things from a dog that may be cant be found in a rescue, not everyone wants to take on an older dog, not everyone can run the risk of a puppy from a rescue not growing to the size theyd be sure of with a chosen pup from a breeder, its all about choice and in a free society people are at liberty to make these choices.

If you want to and can rescue, its an admirable thing and dont these dogs need these brillient people but to say breeders shouldnt breed at the moment and people should take on rescues is also possibly a negative thing to advocate, in as much as if good breeders were to stop breeding due to the current economic climet, or because theres a lot of dogs in rescue, do you think puppy farmers would, No they most definitely wouldnt, so this magazine is possibly being a bit short sighted.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I don't think it's workable either as I wouldn't expect BYB's and PF's to consider they are making an unnecessary contribution to the dog population.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Ah me ...the same old arguements and predjudices come trotting out every time ..I have to say that when Ms Harrisons programme was shown overseas other Kennel Clubs did 'nt do a headless chicken impersonation but gave it the scant regard it deserved !!....- she's entitled to her opinion and experienced dog breeders are entitled to theirs ...she and others may huff and puff as much as they like but ultimately it's the *breeders *who will decide what changes happen ...

....and Pedigree's decision to pull out of Crufts was not based on any ideological stance against the show world and dog shows but on a change in their marketing strategy- for many years Pedigree was the major sponsor for many aspects of the show world with the catch phrase 'Top breeders recommend it '- in the last decade or so firms such as Pro Plan and Royal Canin have muscled their way in and exhibitors and breeders changed their alliance - in Europe and America Pedigree continues to support dog shows and show breeders ....


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ....and Pedigree's decision to pull out of Crufts was not based on any ideological stance against the show world and dog shows but on a change in their marketing strategy- for many years Pedigree was the major sponsor for many aspects of the show world with the catch phrase 'Top breeders recommend it '- in the last decade or so firms such as Pro Plan and Royal Canin have muscled their way in and exhibitors and breeders changed their alliance - in Europe and America Pedigree continues to support dog shows and show breeders ....


Exactly! As I said in post 56 - it was a decision based purely on marketing strategy. Mars decided to transfer it to another company owned by them - Royal Canin - and it had nothing at all to do with PDE. The changeover was taking place at least a year (if not longer than that) before the program was even dreamt of. Heh heh - it hasn't stopped those who are against showing dogs using it as "proof" that they are right though!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I don't think it's workable either as I wouldn't expect BYB's and PF's to consider they are making an unnecessary contribution to the dog population.


You're right - that's the downside of persuading reputable breeders not to breed. All that will be left is pups from bybs and pfs - and where will that leave the dog world?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> You're right - that's the downside of persuading reputable breeders not to breed. All that will be left is pups from bybs and pfs - and where will that leave the dog world?


Amen to that - I tried to rep you, but apparently I have to 'put it about a bit' first 

these debates continue - but they are pointless on these sites, because the large majority of breeders on here are responsible and ethical - yet we are the ones made to feel guilty / that we are doing something wrong, while the PF and BYB continue to churn out dogs bred solely for fashion rather than temperament and health


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I mentioned breeders, *breeder* is a general term it encompasses *ALL* breeders I thought, show dog *breeder*, pet dog*breeder*, working dog *breeder*, back yard *breeder* etc.

I think the thread has got bogged down in old "stances" and old "defences" and old arguments about "show" versus just about every dog on the planet, "rescue" versus deliberate breeding with smatterings of the denigration of the PDE programme. Also BYBs and PFs put in for good measure. At one point the thread was just quivering with indignation.

The term show breeder was never ever mentioned by me as being at fault here, yet there is a huge blockade put up "never seen a dog at a show with eye trouble", no I am sure you haven't because a show is a beauty pageant really so that any eye trouble would be well treated or the dog pulled from the show. The Neo pup I featured with the red eyes was a potential "show" pup.

I know not where this particular Shar Pei pup came from in my original post, I cannot say that it definitely originated from a show breeder, pet breeder, oops litter or a BYB and unless anyone has inside knowledge then neither can anyone else, we can therefore assume nothing.

My plea is for "breeders" (note *general* term) of loose skinned/wrinkly dogs to watch the eyes of the dogs they are breeding. 
Eye infections, inflammations are extremely painful conditions, it may just look a bit pink/red to us, but imagine being bothered with sore eyes for the rest of your life.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I mentioned breeders, *breeder* is a general term it encompasses *ALL* breeders I thought, show dog *breeder*, pet dog*breeder*, working dog *breeder*, back yard *breeder* etc.


Lauren - you say things like this which are all well and good, but then when you add incorrect and inflammatory statements such as this:



lauren001 said:


> "never seen a dog at a show with eye trouble", no I am sure you haven't because a show is a beauty pageant


you can hardly complain that people think you are speaking out against show dogs and answer accordingly.

I mentioned that I have not seen any dogs with eye problems at shows because that is where I usually see dogs with wrinkled skins - purely and simply that. There was no "blockade" (in fact, I'm not sure what you actually mean by that!), no hidden agenda, no old stances about show versus anything else. It was a genuine query about how many of these dogs have you actually seen with eye problems rather than read about - asked purely and simply because you said you were sick of seeing them and, although I do see many dogs with wrinkled skin, I haven't seen any with eye problems at all.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> I mentioned breeders, *breeder* is a general term it encompasses *ALL* breeders I thought, show dog *breeder*, pet dog*breeder*, working dog *breeder*, back yard *breeder* etc.


The point is - the GOOD breeders are predominantly doing it RIGHT the BYB and Puppy Farmers are not - but we all get lumped into the same bag when in fact the comments are being aimed at people who are unlikely to ever darken the door of places such as this site.

Novices looking for pups, read these comments and assume ALL breeders and ALL pedigree dogs are bad - and don't say it doesn't happen because it does - and stems from a combination of media and posts on forums such as this.

