# PDE - Anyone STILL believe the hype?



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I really find it utterly amazing that this one television programme has had such a long lasting, and in some ways, negative effect? Thoughts from breeders and those that saw the programme much appreciated....


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

I think it did go over the top, and it was very one sided and showed show breeders in a very bad light. I know at the time I agreed with every word they said and that pedigree dogs where the unhealthiest dogs ever and show breeders where horrible monsters 

However, after talking to many knowledgeable breeders I've learnt otherwise, and since changed my view. Though I do still believe that without the show ring we wouldnt have half the health problems we do now, but at the same time, would this have happened anyway due to PFs?

The programme done both good and bad for the dog breeding world. 

On the good side it highlighted health problems and the necessary tests and brought them more to the publics attention, it also gave the KC/breed clubs a kick up the arse and got breed standards changed (i believe or was that changed before?) 

On the bad side it made Joe Public wary of show breeders, as it made them out to be evil and uncaring, and so the PFs and BYBs are getting more business and genuine good breeders who happen to show are loosing out. 

I think PDE had a point, however they could have included both sides.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I agreed with some of it and I still do some breeds need serious work and it's the show lines that are the worst gsds and clumber spaniels (I know they weren't actually in the programme) spring to mind but there are a lot others that don't even have the fitter for purpose working lines. However they chose the worst breeds and went to the worst breeders within those breeds the pug breeder who said it didn't matter if they stopped breathing and passed out when excited and the ridgeback breeder who saw nothing wrong with putting down ridgeless puppies for example. Some of the dogs shown like the poor cavalier and boxer weren't even from show kennels yet the whole emphasis was put on how sick and unhealthy show dogs were.

It did make the public aware of health testing and the importance of going to a good breeder but it turned so many people to puppy mills and bybs in the mistaken belief that as they weren't show dogs they would be healthy. It also helped bring in the new breed standards but I believe those were already in review before it aired. 

That pug still annoys me. They said oh it's awful he qualified for crufts. Surely the people knew he was unhealthy before they entered him in at least one championship show for him to qualify...


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Though I do still believe that without the show ring we wouldnt have half the health problems we do now,


.....hang on - who is it who health tests, who pays for research into genetic problems, who has health committees for every breed , who compiles and updates data bases for every breed - is it the working dog world ? the BYB ? the breeder of designer crosses ?- hell no - it's the show world ! - perhaps we hav'nt got it all right but lets face it without the dedication and passion of show breeders we simply would not *have* half the breeds we have now.

Jemima Harrison is entitled to her opinion but lets not forget that is simply what it is -one persons opinion - presented to us with carefully edited snippets to support her stance and no more valid that mine, yours or the thousands of experienced show breeders in the Uk - the difference is of course that we were not allowed the chance to present our opinion in the same way !

I for one refuse to wear a hair shirt and feel apologetic for breeding dogs good enough to win in the show ring irrespective of what PDE and Ms Harrison may think !!

and if we are expected to believe everything we see on TV then we must all believe that Wagner is a great singer and deserves to stay on the X factor and its' not all really just a huge fix !!


----------



## penfold71 (Oct 8, 2010)

Bijou said:


> ' not all really just a huge fix !!


No...I don't believe it...it's fixed!!!!!

Seriously though, what annoys me is that it pushed some sections of the public right into the hands of the PF and BYB and away from the responsible (but demonised) show breeders.

Personally, I would still prefer that the KC implemented the AB health tests as a prerequisite for registration. I honestly do think it will end up as that, just wish it would hurry up.:frown:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> .....hang on - who is it who health tests, who pays for research into genetic problems, who has health committees for every breed , who compiles and updates data bases for every breed - is it the working dog world ? the BYB ? the breeder of designer crosses ?- hell no - it's the show world ! - perhaps we hav'nt got it all right but lets face it without the dedication and passion of show breeders we simply would not *have* half the breeds we have now.
> 
> Jemima Harrison is entitled to her opinion but lets not forget that is simply what it is -one persons opinion - presented to us with carefully edited snippets to support her stance and no more valid that mine, yours or the thousands of experienced show breeders in the Uk - the difference is of course that we were not allowed the chance to present our opinion in the same way !
> 
> ...


Excellent post! Couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> Though I do still believe that without the show ring we wouldnt have half the health problems we do now
> 
> On the good side it highlighted health problems and the necessary tests and brought them more to the publics attention, it also gave the KC/breed clubs a kick up the arse and got breed standards changed (i believe or was that changed before?)
> 
> On the bad side it made Joe Public wary of show breeders, as it made them out to be evil and uncaring, and so the PFs and BYBs are getting more business and genuine good breeders who happen to show are loosing out.





Nicky10 said:


> it's the show lines that are the worst gsds and clumber spaniels (I know they weren't actually in the programme) spring to mind but there are a lot others that don't even have the fitter for purpose working lines.
> 
> It did make the public aware of health testing and the importance of going to a good breeder but it turned so many people to puppy mills and bybs in the mistaken belief that as they weren't show dogs they would be healthy. It also helped bring in the new breed standards but I believe those were already in review before it aired.


I think the above points from these two posts show the sad legacy of this program. I think that many people can now see how biased the program was, and how it told half-truths and lies, but on the other hand people are still believing some of the lies it told. If intelligent posters such as sid&kira and Nicky10 are still under the mistaken impression that show dogs are less healthy than non show dogs, that the exaggerations in some breeeds are all down to show breeders, and that nothing was happening about health testing, research into genetic conditions and altering breed standards to make dogs more healthy BEFORE this program, then what chance has someone new to pet-owning have of understanding anything different?

I agree totally with sid&kira and Nicky10 - the main legacy of this program is that unless people actually know someone who shows, or comes on forums such as this one where they can see both sides of the issues discussed, then they have been given the impression that show breeding is bad, and puppies from show breeders should be avoided. Puppy farmers and bybs must be laughing all the way to the bank as a result of the fall-out from this program.

Far from doing any good for the dog world (all the changes that people are attributing to the program were in the process of happening anyway) this program has actually promoted pf and bybs. How can that be good for the dog world? How can Jemima Harrison sleep at nights knowing this is the result of her work?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I said that some of the show dogs are more exaggerated there are plenty of breeds where there are no separate show and working lines the dogs are easily capable of both but in some breeds there is a huge difference. And I believe I said I knew the standards were being reviewed before the programme. Bybs and puppy mills have bred in a lot of the exaggerations hugely wrinkled shar peis, pugs etc with hugely bugged eyes and those aren't the fault of the show breeders


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> I said that some of the show dogs are more exaggerated there are plenty of breeds where there are no separate show and working lines the dogs are easily capable of both but in some breeds there is a huge difference. And I believe I said I knew the standards were being reviewed before the programme. Bybs and puppy mills have bred in a lot of the exaggerations hugely wrinkled shar peis, pugs etc with hugely bugged eyes and those aren't the fault of the show breeders


I know you did hun and my post wasn't intended as an attack on you (or sid&kira for that matter!). It was the fact that you are still under the impression that, in your words, the exaggerations in "show dogs are the worst" - which you probably wouldn't have been if this program had not been so biased - that I was picking up on. It was a criticism of the program for giving people this impression, not a criticism of you or your opinions, so sorry if it came across that way.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It's ok. First time I watched Crufts was the year the giant schnauzer won, the year before PDE and I was still thinking the gsds looked wrong. It wasn't all the programme.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> I agreed with some of it and I still do some breeds need serious work and it's the show lines that are the worst gsds and clumber spaniels (I know they weren't actually in the programme) spring to mind but there are a lot others that don't even have the fitter for purpose working lines. However they chose the worst breeds and went to the worst breeders within those breeds the pug breeder who said it didn't matter if they stopped breathing and passed out when excited and the ridgeback breeder who saw nothing wrong with putting down ridgeless puppies for example. Some of the dogs shown like the poor cavalier and boxer weren't even from show kennels yet the whole emphasis was put on how sick and unhealthy show dogs were.
> 
> It did make the public aware of health testing and the importance of going to a good breeder but it turned so many people to puppy mills and bybs in the mistaken belief that as they weren't show dogs they would be healthy. It also helped bring in the new breed standards but I believe those were already in review before it aired.
> 
> *That pug still annoys me.* They said oh it's awful he qualified for crufts. Surely the people knew he was unhealthy before they entered him in at least one championship show for him to qualify...


Don't you mean pekingese?

I don't think it did make the public aware of health testing per se, I think it made out that pedigrees were so unhealthy, they require certain health tests. If only it had highlighted that people who breed pedigrees, many breeders are embracing proven health testing where it is shown to be a problem within a breed. People still sell cross breeds with the hype that they're healthier than all those inbred pedigree dogs that you see at crufts etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

No the "sickest pug in Britain" the one with the million health problems that they showed. He had qualified for Crufts.

The pekingese BIS winner was horrific as well. No dog that needs surgery to breathe properly should be bred from


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> No the "sickest pug in Britain" the one with the million health problems that they showed. He had qualified for Crufts.
> 
> The pekingese BIS winner was horrific as well. No dog that needs surgery to breathe properly should be bred from


Ah, can't remember the pug, can't remember much of the programme now to be honest. But the lashback against all pedigree breeders seems to continue on and on.

I think Spellweaver knows more about the Peke's surgery, she's posted before about why the BIS was allowed to stand.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

He had if I remember hemivertabrae, couldn't breathe properly, had had to have all these surgeries and still had problems and rightly they were saying it was awful he had qualified for Crufts. But surely they knew at least some of these problems when they entered him in at least one championship show to qualify


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

When the program went out on TV, I wasn't as educated about dogs as I am now. I believed and agreed with most of the stuff on there. It was also highly emotional (I still cry at the poor cavalier and the boxer who were suffering and in so much pain), which means that people are more likely to believe what is said on the program. I was angry at show people for breeding these dogs and putting the problems in the dogs.

Now, I understand that the program was completely biased and not all show breeders were like the ones on that program. On the program, they were some of the worst breeders you can get, like thinking it's ok to cull ridgeless puppies, thinking it's ok that bulldogs can't breed or whelp on their own. But I now realise there are some great breeders out there who are getting tarred with the same brush, and this isn't fair. Some great breeders are doing the health tests and only breeding from good quality dogs. Unfortantely the program pushed the public right into PFs hands and many people think that all show breeders are bad, but this is totally wrong. We need another program to show the other side of it. 

However I do think it was good to highlight the plight of pedigree dogs today, but they shouldn't have made it so one-sided and they should have mentioned health tests and that good breeders will do this and only breed from healthy dogs.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> He had if I remember hemivertabrae, couldn't breathe properly, had had to have all these surgeries and still had problems and rightly they were saying it was awful he had qualified for Crufts. But surely they knew at least some of these problems when they entered him in at least one championship show to qualify


Chuckle, I was referring to the peke, really remember nothing about the pug, but completely agree, if a dog isn't fit enough to live and breathe normally, and needs corrective surgery to function normally, it shouldn't be bred from and the type of conformation that leads to any sort of health problems should be discouraged and not rewarded. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case as showing is subject to fashion, but I hope it's moving away from that sort of reward now, and the breeds that have been subject to exaggerations will now move back towards a healthier conformation.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I have mixed feelings about the PDE programme - there was much truth in it, but it was lost in the hysteria. Sadly, that's what makes good tv and often it's necessary to hit hard to hit a point home. Would Sir Bob have recorded and done Live Aid if he'd just read about it? That's the power of the media.

I'm not sure the positives outweighed the negatives. Unfortunately, many saw show dogs as the cause of all health problems, but that's not true. Yes, some of the exaggerations and in breeding has led to problems, but the show people embraced health testing long before anyone else. And not all breeds are affected by health problems due to exaggerations.

What disturbed me afterwards that people were misinterpreting the message and thought that show dogs were unhealthy, cross breeds were better and even pet shop bought puppies were better! - yes I heard all those comments from pet owners.

The other thing that was misguiding was that although the programme gave the impression that showing was responsible - many of the dogs that were featured were pet bred and not show dogs at all.

I certainly think it raised some valid points - the state of the GSD was pitiful - the arrogance of 'some' breeders regarding their dogs was also disgraceful, but the show world, like any other is full of all sorts of people.

It had to highlight the worst cases as that is what good tv is about and how it hits home hard. But it is not the whole story by any means. Interestingly, the labrador was not featured although I understand it was researched. In spite of popular opinion, the evidence of the labrador being an unhealthy breed with their hip problems and going blind was simply not there when looked at in depth. Yes, there are cases, and most come from pet bred/puppy farmed dogs. Yes, IMO, many show labradors are exaggerated and too heavy boned, but that doesn't make them unhealthy, just a preference.

I think all this did not come across in the hysteria of the programme. Having said that, I doubt PDE would have had the impact it did if the programme had been balanced. I have seen quite a number of programmes on puppy farmers - informative, unemotive - none have had any impact or been talked about except by die hard dog lovers.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Hopefully with the new standards they will be moving away from exaggerations and back to dogs that can carry out their original function and can live normally. Would be good to see


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> (I still cry at the poor cavalier and the boxer who were suffering and in so much pain), which means that people are more likely to believe what is said on the program. I was angry at show people for breeding these dogs and putting the problems in the dogs.


A prime example - those boxers were not show bred boxers, they were pet bred.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> When the program went out on TV, I wasn't as educated about dogs as I am now. I believed and agreed with most of the stuff on there. It was also highly emotional (I still cry at the poor cavalier and the boxer who were suffering and in so much pain), which means that people are more likely to believe what is said on the program. I was angry at show people for breeding these dogs and putting the problems in the dogs.
> 
> Now, I understand that the program was completely biased and not all show breeders were like the ones on that program. On the program, they were some of the worst breeders you can get, like thinking it's ok to cull ridgeless puppies, thinking it's ok that bulldogs can't breed or whelp on their own. But I now realise there are some great breeders out there who are getting tarred with the same brush, and this isn't fair. Some great breeders are doing the health tests and only breeding from good quality dogs. *Unfortantely the program pushed the public right into PFs hands and many people think that all show breeders are bad, but this is totally wrong. We need another program to show the other side of it. *
> 
> However I do think it was good to highlight the plight of pedigree dogs today, but they shouldn't have made it so one-sided and they should have mentioned health tests and that good breeders will do this and only breed from healthy dogs.


Absolutely agree, unfortunately, I don't think it will happen, because it's just not interesting enough, and won't get the viewing figures. It's sad that sensation sells, but a programme about healthy looking puppies and dogs, although cute, wouldn't get nearly as many viewers as something highlighting deformities and disease in dogs, people are perverse in what they like to watch sometimes, I'm so glad I don't watch television!!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Neither was the cavalier Angel I think. Not the one screaming and writhing on the floor in pain (surely they should have euthanised that dog before it got that bad) the one that wouldn't stop scratching. She was from a pet breeder too


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> A prime example - those boxers were not show bred boxers, they were pet bred.


The parents were siblings, too. The fact they were pet bred was swept under the carpet as it would have gone against the anti-show message.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think Spellweaver knows more about the Peke's surgery, she's posted before about why the BIS was allowed to stand.


