# Pedigree Dogs Exposed BBC2 next Tuesday



## Katherna

On next Tuesday (just looked through my TV guide) Pedigree Dogs Exposed
Tue 19 Aug, 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 60mins

An in-depth investigation into the health of pedigree dogs. This programme reveals the surprising historical reasons that have contributed to problems in some breeds and explores what might be done to tackle these serious and debilitating health issues. 

Don't know how good it'll be, or how bad, thought I'd post it here in the breeding section.


----------



## carol

if i get home in time i'll give it a watch,


----------



## Guest

Sounds like it might be a bit controversial:

*Statement from the Kennel Club about the forthcoming BBC programme 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed'*

For more than two years now the Kennel Club and others have been co-operating with a TV production company called Passionate Productions who have been making a film on the subject of canine health. We agreed to take part entirely on the basis of that company's written assurance that the programme's ultimate message was _"intended to be a hopeful one, showing how science and breeders can combine to preserve our purebreds for the future."_ That message fits precisely with the view of the Kennel Club, and so we set about giving information and interviews to the production company, and encouraging others to do so as well.
Sadly we soon discovered that the members of the production company seemed to have pre-conceived and extremely biased views on the subject. Alarm bells rang when we found out the biased nature of many of the questions being posed both to ourselves and to others. The vast majority covered negative issues - few if any were about the positive aspects of purebred dogs. We were even more alarmed when other interviewees, more experienced than we are, said that they too were very worried by the line of questioning - to the extent that some of them had eventually refused to go further with some of the interviews.
We now know that the BBC, which has bought the programme, will show it sometime soon. From the beginning the Kennel Club has worked consistently to explain our point of view on canine health both to the production company and latterly to the BBC, describing the vast amount of time, effort and money the majority of breeders put into breeding healthy dogs. We have also ensured that other interested parties have made the same point to the BBC. In so doing we have of course acknowledged that there are problems in some breeds, many of which originally stem back to the Victorian era, but we have stressed that we are today in the forefront of using science to address these issues.
We have also explained the work done to eliminate from breed standards any exaggerations which might cause problems. We have described the work going on to ensure that show judges pay particular attention to issues which could be detrimental to the health or welfare of dogs. We have outlined the many DNA and other health screening programmes which exist, and have given details of the Accredited Breeders Scheme and our latest "Fit for function: fit for life" campaign.
Finally, we have been at pains to remind the BBC of the requirements in its Charter to be rigorously impartial and balanced in its reporting.
Despite all of this we still fear that, when broadcast, this programme may omit much of the positive information supplied, with the result that it will be damaging to the reputation of pedigree dogs, dog breeders and the Kennel Club. We hope that, in the process, it will not end up damaging the very dogs which, throughout, the programme makers have claimed they are so anxious to help.
This is of course looking at the worst case outcome. It may be that our efforts have been understood and borne in mind as the programme has been put together and that we have done enough to balance the content and tone. Whatever the eventual result you can be assured that the Kennel Club will go on working for the benefit of pedigree dogs and that we will continue to communicate the many positive messages which are there to be told.
*Ronnie Irving*
*Chairman*
August 8, 2008.


----------



## Georges Mum

I shall be watching and recording


----------



## Guest

I agree Alan,ok the KC are not perfect,but it's the only offical registration club in the uk.
I think from the statement issued by the KC it will be pretty one sided.I will watch with interest.


----------



## Katherna

AJ I was actually thinking if it would be shown in the right light, or if, like many other programmes, it would only show the negatives. Hopefully it will show something about having the health screens done and potential problems that can arise if they're not. Fingers crossed it will show dogs in a good light rather than a bad one. TBH I don't care if a dog is a pedigree or a cross as long as it is a healthy dog, it's sad to see the dogs that have come about through bad (or possibly negligent) breeding and have terrible problems when it could have been stopped by the breeder/s getting the relevent health checks done.


----------



## JANICE199

should be interesting..if nothing else it will give us all something to chat about


----------



## Katherna

What I personally know about dog breeding you could probably write on the back of a postage stamp, since reading the boards here I've learned an awful lot - probably write it on a postcard now, lol, some of it I don't understand, but at least I know enough to ask extra questions to breeders like health checks (the last time I bought a pedigree dog was in the early 80's so I don't know how many tests they did then for Border Collies).
I will probably find it interesting, and like Janice said if nothing else it'll be something to talk about.


----------



## Guest

Katherna said:


> On next Tuesday (just looked through my TV guide) Pedigree Dogs Exposed
> Tue 19 Aug, 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 60mins
> 
> An in-depth investigation into the health of pedigree dogs. This programme reveals the surprising historical reasons that have contributed to problems in some breeds and explores what might be done to tackle these serious and debilitating health issues.
> 
> Don't know how good it'll be, or how bad, thought I'd post it here in the breeding section.


Even before I read Alan's quote from the Kennel Club, my heart was in my boots. I think the bits I've outlined in red show the way this documentary will be going - reporting as if the pratices of old were still being adhered to and ignoring all the good work that's already being done.


----------



## Guest

As someone who owns a unrecognised breed i will watch this with interest as im fed up to the back teeth with people slagging off my breed  *BRING IT ON BABY!!!!!!! *


----------



## Guest

Yay! You go girl!!!


----------



## Guest

Jem85 said:


> As someone who owns a unrecognised breed i will watch this with interest as im fed up to the back teeth with people slagging off my breed  *BRING IT ON BABY!!!!!!! *


I always read the NI threads,I don't think it's the breed that gets slagged off as such it's the breeders who refuse to answer questions and there seems to be alot of stuff swept under the carpet and alot of bitcheness between different societies.

There are also health issues within the breed I'm led to believe yet only hip scoring is done or not in some cases.


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> I always read the NI threads,I don't think it's the breed that gets slagged off as such it's the breeders who refuse to answer questions and there seems to be alot of stuff swept under the carpet and alot of bitcheness between different societies.
> 
> There are also health issues within the breed I'm led to believe yet only hip scoring is done or not in some cases.