We then get the 'crossbreeds' are healthier argument - and who invariably breeds these crossbreeds? the SAME breeders who produce the poor quality dogs in the first place.

It's not a case of 'old arguments' - I've not been around here long enough for that - what I do know is that from a whole host of people - the argument from what I've seen invariably comes back to the show people being at fault  despite the fact that more often than not, they aren't

ETA - as for shows being 'beauty pagents' - they are an assesment of conformation, movement, temperament and fitness in their own right and against their peers - that isn't beauty - but assessing the dog is correct. Yes, there are some longer haired breeds which are 'puffed up' before they go in the ring, but it matters not what you do with their coats, if the conformation isn't there - it's not there - simple as!!

And as for showing dogs with weepy eyes, if you have seen so many of them, you will be aware that weeping marks the dogs coat - and therefore would be obvious to any onlooker


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2010)

swarthy said:


> The point is - the GOOD breeders are predominantly doing it RIGHT the BYB and Puppy Farmers are not - but we all get lumped into the same bag when in fact the comments are being aimed at people who are unlikely to ever darken the door of places such as this site.
> 
> Novices looking for pups, read these comments and assume ALL breeders and ALL pedigree dogs are bad - and don't say it doesn't happen because it does - and stems from a combination of media and posts on forums such as this.
> 
> ...


I have to agree with this post however the bit in bold, is a very common misconception I know none of us believe it as many know bad breeds of pedigree or cross's will produce less than good puppies and cross's are at risk of both breed health problems that their crossed with.

The problem is that the puppy buyers dont research the breeders they just see the best price and buy it. Which is shame on them really because when it all goes wrong they then blame the breed or all breeders when if they had gone to a real breeder with a good rep then the same breed of puppy may have no health problems at all.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I have to agree with this post however the bit in bold, is a very common misconception I know none of us believe it as many know bad breeds of pedigree or cross's will produce less than good puppies and cross's are at risk of both breed health problems that their crossed with.


I am not saying anyone who has posted on this thread believes it - but there are most definitely people who have posted on this site who do - and in fact, while looking for information on a health related topic, I actually came across one site that indicated that first generation crossbreeds can actually suffer MORE health problems and have greater difficulties with joints in particular.



shetlandlover said:


> The problem is that the puppy buyers dont research the breeders they just see the best price and buy it. Which is shame on them really because when it all goes wrong they then blame the breed or all breeders when if they had gone to a real breeder with a good rep then the same breed of puppy may have no health problems at all.


I know - I started a thread on the subject - yet - they are pretty much constantly exonerated of any blame in favour of the breeder bearing all the responsibility 

We know bad breeders shouldn't be doing it - and yes - they should take the blame for that they do - but if people didn't buy from them - then they wouldn't be breeding


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

swarthy said:


> The point is - the GOOD breeders are predominantly doing it RIGHT the BYB and Puppy Farmers are not - but we all get lumped into the same bag when in fact the comments are being aimed at people who are unlikely to ever darken the door of places such as this site.
> 
> *Novices looking for pups, read these comments and assume ALL breeders and ALL pedigree dogs are bad*.


I do agree BYB and PFs are the main ones to blame, but show breeders are not the angels some here like to make out. There are bad people in all walks of life and show breeders are no exception. There are some who want nothing more than rosettes and kudos.

In one particular breed I am aware of one dog who was drugged by another exhibitioner and another who was poisoned, and sadley died. There is most deffinatly a dark side to showing, too.  And I think PDE highlighted that, unfortunatly in a rather one sided way, but it makes sense to realise not every show breeder is like that.

Unfortunatly it is always the people who do things the right way who, like you say, are on sites like this trying to change peoples perceptions, and are the ones who seem to get bashed.

I must say, the bold section I do hear all too often.  I have heard people comment they would never buy a pedigree dog because they are so unhealthy! (And you just need to go on Preloved forum to hear them all say it!) And while yes, some breeds are suffering, if that'a all they got from PDE they must have been watching a different programme to me, or of course have no common sense. 

In answer to the OPs question; No, I don't think breeders should be breeding dogs like that, whoever it is.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

MarKalAm said:


> I do agree BYB and PFs are the main ones to blame, but show breeders are not the angels some here like to make out. There are bad people in all walks of life and show breeders are no exception. There are some who want nothing more than rosettes and kudos.
> 
> In one particular breed I am aware of one dog who was drugged by another exhibitioner and another who was poisoned, and sadley died. There is most deffinatly a dark side to showing, too.  And I think PDE highlighted that, unfortunatly in a rather one sided way, but it makes sense to realise not every show breeder is like that.
> 
> ...


No one is saying they are pefect - whenever you are dealing with humans, there will be good and bad - but lets be clear that in contrast - there are no good PF or BYB 

The behaviour you describe is appalling - touch wood, I've never encountered anything like that - it's evil 

Unfortunately, human nature dictates that people cherry pick the bits that suit them best - and I've no doubt that for some, that is exactly all the did get out of the PDE programme - not because they necessarily lack intelligence or common sense, but because they are humans, doing what humans do best


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> We know bad breeders shouldn't be doing it - and yes - they should take the blame for that they do - but if people didn't buy from them - then they wouldn't be breeding


Here here!

I am absolutely, 100% against all "bad" (ie unethical / irresponsible) breeding practices, regardless of whether the breeder in question is a PF, BYB, show or working breeder.
I have no objection to people breeding any breed or cross, if they do so ethically and responsibly.