I sure do. This dog did not have breathing difficulties, and his operation was not to correct breathing difficulties but to alleviate a respratory tract infection. The dog's conformation was not altered by this operation at all. When the allegations were made, these were fully investigated by the KC and Danny and his owners were completely exonerated. You can read the full story here. Our Dogs Newspaper - News, breeders, showdogs, dog breeds, pedigree show dogs, canine clubs, web design, website uk



Nicky10 said:


> The pekingese BIS winner was horrific as well. No dog that needs surgery to breathe properly should be bred from


See hun, it's this kind of thing that I was accusing the program of. You believe what you wrote there because the program gave you the wrong information about this dog. It lied. How many more people will believe the lies, and how many prospective peke buyers will buy ill-bred pekes from puppy farmers rather than go to reputable show breeders because of it?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Thank you for the correction. Pekingeses aren't especially healthy dogs anyway but that's good to know


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Having said that, I doubt PDE would have had the impact it did if the programme had been balanced. I have seen quite a number of programmes on puppy farmers - informative, unemotive - none have had any impact or been talked about except by die hard dog lovers.


I don't have mixed feelings at all about this. I've been involved in dogs for 30 years, predominantly in rescue, and my mother and grandfather before me, as breeders. These problems have been around, and discussed, since the 1960s that I can remember and nothing has made the impact that PDE did. It was about time IMHO and the impact was necessary lest we continue down the path (in some breeds) that we have been.

I know numerous breeders on lists that have pointed out they are now getting MORE buyers asking for the specifics of health tests and trying to understand them. I have helped NUMEROUS pet buyers search for breeders that are health testing, directly as a result of the message they heard in PDE.



rocco33 said:


> A prime example - those boxers were not show bred boxers, they were pet bred.


Some of the dogs that were shown were pet bred, and some show bred (the Pug and the Cavalier champion that was bred 26 times after being graded with an early onset syrinx - not to be bred from).

The fact that pet bred examples, as well as show bred examples, were used is irrelevent. The show was 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' not "Show Dogs Exposed". There are many pedigree dogs that are pet bred. In my country where the message is just being promoted that registration is to be sought after, pedigree breeders of pet bred dogs that sell in volume with no health testing are a huge problem and use 'pedigree' as a selling point.

I liked the message. The selling point needs to be the breeders practices.

The message, in the past, *promoted by the clubs* is that pedigree dogs are better bred - many times without clarification that there are careless and awful breeders working within the registry remit and that the registry is perfectly happy to take their cash.

Light has been shone continuously, for years, on commercial breeders, farmers, working dog breeders, and pet breeders for breeding practices that are not up to par (that is a good thing). It was time for the message to come through that those purchasing from pedigree breeders, including those involved in the show world, best be scrutinizing those they are purchasing pups from.



Nicky10 said:


> Neither was the cavalier Angel I think. Not the one screaming and writhing on the floor in pain (surely they should have euthanised that dog before it got that bad) the one that wouldn't stop scratching. She was from a pet breeder too


The video of the Cavalier angel that was writhing and screaming on the floor had been on the internet for years before PDE. I had seen it long prior. It was a video taken from a home phone to show to the vet how much pain their Cavalier was in when it fitted as the vet needed a description. It is hard to get your dog to fit on cue at the vets office isn't it?

Let's not go bashing the owners of this poor Cavalier for the predicament they found their dog and themselves in, and the wrestle with 'when is it a good time' that all of us have had with a pet in the past.

I am of the understanding that the fitting Cavalier was from a club involved breeder. The scratching Cavalier was from a pet breeder, but was from a 'pedigree' pet breeder.

This is the link to the CKCSC health registry info on the son of the Ch Cavalier highlighted on the show that sadly died after his fourth surgery (one for SM, and three for PSOM). http://www.ckcsc.org/ckcsc/healthre...3f34f113f6a61c34862575850017c87b?OpenDocument

This is a link to a recent post on a Cavalier forum, from a Cavalier owner who has another son, that did not realize (nor did her vet) what could possibly be the problem with her dog until she discovered PDE on youtube and watched it through not two months ago.http://www.cavaliertalk.com/forums/...ct-place-to-post-this....&p=370186#post370186

He was from a litter bred after the Champion's MRI and recommendation of not to be bred from, as many others were.

I, indeed, have no mixed feelings.

CC


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> nothing has made the impact that PDE did.


It made such an impact only because it grossly exaggerated a small problem and tried to pretend that was the WHOLE truth. Even Jemima Harrison herself has stated that if she deliberately excluded all the good work being done in order to make a huge impact.



comfortcreature said:


> The fact that pet bred examples, as well as show bred examples, were used is irrelevent. The show was 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' not "Show Dogs Exposed".


If only that were true! I agree it should have been true, given its title - but the program was nothing more than an out and out attack on the show world and the Kennel Club. The fact that it showed a boxer fitting and a cavalier unable to walk and made out that these were show animals is totally relevant in that it shows just how dishonest the program was.



comfortcreature said:


> The message, in the past, *promoted by the clubs* is that pedigree dogs are better bred. Light has been shone continuously, for years, on commercial breeders and pet breeders for breeding practices that are not up to par (that is a good thing). It was time for the message to come through that those purchasing from pedigree breeders, including those involved in the show world, best be scrutinizing those they are purchasing pups from.


Again, if only that were true. Sadly, the message that came from the program to the general public was that pedigree equals bad and crossbreed equals good. In one fell swoop this program had people thinking it was better to go to bybs and puppy farmers rather than reputable pedigree breeders. The immediate proliferation of puppy farmers advertising that their dogs were not pedigrees and not KC registered is proof of this, as is the huge number of people on forums like this who STILL believe crossbreeds are healthier than pedigrees.

Intentionally or not, this program has promoted puppy farming and bybreeding and hence has done the dog world a great disservice. It has taken two years to begin to get the right message (which is that prospective buyers should scrutinise ALL breeders) through to people - and the fact that the right message is actaully beginning to seep through is due to dedicated breeders spreading the truth by coming on forums such as this, answering newspaper articles etc etc.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> It made such an impact only because it grossly exaggerated a small problem and tried to pretend that was the WHOLE truth. Even Jemima Harrison herself has stated that if she deliberately excluded all the good work being done in order to make a huge impact..


Please don't misquote Jemima. I have read what she said, and it is not what you have just posted.

. . . . and it did not try to pretend that was the WHOLE truth, although, I understand from many of your posts that you perceived it that way.

Not all of us did.



Spellweaver said:


> If only that were true! I agree it should have been true, given its title - but the program was nothing more than an out and out attack on the show world and the Kennel Club. ..


That is your gross misinterpretation. I do not agree with it, and we will have to agree to disagree.



Spellweaver said:


> The fact that it showed a boxer fitting and a cavalier unable to walk and made out that these were show animals is totally relevant in that it shows just how dishonest the program was. ..


Please watch the video again (its on youtube) and point to me where it was made out that the Boxer and Cavalier were show animals. You can't, as it did not, although you seem to think that it did.



Spellweaver said:


> Again, if only that were true. Sadly, the message that came from the program to the general public was that pedigree equals bad and crossbreed equals good. In one fell swoop this program had people thinking it was better to go to bybs and puppy farmers rather than reputable pedigree breeders. The immediate proliferation of puppy farmers advertising that their dogs were not pedigrees and not KC registered is proof of this, as is the huge number of people on forums like this who STILL believe crossbreeds are healthier than pedigrees...


Some of the puppyfarmers that used to sell poorly bred pedigrees, to the people that would purchase from them, might have seen an opportunity to switch to poorly bred mixes. Not a big deal in the whole scheme of things.

I guess you would prefer those that are not willing to research to continue to just get badly bred pedigrees. I don't care which they get if they aren't willing to go to a decent breeder.



Spellweaver said:


> Intentionally or not, this program has promoted puppy farming and bybreeding and hence has done the dog world a great disservice. It has taken two years to begin to get the right message (which is that prospective buyers should scrutinise ALL breeders) through to people - and the fact that the right message is actaully beginning to seep through is due to dedicated breeders spreading the truth by coming on forums such as this, answering newspaper articles etc etc.


Again, the message you believe went out from that show seems to reflect the fact that you believe most are really dumb.

I have met those that took the message from the show and used it to purchase better.

We will continue to disagree as I've seen you on about this topic before. I've said my opinion and experiences and will leave it at that.

CC


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

I still have a problem with some breed standards. PDE, didn't alter my opinion it its always been the same. But the programme bought some truthful things to light to the general public. 

The show world to a lot of people is a sort of love/hate! Yes many show people are truly amazing with what they do for their breed. But then without the show world many problems with dogs would never have happened (like extreme features etc)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> That is your gross misinterpretation. I do not agree with it, and we will have to agree to disagree.


You are right - we will have to agree to disagree. You are obviously pro this program and so are looking at it with your own slant - you are entitled to do that. As for me having a "gross" misinterpretation - once a poster starts with an attack of rudeness like this it immediately rings alarm bells for me - I am always suspicious that posters who revert to rudenss to support their points really don't have much of a point to suport. In my opinion your interpretation of the program and its message is so off the mark that it leaves a great deal to be desired - but hey ho, I also believe you are entitled to that opinion and I don't feel the need to be rude to you about it.



comfortcreature said:


> Please watch the video again (its on youtube) and point to me where it was made out that the Boxer and Cavalier were show animals. You can't, as it did not, although you seem to think that it did.


I have no intention of watching this program again. I have no need to. It most certainly did give the impression that these two were show dogs - if it didn't, how do you explain that even on this very thread people were under the impression that they were and someone - yet again - has had to point out that they were not?



comfortcreature said:


> Some of the puppyfarmers that used to sell poorly bred pedigrees, to the people that would purchase from them, might have seen an opportunity to switch to poorly bred mixes. Not a big deal in the whole scheme of things.


I disagree. It was and is a big deal. It was and is proliferate. I care deeply about the fact that this program has led people to believe it is better to buy a poorly bred puppy from a puppy farmer than to buy a well-bred pedigree from a good breeder. As you are prepared to overlook and minimise this effect of the program, you obviously don't. Again, you are entitled to your opinion .



comfortcreature said:


> I guess you would prefer those that are not willing to research to continue to just get badly bred pedigrees.


You obviously did not read my post properly. What I actually said (it's there in black and white) is that prospective buyers should scrutinise ALL breeders. If you paid as little attention to the program as you have to my post, it's not surprising you have ended up with the view you have.



comfortcreature said:


> Again, the message you believe went out from that show seems to reflect the fact that you believe most are really dumb.


How very nasty of you. I have never said that, and again find it upsetting that you feel you have to attack like this. Again, you are guilty of not reading what I post. Read the posts between Nicky and myself earlier on - where I was explaining to Nicky the TRUTH about Danny, and how the program lied about him. I was in no way saying people were dumb - if people see a documentary on BBC, they generally perceive the facts to be true.

I really take exception to the tone of your post. Saying things like



comfortcreature said:


> I've seen you on about this topic before. I've said my opinion and experiences and will leave it at that.


is both inflammatory and uinnecessary. I am as entitled to post my opinions on something as you are - and I have to say I did it with a great deal more sympathy and less rudeness than you did.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Well of course PDE was an attack on the show world and show breeders- it's title may well have been Pedigree Dogs exposed but where was the footage of the Irish pedigree puppy farms -or the thousands of back yard pedigree dog breeders ? - did it speak to them ? was it pointed out that they are responsible for the majority of pedigree dogs bought in the Uk - if it was'nt directed soley at the show world where was the balance ? - where was it said that in fact only 5 % of all pedigree dogs are exhibited and only a tiny fraction of pedigree dogs in the more popular breeds are bred by show breeders- take GSD's for example - in the KC breed record supplement for April - June 2010 ( sorry I can't find the most recent quarter - think the dog chewed it !! ) - there were 2728 pedigree GSD registered so that would be around 10,000 GSD's born every year !! - only a tiny fraction of these would have been from show lines ( entries at most Champs shows is around 30 -40 )- be honest - how many times do you see show bred GSD being advertised or indeed being owned by the general public ? - how on earth can teh show world have any kind of real impact on the health and welfare of most of these GSD's ?

The Cavalier is another hugely popular breed bred by puppy farmers all over the uK - I'd be willing to bet that most Cavaliers owned by the general puppy buyer has been sourced from commercial breeders - yet who is it that Jemima et al goes gunning for ?- the tiny minority involved in the show world ! - how balanced and fair is that ?

...and don't bang on about the fact that it's breed standards that are to blame - read through them - each and everyone specifically states that any exaggeration is undesirable - the fact is that folk LIKE the their Shar Peis wrinkly and their Bulldogs snuffly ( why else would these breeds be so amazingly popular ? ) - no i don't 'get it' either but it's NOT the show world that's producing over wrinkled Shar Peis etc - they simply would'nt win ! .

I believe that Jemima is planning a PDE sequal - I'm hoping that it does in fact show *all* aspects of pedigree dog breeding and is not just another thinly veiled attack on the show world -oh and pehaps it should also mention the boom in designer dog breeding as well just to avoid giving the public the impression that it's ONLY pedigree dogs that have problems - however I won't hold my breath :rolleyes5:


----------



## DerbyMerc (Dec 1, 2009)

Agree with ComfortCreature. 

Additionally the show world does have a very great responsibility for creating many of the exaggerations in modern pedigree dogs. What is considered the ideal of many breeds is heavily influenced by the show fraternity and in many cases what they considered (or still consider) to be ideal impacts negatively on the dogs themselves. Even if breeders stop in breeding (or in their terms line breeding) and health test that in itself wont prevent health problems brought on by the basic physical build of breeds such as dachshunds, bulldogs etc.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Even Jemima Harrison herself has stated that if she deliberately excluded all the good work being done in order to make a huge impact.


I recall her stating this on the Champdogs forum and that the program was deliberatley biased for impact and effect.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DerbyMerc said:


> Agree with ComfortCreature.


So you are agreeing with CC that the program was not an attack on the show world? It's interesting then that your next comment is:



DerbyMerc said:


> the show world does have a very great responsibility for creating many of the exaggerations in modern pedigree dogs.


To what degree did the program influence your opinion on this last statement? Be honest 

btw - did you read Bijou's excellent post above? It shows how insignificant the effect of show breeding actually is in the world of pedigree dogs.



DerbyMerc said:


> Even if breeders stop in breeding (or in their terms line breeding)


In-breeding and line breeding are not the same. It's a complex subject, but have a look at this video which explains it more clearly than I could do.

YouTube - Beginners guide to line breeding


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> I recall her stating this on the Champdogs forum and that the program was deliberatley biased for impact and effect.


Thanks for this Snoringbear - it's good to know that I wasn't misquoting her or "grossly misinterprating"  her comments :thumbup:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I read each and everyone of Jemima Harrison's comments on Champdogs, and none said what Spellweaver said.

So . . . who wants to go dig and present me where she said . . .



> "she deliberately excluded *all* the good work being done in order to make a huge impact."


as she did not.

What is important about the statement quoted above, of course, is the word "ALL". I'd like to see anyone find where Jemima said any such thing. I clearly remember Jemima mentioning that it was decided that a slant was needed in the program, for effect . . . that a big 'sledgehammer' was needed as there was a big nut to crack. That is FAR FROM saying that ALL good work being done was left out.

In fact, the contribution of the Kennel Club Charitable Trust WERE mentioned in PDE. . . . The good work being done by the KC was not *ALL* left out of the documentary. It was mentioned in it, briefly. as well as was the fact that some breeders are doing their best (with John Burchard's Salukis shown working in the distance as those words were mentioned). Dr. John Burchard is of Tepe Gawra Salukis, and this is his website. http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/

Dr. John Burchard is a biologist and breeder that I have long admired and I was glad to see him and his dogs in the film.