Yeah i should have really done my post a bit better  It is the breeders and the fact that certain people avoid questions like the plague which doesn't help at all and makes people suspicious. Unfortunatly with a breed as new as the NI's the shady breeders seem to out weigh the good ones  Thankfully I know my breeder and have no worries about her 

I should have been a bit more clear, sorry hun x


----------



## Guest

Jem85 said:


> Yeah i should have really done my post a bit better  It is the breeders and the fact that certain people avoid questions like the plague which doesn't help at all and makes people suspicious. Unfortunatly with a breed as new as the NI's the shady breeders seem to out weigh the good ones  Thankfully I know my breeder and have no worries about her
> 
> I should have been a bit more clear, sorry hun x


It's fine,
I do actually think it's a shame as they are lovely dogs,both societies need to get there act together for the future, health and welfare of the breed and most importantly the dogs.
I do really enjoy the NI threads and learning about them


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> It's fine,
> I do actually think it's a shame as they are lovely dogs,both societies need to get there act together for the future, health and welfare of the breed and most importantly the dogs.
> I do really enjoy the NI threads and learning about them


And they're stunning!


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> It's fine,
> I do actually think it's a shame as they are lovely dogs,both societies need to get there act together for the future, health and welfare of the breed and most importantly the dogs.
> I do really enjoy the NI threads and learning about them


Unfortunatly I cant see them working together in our lifetime which is appalling as again its the dogs that suffer and i can honestly say if I knew the things i know now i would never have got a NI never mind 2


----------



## Georges Mum

i AGREE WITH YOU. i AM FED UP WITH PEOPLE LOOKING AT MY TWO JRT'S AND PULLING A FACE AS IF TO SAY WELL THEY AREN'T A _PROPER_ BREED ARE THEY... EVEN THE VET DID SOMETHING TO THE SAME EQUIV. THEY ARE LOVELY DOGS AND DOES IT REALLY MATTER. I DON'T LIKE DOG SNOBBERY.


----------



## cav

Im not stickin up for the kc but i think alot of it is down to the breeders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cav

coolkat said:


> i AGREE WITH YOU. i AM FED UP WITH PEOPLE LOOKING AT MY TWO JRT'S AND PULLING A FACE AS IF TO SAY WELL THEY AREN'T A _PROPER_ BREED ARE THEY... EVEN THE VET DID SOMETHING TO THE SAME EQUIV. THEY ARE LOVELY DOGS AND DOES IT REALLY MATTER. I DON'T LIKE DOG SNOBBERY.


all my are kc reg and im not a snob?
would only buy or breed a kc dog
how else can i check my lines for problems in my breeds


----------



## marlynaveve

I am very sorry to say but in the eyes of TV programme makers any kind of controvercy makes for 'good viewing' so I wouldn't hold your breath,
Mary
x


----------



## Georges Mum

cavrooney said:


> all my are kc reg and im not a snob?
> would only buy or breed a kc dog
> how else can i check my lines for problems in my breeds


Hi no i don't mean you are and most people aren't but there are some people that feel they HAVE to mention these things, even in an innocent conversation in the park. WHY? I understand entirely the importance of pedegrees.


----------



## Guest

I've got a KC registered Border Collie!


----------



## walkingfudge

Hi there
I actually got involved with this programme as I have cavalier king charles with mitral valve disease which is very distressing. I have lost 3 cavvies previously and get extremely upset when breeders don't care about interbreeding as long as they can sell those cute little pups!! Ultimately, it is us, the owners, who have to watch their precious pets go through pain and suffering .The breeders should make sure that they only breed healthy dogs!!I hope that the programme does help but for many of us it is too late.


----------



## Guest

walkingfudge said:


> Hi there
> I actually got involved with this programme as I have cavalier king charles with mitral valve disease which is very distressing. I have lost 3 cavvies previously and get extremely upset when breeders don't care about interbreeding as long as they can sell those cute little pups!! Ultimately, it is us, the owners, who have to watch their precious pets go through pain and suffering .The breeders should make sure that they only breed healthy dogs!!I hope that the programme does help but for many of us it is too late.


Interbreeding or in breeding is not the cause of hereditary conditions,the problems are already present.
Good reputable ethical breeders will and do test there dogs which they breed from,it's up to puppy buyers to do there research and see all proof of health testing,if it's not available walk away.
I really hope the programme doesn't damage the breeds and take them backwards,I would like to see a fair and unbiased programme I doubt that will be the case though.

Maybe a programme on BYB and PF's would be good it may actually go someway to educating the public on where and how to buy a well bred heath tested puppy.


----------



## clueless

walkingfudge said:


> Hi there
> I actually got involved with this programme as I have cavalier king charles with mitral valve disease which is very distressing. I have lost 3 cavvies previously and get extremely upset when breeders don't care about interbreeding as long as they can sell those cute little pups!! Ultimately, it is us, the owners, who have to watch their precious pets go through pain and suffering .The breeders should make sure that they only breed healthy dogs!!I hope that the programme does help but for many of us it is too late.


Sorry to hear your story. Sounds like unethical breeders, although if you have lost 3 to this disease I personally would have done my homework after losing the first one.
Years ago I bred Cavvies and it was known then about MVD. I believe now there is a protocol set up regarding breeding Cavs( well in USA there is anyway) but unsure how far along it is in UK as I have been out of Cavs for over 20years.
I read in the Our Dogs about an owner with a Cavvie who had MVD and that the program makers were hounding them for info. Was that you????


----------



## cav

walkingfudge said:


> Hi there
> I actually got involved with this programme as I have cavalier king charles with mitral valve disease which is very distressing. I have lost 3 cavvies previously and get extremely upset when breeders don't care about interbreeding as long as they can sell those cute little pups!! Ultimately, it is us, the owners, who have to watch their precious pets go through pain and suffering .The breeders should make sure that they only breed healthy dogs!!I hope that the programme does help but for many of us it is too late.