But bad breeders exist for one reason only - because people BUY these pups. 
Blame the unethical, irresponsible owners who only care about "designer" dogs, or cost, or convenience and allow these unscrupulous breeders to thrive.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

swarthy said:


> No one is saying they are pefect - whenever you are dealing with humans, there will be good and bad - but lets be clear that in contrast - there are no good PF or BYB


And this perception is where the discrepancy lies, because I read LOTS of places where encouragement is given for puppy buyers to go to 'show breeders' and that they should start by contacting the club's puppy registers - WITHOUT the warning that there are numpties in that lot as well.

As a result of PDE pet owners are asking more questions of ALL breeders, and that is a good thing.

Some of us are trying to encourage this type of questionning - but others - the responsible breeders amongst those that show - seem to perceive they are being targetted as if they are all part of a single group. It seems if, in a post, someone mentions 'irresponsible show breeder' the responsible ones want to jump in and defend instead of recognizing the numpties amongst them and distancing themselves.

For a pet owner this week I helped her look up the info on pups from 5 Cavalier litters where she was being interviewed for a pup. All five were club recommended breeders active in the show ring and some active on club committees.

Of four litters, not a one had parents and grandparents fully tested or that had and proof of passing the tests - not an MRI on the full group. Two had parents underage for testing (just 19 and 21 months with SM and heart testing not valid until 30 months in this breed). All had risk of SM behind them in the three gen pedigree with at least one ancestor that had produced it or had a littermate that had, but not one breeder had mentioned this and in fact a couple said 'no need to MRI as I've seen no SM in my lines' - one was even descended from the champion Cavalier in question on PDE. Since the puppy buyer raised these points with the breeders and asked to see the testing paperwork, she has gotten three rude responses back.

One litter (with an MRId female) was obviously meticulously bred, and for that* I am thrilled and will give a big shout out and thank you to that wonderful top show breeder.* We know they are there and there are more of them.

I'm sure there will be four less well informed buyers chomping at the bit for the pups from these other four 'reputable' breeders - after all they started out by getting recommendations of who to get a pup from, through other club breeders. They'd have to know best - right?

CC


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> Some of us are trying to encourage this type of questionning - but others - the responsible breeders - seem to perceive they are being targetted as if they are all part of a single group. It seems if, in a post, someone mentions 'irresponsible show breeder' the responsible ones want to jump in and defend instead of recognizing the numpties amongst them.


Not at all - reaslitic questions are good - but I've only been on this site a relatively short time, and during that time, I've seen considerably MORE criticism of show breeders than any other type of breeder (including PF and BYB) - and so few seem to support the belief that puppy buyers play an *essential* role in buying responsibly.

Working breeders are hardly, if ever mentioned - good or bad.

And in some people's eyes - pet breeders are............... - nuff said.


A large majority of show breeders are good
A large majority of working breeders are good
While I don't understand why they do it - the large majority of responsible pet breeders are good and fill an essential gap in the market which would otherwise be met by PF and BYB

BYB and PF have NO GOOD in them

So - where to start - Breed clubs which oh - don't just keep names of show breeders but working breeders as well - and probably an increasing number of responsible pet breeder information through using show and working bred stud dogs.

There HAS to be a starting point - and the breed clubs have minimum requirements for health testing - so is as good a place as any.

It's been said many times that health tests alone do not make for a good breeder - there is MUCH more to it than that.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Swarthy, in Cavaliers right now the testing is absolutely essential. It IS a breed in trouble. No, health testing is not the heart of breeding, but those in Cavaliers that are not doing it, when that is all they have to go on right now, are certainly not worthy of being deemed 'reputable'.

In regards to where to start, we don't have puppy registers here - our purebred dog breeders are few and far between - but in the UK I totally get when someone says 'start with the register'. It just shouldn't be left at that. There has to be warning that EVERY breeder must be scrutinized and that homes must be visited.

So many believe that as soon as the pups have a 'registry' stamp of approval on them, and have the occasion CH in the pedigree, they are well - bred. That has to end.

In regards to puppyfarms and bybs, for the most part they are talked of less because that message has been well advertised for many, many years (and yes I know for some it still has not gotten through).

CC


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> And this perception is where the discrepancy lies, because I read LOTS of places where encouragement is given for puppy buyers to go to 'show breeders' and that they should start by contacting the club's puppy registers - WITHOUT the warning that there are numpties in that lot as well.
> 
> As a result of PDE pet owners are asking more questions of ALL breeders, and that is a good thing.
> 
> .......the responsible breeders amongst those that show - seem to perceive they are being targetted as if they are all part of a single group. It seems if, in a post, someone mentions 'irresponsible show breeder' the responsible ones want to jump in and defend instead of recognizing the numpties amongst them and distancing themselves.


This is a very good point.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Some of us are trying to encourage this type of questionning - but others - the responsible breeders amongst those that show - seem to perceive they are being targetted as if they are all part of a single group. It seems if, in a post, someone mentions 'irresponsible show breeder' the responsible ones want to jump in and defend instead of recognizing the numpties amongst them and distancing themselves.


I agree that the responsible breeders who show feel that they are all being targetted as part of a single group - that is because they are. You only have to look at some of the posts on this thread to see that. However, I disagree vehemently that responsible show breeders defend those who are irresponsible. No responsible show breeders I know will defend irresponsible breeders in any way.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> Swarthy, in Cavaliers right now the testing is absolutely essential. It IS a breed in trouble. No, health testing is not the heart of breeding, but those in Cavaliers that are not doing it, when that is all they have to go on right now, are certainly not worthy of being deemed 'reputable'.


I am not disputing there are a handful of breeds who appear to have considerably more health problems than the norm - I am not wholly familiar with these breeds so it would be wrong to comment other than to say, yes, I do recognise there are issues and realise that for some ungodly reason they have been swept under the carpet.

In mainland Europe - breeders appear to be embracing health testing like there is no tomorrow and utilising the results correctly - unfortunately, in the UK there seems to be much more of a 'black and white' view by some which in the long run does not benefit some breeds and can fuel the need to sweep things 'under the carpet' 



comfortcreature said:


> So many believe that as soon as the pups have a 'registry' stamp of approval on them, and have the occasion CH in the pedigree, they are well - bred. That has to end.