Dr. Bruce Cattanach is a geneticist and another breeder that I follow. I have long exchanged emails with them both, as well as with Jemima, on the Canine Genetics Yahoo list.

This is a link to Bruce Cattanach's take on PDE which ends with _"Jemima, I think you have done more good than harm, and thank you for my wake up call."_
http://www.steynmere.com/PEDIGREE-EXPOSED.html

I'm off for a dig right now, and I'll come back with the quotes I can find albeit I don't know how long google holds onto them. They were not what Spellweaver posted.

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q="cham...+jemima+harrison&gs_rfai=&fp=13e9b56fa7ad21f4

Champdogs thread from Nov 2008 where Jemima contributes her own posts - "Is Jemima Harrison Correct" - http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/110285.html

All of Jemima's more recent posts can be found here - http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/board/forum_search.pl?uid=26974;mode=uid

CC


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

This is one that I just came across (again) and that speaks to the program being, in general, made to be about pedigree dogs.

_"The boxer is actually the progeny of a full-sib mating - something we didn't mention because it didn't seem partic relevant. Think a pet line *but the point we were making was as much in general about pedigree dogs as it was about show breeders. * The cavalier was descended from UK showlines. The cavalier that won at the Malvern Show, of course, was of course owned by a show breeder and, against the veterinary guidelines/breeding protocols endorsed by the CKCSC he has sired at least two more litters since then. Still no censure of this breeder, either - whereas the Club has chucked Margaret Carter off their health committee for speaking out about the problems.

Then there was that very exaggerated basset hound that won at Southern Counties. And the over-angulated GSD that won at Manchester. As for excusing the young GSD with wobbly hocks... words fail me. That dog was a total travesty. And if you have another look at the film (and it's still widely available on YouTube and elsewhere) you'll see that we did indeed distinguish between Manchester Ch Sh and Crufts.

Was very pleased, incidentally, to see this from the GS breed council.

German Shepherd Breed Council

Jemima ."_


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

I can't remember much of the programme but I'm glad it was made.

You can say all you want about the pet breeders and yes I agree that many don't do the health tests, some put siblings together (as do show breeders btw) but it's the show breeders that have wrecked a lot of the breeds... GSD's with thier wobbly hocks and roach backs, Cavaliers with their tiny skulls too small for the brain, all those breeds with excessive wrinkling, bulldogs that can't give birth naturally... countless others that I can't think of right now but it's show breeders breeding for rosettes that have done that


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> This is one that I just came across (again) and that speaks to the program being, in general, made to be about pedigree dogs.
> 
> _"The boxer is actually the progeny of a full-sib mating - something we didn't mention because it didn't seem partic relevant. Think a pet line *but the point we were making was as much in general about pedigree dogs as it was about show breeders. * The cavalier was descended from UK showlines. The cavalier that won at the Malvern Show, of course, was of course owned by a show breeder and, against the veterinary guidelines/breeding protocols endorsed by the CKCSC he has sired at least two more litters since then. Still no censure of this breeder, either - whereas the Club has chucked Margaret Carter off their health committee for speaking out about the problems.
> 
> ...


Interesting quote. A throwaway comment is made about pedigree dogs in general, but any evidence offered is directly related to the show ring? No mention of BYB, PF etc. How is that not biased?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

No one is claiming it was not biased. It WAS biased.

What is your problem with a documentary being biased? Many are - depending on what point is needed to be made.

No one would want a documentary on puppyfarms to be made that then also showed the many families that do luck out and get a puppyfarm pup and have it turn out well.

If a show is being made to "EXPOSE" the problem, well, then, it best do just that!

But then, my experience tells me that that is just what the problem is . . . . many in the pedigree and show world didn't want their closet's aired and had no desire to have the many problems within exposed . . . and that is what the whining is about. 

Let's all just circle the wagons.

CC


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> In-breeding and line breeding are not the same. It's a complex subject, but have a look at this video which explains it more clearly than I could do.


All line-breeding *is* inbreeding, line-breeding is not a scientific term recognised by geneticists, it is a term made up by breeders to describe the inbreeding of closely related individuals, to distinguish it from really close inbred matings ie father/daughter, or sibling/sibling matings.

So it is ALL inbreeding only a false distinction is made by animal breeders to probably "sweeten the pill" and make it seem more acceptable.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Interesting quote. A throwaway comment is made about pedigree dogs in general, but any evidence offered is directly related to the show ring? No mention of BYB, PF etc. How is that not biased?


In post 8/12/08 on one of the links CC posted, Jemima actually admits what she was trying to do with the program - and well, would you believe it - she was, after all, gunning for the KC. Now, putting to one side for a moment whether her opinion is accurate or not, as Bijou has pointed out, show breeding accounts for very little of the breeding done in this country. Why was Jemima s concerned with such a small portion of the problem? If she was really concerned about the state of pedigree dogs as a whole, rather than just show dogs, why was going after the KC the be all and end all of the report? Where was, as Snoringbear said, the expose of the puppy farmers and bybs who are the real culprits?

Jemima's own words in her own post (pointing that out just so CC doesn't dodge away from the weakness of her arguments by arguing over semantiics once more):

_Do you approve of the tougher line now being taken by the KC? Would you like to see mandatory testing introduced and some limits on inbreeding... perhaps some greater awareness of the importance of genetic diversity.. some limits, maybe, on the amount of times a top-winning dog can be used.. particularly if they have not passed breed-specific health tests... less emphasis on looks and more on health?

This is what we were fighting for with PDE._


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

It is interesting to note that semantics are not important to you when representing what Jemima has said, Spellweaver. 

That is very handy as then you can stretch things said to anything you want them to be stretched to . . . . 

The exposes of the puppyfarms have been done over and over and over. 

The puppyfarmers and BYBs are certainly not the only culprits in the Cavalier breed, and I know not in other breeds either - lest we off track to that direction. The public NEED to know that it is not ONLY puppyfarms and bybs that are a problem . . . that they have to judiciously look at every breeder they might want to obtain a pup from.

You are obviously upset that Jemima decided to have a specific look at some pedigree breeding practices.

It was time. It was needed.

Too bad that it is not yours to determine what others make their documentaries about. 

How about forming your own production company and having a go? 

CC


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> It is interesting to note that semantics are not important to you when representing what Jemima has said, Spellweaver.
> 
> That is very handy as then you can stretch things said to anything you want them to be stretched to . . . .
> 
> ...


I really do not understand why you feel you have to come gunning for me like this - I am not the only person on this thread who has expressed the same opinions of the program. It is beginning to feel rather like bullying. Could you please explain why you have gone for the personal attack instead of debating in a friendly manner?

As for the semantics - it really does not matter what the exact words were that Jemima used. My original point was that she deliberately left out things in order to make an impact - and you yourself agreed with this - so just what is your beef?

As I have said over and over (and as you have chosen to ignore over and over) my beef with the program is that it has in one fell swoop made people think that it is better to buy an ill-bred dog from a puppy farmer than go to a reputable breeder. Now, you may not agree with this, but once again, there are others who have expressed this on this thread, so why the personal attack on me?

And as for your inflammatory comments about forming my own production company and having a go - well really, is that the best answer you can summon up to all the points I've brought up in the debate, most of which you have ignored in favour of a rather nasty and unprovoked personal attack.

I look forward to you apology.


----------



## xhuskyloverx (May 5, 2010)

I don't remember too much about it really, but it was just after we got Barnie, which was the only reason we watched it. We didn't like it and thought it was horrible and that the KC and pedigree breeders didn't do anything good for the dogs! However after doing my own research and coming on this forum, I have realised that, although I do agree some things need to be changed, it isn't the full picture. As has been said before this is only a small percentage of all dogs. And from what I can gather from being on here and talking to other people, alot of research goes into breeding from show dogs to compliment their lines, so improving the dogs. 

TBH it probably had the desired effect on me, was absolutly horrified and felt so sorry for the poor dogs, esp the cavaliar and boxer, however now knowing the stories behind them it makes sense and if people don't know then it will put them off having pedigree dogs.


----------



## lozenlady (Oct 20, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> As I have said over and over (and as you have chosen to ignore over and over) my beef with the program is that it has in one fell swoop made people think that it is better to buy an ill-bred dog from a puppy farmer than go to a reputable breeder. Now, you may not agree with this, but once again, there are others who have expressed this on this thread, so why the personal attack on me?


I couldn't agree more. While not all show breeders have high standards and ethics, the majority do. The puppy farmers and BYB's are just for churning out pups for money with no thought to their health

The programme was aired a while ago and I have no wish to see it again but it was made for sensationalism.

I remember the fitting boxer, poor thing. The best thing for a fitting dog or human is to keep it quiet, unrestrained but safe and in a darkened room. What did the producers do- put it in a room with bright lights and held it down. Turning the lights off, which most normal people would have done. would have meant the veiwers would not be able to see, therefore no drama


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Some kind of glitch and double post - see below.

CC


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Spellweaver, if you would care to go back to page three of this thread you will read where you followed up my original post on this thread with a tit-for-tat of what I had said claiming that my ideas put forward were untrue.

.....and now you claim I am gunning for you?! Truly?

Nobody is gunning and there will not be an apology, and I will not ask one from you.

I am not that fragile of a daisy and I don't expect others posting on forums to be so either.

Albeit, if there is one thing I cannot stand, it is misquotes and/or misrepresentations and that, I will not let go.

Fact is, as I pointed out in the beginnning, we disagree and will continue to. If you have not noted before  we have a history of disagreeing so obviously we philosophically come from different places.

CC


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Non one is claiming it was not biased. It WAS biased.
> 
> What is your problem with a documentary being biased? Many are - depending on what point is needed to be made.
> 
> ...


I agree. 
Documentaries about thugs, murderers and thieves are not balanced, we do not spend half the documentary speaking about Phil who is *not* a thug, *not* a thief and *not* a murderer, the documentary will be about Tom, Dick and Harry, who *are* thugs, murderers and thieves.

I cannot understand:- 
The stance that says black is white and that all or most pedigree dog breeders are wonderful, would never place their dogs at risk and have never bred dogs with poor conformation and/or health. 
The stance that disputes the evidence of xrays and the poor unhealthy dogs shown in the program, both pet dogs and show specimens. 
The stance that says alls well in the breeds and that breeds are in the safe hands of breeders and the KC as they always have been.
The stance that doesn't seem to take on board that there is any problem whatsoever or that any problems were "in hand".
The stance that disputes any wake up call or stimulation into action that the program initiated.

It is all very well to blame the BYBs and puppy farmers as the sole source of all dog breeding ills, but the program wasn't really about them.
The evolution of breeds of dogs by deliberately breeding them into what they are today, must at some point be down to those who breed them. 
Puppy farmers and BYBs follow the trends, they are a bit like the high street or market traders are to big fashion houses. They try and breed dogs to look like those in the show ring, IMO they are not the trend setters.

Fair enough to get upset if this program had come out of the blue and had targeted dogs and breeders with no prior problems having surfaced and the evidence was groundless, but dogs had been going down this slippery slope for years.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

double post . . .


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> I agree.
> Documentaries about thugs, murderers and thieves are not balanced, we do not spend half the documentary speaking about Phil who is *not* a thug, *not* a thief and *not* a murderer, the documentary will be about Tom, Dick and Harry, who *are* thugs, murderers and thieves.
> 
> I cannot understand the stance that says black is white and that all show breeders are wonderful, would never place their dogs at risk and have never bred dogs with poor conformation and health.
> ...


well said:thumbup:


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

i understood the programm was out to shock people and reveal the bad things in the pedigree world.
Which is a good thing, as it opened the eyes of alot of people who were blinded that a pedigree dog or a pedigree dog which is shown and wins is automaticly a quality and healthy dog. 

I believe it was a good thing that the show world was part of the program, as there are so many dogs in the ring not health tested, winning prices and being used in breeding programms and then the offspring is being sold to the public as quality pedigree dogs.

Now health in pedigrees is being talked about and people ask questions, and i guess that stinks to those who choose or have chosen the path of not health testing their dogs, breeding ill dogs, or exaggerated dogs.
People also question alot more the show world, which imo is very much responsible for alot of problems in alot of breeds and where the health has worsened over time cause of breeding for exaggerated looks rather than health. 

I also must say i dont know of anyone who run to a puppyfarmer to buy a dog or a cross breed instead of a show dog because of the program.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I agree.
> Documentaries about thugs, murderers and thieves are not balanced, we do not spend half the documentary speaking about Phil who is *not* a thug, *not* a thief and *not* a murderer, the documentary will be about Tom, Dick and Harry, who *are* thugs, murderers and thieves.


But that is not what PDE did. I (and a lot of others) are saying that PDE laid the blame for bad breeding ONLY on show breeders and did not include puppy farmers and bybs. In the terms of your analogy, to do the same thing that PDE did would mean that your documentary on thieves would be saying even though Tom, Dick and Harry are all thieves, Tom is the ONLY thief and is to blame for all the things that Dick and Harry are doing.



lauren001 said:


> I cannot understand:-
> The stance that says black is white and that all or most pedigree dog breeders are wonderful, would never place their dogs at risk and have never bred dogs with poor conformation and/or health.
> The stance that disputes the evidence of xrays and the poor unhealthy dogs shown in the program, both pet dogs and show specimens.
> The stance that says alls well in the breeds and that breeds are in the safe hands of breeders and the KC as they always have been.
> The stance that doesn't seem to take on board that there is any problem whatsoever or that any problems were "in hand".


You must have been reading some other thread - no-one on here has said any of that.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Maybe not on this thread *yet* but in plenty others.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Spellweaver, if you would care to go back to page three of this thread you will read where you followed up my original post on this thread with a tit-for-tat of what I had said claiming that my ideas put forward were untrue.
> 
> .....and now you claim I am gunning for you?! Truly?
> 
> ...


CC, my original response to your points were by way of a discussion. That is what a debate is made up of, people putting forward different points of view. I find it very sad that you find it necessary to personally attack people who have the temerity to post views that are different to your own, instead of holding a sensible and logical debate.

As for your latest attempt at name-calling - as you are no doubt discovering, I am no fragile daisy. I will not lay down and let you walk all over me just because I dare to hold and post different views from you. You are right - our views do differ greatly. I care passionately about dogs and the things that influence them and could never countenance a program that promoted puppy farming and bybreeding, no matter how nastily any poster tries to force their views on me. I will ALWAYS speak out against any unfairness, especially if it concerns animals, and I will ALWAYS speak out against those who try to put views across which I feel are wrong. If that upsets you, then tough.

Now if you cannot debate in a friendly manner, I suggest you do not bother to reply at all.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Spellweaver, all my points were by way of discussion the same as were yours.

You choose to see things differently and continue on the tit-for-tat that you began. I'm done.

CC


----------



## DerbyMerc (Dec 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> So you are agreeing with CC that the program was not an attack on the show world? It's interesting then that your next comment is:
> 
> To what degree did the program influence your opinion on this last statement? Be honest
> 
> ...


Someone has already corrected you re. line breeding and inbreeding but I have to back them up - they are two names for the same thing.