I breed ckc and i only breed from dogs that have clear heart and eye checks.
These health problems are very popular in the cavies this is why you should always go to a good breeder that as PROOF that both dogs are clear before they were bred.
Did your dogs parents not have clear health checks done before they were bred.
I am aware lots of breeders dont bother to test that is why you should always go to a reputiable breeder because its the poor dog that as long term health problems and a short life plus the owner ends up with huge vet bills.

Im sure that when you get your next dog you will make sure that dogs have clear checks done.

I will always own ckc because they are great little dogs shame so many bad breeders about


----------



## Guest

From the last few posts about CKCs it would seem that this heart problem is a problem that responsible breeders have recognised and hence are doing their best not to breed from affected dogs (please feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood!). I think there are a lot of hereditary diseases in a lot of breeds, some of which will have been caused by past irresponsible breeding, and the same holds true for them - ie responsible breeders are not breeding from such stock. What worries me about this programme on Tues is that it is going to present things that the irresponsible breeders do as the norm, ignore all the good work that is being done by responsible breeders, and yet again present an untrue and exaggerated picture of pedigree dogs and breeders merely in order to get the "shock horror" headlines and increase the viewing figures. The very title of the programme - ie "pedigree dogs exposed" - shows they have decided on their point of view well before they ever interviewed a single person. I will be very surprised if it presents a well-balanced, unbiased view.


----------



## clueless

spellweaver said:


> From the last few posts about CKCs it would seem that this heart problem is a problem that responsible breeders have recognised and hence are doing their best not to breed from affected dogs (please feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood!). I think there are a lot of hereditary diseases in a lot of breeds, some of which will have been caused by past irresponsible breeding, and the same holds true for them - ie responsible breeders are not breeding from such stock. What worries me about this programme on Tues is that it is going to present things that the irresponsible breeders do as the norm, ignore all the good work that is being done by responsible breeders, and yet again present an untrue and exaggerated picture of pedigree dogs and breeders merely in order to get the "shock horror" headlines and increase the viewing figures. The very title of the programme - ie "pedigree dogs exposed" - shows they have decided on their point of view well before they ever interviewed a single person. I will be very surprised if it presents a well-balanced, unbiased view.


Well said Spellweaver


----------



## Guest

I cant wait to see this -rolls eyes-..

no doupt it will represent the minority of pedigree dog breeders who breed from dogs even if they have problems which they will pass on.. most breeders care about what they produce but of course im sure these people wont be exposed.

No doupt theyll talk about the stats that mongrels and crossbreeds have fewer problems blah blah blah..
but hey lets watch and find out


----------



## Guest

walkingfudge said:


> Hi there
> I actually got involved with this programme as I have cavalier king charles with mitral valve disease which is very distressing. I have lost 3 cavvies previously and get extremely upset when breeders don't care about interbreeding as long as they can sell those cute little pups!! Ultimately, it is us, the owners, who have to watch their precious pets go through pain and suffering .The breeders should make sure that they only breed healthy dogs!!I hope that the programme does help but for many of us it is too late.


Surely its the owners fault to buy a puppy from someone who hasnt proved the breeders dogs are completely healthy?


----------



## clueless

Gundoggal said:


> Surely its the owners fault to buy a puppy from someone who hasnt proved the breeders dogs are completely healthy?


Exactly there is plenty of information out there re Dog Breeds nowadays than there was in the past, KC hold health records, parentage etc.., internet, libraries and forums. 
Instead of buyers continually blaming the breeders or KC they are needing to take a bit of responsibility as well. Unresponsible buyers who just decide they want a certain breed, do no research and end up buying from an unethical breeder, BYB or Puppyfarmer are causing a lot of heartache to the Ethical Breeders out there.


----------



## Guest

Gundoggal said:


> no doupt it will represent the minority of pedigree dog breeders who breed from dogs even if they have problems which they will pass on.. most breeders care about what they produce but of course im sure these people wont be exposed.


Not sure it's just the minority that breed from dogs with problems, unfortunatly there are A LOT of bad breeders around. When I was looking for a Border Collie it was hard to find a well bred pup locally and looking at the adverts on the internet now most breeders I would avoid. 

It would be great if the program pointed out how to find a good breeder and how to avoid puppy farmers and back yard breeders but I doubt it will.


----------



## walkingfudge

cavrooney said:


> I breed ckc and i only breed from dogs that have clear heart and eye checks.
> These health problems are very popular in the cavies this is why you should always go to a good breeder that as PROOF that both dogs are clear before they were bred.
> Did your dogs parents not have clear health checks done before they were bred.
> I am aware lots of breeders dont bother to test that is why you should always go to a reputiable breeder because its the poor dog that as long term health problems and a short life plus the owner ends up with huge vet bills.
> 
> Im sure that when you get your next dog you will make sure that dogs have clear checks done.
> 
> I will always own ckc because they are great little dogs shame so many bad breeders about


I did find a reputable breeder for my cavvies that I bought as puppies but I have had 2 cavvies as rescue so didn't know which breeder they had come from. The first one I got was 5 years old and my vet begged me not to get him as he already had a bad heart murmur and I had just lost my first cavvie at only 8 years old and was beside myself!! But, it was too late and I had already fallen in love with him and knew that I would give him the best life possible for as long as he was around. He lived until he was 12 and a half!! I did have a tough couple of years but it was worth it! The 2 that I have problems with now are 14 and 12 . They have given me much heartache but are still here although not wonderful now. I do know that there are some very good breeders out there but there are also some that aren't and it is those one that need to be stopped. I know that I should change breeds but unfortunately am hooked!!


----------



## cav

walkingfudge said:


> I did find a reputable breeder for my cavvies that I bought as puppies but I have had 2 cavvies as rescue so didn't know which breeder they had come from. The first one I got was 5 years old and my vet begged me not to get him as he already had a bad heart murmur and I had just lost my first cavvie at only 8 years old and was beside myself!! But, it was too late and I had already fallen in love with him and knew that I would give him the best life possible for as long as he was around. He lived until he was 12 and a half!! I did have a tough couple of years but it was worth it! The 2 that I have problems with now are 14 and 12 . They have given me much heartache but are still here although not wonderful now. I do know that there are some very good breeders out there but there are also some that aren't and it is those one that need to be stopped. I know that I should change breeds but unfortunately am hooked!!