I agree with this too - I wish it could be a 'stamp of approval' - however, by making it so - it won't stop the not so good breeders - all it will do is push them to the 'other side of the fence' - by being part of a registry at least the dogs have traceable ancestries. Some people are pushing for two tier registration systems - will it happen over time? I don't know - I guess it makes sense and MIGHT force people to clean up their acts - likewise however, it could once again "push them to the other side of the fence" -

As I've said so many times, the power lies so heavily with the puppy buyers, it is frightening - the problem is - when faced with cute puppies, all too often common sense flies out of the window 



comfortcreature said:


> In regards to puppyfarms and bybs, for the most part they are talked of less because that message has been well advertised for many, many years (and yes I know for some it still has not gotten through).


Unfortunately, so many people use these forums as their main source of information, and it is scary sometimes the number of people who still aren't aware they exist  and I guess, if you are not involved with dogs, then it isn't difficult to see how this happens 

BYB and PF need to be kept firmly in the forefront of people's minds so that newcomers are left in no doubt.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree that the responsible breeders who show feel that they are all being targetted as part of a single group - that is because they are. You only have to look at some of the posts on this thread to see that. However, I disagree vehemently that responsible show breeders defend those who are irresponsible. No responsible show breeders I know will defend irresponsible breeders in any way.


. . . in the Cavalier breed I see it every single day. There are still many that defend the breeding of Ch Beauella Radzinski despite the neurologist advice not to breed him. Over 30 litters from this guy. He has sired a pup, made a Champion, and then which died at three following his FOURTH surgery. Another pet owner has a son that is also symptomatic, but not yet MRI confirmed . . . yet we get brag threads on the Cavalierhealth forum (set up by breeders), by club breeders, about the couple of his offspring that have A grades and that defend their decision to breed from him - underage for valid heart results at that.

Food for thought

My brilliant news

KC on forthcoming TV programme (continued)

_"The breeders & owners of Mrs Costello's dog father told me that I should never of had Loukar scanned & also* that I should not have told anyone that he had SM & I could then of used him at stud !! *
Obviously as their dog is related to Loukar their reasoning is clear. Their dog must be a carrier at the best to have produced a dog with SM & obviously the mother must be a carrier at best. Their dog's other"famous son"is MRI scanned clear but could also be a carrier via his father there is a 50/50 chance at best because the sire could also have SM as he has not been scanned

Loukar's brother who has been used at stud is at the best a carrier(his father had SM & was PTS before his 3rd birthday)& his mother must be a carrier to have produced an affected dog in his brother. Yet the owner of his brother tells people there is no SM in her dogs pedigree !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_​
Check out this current response thread on Dog world. Dog World - week 39 Cavaliers (1))

-http://dogworld.co.uk/Breeds/BreedNotes/week-39-Cavaliers-(1)-

So while there are clubs that are better, I still want pet owners to know that they need to be very careful, even when going through the show world, when looking for a pup.

CC


----------



## Tula&Iver~cavs (Sep 16, 2010)

The dog Molly is on this morning show now!


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

What I don't understand is that the breeders first reaction here is to get defensive. In the first post it was not mentioned _who _bred this dog, PF, BYB, show or working breeder. Yet the first reaction was to defend the show breeders! But why?

The question was 'Should breeders be breeding these dogs?', and looking at that dog the only answer should be NO. Not, they're not all like that, put it in perspective, not all are that wrinkled, my friends was fine etc etc. _Whoever_ breeds a dog which _looks like that_ should not be doing it.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> What I don't understand is that the breeders first reaction here is to get defensive. In the first post it was not mentioned _who _bred this dog, PF, BYB, show or working breeder. Yet the first reaction was to defend the show breeders! But why?
> 
> The question was 'Should breeders be breeding these dogs?', and looking at that dog the only answer should be NO. Not, they're not all like that, put it in perspective, not all are that wrinkled, my friends was fine etc etc. _Whoever_ breeds a dog which _looks like that_ should not be doing it.


Bit of an exaggeration there!  Show breeders were not mentioned until post #18 - hardly a first reaction. But ...... when you consider that the Kennel Club and its breed standards were talked about in the original newspaper article, and as early as post #7 people were commenting about Kennel Club breed standards - and then when you have people posting that shows are merely beauty pagaents, people posting in praise PDE etc etc - can you honestly wonder why show breeders feel as if they are being targetted yet again?


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Yes they do get targeted, because we know some breed standards _where_ over the top, changes have been made yes but it will take time for the mess they were in to filter through to the dogs themselves.

*The Basset for instance.*
*New;*
In any event skin of head _supple_ enough as to wrinkle _slightly _when drawn forward or when head is lowered.
*Old;*
In any event skin of head_ loose _enough as to wrinkle _noticeably _when drawn forward or when head is lowered.

They seem to be using relatively and moderate a lot more now, too. :thumbup: But I think that is why people look to breed standards, these things won't be bred out overnight.

Looking at that dog my first reaction was no it should not be bred, poor thing. Whoever had bred it they should not be doing it - I don't care who it was. I found it strange some peoples reactions where any different to that. Yes that is an extreme case, but it does not change my opinion as to if breeders should be breeding _those_dogs.

Like I said before, it is the good breeders who get it in the neck while to bad breeders (who don't like the new changes and are only interested in winning rather than the breed itself) contuine without a care in the world.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

MarKalAm said:


> Looking at that dog my first reaction was no it should not be bred, poor thing. Whoever had bred it they should not be doing it - I don't care who it was. I found it strange some peoples reactions where any different to that. Yes that is an extreme case, but it does not change my opinion as to if breeders should be breeding _those_dogs.