My main point though is that the show world has played a major part in defining what many breeds should look like - and that is a problem irrespective of the health checks that are done. You can have all the health checks in the world but that will not make bulldogs, dachshunds, german shepherds etc healthy so long as judges continue to put up dogs whose structure leads to problems.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I really do not understand why you feel you have to come gunning for me like this - I am not the only person on this thread who has expressed the same opinions of the program. It is beginning to feel rather like bullying. Could you please explain why you have gone for the personal attack instead of debating in a friendly manner?
> 
> I look forward to you apology.


This is so funny.
You have monopolised threads and gunned down so many, in your defences over the PDE program in the past. You erect your Hesco bastions, mobilise the rocket launchers and as your foes drop like flies in the face of your assault, you remain undaunted, sanctimonious and so sure of your position. 
For you especially to claim bullying and an apology is frankly incredible.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> This is so funny.
> You have monopolised threads and gunned down so many, in your defences over the PDE program in the past. You erect your Hesco bastions, mobilise the rocket launchers and as your foes drop like flies in the face of your assault, you remain undaunted, sanctimonious and so sure of your position.
> For you especially to claim bullying and an apology is frankly incredible.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Crikey - didn't know my arguments were so effective! If, as you say, people who hold different views to me "drop like flies" lol: sorry, can't stop laughing at your metaphors) then it is because of the strength of my arguments and nothing at all to do with bullying. Notice I said "people who have different views to me" and not your choice of word - ie "foes". This is because, unlike yourself, I don't see people who hold different views as foes. This is why, unlike CC and yourself, I don't find the need to personally attack people who do hold different views.

I hold strong views and I am not afraid to stand up for them. I make no apologies for that. I am happy for anyone at all to expound their own views whether or not they agree with mine. I am happy to debate whenever my point of view differs from another's. It is, of course, one of the things forums are for. This is not bullying. This is debating. Bullying is where you revert to personal attacks, name-calling and ganging up on one particular poster - you give a fine example of all that above. I challenge you to find any post where I have done that.

Sleeping Lion, I am sorry your thread - which was so interesting and running along so nicely before all this started - has been hijacked, but I truly felt the need to defend myself here. Perhaps now that these two have vented their spleen, it will revert back to a decent discussion.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> Maybe not on this thread *yet* but in plenty others.


here we go again 

didnt we discuss this on your "should breeders be breeding these dogs" thread as this feels like deja vu to me.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DerbyMerc said:


> Someone has already corrected you re. line breeding and inbreeding but I have to back them up - they are two names for the same thing.


It's a matter of degree. In the dog world, if someone speaks of inbreeding they tend to mean the mating of very close relationships such as mother to daughter, father to son. When they speak about line breeding they are generally talking about the mating of dogs either with many common ancestors, or mating from a more slightly removed relative, such as uncle to neice. I take your point that technically, it's all inbreeding unless you mate two completely unrelated animals, but if a subject is being discussed, it helps if all people discussing it use the relative terms in the same way.



DerbyMerc said:


> My main point though is that the show world has played a major part in defining what many breeds should look like - and that is a problem irrespective of the health checks that are done. You can have all the health checks in the world but that will not make bulldogs, dachshunds, german shepherds etc healthy so long as judges continue to put up dogs whose structure leads to problems.


But as I asked in the other post, as this thread is about the effect of PDE, I wondered whether or not your opinion above was based on what you saw on PDE, or whether you have other reasons and sources for believing this and PDE merely confirmed what you already thought.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I really find it utterly amazing that this one television programme has had such a long lasting, and in some ways, negative effect? Thoughts from breeders and those that saw the programme much appreciated....


*I saw that program and must admit at first found it believable. I have since on here seen many threads raising valid points at why and how that program was biased. I have no first hand knowledge of breeding so have only the knowledge given by experienced breeders on here. *



lauren001 said:


> This is so funny.
> You have monopolised threads and gunned down so many, in your defences over the PDE program in the past. You erect your Hesco bastions, mobilise the rocket launchers and as your foes drop like flies in the face of your assault, you remain undaunted, sanctimonious and so sure of your position.
> For you especially to claim bullying and an apology is frankly incredible.


*That's abit harsh and uncalled for. Spellweaver is a much respected and knowledgable member on here who has contributed so much. What you call 'monopolising of threads' others see as valuable contributions to this forum.
*



Spellweaver said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Crikey - didn't know my arguments were so effective! If, as you say, people who hold different views to me "drop like flies" lol: sorry, can't stop laughing at your metaphors) then it is because of the strength of my arguments and nothing at all to do with bullying. Notice I said "people who have different views to me" and not your choice of word - ie "foes". This is because, unlike yourself, I don't see people who hold different views as foes. This is why, unlike CC and yourself, I don't find the need to personally attack people who do hold different views.
> 
> ...


*As always, well said. I for one respect the fact you stand up for what you believe in and find you ALWAYS put forward a good, fair and balanced debate....Even if i am too thick half the time to keep up with you...lol  *


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *That's abit harsh and uncalled for. Spellweaver is a much respected and knowledgable member on here who has contributed so much. What you call 'monopolising of threads' others see as valuable contributions to this forum.
> *





FREE SPIRIT said:


> [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]*As always, well said. I for one respect the fact you stand up for what you believe in and find you ALWAYS put forward a good, fair and balanced debate....Even if i am too thick half the time to keep up with you...lol  *


Thank you for the support hun.  You're pretty hot on the debate front yourself - and as for being too thick to keep up with me, don't write such rubbish!  You more than keep up with me - you're one of the most interesting and thought-provoking posters on here :thumbup:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Thank you for the support hun.  You're pretty hot on the debate front yourself - and as for being too thick to keep up with me, don't write such rubbish!  You more than keep up with me - you're one of the most interesting and thought-provoking posters on here :thumbup:


*You're welcome. 
Thanks for your kind words too. 
I love a good debate as most people on here know but as in my previous post happily admit to things i have no real knowledge on so usually don't comment on breeding threads, etc. But i figured i had watched the program in question so could give my opinion on that. Oh and i'll always have an opinion where someone puts uncalled comments towards other members especially towards members like yourself who are much respected and valued on here. *


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> Documentaries about thugs, murderers and thieves are not balanced,
> we do not spend half the documentary speaking about Phil who is *not* a thug, *not* a thief
> and *not* a murderer, the documentary will be about Tom, Dick and Harry,
> who *are* thugs, murderers and thieves. [SNIP]...
> ...


yup :thumbup: what she said ^ ^ Rep for that!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> here we go again
> 
> didnt we discuss this on your "should breeders be breeding these dogs" thread as this feels like deja vu to me.
> __________________


...yep ..and you know what ? ....I'm NOT going to give this nonsense any more credence -suffice to say that if you really believe the hysterical rubbish produced by Ms Harrison then DON'T buy pedigree dogs - or breed your own fully healthy unexaggerated non line bred versions of the 300 plus breeds we have !!!

You have the choice - either you want a dog that looks and behaves a certain way - i.e a pedigree - or you don't - if you do then you have to accept that it will be bred within a restricted gene pool - no point in getting a Dandie Dinmont for example and expecting it not to be line bred - the gene pools are simply not big enough - if you disagree then DON'T get one - you want a Bulldog then you surely EXPECT it to come with a flat face - if you don't want this then DON'T get one .

It is not possible to breed any species and guarantee it will be completely free of faults or disease - those of you that think it can be done are welcome to try - I'm sick to the back teeth of 'instant' armchair genetic experts who have never bred a single puppy telling me and other experienced breeders how to do it -

In the 27 years I've been breeding I've produced healthy longlived free moving, good natured dogs that fit closely to their breed standard - the proof is here with three generations of my breeding lying at my feet as I type - that's enough justification for me - do I need the 'approval' of Jemima and her supporters - hell no -


----------



## penfold71 (Oct 8, 2010)

:mad2:

That kinda sums up my atitude to this thread.

Others, such as spellweaver and bijou, are far more articulate than myself so I will leave the 'discussions' in their capable hands....suffice to say I share their stance.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The fact that pet bred examples, as well as show bred examples, were used is irrelevent. The show was 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' not "Show Dogs Exposed". There are many pedigree dogs that are pet bred. In my country where the message is just being promoted that registration is to be sought after, pedigree breeders of pet bred dogs that sell in volume with no health testing are a huge problem and use 'pedigree' as a selling point.


I don't disagree with this, but the fallout from this programme was evident in the advertisements that appeared by byb and puppy farmers using 'crossbreed' as a selling point.



> I have helped NUMEROUS pet buyers search for breeders that are health testing, directly as a result of the message they heard in PDE.


That's great and I am all for that, but the comments I heard (and I'm talking about people I met and know, not dog lovers who frequent forums and at least do a bit of research) were extolling the virtues of their puppy farmed dogs (not that they necessarily realised where they had come from). I even know of a case that went to a local pet shop to get a puppy on the advice of one of these people.

While I understand that it had to be hard hitting to have impact, and I do think what it showed was long overdue, the impact of the message left many with a wrong impression. Great that it has informed some, and great that it gave the KC a shove in the right direction but it left a lot even more misinformed than they were before and this is what leaves me with mixed feelings.



> and it did not try to pretend that was the WHOLE truth, although, I understand from many of your posts that you perceived it that way.


I don't think it pretended or even intended to be the whole truth, but this is impression that many got.



> Some of the puppyfarmers that used to sell poorly bred pedigrees, to the people that would purchase from them, might have seen an opportunity to switch to poorly bred mixes. Not a big deal in the whole scheme of things.


They did and it was a field day for the designer cross breeders too - sorry, but I do think it's a big deal - two wrongs don't make a right.



> Again, the message you believe went out from that show seems to reflect the fact that you believe most are really dumb


No, not dumb, but many are completely clueless when it comes to dogs. I know of highly intelligent people with great jobs that are clueless when it comes to buying a puppy. Again, I'm not talking about people who would come on here, who love their dogs whose dogs play a big part in their lives. I think, just as the show world can close it's eyes to some of the things that have been happening, so to can we dog enthusiasts overlook the fact that the vast majority of dog owners just want a dog as a companion and have no interest in more than that. They would never think of coming on a forum to discuss their pets, they just live with them as a family pet. Perhaps it's different in Canada, but that is certainly the case here. It has nothing to do with being dumb or unintelligent either, it is simply that they are unaware or do not see a problem.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> No one is claiming it was not biased. It WAS biased.
> 
> What is your problem with a documentary being biased? Many are - depending on what point is needed to be made.
> 
> ...


This is the dictionary definition of documentary:

doc·u·men·ta·ry (dky-mnt-r)

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries 
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

Note point 2. PDE was not a documentary.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Crikey - didn't know my arguments were so effective! If, as you say, people who hold different views to me "drop like flies" lol: sorry, can't stop laughing at your metaphors) then it is because of the strength of my arguments and nothing at all to do with bullying. Notice I said "people who have different views to me" and not your choice of word - ie "foes". This is because, unlike yourself, I don't see people who hold different views as foes. This is why, unlike CC and yourself, I don't find the need to personally attack people who do hold different views.
> 
> ...


Not at all, I know this has been discussed before, and will probably be discussed again, but there may be people that STILL believe the wrong message from the programme, so it's a valid discussion any day of the week in my books.

For the line/in breeding debate, any breeding of pedigree dogs involves inbreeding, it has to, they are closed gene pools for the most part, the same with any other specific breed of animals, and yet for some reason, with dogs, perhaps because they are companion animals, when you speak of line breeding everyone assumes a dog will have six legs and two tails if this method is used!!!! There seems to be a misconception that breeders of pedigree dogs ONLY use line breeding, which is entirely untrue, although, as I said it is actually quite difficult to avoid having some of the same dogs within a pedigree, particularly when you go back more than five generations. Take Boothgates Headliner in the Labrador world, he's behind the vast majority of chocolate Labradors, as he was the most popular dog of his day. The same can be said for working Labradors, such as Pocklea Remus, and yet, Labradors, overall are pretty healthy. So why this complete misconception about the way pedigrees are bred??

CC, perhaps it didn't have the same kind of effect on people over in the states, but honestly, there were comments flying around following the programme that proved people were getting the wrong message from the programme, and were more willing to go to puppy farmers or byb's etc, to avoid buying a well bred pedigree dog, because they're all inbred with health problems. You only have to look at a few of the posts on the cross breed taboo thread in dog chat, to see just how many people believe that! I find it sad that you don't see just how bad the problem has become with puppy farms and designer cross breeds following this sort of misguided programme, or perhaps you didn't think it was an important part of this discussion. It doesn't help of course that celebrities fuel the fire, but the victims are the poor dogs, kept in awful circumstances churning out 'poo' crosses etc, that people genuinely believe are healthier than both parents, with no evidence what so ever.


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

Strange how breeders think the programme is [email protected]
This is a forum,a few big posting members all backing each other up,with the same narrow minded approach.
There is no smoke with out fire.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

The reason why we have not fogotten about the issues raised in PDE is because the issues raised were in fact perfectly reasonable.

If the documentary had been totally fabricated then the KC would have gone "Oh My Gawd!!!!" and presented evidence from professors and research people around the world to say that inbreeding causes no issues, to say that SM was a very rare phenomenon in Cavs, to say that the small air passages of pugs and bulldogs were actually beneficial to their health and that breeders had done sterling work making sure the passages were as amall as possible and also to say that excessly wrinkled dogs had an advantage over their less wrinkled compatriots.
Orthopaedic specialist vets would have been mobilised to say that roach backs werre structurally sound and physics professors and engineeering academia would have extolled the virtues of the roach back.
The exaggerations seen in dogs, like short faces, excess wrinkles, screw tails and dwarfism would all have been defended admirably by the scientific community against such a "biased" programme, as after all breeders have the best interests of their dogs at heart, don't they? 

As it was, the KC did go "Oh my Gawd!!!!, Oh my Gawd!!!!, Oh my Gawd.........." and promptly tried to tighten up it's rules and make sure breed standards did the same. 
There was no defence of the core accusations, as how could there be?.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

holly1 said:


> Strange how breeders think the programme is [email protected]
> This is a forum,a few big posting members all backing each other up,with the same narrow minded approach.
> There is no smoke with out fire.


That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be to substitue "experienced members" for "big posting members" and then ask yourself just why the more experienced members seem to share similar opinions. Could it be because of their actual experience? (The same sort of experience that enabled at least one of these members to put your mind at rest with your query about fluid build up in your dog with congestive heart faliure  ) Just something to think about


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

He isnt my dog,he is a sponsor dog.He has 1 year to live now.Poor dog,its not his fault.
Which is what spurs me on to be angry toward the breeding world,for this poor dogs genetics.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

holly1 said:


> Strange how breeders think the programme is [email protected]
> This is a forum,a few big posting members all backing each other up,with the same narrow minded approach.
> There is no smoke with out fire.


Breeders don't think the programme is crap because of the content, but because of the lack of content, which I don't think you understand. Because it was pointed towards showing, and problems related to some show bred dogs where exaggerations can lead to health issues, it made Joe Public believe that they were all of a similar ilk. The problem with that is, it's pushed them to buy elsewhere, even helped the hype surrounding cross breeds, which simply isn't true; hybrid vigour is not something you can breed for simply by bunging two dogs together, it's the luck of the draw as to whether any resultant pups would be as healthy, more or even less healthy than both parents.