Im also hooked on this breed that is why i try my best when breeding from my wonderfull dogs ,firstly they are kc reg,all hold clear health checks i would never breed from a dog that had not got the all clear at the time of mating ,they all a good example of the breed,im also endorcing my next litter so i am trying to do my best with this breed.
All i can say is lets just hope that in the futer that breeders are made to health test because something defo does need to be done.
Im also sad to hear stories like yours because i love this breed very much.


----------



## bichonmum

Now as a pet owner nothing to do with breeding etc I will watch this programme to see what it has to say. Unfortunately it will definitly not highlight the good breeders of which I have only met 2 within the Bichon breeders who do more health checks than what is required of them from the Kennel Club. I do think that although the Kennel Club do a good job they must look into the breeders that register there pups with them.
My first boy I later found out came from a puppy farm I had never heard of puppy farms my second boy I thought I would do the right thing this time and go through the Kennel Club for a good breeder my second boy is twice the size of anyother Bichon I have seen, so I would assume then a lot of interbreeding had gone on even though I seen the mother and the father with the whole litter of pups. My 3rd boy camr from the most fantastic breeder I have ever met in Bichons.
My point is that although you can point the finger at the public unless we teach the public what to look for ie health checks etc they are never going to know. Until I got involved in dog forums etc I was totally niave as to what a good breeder was and what a bad breeder is.


----------



## Guest

bichonmum said:


> Until I got involved in dog forums etc I was totally niave as to what a good breeder was and what a bad breeder is.


Same here which is why I think these sort of programmes should help to educate people, we'll have to wait and see how far this one goes to promote good breeding rather than just pointing out the bad, maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.  I don't think the information is distributed well enough for the average pet buyer to know what to look for. I also believe the KC should do far more to educate people what to look for when on a puppy search.


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> Same here which is why I think these sort of programmes should help to educate people, we'll have to wait and see how far this one goes to promote good breeding rather than just pointing out the bad, maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.  I don't think the information is distributed well enough for the average pet buyer to know what to look for. I also believe the KC should do far more to educate people what to look for when on a puppy search.


Totally agree but I have a feeling it will not be a fair and unbiased programme,
a couple of links BBC ready to dock Crufts coverage after 'Nazi-style' breeding - Times Online
BBC NEWS | UK | Pedigree dogs plagued by disease


----------



## cav

sallyanne said:


> Totally agree but I have a feeling it will not be a fair and unbiased programme,
> a couple of links BBC ready to dock Crufts coverage after 'Nazi-style' breeding - Times Online
> BBC NEWS | UK | Pedigree dogs plagued by disease


Ive just looked at the links and i do find it all disgusting but im going watch the it all first and then give my opion


----------



## gillieworm

bichonmum said:


> My point is that although you can point the finger at the public unless we teach the public what to look for ie health checks etc they are never going to know. Until I got involved in dog forums etc I was totally niave as to what a good breeder was and what a bad breeder is.


Totally agree, I was pretty nieve when we got our first pup and after coming on to forums etc I soon realised he didn't come from the best breeder, don't get me wrong, they weren't evil people or puppy farmers and really seemed to care for the pups, but when looking for our second and meeting much better breeders I realised how much I needed to learn the first time round. I had spent more time researching the breed and whether it would be suitable for our life style rather than researching breeders.

A mistake I'd never make again thanks to forums and the great people on the forums 

I will watch this programme tonight though, although I fully expect it to be bad news


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> Totally agree but I have a feeling it will not be a fair and unbiased programme,
> a couple of links BBC ready to dock Crufts coverage after 'Nazi-style' breeding - Times Online
> BBC NEWS | UK | Pedigree dogs plagued by disease


They keep banging on about inbreeding but dismissing what's said about health testing, looks like it's all been done to try and outlaw inbreeding and not a lot else.


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> They keep banging on about inbreeding but dismissing what's said about health testing, looks like it's all been done to try and outlaw inbreeding and not a lot else.


Inbreeding is not a major problem,because you can have two unrelated dogs (same breed) that are both carriers mate these together and it's a disaster,inbreeding I don't have a problem with as long as it's done for the right reasons...

Do these people really know about breeding and hereditary conditions or is it just going to be a witch hunt!


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> Inbreeding is not a major problem,because you can have two unrelated dogs (same breed) that are both carriers mate these together and it's a disaster,inbreeding I don't have a problem with as long as it's done for the right reasons...
> 
> Do these people really know about breeding and hereditary conditions or is it just going to be a witch hunt!


My thoughts exactly, perhaps their intentions are good but they are definatly going in the wrong direction.


----------



## guineapigqueen

I would hazard a guess that Shar-Peis will be mentioned at some point due to the recent mention of the KC not allowing the puppeis to be shown if their eyes are tacked. Its suppost to alter the natural look of the dog, a simple eye tack until 6wks old isnt going to change a Shar-Peis figure that much, or even at all. I would rather have my puppeis eyes tacked than have to deal with 1000s of pounds vets bills due to ulcers etc.

Emma x


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> Totally agree but I have a feeling it will not be a fair and unbiased programme,
> a couple of links BBC ready to dock Crufts coverage after 'Nazi-style' breeding - Times Online
> BBC NEWS | UK | Pedigree dogs plagued by disease


Well this angered me straight away:

_ "The RSPCAs chief veterinary adviser, Mark Evans, told the BBC: The show world is about an obsession, about beauty, and there is a ridiculous concept that that is how we should judge dogs.

It takes no account of temperament or fitness for purpose potentially as a pet animal, and that to me makes no sense at all. It is a parade of mutants; a freakish beauty pageant. _

That is blatantly untrue. The KC breed standards are all set with fitness for purpose - ie the purpose for which the dog was originally bred - in mind. Therefore in a dog show, the judge is judging fitness of purpose, and not which dog looks most beautiful.

It really makes me cross that so-called experts can pontificate like this with absolutely no knowledge of the subject about which they are decrying. I can see I'm going to be spitting feathers by the end of the programme, if this is an example of what is going to be said.