I agree, I thought that that would be the reaction from most on here, I wasn't really prepared for the closing of ranks and the defensive posturing from breeders regarding this dog.

I think that had it been some mongrel pup then everyone could have sat back sure in their position of berating Bybs and puppy farmers and cross breeders and those who have bred mongrels, as it would have been definitely *their fault*. 
The fact that it was obviously a pedigree pup and not one that could sensibly be denied as being of pedigree origin, rattled a few cages it seems.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I think show breeders tend to think they are being targeted at times, when in fact they are not. No one would doubt that good breeders do right by their breed and are in it to improve the breed itself but some are not and just go for looks.

A Malamute breeder from a well known kennel contacted me after seeing Flynn on FB and asked if I would delay neutering him for her to use as a stud. I said he was very young, had no health tests and that I didn't want him used for breeding - not even just once. She wasn't bothered about his age (1 year) or health tests and said she gave me 10/10 for his look and build. Having looked up some of her dogs I see she doesn't health test at all  and if she had used Flynn - with a hip score of 55 - it could have been disastrous.

Thing is breeders on the mal forum are up in arms when someone goes on and has bred and hasn't health tested, yet some are friends with this woman just because she shows. Isn't that hyporcritical?

Just as bad as a byb in my eyes.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

In one post you say



MarKalAm said:


> What I don't understand is that the breeders first reaction here is to get defensive.


and then in your very next post on here you say



MarKalAm said:


> Yes they do get targeted, because we know some breed standards _where_ over the top, changes have been made yes but it will take time for the mess they were in to filter through to the dogs themselves.


I think you've answered your own question - and in the process given a very good demonstration as to just why breeders on here are getting defensive.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I agree, I thought that that would be the reaction from most on here, I wasn't really prepared for the closing of ranks and the defensive posturing from breeders regarding this dog
> 
> I think that had it been some mongrel pup then everyone could have sat back sure in their position of berating Bybs and puppy farmers and cross breeders and those who have bred mongrels, as it would have been definitely *their fault*.
> The fact that it was obviously a pedigree pup and not one that could sensibly be denied as being of pedigree origin, rattled a few cages it seems.


With some posters on this thread, show breeders are damned if they do and damned if they don't. People start to attack us - if we defend ourselves we're labelled unnecessarily defensive. If we don't defend ourselves, the rubbish posted about shows and show dogs (such as your ridiculous and untruthful remark about dog show being a beauty pageant) are just perpetuated among people who don't know any better (but think they do)

May I refer you to the first two posts I made on here - #6 and #9 - not a mention of show breeders. No-one mentioned show breeders until people started to attack show breeders. You yourself have made some very abusive and inflammatory remarks about shows and show breeders. You may try to pretend you are surprised, and you may try to pretend that show breeders have said this dog's breeding is ok.

However, if you read the thread back from the beginning, you will see that no show breeder has said that this kind of breeding is ok. You will see that show breeeders have been attacked (and yes, by yourself).

So stop pretending you are surprised. Stop trying to make out any show breeder has said this dog's breeding is ok. My own words on this dog (in explanation to you, after your first dig at me for defending "breeders") were

I abhor bad breeding practices just as you do. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough that I think whoever bred this pup should no longer breed from these lines so this will not happen again. 

Please point out to me how that is defensive posturing about this dog? In fact, I challenge you to back up your statement by supplying quotes from any post, from anyone on here, that shows "defensive posturing about this dog".

Pretending won't do you any good. The posts are there for all to see.


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Sorry, do you breed the breed mentioned in this thread? Or one of the breeds with health issues?


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I believe certain breeders will get "targeted" like who ever bred the dog in the original post but not all breeders. After all there are a lot of healthy dogs being bred and no one could say their breeders are at fault.

In a way it's not the breeders fault if the standard required such a look, as the Basset for example. How could you breed and show a dog if it wasn't to the breed standard? Thankfully some standards have now been altered to take into consideration the dogs health. 

Markalam - don't get drawn in - not worth it!


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Malmum said:


> Markalam - don't get drawn in - not worth it!


But I'm interested 

Just because you show/breed does not mean you need to get defensive if someone disagrees with a certain breed standard. We know there are breeds out there that are suffering, and we know some breeders/clubs are not doing much to help them. But that does not mean every breed or show breeder is doing this!

By disagreeing with one standard, or club, or breeder doesn't mean we disagree with all of them, and people shouldn't feel the need to defend them all!


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

MarKalAm said:


> By disagreeing with one standard, or club, or breeder doesn't mean we disagree with all of them, and people shouldn't feel the need to defend them all!


I know but it's not always seen that way. 
I would have thought that breeders/showers/pet owners are perfectly entitled to have an opinion as to the standards of certain breeds if they are detremental to the dog - after all we are all dog lovers regardless of the breed!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I know but it's not always seen that way.
> I would have thought that breeders/showers/pet owners are perfectly entitled to have an opinion as to the standards of certain breeds if they are detremental to the dog - after all we are all dog lovers regardless of the breed!


If you had read my earlier answer to you properly, you would know that I for one certainly see it that way, and have already tried to point out to you that the very people you mention above can and do have an opinion about breed standards, and can and do affect what breed standards say. Here it is again because it seems to have slipped your notice:



Spellweaver said:


> breed clubs set the standards, not the Kennel Club, and breed clubs are made up of both people who show and people who don't show


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

You shouldn't feel targeted as you are not. You're obviously a good breeder that's why you feel so passionate about what you do. There are bad "reputable" breeders in every breed, as I said above and they are just as bad as BYB's & PF's in my opinion.

I can see why you get offended if you think opinions are aimed at you, I would if people thought I wasn't a good dog owner but I know there are a lot who are not good owners and i'm the first to say so but I know I am, so don't care what others think.