The only person with a narrow view point seems to be you, you're the one that posts complete nonsense about cross breeds being healthy and pedigrees being unhealthy, how narrow minded is that? You seem to lack the understanding that a good breeder will try and produce healthy pups, an unethical breeder, which includes the vast majority of people producing cross breeds, doesn't give a [email protected], because they're breeding for the money involved, or for sentimental reasons, neither of which is a good starting point when it comes to breeding animals.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

* was a documentary of the *problems* consequent to purebreds with *closed registries* - 
not just show-dogs and not just exaggerated specimens

* matador breeding means in many cases, one or 2 sires 50-years ago are in nearly every pedigree - 
not JUST in show-dogs, every specimen of that breed: good, bad, indifferent, show, pet, puppy-mill

* inbreeding depression is a breed-wide phenomenon - U cannot avoid it by avoiding show-lines, 
it is a fact and found in multiple breeds from any source - a highly-reputable and ethical breeder 
cannot CURE or avoid inbreeding depression; they did not "create" it and they cannot "fix" it.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

holly1 said:


> He isnt my dog,he is a sponsor dog.He has 1 year to live now.Poor dog,its not his fault.
> Which is what spurs me on to be angry toward the breeding world,for this poor dogs genetics.


Is this the elderly, overweight dog with a heart murmur you have spoken about fostering on other threads? I know CKCs are genetically predisposed to heart problems, but do you not think the fact that he is both elderly and overweight also has something to do with his condition?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

holly1 said:


> Strange how breeders think the programme is [email protected]
> This is a forum,a few big posting members all backing each other up,with the same narrow minded approach.
> There is no smoke with out fire.


Do you ever think before opening your mouth?
I dont think the programme was crap it was BIASED and done for shock effect and i am a breeder, put your tar and brush away please.



lauren001 said:


> The reason why we have not fogotten about the issues raised in PDE is because the issues raised were in fact perfectly reasonable.
> 
> If the documentary had been totally fabricated then the KC would have gone "Oh My Gawd!!!!" and presented evidence from professors and research people around the world to say that inbreeding causes no issues, to say that SM was a very rare phenomenon in Cavs, to say that the small air passages of pugs and bulldogs were actually beneficial to their health and that breeders had done sterling work making sure the passages were as amall as possible and also to say that excessly wrinkled dogs had an advantage over their less wrinkled compatriots.
> Orthopaedic specialist vets would have been mobilised to say that roach backs werre structurally sound and physics professors and engineeering academia would have extolled the virtues of the roach back.
> ...


The issues were reasonable but highly exaggerated, one sided with many relevant facts left out. They "forgot" to mention how that poor boxer was the result of a pet bred sib mating, i think even Joe Bloggs would be shocked at that. but it didnt fit in with the theme of the programme as it wasn a show dog. Ive never bred close relatives and never will (mum/son etc).

There are many dogs with roached backs who are perfectly healthy and help the function of the dog, do some proper research that isnt on the scaremongering sites.
The programme didnt allow vets with an opinion that didnt fit their agenda to speak on the programme, it would have defeated their purpose.

My current malamute HATES showing, she has been to a few and made it clear she was very unhappy, do i force her because i want to win? NO. She works in her harness and will remain with me to her dying day, she is my best friend.
I have bred chi's who always had their heart, eyes, elbows, and knees tested. More than the recommended tests but i like to know as much as possible about a dog health wise before i consider breeding from it, heartless eh? Shoot me now, i obviously dont give a crap about my dogs

Also AS STATED NUMEROUS TIMES, any person with half a brain can go look on various sites, DW newspapers and see that changes were being made to breed standards well before they put this crap on TV, take a look before you claim nothing was done before PDE, all the programme did was bring it to the attention of the general public.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I thought the programme done some good, I mean the KC seem to be looking into health testing a little more! It high lighted issues with certain breeds. My problem with the programme was it was so one sided, I think the other side should have been shown, showing breeder that are doing well with their breed, breeding out issues from using clear dogs. I also think it should have been abit more informative about choosing a decent breeder - all they did was tell us the problems, people buying pups for the first time had no where to turn for help and advice on making sure their pedigree breeder was ethical. Puppy farmers and the like where not mentioned and these are the types of breeders that will not be testing or even consider doing it.
It gave a bigger market to people cross breeding, by blindy leading them to believe that all pedigree dogs come with issues, and of course crosses would'nt. Thats done no good because in the long run not only will cross bred puppies suffer, so will breeds and familes that by from puppy farms when dogs become ill - not forgetting it will have increase demand, which means more people will be on the bandwagon to breed from their dogs.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I also think it should have been [a bit] more informative about choosing a decent breeder -
> all they did was tell us the problems, people buying pups for the first time had [nowhere] to turn
> for help and advice on making sure their pedigree breeder was ethical.


lord love a duck, there are BOOKS on How to Choose a Puppy which include PAGES on "ethical breeders" and recognizing same - 
if u cn rd ths sntnc, N u cn use the Www, u cn GOOGLE for info.
*if they can BUY a bloody puppy on the Net, by DoG they can use SEARCH for info on ethical breeders.* 
the KC i am *sure* just like the AKC includes info on ethical breeders - however the AKC is less enthused about providing breed-specific health test lists, so that is up to the buyer.

ethical dog breeders - Google Search


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

There cant ever be to much info out there to find a good breeder!  My point is educating the public is the key


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

the documentary was not "how to find an ethical breeder" - 
it was "we have genetic problems in purebred dogs BECAUSE..." 


Devil-Dogz said:


> My point is educating the public is the key


the 'public' don't want to be educated, by and large - they want cheap puppies.
they also want their pup NOW, thanks - not in 4-mos time or 6-mos time, tomorrow.

or they SEE a pup, and want *that pup* - wrong breed, wrong coat-care, wrong size, poor health, 
bad start, NO socialization, born in a barn and never met a human - only SAW the feeder come + go; 
whatever - we cannot save 'the public', we can put the info out and have them ignore it some more.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

ermm I didnt say it was a programme about how to find an ethical breeder! But when you are stating that pedigree dogs are in such a state because of pedigree breeders there should have been a little something there about breeders that are health testing, and how people can make sure if a breeder says they do its true, with correct documents. Agree with me or not, but this is my opinions!

Yes humans are very impatient people ...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> the documentary was not "how to find an ethical breeder" -
> it was "we have genetic problems in purebred dogs BECAUSE..."
> 
> *the 'public' don't want to be educated, by and large - they want cheap puppies.
> ...


Sad, but very, very true Terry. Unfortunately, a side effect of that programme over here, was to push puppy buyers into believing ALL breeders of pedigree dogs, are unethical particularly show dogs, their dogs are all inbred mutants with health problems. Where does that leave puppy buyers? That's the biggest bug bear that anyone has with the programme, not that it wasn't right in saying there were problems, but in the way the producers went about pointing the finger at a select few.


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Of topic real quick, sorry ... lol



Starlite said:


> i am a breeder


I didn't know you were breeding?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> Of topic real quick, sorry ... lol
> 
> I didn't know you were breeding?


Ive had 2 litters of chihuahuas in the last 8 years and kept a pup out of each 

Ive had mallys for 10yrs and have never bred them, have no intentions to for many years,
so i suppose i could be labelled as a breeder


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Starlite said:


> Ive had 2 litters of chihuahuas in the last 8 years and kept a pup out of each
> 
> Ive had mallys for 10yrs and have never bred them, have no intentions to for many years,
> so i suppose i could be labelled as a breeder


Ahhh ok.. Being nosey. 
Carry on everyone lol


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> the 'public' don't want to be educated, by and large - they want cheap puppies.
> they also want their pup NOW, thanks - not in 4-mos time or 6-mos time, tomorrow.
> 
> or they SEE a pup, and want *that pup* - wrong breed, wrong coat-care, wrong size, poor health,
> ...


Very true.



> I also think it should have been [a bit] more informative about choosing a decent breeder -


To be fair, that wasn't what the programme was about - I just wish one was made (in the same vein) about puppy farmers/byb and how to go about buying a puppy.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I am aware that the programme was not about finding an ethical breeder - I just feel that when doing a programme about the health issues within breeds, there should have also been abit that mentioned how to make sure you go to a breeder with the correct tests.. The programme was all negative, and of course would have left first time pup buyers at a dead end as to what to do.. If the information had been there, I believe it would have just added abit more of a positive to the programme, and pedigree breeds and new owners would know what to look out for instead of tarring all pedigree breeders the same - I dont expect anyone to agree, its my opinion!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I just wish one was made (in the same vein) about puppy farmers / byb and how to go about buying a puppy.


*Good idea - i think the same film-team could do it!* :thumbup:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> *Good idea - i think the same film-team could do it!* :thumbup:


Flipping heck! I hope they dont do another on dogs! EVER!!    
....... They so clearly do more damage than good!


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> Ahhh ok.. Being nosey.
> Carry on everyone lol


your getting as bad as me with the nosiness lol!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> *Good idea - i think the same film-team could do it!* :thumbup:


For God's sake no - I'd prefer a professional team that researched properly and presented a balanced program that told the truth.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> For God's sake no - I'd prefer a professional team that researched properly and presented a balanced program that told the truth.


I can't imagine anyone involved in breeding dogs letting them come within a mile of them.


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

Could the breeders,get off their high horses before they fall off.
If breeders 'work tirelessly' to improve the breeds,what do they do exactly?
What happens to the pups who dont make the grade?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

holly1 said:


> Could the breeders,get off their high horses before they fall off.
> If breeders 'work tirelessly' to improve the breeds,what do they do exactly?
> What happens to the pups who dont make the grade?


They are buried in unconsecrated ground by the light of a full moon ............. and then the breeders dance around on their high horses and laugh and laugh and laugh ......... mwahahahahahaha ut:


----------



## DerbyMerc (Dec 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> It's a matter of degree. In the dog world, if someone speaks of inbreeding they tend to mean the mating of very close relationships such as mother to daughter, father to son. When they speak about line breeding they are generally talking about the mating of dogs either with many common ancestors, or mating from a more slightly removed relative, such as uncle to neice. I take your point that technically, it's all inbreeding unless you mate two completely unrelated animals, but if a subject is being discussed, it helps if all people discussing it use the relative terms in the same way.
> 
> But as I asked in the other post, as this thread is about the effect of PDE, I wondered whether or not your opinion above was based on what you saw on PDE, or whether you have other reasons and sources for believing this and PDE merely confirmed what you already thought.


On the line breeding / inbreeding question - I just think to have two different names for what are different degrees of the same thing is misleading. Where similar practices happen in the human population it is called a degree of inbreeding and is recognised to be harmful. People will say ah but not if you avoid doubling up on specific harmful genes - but that's not the case - there is good evidence that inbred populations suffer other problems such as weaker immune systems.

In answer to your second question - from fairly early on after getting interested in dogs I started to see dogs from many breeds as physically inferior to their forebears. Even in the breed I had at the time, Staffies, the dogs were becoming squat and less athletic. It seems fairly common for the show scene to favour bigger, heavier, stockier animals with any identifiable points becoming exaggerated. Hence we get breeds with ever more profuse coats, others with ever more loose skin hanging in folds, ever longer backs coupled with ever shorter legs. An example would be either breed of corgi - can anyone see one of them doing a days work driving cattle ? It's a joke - a sick joke because it's the animals that suffer. It's by no means all breeds but it's quite a few.

If it takes a TV documentary with a bit of bias in it to get action then I'm all for it. It isn't that people have just swallowed the documentary whole - for many of us it just confirmed what we already believed.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> They are buried in unconsecrated ground by the light of a full moon ............. and then the breeders dance around on their high horses and laugh and laugh and laugh ......... mwahahahahahaha ut:


cant get the image out of my head now! :lol: :lol:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> They are buried in unconsecrated ground by the light of a full moon ............. and then the breeders dance around on their high horses and laugh and laugh and laugh ......... mwahahahahahaha ut:


ohhh is that what happens? we make puppy dog stew..yummy!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> They are buried in unconsecrated ground by the light of a full moon ............. and then the breeders dance around on their high horses and laugh and laugh and laugh ......... mwahahahahahaha
> __________________


oh my god - you've seen me :scared:

In response to Derbymacs post - all pedigree dogs are a man made deviation - if left to their own devices dogs would look like the kind of generic feral dogs seen the world over - Caanan dogs, Basenji's etc are examples of this optimum type -nature favours a medium sized, prick eared, short coated curly tailed pheneotype as best for survival.

...However if we want the choice we currently have, we have to work with artificially restricted gene pools - no point in using the genes for smooth coat, prick ears and medium size when we are trying to breed dogs such as Llhasa Apso's for example - you do have a choice - if you strongly disagree with line breeding then don't choose a pedigree dog because THAT'S how they were created and is how they are maintained.

As an aside... I teach kids with severe and profound disorders many of which are genetically inherited - humans you must agree are not a line bred species and yet... all living things will have a degree of faults - dogs included ...in some ways the present day breeder is luckier as we now have the world to choose from thanks to the internet and we can and do use a much wider genepool in many breeds by importing, using frozen semen and taking our bitches abroad to be mated - does this mean that we will never have to use line breeding ?- no.

Breeders have some tough choices to make when planning their litters - do you choose the stud dog with perfect health test results but a crap temperament ?- the one with perfect construction and temperament but who has failed his current annual eye test ? - the one with perfect eyes, hips, construction, temperament and type but who has epilepsy 3 generations back in his pedigree ? ...and when you do find a dog that 'has it all' you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone in the breed will also have used him - all these choices will have implications on the gene pool for each breed - fine if you have a numerically large breed with no inherent health issues but REALLY difficult if you are trying to keep rarer breeds such as Glen of Imaals or Griffon Brabacons viable !!

..so what do we do ? -do we say that we should no longer have all the breeds we curently have - after all why have Irish. Gordon, English, and Red and White Setters ? why not simply a generic Setter type ? - now THAT would open up gene pools but what a loss .......if we want all these different breeds to continue we have to accept that most will be maintained by line breeding within a small gene pool - and stop beating breeders over the head by demanding something that simply cannot be delivered !


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

Bijou said:


> *Breeders have some tough choices to make when planning their litters - do you choose the stud dog with perfect health test results but a crap temperament ?- the one with perfect construction and temperament but who has failed his current annual eye test ? - the one with perfect eyes, hips, construction, temperament and type but who has epilepsy 3 generations back in his pedigree ? ...and when you do find a dog that 'has it all' you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone in the breed will also have used him* - all these choices will have implications on the gene pool for each breed - fine if you have a numerically large breed with no inherent health issues but REALLY difficult if you are trying to keep rarer breeds such as Glen of Imaals or Griffon Brabacons viable !!


Really ? Is that what you honestly believe ? When someone goes onto the winner at a dog show to enquire about using their dog for stud on their bitch, how much do they really know or care about this dog other than his results ? Are they really all that interested if the dog has good temperament, good health test results, or if it come from a long line of very healthy and long lived ancestors ? Come to think of it, do you think they are wondering whether it was the dog that won or the person on the other end of the lead ?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

shazalhasa said:


> Really ? Is that what you honestly believe ? When someone goes onto the winner at a dog show to enquire about using their dog for stud on their bitch, how much do they really know or care about this dog other than his results ? Are they really all that interested if the dog has good temperament, good health test results, or if it come from a long line of very healthy and long lived ancestors ? Come to think of it, do you think they are wondering whether it was the dog that won or the person on the other end of the lead ?


I think the only thing Bijou missed out of her paragraph there was the word 'Good' at the front, because yes, I'd agree with it.