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> Same here which is why I think these sort of programmes should help to educate people, we'll have to wait and see how far this one goes to promote good breeding rather than just pointing out the bad, maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.  I don't think the information is distributed well enough for the average pet buyer to know what to look for. I also believe the KC should do far more to educate people what to look for when on a puppy search.


Actually the KC do quite a bit to help people who want to buy a puppy. The following links are to their website:

Buying a puppy? | The Kennel Club

The Kennel Club | Caring for your Dog

Life with your dog | The Kennel Club

They also put on Discover Dogs twice each year, which has got to be the best way to meet real owners and breeders and ask questions about the breeds you think might suit your circumstances.


----------



## Guest

spellweaver said:


> Actually the KC do quite a bit to help people who want to buy a puppy.


Yes they do sort of, but these resources aren't easy to find for the average person looking for a puppy, they should promote themselves more so more people are educated. In my opinion they should have adverts on all the pet for sale websites, in all the vets offices etc. They should have minimum health test requirements for each and every breed and only register litters if these tests are done. I know the KC do a lot of good work but they could do a lot more.

People like Sally and Mel shouldn't be going round their vets etc promoting health tests and warning of puppy farmers, the KC should be doing that in my opinion.


----------



## Guest

DON'T FORGET TO WATCH!!!!! You just have time for a quick *** before it starts!


----------



## bee112

OMG it's going to make me cry this programme


----------



## Sophiex

I'm watching it now, I am in tears.


----------



## Guest

Those GSD's look awful!


----------



## bee112

ajshep1984 said:


> Those GSD's look awful!


I know.. thats not normal.. none of our GSD's have ever looked like that!


----------



## Guest

bee112 said:


> I know.. thats not normal.. none of our GSD's have ever looked like that!


I've never seen a GSD like that, I can't believe dogs like that win shows! 

That Boxer has even upset my dogs!


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> That Boxer has even upset my dogs!


They are growling at the wolves now!


----------



## bee112

ajshep1984 said:


> I've never seen a GSD like that, I can't believe dogs like that win shows!
> 
> That Boxer has even upset my dogs!


I know.. I'll be traumatised after this programme!


----------



## nici

im watching it to and so far its make me feel ill, i didnt realise


----------



## jackson

The whole programe is winding me right up! 

Have they mentioned that Ridgebacks can be tested for DS? I think not!!! 

They also don't seem to mention that just because a dog is at a championship show, it doesn't mean it is going to win it! 

And of course, we should all let or dogs breed with those of other breeds.


----------



## jackson

nici said:


> im watching it to and so far its make me feel ill, i didnt realise


It's an ignorant, one sided load of rubbish!


----------



## Sophiex

jackson said:


> It's an ignorant, one sided load of rubbish!


Couldn't have said it better myself!


----------



## Saynamore

I'm not a dog person, but watching this programme I am getting the feeling it is very 'anti breeder' . If it was about cats I would be emailing them and hitting the roof on here. I don't have enough dog knowledge but I know I disagree with a lot of the things they were saying. It is very bad publicity for dog breeders and I would be kicking some arse!!!


----------



## nici

jackson said:


> It's an ignorant, one sided load of rubbish!


i dont no that much about the kennel club,,, but room for thought

this program will certainly make interesting conversation


----------



## Guest

There is a flip side of the coin. They are showing the worse case scenarios and the potential problems with dogs. They have highlighted that there are tests available.

What it will do is hopefully educate Jo public to look and research harder when choosing their dog.


----------



## Evensong

Personally i dont see it as ignorant but rather as a way of finally showing people the truth about predigree dog breeding. I hope somethings done about it and the way to start is with the BBC's lack of support for Crufts. Its sick how breeders can purposely ignore the obvious problems with thier animals and just carry on inbreeding and enforcing the bad lines.


----------



## griffpan

mrsdusty said:


> There is a flip side of the coin. They are showing the worse case scenarios and the potential problems with dogs. They have highlighted that there are tests available.
> 
> What it will do is hopefully educate Jo public to look and research harder when choosing their dog.


yep agree mrs d, some of the stuff did make me think twice on it but for me it was pretty much one sided in many apsects.

what bugs me is that many people don't do enough research, i mean you spend a hell of a lot of money on a pedigree pup so surely you would want to find out as much as possible on that breed before handing that money over


----------



## Saynamore

I don't agree with some of the stuff that goes on like culling baby Ridgebacks, why don't they just sell them to pet families 

With Persians, as a breeder we get peeps harping on about breathing problems, which with correct breeding ultra kittens should have the nose leather no higher than the bottom rim of the eye, in which case there are not breathing problems. I do not know of any breeders that purposely breed higher than this for looks, it would be very frowned upon. I suppose this is what the dog programme was on about, but still think it was very anti breeder, like a lot of vets are, grrrrr. They shouldnt tar everyone with the same brush as there are some stunning kittens about and puppies I might add!


----------



## JANICE199

hand on my heart i feel sickend by what i've just seen....what bloody hypochrics.excuse spelling.i'm fumming


----------



## Guest

Evensong said:


> Its sick how breeders can purposely ignore the obvious problems with thier animals and just carry on inbreeding and enforcing the bad lines.


I don't see what inbreedings got to with it? Inbreeding can be used positively. Genetic problems can and do come about without inbreeding.

Health tests should be mandatry not optional. Kennel Club registration should be a guarentee of healthy pups and currently it's not, it means very little other than that you can trace the dogs ancestory.

Some breeds are a right mess, I can't believe the state of some of them. Why breed a dog that can't walk properly! They register breeds that can't breathe properly, can't walk properly etc but won't accept athletic healthy breeds like the Northern Inuit, whats that all about!?!


----------



## Guest

What a load of rubbish!!!

And that vet for the RSPCA,who the hell does he think he is?
When they actually show they actually have health and welfare of animals at heart then maybe people will listen,until then they have no chance!