You have to admit not every breeder does it right, you only have to look at the BRS to see how many litters some kennels have each year, yet the very same people will say they only breed if they have a waiting list, then you see them advertising on Champdogs, pups for sale - regularly.

I am not saying breeders are wrong or showers shouldn't be doing what they do - of course not! What I am saying is there was a need to change certain breeds standards, for the good of those dogs and I do understand what an impact that can have on a breeder who has been breeding for many, many years to now have to start all over again, it must be devestating!

If all breeders where honest and recognised the problems within their breed and perhaps even their own kennel, maybe it would be easier to change. 

Again, this is not directed at you or any breeder discussing this thread, like has been said already, decent breeders are the ones who go on forums to discuss matters, the ones who don't care are the ones who are absent.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Iv been following the thread and i cant remember anyone saying that the dog mentioned or dogs with so many wrinkles should continue to be bred, it seemed that breeders especially show breeders were saying the opposite, now im not a show breeder and im sure some will think badly of me because i would be classed as a pet breeder but i can assure you i carry out all the relevent health checks for my breed and am very careful about choseing the right stud and want to continue to promote the breed but thats not the issue here, the issue is that there are good and bad in all walks of life and in this thread no one has condoned the breeding of shar pai's with increased wrinkling, as said its been the opposite


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> Sorry, do you breed the breed mentioned in this thread? Or one of the breeds with health issues?


ALL dog breeds suffer from health problems, pedigree or not.

I wasnt aware you had to be involvedd in the breed on this thread to comment


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Starlite said:


> ALL dog breeds suffer from health problems, pedigree or not.
> 
> I wasnt aware you had to be involvedd in the breed on this thread to comment


Are you rolling your eyes at me? Lol!

I was talking specifically about the breeds that are suffering at present and I don't remember mentioning anyone couldn't post??


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Malmum said:


> I would have thought that breeders/showers/pet owners are perfectly entitled to have an opinion as to the standards of certain breeds if they are detremental to the dog - after all we are all dog lovers regardless of the breed!


If you mean forum members then I agree, we are as you said all dog lovers after all.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Malmum said:


> There are bad "reputable" breeders in every breed, as I said above and they are just as bad as BYB's & PF's in my opinion.
> .


so true... they make themselves out to be reputable but behind closed doors keeping certain facts quiet from people they aint much better than the byb down the road. 

---------

Anyway ... any breeders breeding dogs with such problems should be pointed at, regardless as to what group they belong to, instead of blaming only certain groups. 
And no, dogs with such problems shouldnt be bred from.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

MarKalAm said:


> Are you rolling your eyes at me? Lol!
> 
> I was talking specifically about the breeds that are suffering at present and I don't remember mentioning anyone couldn't post??


You didn't - some just have to have their two penneth even if it doesn't make any sense! :lol:


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

I was talking specifically about the breeds that are suffering at present and I don't remember mentioning anyone couldn't post??[/QUOTE]

I believe the point in the thread was to discuss wether dogs with such problems as the shar pei would should be bred, yet you ask Spellweaver if she is involved in the breed on the thread, im assuming you are referring to the shar pei still. Does it really matter wether you are involved with the breed or not to be able to post an opinion? You then go on to say



MarKalAm said:


> But I'm interested
> 
> Just because you show/breed does not mean you need to get defensive if someone disagrees with a certain breed standard. We know there are breeds out there that are suffering, and we know some breeders/clubs are not doing much to help them. But that does not mean every breed or show breeder is doing this!
> 
> By disagreeing with one standard, or club, or breeder doesn't mean we disagree with all of them, and people shouldn't feel the need to defend them all!


when there have been numerous posts about "breeders" and how bad they are. You really are damned if you do and damned if you dont. Breed standards and their clubs are predominantly set and run by exhibitors so show people have every right to get defensive imo
What is your position in the dog world exactly, im interested 



Malmum said:


> You didn't - some just have to have their two penneth even if it doesn't make any sense! :lol:


a bit more than 2 pennies worth but it is in plain English


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Starlite said:


> I believe the point in the thread was to discuss wether dogs with such problems as the shar pei would should be bred, yet you ask Spellweaver if she is involved in the breed on the thread, im assuming you are referring to the shar pei still. Does it really matter wether you are involved with the breed or not to be able to post an opinion?


No, not at all, I thought that would be clear from the post of mine you yourself quoted?? :confused1:
It was a question as I do not know what dogs she is nvolved with, or indeed if she shows or breeds (although I assume she does). Why would you assume a simple question like that means I think she should not have an opinion on other breeds?? :confused1: :confused1: If that's true I would be telling myself not to post here, too. :confused1:
I was actually just interested if she was involved with one of these breeds, and because of that perhaps thought people where attacking her directly.



Starlite said:


> when there have been numerous posts about "breeders" and how bad they are. You really are damned if you do and damned if you dont. Breed standards and their clubs are predominantly set and run by exhibitors so show people have every right to get defensive imo
> What is your position in the dog world exactly, im interested


Some breeders are bad, why can't we say it? And as I have said it is the breeders on here who are doing it the right way, so it is a shame they feel targated.
We know some standards have done nothing for the health of some breeds, but by no means all, we can all have an opinion as to wether we agree with these standards. Just because I disagree with how some of the standards were does not mean I think they are all bad, I own pedigree dogs!

My position in the dog world? Hmm, not top dog thats for sure. 