But you're right, a lot of people would just jump onto the bandwagon of using the most popular dog, because he's won *something*. But then you have to wonder is that a bad thing? Better that a good dog is overused than a poor example of the breed, as long as the gene pool is large enough to take it. And then I suppose, you've got the question, how large does a gene pool have to be to take that sort of overuse of a dog?

I was reading a thread on another forum recently, can't remember what the actual thread was about, but an interesting post from someone I know. We seem to get so hot under the collar about gene pools, line breeding, in breeding etc, etc, and yet when you look at wild populations, with rare species, they are recreated from much smaller gene pools. This friend pointed specifically too the release of 35 cranes (none of which had any sort of health tests) onto a marsh, in the hope that they'd breed and produce a viable population. I know from breeding budgies many years ago, it only takes six (three of each sex) healthy budgies that are able to reproduce, to set up an aviary. So why do we have this sort of attitude towards dogs? It isn't the size of the gene pool that has caused problems, it is poor breeding decisions that have led to some health problems.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think the only thing Bijou missed out of her paragraph there was the word 'Good' at the front, because yes, I'd agree with it.
> 
> But you're right, a lot of people would just jump onto the bandwagon of using the most popular dog, because he's won *something*. But then you have to wonder is that a bad thing? Better that a good dog is overused than a poor example of the breed, as long as the gene pool is large enough to take it. And then I suppose, you've got the question, how large does a gene pool have to be to take that sort of overuse of a dog?
> 
> I was reading a thread on another forum recently, can't remember what the actual thread was about, but an interesting post from someone I know. We seem to get so hot under the collar about gene pools, line breeding, in breeding etc, etc, and yet when you look at wild populations, with rare species, they are recreated from much smaller gene pools. This friend pointed specifically too the release of 35 cranes (none of which had any sort of health tests) onto a marsh, in the hope that they'd breed and produce a viable population. I know from breeding budgies many years ago, it only takes six (three of each sex) healthy budgies that are able to reproduce, to set up an aviary. So why do we have this sort of attitude towards dogs? It isn't the size of the gene pool that has caused problems, it is poor breeding decisions that have led to some health problems.


In wild populations there is a stricter culling policy. The weak or the unhealthy usually get culled naturally, they either end up as "dinner" or they cannot compete with their stronger peers for the furtherance of their genes or they are unable to hunt their dinner so die of starvation. Whatever the reason their genes do not get passed onwards, weak specimens do not get to breed.

In the abnormal situation of pet dog breeding, just about any dog can breed, any dog can place its genes firmly and squarely into a population. *We* choose the ones *we* think are the best. *We* decide on the culling policy.
So a sickly pup with some "fantastic" attribute that has a poor immune system that needs/needed massive antibiotic support to survive, or a dog with poor lungs/heart/kidneys liver, or with poor "conformation" from the point of view of natural survival or poor just about anything can end up in the exalted position of "popular" sire or foundation dam.

The cranes will sink or swim, according to their genes and the habitat they find themselves in. Those that survive and breed will be "the best", it will not be dependant _solely_ on almost purely cosmetic indices. A foundation start off of 35 is actually a high number considering the number of foundation animals that some dog/cat breeds have.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

shazalhasa said:


> Really ? Is that what you honestly believe ? When someone goes onto the winner at a dog show to enquire about using their dog for stud on their bitch, how much do they really know or care about this dog other than his results ? Are they really all that interested if the dog has good temperament, good health test results, or if it come from a long line of very healthy and long lived ancestors ? Come to think of it, do you think they are wondering whether it was the dog that won or the person on the other end of the lead ?


Yes, shazalhasa - I really do believe that this is what a GOOD breeder actually does! I do! In fact, I don't often use "top winning dogs", though I have used a few champions in the past - I use the dog that is most suitable for my bitch and also meets my temperament and health criteria. I like to use an older stud dog that is still in good health and which hasn't been overused.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> In wild populations there is a stricter culling policy. The weak or the unhealthy usually get culled naturally, they either end up as "dinner" or they cannot compete with their stronger peers for the furtherance of their genes or they are unable to hunt their dinner so die of starvation. Whatever the reason their genes do not get passed onwards, weak specimens do not get to breed


I agree with Sleeping Lion but also agree with your points. This is why indiscriminate breeding is such a danger area regardless of whether health tests are done. This can apply in show circles, but I think the biggest problem here is not just puppy farmers and byb but pet owners too. Because they love their dogs so much, they think they must be wonderful examples. In the wild, only the best would reproduce, but we put our human emotions and feelings before any logical, knowledgeable decisions.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DerbyMerc said:


> On the line breeding / inbreeding question - I just think to have two different names for what are different degrees of the same thing is misleading. Where similar practices happen in the human population it is called a degree of inbreeding and is recognised to be harmful. People will say ah but not if you avoid doubling up on specific harmful genes - but that's not the case - there is good evidence that inbred populations suffer other problems such as weaker immune systems.


It's only misleading if you try to apply a set of terms commonly used in human genetics to a set of terms commonly used in canine genetics. As we are discussing canine genetics on here, it makes sense to use the terms widely used in the canine genetic world. As for a discussion on the effects of inbreeding, I'll pass on that - Bijou has explained it far better than I ever could.



DerbyMerc said:


> In answer to your second question - from fairly early on after getting interested in dogs I started to see dogs from many breeds as physically inferior to their forebears. Even in the breed I had at the time, Staffies, the dogs were becoming squat and less athletic. It seems fairly common for the show scene to favour bigger, heavier, stockier animals with any identifiable points becoming exaggerated.


I both agree and disagree with you. What you describe above has happened with some breeds, certainly, but these are the exception rather than the rule. There are over 200 pedigree breeds recognised by the KC and what you write above is just not true in the vast majority of these breeds.



DerbyMerc said:


> If it takes a TV documentary with a bit of bias in it to get action then I'm all for it. It isn't that people have just swallowed the documentary whole - for many of us it just confirmed what we already believed.


Hmm - yes, I agree that it confirmed what some people already believed - and my opinion is that the program makers knew some people already believed this and counted on them rising to the fore in a huge wave of smug self-congratulation on their perspicacity - which they did in spades. But if those beliefs were not exactly accurate in the first place, then all the program has really done is to perpetuate and give credence to the inaccuracies. For example, if some wannabe journalist decided to make a name for himself by making a program which vilified gay people (to pluck an example out of the air), then all the misguided people who had prejudices against gays would be patting themselves on the back and saying that they knew it all along and that this program has proved what they already knew. That is the tactic used by PDE.

As for the program being biased, the outcomes of something biased can never be anything but bad. If you have a bias, you have a leaning to one way - and anything leaning one way will quickly topple over. In example of this program it may appear that the odd one or two breeds are going to end up healthier overall - but the reality is far from different. These processes were in the pipeline and would have happened anyway. And because of the bias, a lot of people are now of the opinion that pedigree = bad and crossbreed = good, and are going to puppy farmers instead of good, ethical breeders. The bias of this program has toppled the dog world over into more puppy farming and more bad breeding.

If it had not been biased, if it had highlighted all the good that was already happening, then this surge to puppy farmers would not have happened and there would not be an increase of suffering for all the poor bitches and puppies indiscriminately bred by pfs. Now that WOULD have done the dog world a great service. But, alas, the program makers decided to go for viewing figures rather than the truth. IN other words, they decided on a bias. And just look at the harm to dogs that bias has caused.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

What's PDE?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

GoldenShadow said:


> What's PDE?


A program on tv a couple of years ago - Pedigree Dogs Exposed


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> A program on tv a couple of years ago - Pedigree Dogs Exposed


Ohhh it all does make sense now, I couldn't figure out what it was, thanks


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

Ridgielover said:


> Yes, shazalhasa - I really do believe that this is what a GOOD breeder actually does! I do! In fact, I don't often use "top winning dogs", though I have used a few champions in the past - I use the dog that is most suitable for my bitch and also meets my temperament and health criteria. I like to use an older stud dog that is still in good health and which hasn't been overused.


As sleepinglion pointed out, the word 'Good' was missed off the post and yes a 'Good' breeder would consider all of those things but then it's not the 'good' breeders that only pick the winners because of their reputation and results. Sometimes it's the ignorant breeders who don't know any better, sometimes it's the ones who are looking for top dollar on their pups. Using a top winning dog as stud isn't a guarantee, come on, we all know that there are some not so good dogs doing better than really good dogs just because of who is holding the lead


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> In wild populations there is a stricter culling policy. The weak or the unhealthy usually get culled naturally, they either end up as "dinner" or they cannot compete with their stronger peers for the furtherance of their genes or they are unable to hunt their dinner so die of starvation. Whatever the reason their genes do not get passed onwards, weak specimens do not get to breed.
> 
> In the abnormal situation of pet dog breeding, just about any dog can breed, any dog can place its genes firmly and squarely into a population. *We* choose the ones *we* think are the best. *We* decide on the culling policy.
> So a sickly pup with some "fantastic" attribute that has a poor immune system that needs/needed massive antibiotic support to survive, or a dog with poor lungs/heart/kidneys liver, or with poor "conformation" from the point of view of natural survival or poor just about anything can end up in the exalted position of "popular" sire or foundation dam.
> ...


I think that goes back to what I said about poor breeding decisions, it's no the size of the gene pool, it's the animals we use from that to breed.



rocco33 said:


> I agree with Sleeping Lion but also agree with your points. This is why indiscriminate breeding is such a danger area regardless of whether health tests are done. This can apply in show circles, but I think the biggest problem here is not just puppy farmers and byb but pet owners too. Because they love their dogs so much, they think they must be wonderful examples. In the wild, only the best would reproduce, but we put our human emotions and feelings before any logical, knowledgeable decisions.


Completely agree, which sort of links back to my point earlier, although some dogs are overused, it's better in my view, that someone with an inferior bitch uses a very good quality stud dog, rather than bung two poor quality examples together. And that unfortunately comes down to personal preference or fashion in some instances.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> As sleepinglion pointed out, the word 'Good' was missed off the post and yes a 'Good' breeder would consider all of those things but then it's not the 'good' breeders that only pick the winners because of their reputation and results. Sometimes it's the ignorant breeders who don't know any better, sometimes it's the ones who are looking for top dollar on their pups. Using a top winning dog as stud isn't a guarantee, come on, we all know that there are some not so good dogs doing better than really good dogs just because of who is holding the lead


Sorry I don't understand your point ? - I certainly don't base my breeding decisions on show wins and neither do most experienced ethical breeders - of course using a 'top winning dog' isn't a guarantee - we all know of 'flyers' that do well themselves but never go on to reproduce the same kind of quality.

Knowing what is behind your lines and the lines of the dogs in your breeding programme is the most certain way of producing top quality dogs - one of the most influential dogs in my own breed a was an American import that was never shown - yet he consistently produced excellent dogs -why ? because he had the most outstanding pedigree with some of the most influential dogs behind him and his genes proved themselves down many generations.

Having said this many many big winning dogs are the result of mating consistently good quality dogs together and thus they are far more likely to produce quality dogs themselves.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I agree with Sleeping Lion but also agree with your points. This is why indiscriminate breeding is such a danger area regardless of whether health tests are done. This can apply in show circles, but I think the biggest problem here is not just puppy farmers and byb but pet owners too. Because they love their dogs so much, they think they must be wonderful examples. In the wild, only the best would reproduce, but we put our human emotions and feelings before any logical, knowledgeable decisions.


I think the emotional card does get played too often in anyone breeding.
It may be deliberate and obvious but is also may be more subtle and may even be subconscious.

How do you tell yourself that after 20-30 years of breeding that the line you have so painstakingly made your own is actually worse health wise than the dogs you used at the start? Many will just apply the blinkers and keep going, though the unemotional response would be to give up on that line completely. 
The longed for pup from the dream mating is actually nothing special, the dog imported at great expense is worse than a dog you gave away as a pet 10 years ago or the pride and joy dog that is obviously not as healthy as it may be, are all problems of the emotions.
There is also loyalty to lines to make them seem better than they are. The top dog that everyone wants a bit of, despite his progeny not being that fantastic, the favourite dog whose line _cannot_ be stopped as that would mean a bit of her/him was gone and that would be too painful to think about.
The hand reared pup that should get a new home, can stay if she is now "suitable for breeding", a more unemotional response would be get her neutered but all the excuses are wheeled out, great lines, her mum was a champ, she has a great temperament, all she needs is the right stud, etc.
Pet projects or theories that are based on a breeder's own beliefs, emotionally may be very difficult to give up on when they don't work.
There are so many "emotional" responses in breeding, the head doesn't always rule the heart - nature however is never that emotional.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I think the emotional card does get played too often in anyone breeding.
> It may be deliberate and obvious but is also may be more subtle and may even be subconscious.
> 
> How do you tell yourself that after 20-30 years of breeding that the line you have so painstakingly made your own is actually worse health wise than the dogs you used at the start? Many will just apply the blinkers and keep going, though the unemotional response would be to give up on that line completely.
> ...


Are you basing this on personal experience or just plucking things out of the air?
Breeding IS emotional, if you think it isnt then i highly recommend you never do so. These are lives we are creating and many of us take great care to try and ensure they arrive healthy and develop to be happily, well rounded individuals. I have never lost a puppy but i can imagine the state i would be in if i did.

I find it strange you go on and on about the "hand reared pup" but thought it was fine for a breeder to keep breeding carriers of a defective gene in cats - whats the difference?


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Of course breeding IS emotional, it is always highly charged and thus the point I am making and Rocco made is that breeders *being human* do not have the advantage of nature which is by in large not emotional in the slightest.
Breeders thus can make choices and decisions based on their hearts, not their heads, which are not necessarily the best decisions for the dogs or the breed.

I was expanding on Rocco's point


> In the wild, only the best would reproduce, but we put our human emotions and feelings before any logical, knowledgeable decisions.


Hand rearing if you have ever done it, you will know is highly emotionally charged and thus a perfect example of a situation where heart can rule head.

As for


Starlite said:


> thought it was fine for a breeder to keep breeding carriers of a defective gene in cats - whats the difference?


I presume you mean the recent thread re a cat breeder engaged in an outcross program, before assuming my views on breeding with defective genes please go back and read my posts on that thread.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Just to go back to the argument that only the best in nature will reproduce, actually, that's not ALWAYS the case. In studies of birds, it's been shown that some species are incredibly unfaithful, and will nip off for a quick how's ya father with a bird that didn't win their partnership in any way by fighting or performing, so that blows the generalisation out of the water. Yes it does happen that the biggest, largest, strongest of a particular species holds the females in their sway, but those tricky little minxes often outdo nature, and nip off for a bit of genetic diversity, nudge, nudge, wink, wink


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just to go back to the argument that only the best in nature will reproduce, actually, that's not ALWAYS the case. In studies of birds, it's been shown that some species are incredibly unfaithful, and will nip off for a quick how's ya father with a bird that didn't win their partnership in any way by fighting or performing, so that blows the generalisation out of the water. Yes it does happen that the biggest, largest, strongest of a particular species holds the females in their sway, but those tricky little minxes often outdo nature, and nip off for a bit of genetic diversity, nudge, nudge, wink, wink


But females do tend to choose a partner that will give their offspring the best chance of survival and infidelity may be also part of the plan. Genetic diversity is a constituent of survival. For instance in a community, if all offspring are by the same male and a disease that he is susceptible to rocks the offspring, only the "sneaky" mothers offspring will survive. It is a safety valve.
Genetic diversity is another thing that breeders tend to forget and can pay little attention to.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> But females do tend to choose a partner that will give their offspring the best chance of survival and infidelity may be also part of the plan. Genetic diversity is a constituent of survival. For instance in a community, if all offspring are by the same male and a disease that he is susceptible to rocks the offspring, only the "sneaky" mothers offspring will survive. It is a safety valve.
> Genetic diversity is another thing that breeders tend to forget and can pay little attention to.