It was actually refreshing that my breed was kept out of it for change,we have health issues,like all breeds but good breeders test,good breeders withdraw affected and carriers from breeding programmes,as already said it was a case of show the worst cases and this programme took two years to make...
Try again the BBC,hows about a programme on Puppy Farms or BYB's,hows about a programme on how useless the RSPCA actually are,how many animals are actually neglected,even when cases have been reported.

The KC could do more I agree,I doubt this programme will do any damage to them,they do promote health testing etc.....


----------



## bee112

Saynamore said:


> I don't agree with some of the stuff that goes on like culling baby Ridgebacks, why don't they just sell them to pet families


I know!!! I'd have one without a ridge!


----------



## JANICE199

Saynamore said:


> I don't agree with some of the stuff that goes on like culling baby Ridgebacks, why don't they just sell them to pet families
> 
> With Persians, as a breeder we get peeps harping on about breathing problems, which with correct breeding ultra kittens should have the nose leather no higher than the bottom rim of the eye, in which case there are not breathing problems. I do not know of any breeders that purposely breed higher than this for looks, it would be very frowned upon. I suppose this is what the dog programme was on about, but still think it was very anti breeder, like a lot of vets are, grrrrr. They shouldnt tar everyone with the same brush as there are some stunning kittens about and puppies I might add!


why not sell them as pedigree? is the ones with the ridge thats at fault.


----------



## bee112

I found the comparison with the Nazi's and the Holocaust very insulting! How can you compare dog breeding and ethnic cleansing!?


----------



## griffpan

Sallyanne i couldn't agree more, the rspca are only out to make themselves look good so they take every media opportunity going to do this, if they were really serious they would be nagging the bbc to make a programme about byb's, puppy farmers.

i don't however agree with the culling of non ridged ridgebacks puppies.


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> I don't see what inbreedings got to with it? Inbreeding can be used positively. Genetic problems can and do come about without inbreeding.
> 
> Health tests should be mandatry not optional. Kennel Club registration should be a guarentee of healthy pups and currently it's not, it means very little other than that you can trace the dogs ancestory.
> 
> Some breeds are a right mess, I can't believe the state of some of them. Why breed a dog that can't walk properly! They register breeds that can't breathe properly, can't walk properly etc but won't accept athletic healthy breeds like the Northern Inuit, whats that all about!?!


Alan the NI is far from healthy,they have ongoing health issues with eplipsey been one,all they recommend is Hip Scoring.
As I said earlier if two unrelated dogs are both carriers and mated it can spell disaster,Inbreeding has it's place if done properly.


----------



## jackson

Saynamore said:


> I don't agree with some of the stuff that goes on like culling baby Ridgebacks, why don't they just sell them to pet families


I would really imagine that only happens in the minority of cases, to be honest. Breeders also screen their litters for DS before homing them, but that wasn't mentioned.

I do think the majority of pedigree dog breeders genuinely care about dogs and the breed, and do their utmost to rule out health problems. There will alway sbe th efew who will stop at nothing to win in the ring, but I don't think this programme gave a true representation of this.

The BBC would have been better to spend their time making a programme highlighting th eproblem with puppy farming and how the public can go about sourcng a puppy from a good, ethical breeder.


----------



## Freya'n'Sassy

I am going mental here, I was at the Manchester show where they filmed the German Shepherds in the ring, they were all sweetness and light when we spoke to them. Funny how they didn't tell us what they were really filming for! The dog they showed wobbling wasn't like that in the ring at all, they must have filmed him while the handler was stopping him from pulling or something 

When I buy a pedigree dog I always go to a show breeder who has all their dogs tested for whatever they should be tested for, and I pay top money to get healthy dogs, my dogs have all cost me between £600 and £1000. In the last 10 years I have bought 8 pedigree dogs of 3 different breeds, only one of them has had anything wrong with them, and that was not necessarily down to breeding, but more to do with him growing so fast. If people go to puppy farms or back yard breeders and only pay £200-£300 for pup then they are asking for trouble.

The KC could do more to stop bad breeding, but they won't because all those badly bred puppies that get KC registered give them money... And lots of it. And they should do something about the breeders who breed from less than perfect dogs. Then again a breeder who knows there is something wrong with their dog shouldn't be as irresponsible as to breed from it, but again it is money.

It was just more anti dog rubbish.


----------



## Guest

Evensong said:


> Personally i dont see it as ignorant but rather as a way of finally showing people the truth about predigree dog breeding. I hope somethings done about it and the way to start is with the BBC's lack of support for Crufts. Its sick how breeders can purposely ignore the obvious problems with thier animals and just carry on inbreeding and enforcing the bad lines.


Sorry to disagree with you but what it actually showed were problems with one or two breeders of one or two breeds, and then tried to make people belive that it must logically follow on that it is happening in all breeds and all breeders.

And the sooner Crufts coverage is taken from the BBC and given to a channel that will actually cover the event and not spend half the time showing non-related footage, the sooner the better in my opinion.

The makers of this programme will soon find themselves in hot water, not in the least from the owners of the peke that won Crufts - they have blatantly lied about the dog's op.

They showed a bergamasco's coat when they were talking about how man had genetically altered dogs - the bergies coat has been like that for over 2000 years, and is exactly as nature intended, so they were wrong there. I suspect that the rest of the reporting is just as inaccurate.


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> What a load of rubbish!!!
> 
> And that vet for the RSPCA,who the hell does he think he is?
> When they actually show they actually have health and welfare of animals at heart then maybe people will listen,until then they have no chance!
> 
> ....


Hear hear! Wel said, sallyanne!


----------



## Guest

bee112 said:


> I found the comparison with the Nazi's and the Holocaust very insulting! How can you compare dog breeding and ethnic cleansing!?


Because of the breeding - not to breed out side of their own.


----------



## Guest

Freya'n'Sassy said:


> I am going mental here, I was at the Manchester show where they filmed the German Shepherds in the ring, they were all sweetness and light when we spoke to them. Funny how they didn't tell us what they were really filming for! The dog they showed wobbling wasn't like that in the ring at all, they must have filmed him while the handler was stopping him from pulling or something
> 
> It was just more anti dog rubbish.