I don't show, I don't breed, I do work (for fun), I do have pets. I have no real interest in showing my own dogs, but I do like to go and watch local shows and I do follow the results as I have a lot of friends in the breed and like to follow how they are doing.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> No, not at all, I thought that would be clear from the post of mine you yourself quoted?? :confused1:
> It was a question as I do not know what dogs she is nvolved with, or indeed if she shows or breeds (although I assume she does). Why would you assume a simple question like that means I think she should not have an opinion on other breeds?? :confused1: :confused1: If that's true I would be telling myself not to post here, too. :confused1:
> I was actually just interested if she was involved with one of these breeds, and because of that perhaps thought people where attacking her directly.
> 
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree some breeders are bad but as been said before we are all lumped into one group and it does get frustrating.
I know of a few "breeders" who have had unscrupulous (sp?) practices in chihuahuas and belive me, as soon as they are found out they are quickly frozen out of the show scene and word of mouth spreads fast - hopefully fast enough to discourage them from the breed, but alot of them will then move on to another, a very vicious circle


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Starlite said:


> I wholeheartedly agree some breeders are bad but as been said before we are all lumped into one group and it does get frustrating.


Perhaps some do, but not all of us. To be honest it doesn't take much searching to find out who is decent or not if you are active in a breed.



Starlite said:


> I know of a few "breeders" who have had unscrupulous (sp?) practices in chihuahuas and belive me, as soon as they are found out they are quickly frozen out of the show scene


That's good, shame it can't be said for all breeds.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Actually ive been shocked over some practices from the some of the ones alot of people would consider at the top of their game, you never can tell with humans.
What breeds do you follow?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> No, not at all, I thought that would be clear from the post of mine you yourself quoted?? :confused1:
> It was a question as I do not know what dogs she is nvolved with, or indeed if she shows or breeds (although I assume she does). Why would you assume a simple question like that means I think she should not have an opinion on other breeds?? :confused1: :confused1: If that's true I would be telling myself not to post here, too. :confused1:
> I was actually just interested if she was involved with one of these breeds, and because of that perhaps thought people where attacking her directly.


Well, you certainly confused me  - I didn't realise the post you are talking about was aimed at me or I would have answered it because I really feel it is bad manners to ignore a direct question in a post.

I don't breed shar peis - I own bergamascos and border collies (thought that might be obvious from my sig!) and I used to breed cocker spaniels over 20 years ago.

I didn't feel people were attacking me personally - but I did feel that some people (yourself included) were attacking show breeders.


----------



## sharpeilover (Aug 9, 2010)

I've been reading this thread and wondered if I should post or not but here goes...

As you may or may not know I'm in the Shar Pei breed. I love the breed and would defend it of course but I have to say to anyone out there who does not know the breed inside and out that this is NOT a typical Shar Pei at all.

Excessive wrinkle is frowned upon and my vet (shar pei specialist) takes a very dim view on breeders who breed for too much wrinkle. He now also reports puppies/dogs that require entropion or severe tacking.

3 of my pei's have perfect big almond shaped eyes, however one MAY need slight tacking at 14 months old once a fully grown and matured adult. 

This poor sad looking Shar Pei in the news in my view is a result of very bad breeding. My Shar Pei will be going for eye tests once fully grown. :thumbup:

A lady stopped me in my market and asked if this was one of those face lift dogs!!! I didn't know weather to laugh or cry!!! It's a shame people are given the wrong impression of this wonderful breed, but unfortunatly Shar Pei are not alone as the Staffy, rotties and lots more are tarred with these 'steer clear brushes!!' 

Please don't be put off by bad press of the Shar Pei just do your research before buying or rescuing.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

> 3 of my pei's have perfect big almond shaped eyes, however one MAY need slight tacking at 14 months old once a fully grown and matured adult.
> 
> .......... My Shar Pei will be going for eye tests once fully grown.


I am glad to hear about the eye tests you will be doing but they will not necessarily quantify whether a dog/bitch with tacking is in fact suitable for breeding at all.



> The eye scheme currently relates to conditions involving the eye itself and not those involving the tear ducts, the eyelids or other surrounding structures. The BVA/KC/ISDS Eye Scheme - The Kennel Club


----------



## sharpeilover (Aug 9, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> I am glad to hear about the eye tests you will be doing but they will not necessarily quantify whether a dog/bitch with tacking is in fact suitable for breeding at all.


To be fair Lauren I actually DON'T think anyone should breed from a dog/bitch that has had their eyes tacked. They could/will pass on the bad eyes to their pups and the poor poor pups will then also have to go through the terrible eye tacking.

Some breeders don't agree with me but. . . it's just how I feel about it.


----------



## lozenlady (Oct 20, 2010)

I don't know wether I should post here. I stumbled across the forum last night. Its good to hear that you want to breed correctly.

I have 2 peis myself, nearly 11 years old. I 'rescued' the mother from a breeder who no longer wanted her. Little did I know she was pregnant at the time. I didn't tell the breeder but kept the pups myself, my 11 year olds. Unfortunately, the mum died at 3.

I am hopefully going to get a pup next summer. It would be a terrible shame if this lovely breed died out through irresponsible breeding

I didn't know they had to have eye tests though? Or is that something the beeders would do before I got a pup? Mine have never had a problem


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

sharpeilover said:


> To be fair Lauren I actually DON'T think anyone should breed from a dog/bitch that has had their eyes tacked. They could/will pass on the bad eyes to their pups and the poor poor pups will then also have to go through the terrible eye tacking.
> 
> Some breeders don't agree with me but. . . it's just how I feel about it.


I am glad you feel that way, as that would be my opinion too.


----------



## sharpeilover (Aug 9, 2010)

lozenlady said:


> I didn't know they had to have eye tests though? Or is that something the beeders would do before I got a pup? Mine have never had a problem


The Kennel Club don't have any guidelines for tests on Shar Pei at all!!

However I'm wanting to do this properly and I'll be using every test possible before breeding my girls. I've three bitches and one entire male. 
They'll all be getting 
DND tested.
Eye tested.
Hip scored.
Protein tested every 12 months.