Exactly, and in many ways, some of the breeding done by pedigree breeders mimics this process. A popular stud dog won't be used by everybody, it's just that instead of fighting to be the most popular stud dog, people base their judgement on the dogs conformation and/or ability. And now, we have the benefit of health tests for some of the conditions we know that are a problem within a particular breed, to help aid that decision.

I'd agree that some of THE most popular stud dogs are used possibly to the detriment of a breed, but (and I always use Labs as an example) as I've said before, many times, look at Labradors, they have the most health tests I can think of (unsurprising as the most numerous breed, it's where most money will be made) - Hip Scoring, Elbow Grading, BVA Current Clear Eye Cert, Optigen PRA, CNM and some also test for EIC and Narcolepsy, there are also genetic tests being developed for hereditary cataracts, epilepsy, cancer and hip dysplasia, amongst others I'm sure. You'd think with all the health tests that you were looking at a sickly breed, and yet, even though it's known that some of the most prestigious stud dogs probably had one or more health problems which they passed on to numerous offspring, we still have a healthy breed overall. The other example of course, is something like Basenji's where a health problem that was tested for (forget what it is) led people to breed only to clear dogs, and they're now left with another health problem that most of the gene pool carries.

I've said it many times before, health tests are good, but they need to be taken into context with the whole dog, and looked at overall, rather than a clear to clear mating only view. We don't know what further health tests are around the corner, and by limiting our choices now to only clear status dogs, where using carriers or even affected, that can, using an appropriate mating, produce pups that won't suffer from the condition, will leave us with much better options for the future. There will come a time when it will be impossible to to have a mating where you know the pups won't have the propensity to develop some condition or other.

Going back to the nature analogy, many of the wild animals that are initially successful, may then go on to develop a condition that means they are unable to maintain their success, whether it's some form of eyesight problem, or something more sinister, but they will already have passed their genes on to any number of offspring. There is no health testing in nature, and no doubt there is a widespread number of problems passed on from generation to generation, I'd guess many won't live long enough to develop some of the conditions.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Exactly, and in many ways, some of the breeding done by pedigree breeders mimics this process. A popular stud dog won't be used by everybody, it's just that instead of fighting to be the most popular stud dog, people base their judgement on the dogs conformation and/or ability. And now, we have the benefit of health tests for some of the conditions we know that are a problem within a particular breed, to help aid that decision.
> 
> I'd agree that some of THE most popular stud dogs are used possibly to the detriment of a breed, but (and I always use Labs as an example) as I've said before, many times, look at Labradors, they have the most health tests I can think of (unsurprising as the most numerous breed, it's where most money will be made) - Hip Scoring, Elbow Grading, BVA Current Clear Eye Cert, Optigen PRA, CNM and some also test for EIC and Narcolepsy, there are also genetic tests being developed for hereditary cataracts, epilepsy, cancer and hip dysplasia, amongst others I'm sure. You'd think with all the health tests that you were looking at a sickly breed, and yet, even though it's known that some of the most prestigious stud dogs probably had one or more health problems which they passed on to numerous offspring, we still have a healthy breed overall. The other example of course, is something like Basenji's where a health problem that was tested for (forget what it is) led people to breed only to clear dogs, and they're now left with another health problem that most of the gene pool carries.
> 
> ...


I think I am less clear cut in my thinking re breeding dogs with carrier status. Although I am clear about genetically dominant or serious life threatening conditions in that they still need to be removed, I am less and less clear cut about recessives. Where it is possible to identify negative status dogs then I do appreciate that the breeding of carriers to negatives is a possibility, and although these conditions will never be removed from gene pools as would be a better outcome, many breeds are facing many health onslaughts so it is probably the best option in order not to savage gene pools.

I feel in the wild, many animals reproduce then succumb, whether capable in a perfect world of living for a long time or not. There is no need in nature for a 20 year old zebra or a 20 year old chicken or a 20 year old lion.
As long as they have done their bit and one of their offspring survives to replace them, then that is all that can be expected, more is a bonus. Cataracts at 5 is no problem if you only live till 3. Heart disease at 3 is no problem if you have had 2 litters by then. In fact cluttering up habitats with extra "oldies" leads to pressure on food supplies.
It is only in the artificial world of pet animals that we demand and desire our pets to live for as long as possible.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I think I am less clear cut in my thinking re breeding dogs with carrier status. Although I am clear about genetically dominant or serious life threatening conditions in that they still need to be removed, I am less and less clear cut about recessives. Where it is possible to identify negative status dogs then I do appreciate that the breeding of carriers to negatives is a possibility, and although these conditions will never be removed from gene pools as would be a better outcome, many breeds are facing many health onslaughts so it is probably the best option in order not to savage gene pools.
> 
> I feel in the wild, many animals reproduce then succumb, whether capable in a perfect world of living for a long time or not. There is no need in nature for a 20 year old zebra or a 20 year old chicken or a 20 year old lion.
> As long as they have done their bit and one of their offspring survives to replace them, then that is all that can be expected, more is a bonus. Cataracts at 5 is no problem if you only live till 3. Heart disease at 3 is no problem if you have had 2 litters by then. In fact cluttering up habitats with extra "oldies" leads to pressure on food supplies.
> *It is only in the artificial world of pet animals that we demand and desire our pets to live for as long as possible.*


Then perhaps we need to be more realistic in our expectations of animals bred for companionship? Perhaps contracts or paperwork with any sale of an animal, from an ethical breeder, needs to point out, that all animals have the propensity to develop an illness, or succumb to injury etc?? Rather than carry on any blame game when it comes to those who are making the effort to try and breed healthy animals.

I fully understand the criticism of breeding where exaggerations have led to unhealthy animals, or even exaggeration that means animals are more prone to develop health issues, like Bassets for example, where excess skin folds means they are more likely to suffer skin problems than the original working type that doesn't have excess skin folds.

What I don't understand, is the sweeping generalisation that comes about, when you talk about specific breeds, or a 'type' of breeder.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Of course breeding IS emotional, it is always highly charged and thus the point I am making and Rocco made is that breeders being human do not have the advantage of nature which is by in large not emotional in the slightest.


Sorry, probably the wrong word to use - sentimental is probably more appropriate. Yes, breeding is emotional, but good breeding practices have no place for sentimentality.


----------



## DerbyMerc (Dec 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> It's only misleading if you try to apply a set of terms commonly used in human genetics to a set of terms commonly used in canine genetics. As we are discussing canine genetics on here, it makes sense to use the terms widely used in the canine genetic world. As for a discussion on the effects of inbreeding, I'll pass on that - Bijou has explained it far better than I ever could.
> 
> I both agree and disagree with you. What you describe above has happened with some breeds, certainly, but these are the exception rather than the rule. There are over 200 pedigree breeds recognised by the KC and what you write above is just not true in the vast majority of these breeds.
> 
> ...


Bias does not mean inaccurate. Yes it presented an incomplete picture - but in doing so it has shocked the powers that be into action - in that sense it has done some good. Yes I did watch it and think hang on a minute this isn't entirely fair on the show world - but I think on balance the show world has brought criticism on itself by allowing so many breeds (even if it isn't a majority) to get into such a state.

Moving on I'm interested in why you think the programme has been responsible for a surge in puppy farmers. Do you have any evidence that a) there has been a surge in puppy farmers and b) that the programme is responsible. It just seems very unlikely to me.

As for the discussion on genetics - it's a scientific fact that restricting the gene pool by line breeding has harmful consequences. If there are reasons for doing that - perhaps to eliminate a harmful gene or preserve a breed - then that's one thing. However when we are talking about line breeding to fix some minor show point then if you, Bijou or anyone else think that is acceptable then we part company.


----------



## DerbyMerc (Dec 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> - you do have a choice - if you strongly disagree with line breeding then don't choose a pedigree dog because THAT'S how they were created and is how they are maintained.


I don't think linebreeding is necessarily how breeds are maintained. At most it may play a necessary part in maintaining some breeds now.

There is too much emphasis on purity of breeds - if it does the job and looks like other dogs that do the same job then it's the same breed - that is how the majority of our breeds originated.

How the breed was created is irrelevant. Does that mean you shouldn't choose a breed that was created by culling pups that didn't meet the desired criteria because you wouldn't agree with doing that now ? Just because you own a certain breed doesn't mean you sign up to everything that went on in the creation of that breed - why should it ?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I don't think linebreeding is necessarily how breeds are maintained. At most it may play a necessary part in maintaining some breeds now.


yes of course it is ...for example there are less than 300 breeding bitches left in the Dandie Dinmont breed world wide - without line breeding this breed would simply vanish- use any breeds database to research pedigrees and you will find almost all dogs are line bred back to a handful of original dogs -



> There is too much emphasis on purity of breeds - *if it does the job and looks like other dogs that do the same job then it's the same breed - *that is how the majority of our breeds originated.


..well by this same logic Pembroke and Cardigan Corgis are the same breed, German , Belgian and Dutch Shepherds are the same breed, Welsh, Fox and Lakeland terriers are the same breed , Afaghans, Salukis,and Greyhounds are the same breed...and all the 'comfort' toy breeds are the same breed ! - it is true that simply having generic herding / guarding / companion and gun dogs would open up gene pools dramatically ' but it would mean the loss of all the breeds we currently have ..I would contend that most people don't want this ( I know I don't ! ) - we cannot have it all - it is simply not possible to keep individual breed characteristics wthout restricting the gene pool .

Even when outcrosses have happened such as the Pointer /Dalmation cross to create a Dalmation without the ureic acid problems - the resulting pups were all heavily line bred back into the Dalmation gene pool to keep the pups looking like Dalmations .



> How the breed was created is irrelevant


agree and this is not about the creation of new breeds but about the maintainance of the ones we have - the decsion we need to make is whether we want to continue having the over 1000 different breeds of dogs world wide or not - if we do then we need to be realistic about the way that those characteristics are maintained.



> How the breed was created is irrelevant. Does that mean you shouldn't choose a breed that was created by culling pups that didn't meet the desired criteria because you wouldn't agree with doing that now ? Just because you own a certain breed doesn't mean you sign up to everything that went on in the creation of that breed - why should it ?


I can breed my Belgian shepherds without the need to cull - I cannot breed them without the need to use a restricted ( to one breed) gene pool -

All of you who own a pedigree dog owe it's unique set of characteristics to the judicious use of line breeding - if you don't like it - then DON'T buy a pedigree .


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DerbyMerc said:


> Bias does not mean inaccurate. Yes it presented an incomplete picture - but in doing so it has shocked the powers that be into action - in that sense it has done some good. Yes I did watch it and think hang on a minute this isn't entirely fair on the show world - but I think on balance the show world has brought criticism on itself by allowing so many breeds (even if it isn't a majority) to get into such a state.
> 
> Moving on I'm interested in why you think the programme has been responsible for a surge in puppy farmers. Do you have any evidence that a) there has been a surge in puppy farmers and b) that the programme is responsible. It just seems very unlikely to me.
> 
> As for the discussion on genetics - it's a scientific fact that restricting the gene pool by line breeding has harmful consequences. If there are reasons for doing that - perhaps to eliminate a harmful gene or preserve a breed - then that's one thing. However when we are talking about line breeding to fix some minor show point then if you, Bijou or anyone else think that is acceptable then we part company.


that program painted the show world in such a such a poor light that it tarred everyone with the same brush.... it was totally bias!....if only it had given a balanced view and showed that the majority of show breeders are responsible, do all the available health testing and care very much for the health of the puppies they produce...it should also have exposed puppy farms and bybs who's only motive for breeding is ££££ than the gp could have made an informed decision about where to buy a healthy puppy ......but you only have to look on forums like this to see that the gp believe that program is gospel, many now wouldnt touch a puppy bred by a show breeder with a barge pole how ever ethically bred its been, so of course this has been a great opportunity for all the irresponsibe toe rags to cash in! just look at the thousands of puppies advertised in the free ads, look at all the 'designer' crosses being bred by bybs stating they have 'hybrid vigor' .. no health testing nothing! so yes pf's and byb's have definately cashed in ...they must have been rubbing their hands when that program went out!


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

I cant believe this thread is still going!
It is what it is.We make the dogs,who are rare, continue the breed.
If they want to breed,let them.if not, doesnt that tell you something?
Its not meant to be.... or you will end up with retarded dogs


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes I believe the hype. Being a GSD owner. Of course some of the programme was wrong - it`s a tv programme - made for ratings. But the way it showed how some breeds are skewed to extremes to win in the show ring rather than for the benefit of the breed was worth showing. 
Has nobody else seen Bassets with ears dragging and tortured joints? Pekes who struggle to breathe? GSDs who can`t walk straight? Pop-eyed pugs?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Holly1, I'm assuming you mean if the dogs want to breed? Are you mad? Do you know just what serious injuries can and do happen with allowing dogs to just wander round and mate or not? I'm afraid your post just shows your complete lack of understanding of canine reproduction


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> Yes I believe the hype. Being a GSD owner. Of course some of the programme was wrong - it`s a tv programme - made for ratings. But the way it showed how some breeds are skewed to extremes to win in the show ring rather than for the benefit of the breed was worth showing.
> Has nobody else seen Bassets with ears dragging and tortured joints? Pekes who struggle to breathe? GSDs who can`t walk straight? Pop-eyed pugs?


Yes, I was at a show recently and couldn't understand how anyone with show bassetts or involved with them in any way, can even begin to think they are fit for purpose.

But out of the number of pedigree breeds, the majority are really pretty healthy overall. So whilst I agree that it was right to highlight the breeds that were in trouble because of poor breeding decisions which were/are, let's face it, led by the desire to win, fashion for the show ring if you like, I think it would have been good to also highlight show breeders of other breeds that are making use of health testing to aid good breeding decisions. A comparison between one of the breeds that has problems because of exaggeration, with a healthy breed would have given a much more balanced view, and not produced the backlash against all pedigree/show breeders, but actually would have helped to educate the public that little bit more. Don't you think?


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

No sleeping Lion,i didnt mean that.
I mean if we keep force the breed to carry on,or be extinct, we should let it go.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> Yes I believe the hype. Being a GSD owner. Of course some of the programme was wrong - it`s a tv programme - made for ratings. But the way it showed how some breeds are skewed to extremes to win in the show ring rather than for the benefit of the breed was worth showing.
> Has nobody else seen Bassets with ears dragging and tortured joints? Pekes who struggle to breathe? GSDs who can`t walk straight? Pop-eyed pugs?


but the point is that program didnt give a balanced view it was totally bias... it didnt show any of the many healthy breeds like mine for example, so now we have people believing that if they buy a non show bred sibe or a husky cross theyre going to get a healthier puppy!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

holly1 said:


> No sleeping Lion,i didnt mean that.
> I mean if we keep force the breed to carry on,or be extinct, we should let it go.