Reporting at its worst - just for sensationalism. I suspect that a lot of the reporting was taken out of context like that - there were several letters from concerned people in the dog press this week who were worried that things they said may have been taken out of context and misrepresented.

They also didn't mention the current split in opinion about the shape of the GSD that have been going on sonce Crufts!


----------



## bee112

mrsdusty said:


> Because of the breeding - not to breed out side of their own.


Still didnt think there was any need to bring ethnic cleansing into it.. cant compare dogs to humans.. madness


----------



## Angeli

I found this programme very upsetting and Im not a dog person..........................those poor Cavaliers especially the one rolling around in agony.

I had no idea that pups that didn't come up to breed standard were put down and I find that pretty disgusting.


----------



## JANICE199

bee112 said:


> Still didnt think there was any need to bring ethnic cleansing into it.. cant compare dogs to humans.. madness


but how many people on here say their pets are their babies?i can see that..
i think i'd better shut up now as i'm fuming


----------



## Guest

bee112 said:


> Still didnt think there was any need to bring ethnic cleansing into it.. cant compare dogs to humans.. madness


Yes but all of these acts and outcomes are because of humans


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> Alan the NI is far from healthy,they have ongoing health issues with eplipsey been one,all they recommend is Hip Scoring.


At least they can breathe and walk, I don't agree with all these breeds with excess skin, breathing problems and stupidly short legs. 



sallyanne said:


> As I said earlier if two unrelated dogs are both carriers and mated it can spell disaster,Inbreeding has it's place if done properly.


I agree, that was my point.


----------



## jackson

JANICE199 said:


> but how many people on here say their pets are their babies?i can see that..
> i think i'd better shut up now as i'm fuming


What exactly are you fuming about Janice?


----------



## Guest

bee112 said:


> Still didnt think there was any need to bring ethnic cleansing into it.. cant compare dogs to humans.. madness


Totally agree - and similarly to make comments like inbreeding is wrong because humans wouldn't mate grandfather to granddaughter is also total rubbish - they are comparing a moral attitude with a genetic program. How illogical is that?


----------



## Dennyboy

sallyanne said:


> What a load of rubbish!!!
> 
> And that vet for the RSPCA,who the hell does he think he is?
> When they actually show they actually have health and welfare of animals at heart then maybe people will listen,until then they have no chance!
> 
> It was actually refreshing that my breed was kept out of it for change,we have health issues,like all breeds but good breeders test,good breeders withdraw affected and carriers from breeding programmes,as already said it was a case of show the worst cases and this programme took two years to make...
> Try again the BBC,hows about a programme on Puppy Farms or BYB's,hows about a programme on how useless the RSPCA actually are,how many animals are actually neglected,even when cases have been reported.
> 
> The KC could do more I agree,I doubt this programme will do any damage to them,they do promote health testing etc.....


I agree

Although i agreed with each side on certain issues, i feel is was very sneaky and the RSPCA vet needs to get out there and deal with the welfare and education.

TESTING should be MANDATORY.

I did think that the dogs they exposed were a bit extreme,just my opinion,but why say that it is better to get a mongral?
Our friend had a mongral which was put to sleep at only 14 months after 2 major ops

HEALTH TESTING

The KC do help fund research into health issues but need the backing of the breed clubs to do more,but they could do more with education and publicity about health.

I personaly think health testing should be mandatory.


----------



## bee112

spellweaver said:


> Totally agree - and similarly to make comments like inbreeding is wrong because humans wouldn't mate grandfather to granddaughter is also total rubbish - they are comparing a moral attitude with a genetic program. How illogical is that?


hmm very bad reporting wasn't it..

Did brake my heart seeing some of those poor poor dogs who deserve so much better than that


----------



## jackson

mrsdusty said:


> Yes but all of these acts and outcomes are because of humans


The point is, that you cannot compare interacial relatonships in humans to cross breeding in dogs.

Crossbreeds do have health problems too, and the majority of pedigree breeds do not have the amount of health problems suggested in the programe, they chose extreme examples and didn't give a balanced view.


----------



## JANICE199

jackson said:


> What exactly are you fuming about Janice?


ok i'm not going to go on about it....but i've taken in what people have said on here about breeding. and with great respect i thank them for their advice...but watching that programe has made me think that the kc. are no better than puppy farms..its all about bloody money and looks..that poor cav. was o upsetting for me...and trust me that takes a lot of doing.


----------



## cav

I will say what a horrible programe it made my cry watching the poor cavies what a bloody shame bad breeders produce such poorly puppys


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> At least they can breathe and walk, I don't agree with all these breeds with excess skin, breathing problems and stupidly short legs.


Agree,but it's still devastating for their owners,as for the KC not recognising the breed it gets complicated.
The KC should make Health testing compulsary for registration.


----------



## SammieEst-93x

- omg it was on today, at BBC1, me, my nan and my grandad cried. 
people are sick, mainy that dude, its out of order. 
end of.


----------



## Petowner

I have no doubt that this is a sore subject and maybe things aren't as bad as the BBC have made out. However, something has to do be done about this now before it gets worse. If that means a program like this needs to be made to make the public aware that things like this DO happen then in my book its a good thing.

When I looked for my dog (Golden Retriever) I made sure that I found a decent breeder, got a full medical of Mother and Father and hip and eye scores for both, I met both parents and got to know the breeders who were excellent people. Sadly, some breeders are in this for the money and the health and welfare of the dogs come way down the priority list...this is just plain wrong and sick!

We're all on here because we love animals and in particular dogs, if something can be done to help the suffering of dogs thats a good thing, even if the vast majority of the dogs are healthy something should still be done about the bad eggs surely?


----------



## raindog

Typical sensationalist reporting. Pick a couple of the very worst examples and then pretend that that's how it is everywhere.