All the above tests cost money and are not required to breed according to the Kennel Club but I want to stand out from other Shar Pei breeders. :thumbup:
Maybe a bit cheeky but I want to get a really good name for myself.

Nice to see another pei owner on here!! There arn't that many of us!! :thumbup:


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Starlite said:


> What breeds do you follow?


Malamutes, I thought you knew! You PM'd me a while back after some info on a breeder? 



Spellweaver said:


> Well, you certainly confused me


Yeah, sorry, I don't always use the quote. 


Spellweaver said:


> but I did feel that some people *(yourself included) *were attacking show breeders.


Because I said this; ??


MarKalAm said:


> Yes they do get targeted, because we know some breed standards _were_ over the top, changes have been made yes but it will take time for the mess they were in to filter through to the dogs themselves.


I was not attacking, I was giving reasons why people feel the way they do about some show breeders (namely the ones involved in the breeds with poor health). Some standards I feel have been detramental to the breeds, and I will disagree with breeding of these dogs.

If disagreeing with one standard/breeder/club means people think I disagree with* all *show breeding then they are the ones lumping all breeders together, not me.

I tried to make it clear I am not against show breeders, I am against bad breeders..


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

sharpeilover said:


> All the above tests cost money and are not required to breed according to the Kennel Club


What about the Shar Pei club? Are these tests in their COE?


----------



## sharpeilover (Aug 9, 2010)

MarKalAm said:


> I am against bad breeders..


As we all should be!!! :thumbup:


----------



## sharpeilover (Aug 9, 2010)

MarKalAm said:


> What about the Shar Pei club? Are these tests in their COE?


Nope, no tests there either!!


----------



## doggylicious (Oct 13, 2010)

Just feel so sorry for the dogs involved.


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

sharpeilover said:


> Nope, no tests there either!!


  

Great you are doing these tests, someone who does care about this breed. :thumbup:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I think people may be confused about health testing and breeding.
Health tests generally test for inherited illnesses. That is completely different from health problems that occur due to breeding exaggerations. 

Sharpeilover, having no required health tests doesn't make them a healthy breed nor does having clear health tests make them suitable to be bred from in any breed but particularly in breeds like sharpeis where features have been exaggerated.


----------



## sharpeilover (Aug 9, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I think people may be confused about health testing and breeding.
> Health tests generally test for inherited illnesses. That is completely different from health problems that occur due to breeding exaggerations.
> 
> Sharpeilover, having no required health tests doesn't make them a healthy breed nor does having clear health tests make them suitable to be bred from in any breed but particularly in breeds like sharpeis where features have been exaggerated.


Gosh Rocco, So am I wasting the £25 per DNA test, £210 per hip score and £50 per eye test??

Glad you've said this, shall I save the £1200 I was going to spend on health tests then??


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Rocco. 



rocco33 said:


> I think people may be confused about health testing and breeding. Health tests generally test for inherited illnesses. That is completely different from health problems that occur due to breeding exaggerations.


Yes but you wouldn't (or shouldn't) breed an overly wrinkled dog even if it had clear hips for instance. It would have to be clear health wise and appearance wise. I appreciate some tests are not guaranteed to produce pups free of illness, but some can, it depends what you are testing for.



rocco33 said:


> Sharpeilover, having no required health tests doesn't make them a healthy breed


I can't speak for SL, but I was asking as I thought it failure on the clubs part not to require breeding stock to be health tested, not that the lack of this requirement means they do not need the tests.



rocco33 said:


> Nor does having clear health tests make them suitable to be bred from in any breed but particularly in breeds like sharpeis where features have been exaggerated.


No but you wouldn't breed from a dog that had very exaggerated features. But the ones that are going to use to breed should surely be health screened??


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I think Rocco is just saying that merely because a dog passes its health tests it is not necessarily a dog that should bred from as it may have other health problems eg Fsf or tacked eyes in Shar Peis.
A dog that has exaggerated features severe enough to cause it pain and suffering will probably not be picked up by any specific health test, but it will be obvious to any vet. However on paper it is health tested clear.

Also breeds that have "no health tests required", are not necessarily free from the same genetic diseases that another breed may feel the need to test all their dogs for.

All dogs have hips, elbows, eyes, and hearts so any dog that is being bred including cross-breeds and mongrels could have those checked as a start off point. It doesn't need any breed club to say yea or nay to that.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Thank you Lauren - that was exactly what I was saying.

Health tests are only a part of it and the health problems caused by exaggerations are actually not included in those health tests. They are inheritable simply because features are inherited, but are not covered by the existing health tests.



> No but you wouldn't breed from a dog that had very exaggerated features.


Sadly, that is exactly what does happen and why they do become exaggerated.



> But the ones that are going to use to breed should surely be health screened??


Of course, but it is only a part of deciding if a dog is good enough to breed from - I was pointing it out because I get the impression that people think if a dog has been health tested it is good enough to breed from but that is not so - there are many other factors that need to be considered that are not included in the health tests.



> Gosh Rocco, So am I wasting the £25 per DNA test, £210 per hip score and £50 per eye test??
> 
> Glad you've said this, shall I save the £1200 I was going to spend on health tests then??


No I have never said that anyone is wasting their money health testing, although £1200 does seem excessive. Is that each? or just the two that you have that may be suitable for breeding in the future?



> I can't speak for SL, but I was asking as I thought it failure on the clubs part not to require breeding stock to be health tested, not that the lack of this requirement means they do not need the tests.


I too think this is a failure.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I must say I am amazed on reading this that not all breed clubs have a code of ehtics - not just for health testing but for the general welfare of the dog. I thought that following the Alaskan Malamute COE was just one of a number of requirements that all clubs followed and not simply left to the KC, who's COE is not enough IMO.
I am glad that our club has such an extensive COE; The Alaskan Malamute Club of the UK

But sad to find that some others don't.


----------