I'm still not sure where you're coming from exactly, but did you read my post earlier about how few numbers are actually needed to produce a viable population of a breed? As long as they are healthy overall, it's possible to keep a specific breed going, from very small numbers. If you compare budgies, you only need six to start an aviary, as long as those six are healthy specimens, equal number of cock and hen birds that are able to reproduce, that's all you need.

There have been cases where a specific breed has gone to the brink of extinction, I think with the Irish Wolfhound they re-created the breed with the input of other breeds, and I'm not sure how long the gene pool was opened up for, but it is entirely possible to put back together a breed using some of the known breeds that were used in the first place. I think that is something the KC does consider for some of the numerically smaller breeds.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

DerbyMerc said:


> There is too much emphasis on purity of breeds - if it does the job and looks like other dogs that do the same job then it's the same breed - that is how the majority of our breeds originated.


I do think that is one of the problems, in that everyone is obsessed with pedigree and although obviously registries are a good thing they are also have turned into a bit of a monster as regards genetic diversity for breeds.

If it looked like a Labrador, talked and walked like a Labrador it was a Labrador, now it needs a pedigree certificate to say that in x generations all its ancestors were Labradors too.

The registry system has ensured that no-one is misled by a dog's ancestry, but it has also made it almost impossible for dogs that talk the talk and walk the walk to be included as they are not "pure" and although it is possible to out-cross, it is a complicated procedure that most breeders would not bother to perform, preferring to just follow the more acceptable pure-bred route.

This is not advocating cross-bred breeding. The mess that is cross breed breeding is not something I would want to condone at all but there does need to be more facilitation and acceptance of outcrossing. All this present system is doing is just upping the ICs, generation upon generation and it doesn't even need deliberate inbreeding to do that.


----------



## holly1 (Aug 10, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm still not sure where you're coming from exactly, but did you read my post earlier about how few numbers are actually needed to produce a viable population of a breed?
> 
> There have been cases where a specific breed has gone to the brink of extinction, I think with the Irish Wolfhound they re-created the breed with the input of other breeds, and I'm not sure how long the gene pool was opened up for, but it is entirely possible to put back together a breed using some of the known breeds that were used in the first place. I think that is something the KC does consider for some of the numerically smaller breeds.


Ok,so how do the breeders do all these 'recreations?
and what happens to the pups that dont meet the health checks?
What right does man have to keep a breed going?What does it matter?
There are other breeds out there.
So one gets extinct.Start breeding another breed.Isnt nature trying to tell you something?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DerbyMerc said:


> Bias does not mean inaccurate.


Yes it does. If you report an unbiased fact, the recipient of the report gets the truth. If you report a fact but put your own bias on the fact, the recipient gets your opinion and not a fact.



DerbyMerc said:


> Moving on I'm interested in why you think the programme has been responsible for a surge in puppy farmers. Do you have any evidence that a) there has been a surge in puppy farmers and b) that the programme is responsible. It just seems very unlikely to me.


Does it really seem unlikely? How very strange. Have you not seen all the posts on this forum and others like it boldly stating that they now would never buy a pedigree because all pedigrees are unhealthy - and citing PDE as their source? Where do you think these people will be buying thier dogs from? Have you not seen the proliferation of adverts by very suspect breeders proudly stating "non-pedigree" or "non-KC registered" - that did not happen before this program. Do you think people are not buying these dogs?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

people who dont know much about dogs and dont take their time to look up things might be easily manipulated, be it by the Pedigree Exposed Programm that pedigree or show dogs are not healthy or by the Show Breeder down the road who says that the excessive wrinkles or the flat face is just what makes the dog fit for purpose.

I honestly believe that the main reasons people buying from unethical sources are the ones who
1. cant afford £500 - £1000 or more at once for a dog
2. dont want to wait as any ethical breeder will have a waiting list
3. are rejected by the breeder or rescue
4. just want a pet (and thats why they dont bother with registrations)
5. and those who honestly believe crossbreeds are healthier than pedigrees, but that tale existed a long time before that programm anyway.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Ok,so how do the breeders do all these 'recreations?
> and what happens to the pups that dont meet the health checks?
> What right does man have to keep a breed going?What does it matter?
> There are other breeds out there.
> ...


Holly it might be me having a 'senior moment' but I really cannot understand what you are trying to say here - it's the *parents* that have the health tests prior to mating not usually the pups ( although some pups are tested for things like CEA ) - and it has ALWAYS been man that has kept breeds going - left to his own devices my stud dog would mate any bitch in season -believe me dogs are not selective !!



> Isnt nature trying to tell you something ?


 Nature does'nt care what a dog looks or behaves like it simply wants the species 'dog' to continue - and as I've said earlier left to her own devices 'nature' would almost always create a medium sized, smooth coated, prick eared naturally wary type of dog - is this the only type we want ?because if not then WE must dictate who our dogs mate with not nature .



> The registry system has ensured that no-one is misled by a dog's ancestry, but it has also made it almost impossible for dogs that talk the talk and walk the walk to be included as they are not "pure" and although it is possible to out-cross, it is a complicated procedure that most breeders would not bother to perform, preferring to just follow the more acceptable pure-bred route.


true - but this is a two edged sword - on one hand we need to have accurate records so that problems can be traced back- for example if I see 'Drack de la Pourouffe' mentioned in the pedigree of a BSD stud dog I know to avoid this line as this dog was a prolific producer of epileptic dogs -

However it does mean that unregistered dogs cannot be used when perhaps their genes may be very useful to increase diversity - what we need is a DNA bank to prove the ancestry behind unregisterd dogs so that they could be included - DNA collection is in it's infancy but I think will be a way forward.

Of course this would not make a great difference for some numerically small breeds where almost all the dogs are already registered. - intervariety matings could be viable in breeds such as Rough and Smooth Collies etc my own breed has just been allowed an intervariety proviso for Groen X Tervs and Mals X Laeks which some breeders ( including myself ! ) are taking up.

The question of genetic diversity is not 'black and white' and is further complicated by the need to eliminate dogs that 'fail' ther tests from a breeding programme or the use of 'carriers' which again limits which dogs you can use ( another good reason for having an accurate registry system ! )- and folk have to be really careful about what they can realistically expect breeders to do if we want to continue to have the number of pedigree breeds we currently have ....most breeders are simply trying to do the very best they can to maintain and improve the breeds they are so passionate about.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Natik said:


> people who dont know much about dogs and dont take their time to look up things might be easily manipulated, be it by the Pedigree Exposed Programm that pedigree or show dogs are not healthy or by the Show Breeder down the road who says that the excessive wrinkles or the flat face is just what makes the dog fit for purpose.
> 
> I honestly believe that the main reasons people buying from unethical sources are the ones who
> 1. cant afford £500 - £1000 or more at once for a dog
> ...


Just to counter your points Natik, a lot of the puppy farmed dogs and fashionable cross breeds are not less expensive than a well bred pedigree dog, in a lot of cases they are more expensive. There's not much point in breeding a litter of pups that you can sell for £200 each, when you can breed a litter of pups for £1,000 - £2,000 each, not if you're in it for the money.

Those who don't want to wait for a well bred pup, are the wrong sort of dog owner imo, and really need to take a step back and think about why they are wanting a pup/dog in the first place.

Again, if they're rejected by a breeder and/or rescue, there is usually a very good reason for that. Perhaps people need to take a step back, dogs aren't a commodity, a lot of the dogs that end up being rescued are because people genuinely don't know what they're taking on, they may think they do, but how many posts do we see asking for help with an aggressive new puppy, help stop the biting, etc, etc.

Why don't pedigrees make good pets?

The hybrid vigour myth was around long before, but I think the PDE programme only reinforced the idea. Whilst it's true SOME cross breeds can live longer lives than SOME pedigrees, it doesn't always equate that all cross breeds are healthier than all pedigrees, which is how most people ignorant of the facts view it.

Bijou, great post, you talk a lot of sense about this subject and are obviously knowledgeable.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just to counter your points Natik, a lot of the puppy farmed dogs and fashionable cross breeds are not less expensive than a well bred pedigree dog, in a lot of cases they are more expensive. There's not much point in breeding a litter of pups that you can sell for £200 each, when you can breed a litter of pups for £1,000 - £2,000 each, not if you're in it for the money.
> 
> Those who don't want to wait for a well bred pup, are the wrong sort of dog owner imo, and really need to take a step back and think about why they are wanting a pup/dog in the first place.
> 
> ...


obviosuly like with every fashion there will be the price tag with it. 
The latest crossbreeds are obviously more money cause people want them, and depending on what film just been out in cinemas starring a dog, then its one of the pedigrees in fashion again and people cashing in on these.
And then there is this thing about owning "rare" breeds or mixed breeds, as long as its "rare".

I agree with ur points above, all im pointing out is that its not the programms only fault that people are buying unethical bred dogs. There are alot bigger reasons and those who are manipulated by the programm i believe are in the minority.

Im not sure about the damage it has done, i have no statistics here as to how many people went to byb cause of the programm, but it highlited points which needed to be talked about as those problems have been brushed under the carpet by alot of breeders out there and some show breeders selling un health tested dogs or dogs with exaggertaion and not being exposed due to the "code of silence" which u come across alot in the show world cause of the popularity certain breeders have.

I always wonder why the Kc just doesnt invest in a little programm or an advert about how to find an ethical breeder, as that would surely be very welcomed by ethical breeders out there. While the PDE wasnt about that, it was about exposing the bad, which it did.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> ...this is not about the creation of new breeds but about the maintainance of [those] we have -
> the decision... is whether... to continue having... *over 1000 different breeds of dogs worldwide* or not -
> if we do then we need to be realistic about the way that those characteristics are maintained.


sorry, just a picky bit  there are an approx 450 named-breeds worldwide, and if we include landraces 
not known by any "name" outside their home-region, there are approx 600 - not 1,000-plus.

i apologize for interrupting, 
- terry


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> I can breed my Belgian shepherds without the need to cull - I cannot breed them
> without the need to use a restricted ( to one breed) gene pool...


many *Malinois* were suddenly "Dutch Shepherds" when the breed-club decided BRINDLE 
was no longer a desired color-pattern in Malinois - so that was a severe excision of a whole 
segment of one COAT-Type of a 4-type breed, and i would say that 'outcrossing' to Dutch Shepherds 
would not be outcrossing at all - it's bringing the lost-genes back into the fold, and none too soon, IMO.

being excessively picky about *color* is an easy way to lose diversity - 
Scotties, Cairns and Westies were all one breed, [human] generations ago. 
- terry


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I also feel that the supermarket/online shopping culture we have has also contributed to the general public buying from puppy farmers and bybs.

We are all so used to huge variety and choice and buying something straight from the shelf in supermarkets.
We order online one day and it comes the next with little effort as to interacting with other people. No-one interferes with our choice, or questions our ability to care for an mp3 player or a new washing machine.

Sometimes buyers just don't want the hassle of jumping through breeder's hoops, they want the choice of black ones, blue ones or red ones or ones with four white paws, they do not want to go round loads of breeders to be disappointed when the one they want isn't available or it is just not there or they are rejected as being a suitable home. We no longer in general go to seedsmen and gardening experts when we buy plants, we pick them up in the supermarket or the local B&Q, it is the same with animals. 
Better to go to a pet supermarket, see the cute black one and just take it home, no questions asked or go to a byb who they found online who has one available to take home today or has three or four litters to choose from or the puppy farmer who can supply pups and breeds almost to demand. 

Breeders can think that, that is not the sort of owner they want anyway, but it is the reality of the market. 
I don't think PDE is the only influence on the general public.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So whilst I agree that it was right to highlight the breeds that were in trouble because of poor breeding decisions which were/are, let's face it, led by the desire to win, fashion for the show ring if you like, *I think it would have been good to also highlight show breeders of other breeds that are making use of health testing to aid good breeding decisions. * A comparison between one of the breeds that has problems because of exaggeration, with a healthy breed would have given a much more balanced view, and not produced the backlash against all pedigree/show breeders, but actually would have helped to educate the public that little bit more. Don't you think?


Yes, of course. But that wasn`t the aim of the programme. There was a missed opportunity here for Breeders and the Kennel Club to use that publicity and run with it. To show the healthy breeds and the work with endangered ones, the health testing and the fight against BYB. The momentum was lost because the KC etc. went into shock and shoved their heads into the sand. The reaction of the CKCS club was to ban the member who spoke out about deformity. I would have liked to see the KC funding their own programme or inviting a TV company to show the positive side - not to have a long-drawn out `enquiry` leading to poorly publicised changes.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

so true lauren,

with all those pet advertising sites online these days its like shopping for a dog by picture. The choices are so big, u can find online any breed, any colour, whatever u want.
And so many people are driven by the appearance of the dog or the cute puppy looks rather than suitability with their situation.
If the price and the dog on the picture they have seen on the advert appeals to them they ring up about availibity and go and purchase maybe even on the same day. Easy, quick and uncomplicated. No questions asked, just money and dog exchanged.

No need to put some sort of effort into actually finding a suitable dog for urself these days.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I also feel that the supermarket/online shopping culture we have has also contributed to the general public buying from puppy farmers and bybs.
> 
> We are all so used to huge variety and choice and buying something straight from the shelf in supermarkets.
> We order online one day and it comes the next with little effort as to interacting with other people. No-one interferes with our choice, or questions our ability to care for an mp3 player or a new washing machine.
> ...


I actually agree with what you've said here. I would just add, however, that whilst PDE is not the only influence on the general public, it certainly went a long way towards convincing the general public that they are justified in doing what you outline above rather than making the effort to find and go to a reputable breeder.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> I would have liked to see the KC funding their own programme or inviting a TV company to show the positive side - not to have a long-drawn out `enquiry` leading to poorly publicised changes.


So would I. And I would have liked to see the Kennel Club hire a proper PR company to outline all that they do, and have been doing for years, for ALL dogs (not just pedigrees). Sure, it's all there on their website - but one lesson they should have learned from PDE is that once it's been on TV, then most people believe must be true in some degree - from the geese who believe everything must be true to the people left with the feeling that there's no smoke wthout fire.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Natik said:


> obviosuly like with every fashion there will be the price tag with it.
> The latest crossbreeds are obviously more money cause people want them, and depending on what film just been out in cinemas starring a dog, then its one of the pedigrees in fashion again and people cashing in on these.
> And then there is this thing about owning "rare" breeds or mixed breeds, as long as its "rare".
> 
> ...


Natik, I do agree with you, just posting some of the counter arguments against the common misconceptions. No idea why the KC don't invest in a programme to highlight the good, but the programme to me, didn't just expose the bad, it insinuated the bad was the norm, if that makes sense?



ClaireandDaisy said:


> Yes, of course. But that wasn`t the aim of the programme. There was a missed opportunity here for Breeders and the Kennel Club to use that publicity and run with it. To show the healthy breeds and the work with endangered ones, the health testing and the fight against BYB. The momentum was lost because the KC etc. went into shock and shoved their heads into the sand. The reaction of the CKCS club was to ban the member who spoke out about deformity. I would have liked to see the KC funding their own programme or inviting a TV company to show the positive side - not to have a long-drawn out `enquiry` leading to poorly publicised changes.


But anyone I know involved with healthy breeds does just that, they do usually more than the KC recommends for health tests for an Accredited Breeder. And yet even now, people (Joe Public) lump any pedigree breeder in with those who produce those deformed inbred animals highlighted on the PDE programme. Does that show any level of education?


----------