What I would like to know is how they justify their claim that mongrels are, in general, more healthy than pedigrees. How do they know?
If Joe Bloggs round the corner breeds his pet dog to another pet dog and the pups are malformed or sick, he just puts them in a sack and chucks them in the river - no vet, no RSPCA no statistics!! If a good breeder has a problem with a litter, he/she makes sure that they go to the vet to be put to sleep humanely. Result - the pedigree pups appear in official statistics, the mongrel pups don't. 

Of course some breeds have been over-exaggerated to the detriment of the dogs' health, and the KC and breeders have been trying to do something about that, but it is a slow process and, after all, the KC has no actual power over breeders, only influence. If the RSPCA is serious about animal welfare (as opposed to being serious about becoming a political force) it would work with the Kennel Club, not against it.


----------



## jackson

Petowner said:


> I have no doubt that this is a sore subject and maybe things aren't as bad as the BBC have made out. However, something has to do be done about this now before it gets worse. If that means a program like this needs to be made to make the public aware that things like this DO happen then in my book its a good thing.
> 
> When I looked for my dog (Golden Retriever) I made sure that I found a decent breeder, got a full medical of Mother and Father and hip and eye scores for both, I met both parents and got to know the breeders who were excellent people. Sadly, some breeders are in this for the money and the health and welfare of the dogs come way down the priority list...this is just plain wrong and sick!
> 
> We're all on here because we love animals and in particular dogs, if something can be done to help the suffering of dogs thats a good thing, even if the vast majority of the dogs are healthy something should still be done about the bad eggs surely?


I breed Goldens and they should be elbow scored as well as hip scored and eye tested.


----------



## raindog

sallyanne said:


> The KC should make Health testing compulsary for registration.


I agree completely. That would make a huge difference to the situation (at least as far as KC registered dogs were concerned).


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> Agree,but it's still devastating for their owners,as for the KC not recognising the breed it gets complicated.
> The KC should make Health testing compulsary for registration.


I know it's complicated, I wasn't really saying they should register them but that it's double standards. They won't register NI's but breeds that are just a complete mess they recognise.


----------



## Guest

Petowner said:


> I have no doubt that this is a sore subject and maybe things aren't as bad as the BBC have made out. However, something has to do be done about this now before it gets worse. If that means a program like this needs to be made to make the public aware that things like this DO happen then in my book its a good thing.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> What is making me so angry is that there is plenty being done about it, both by the KC and the breeders, but did this programme show that? No! They likened the KC and breeders to Nazis, when in fact their biased reporting (ie showing only what they wanted epople to believe) smacks more of Nazism than anything.


----------



## Petowner

jackson said:


> I breed Goldens and they should be elbow scored as well as hip scored and eye tested.


She scored well on everything (including elbows), don't worry she's beautiful and I love her to bits. Such a kind and loving animal.


----------



## Guest

raindog said:


> Typical sensationalist reporting. Pick a couple of the very worst examples and then pretend that that's how it is everywhere.
> 
> What I would like to know is how they justify their claim that mongrels are, in general, more healthy than pedigrees. How do they know?
> If Joe Bloggs round the corner breeds his pet dog to another pet dog and the pups are malformed or sick, he just puts them in a sack and chucks them in the river - no vet, no RSPCA no statistics!! If a good breeder has a problem with a litter, he/she makes sure that they go to the vet to be put to sleep humanely. Result - the pedigree pups appear in official statistics, the mongrel pups don't.
> 
> Of course some breeds have been over-exaggerated to the detriment of the dogs' health, and the KC and breeders have been trying to do something about that, but it is a slow process and, after all, the KC has no actual power over breeders, only influence. If the RSPCA is serious about animal welfare (as opposed to being serious about becoming a political force) it would work with the Kennel Club, not against it.


Excellent post! I agree totally.


----------



## JANICE199

spellweaver said:


> Petowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that this is a sore subject and maybe things aren't as bad as the BBC have made out. However, something has to do be done about this now before it gets worse. If that means a program like this needs to be made to make the public aware that things like this DO happen then in my book its a good thing.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> What is making me so angry is that there is plenty being done about it, both by the KC and the breeders, but did this programme show that? No! They likened the KC and breeders to Nazis, when in fact their biased reporting (ie showing only what they wanted epople to believe) smacks more of Nazism than anything.
> 
> 
> 
> but with respect from what i saw it was like nazi breeding...as long as it look ok sod the consequencecs! i'm sorry if this offends but thats how i saw it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Petowner

spellweaver said:


> Petowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that this is a sore subject and maybe things aren't as bad as the BBC have made out. However, something has to do be done about this now before it gets worse. If that means a program like this needs to be made to make the public aware that things like this DO happen then in my book its a good thing.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> What is making me so angry is that there is plenty being done about it, both by the KC and the breeders, but did this programme show that? No! They likened the KC and breeders to Nazis, when in fact their biased reporting (ie showing only what they wanted epople to believe) smacks more of Nazism than anything.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there is plenty being done about it, not being in the know I honestly don't know. However, if a programe like this can increase awareness and educate people to look closer when they are buying a pedigree dog then surely thats a good thing? Not everyone is as internet active as others so the only way they find things out is through the media.
> 
> However, I do believe we are very much media driven now and channels like SKy News etc have meant that educational programs have lost some of the standards and are one sided. Thats just the way society is, every channel wants to be sensational and generate public interest.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sophiex

For those who purchased a KC reg. pup, was it health tested? Oscar (toy poodle) was not tested but he is KC.


----------



## griffpan

JANICE199 said:


> but with respect from what i saw it was like nazi breeding...as long as it look ok sod the consequencecs! i'm sorry if this offends but thats how i saw it.


this is what the programme set out to do, obliterate all the good work done by the kc and good breeders so people just see the bad side of things. the programme maker has just admitted on radio 5 she set out to shock people with this programme


----------



## Guest

Sophiex said:


> For those who purchased a KC reg. pup, was it health tested? Oscar (toy poodle) was not tested but he is KC.


My KC regd pup had all health checks done. But then I did LOTS of reserch before I chose my pup and breeder - but not everyone does.


----------



## kateyblue

They're cheaper to insure for one as they dont on average spend as much time at the vet as pedigrees and they are known to live longer on average

There must've been some research done for insurers to refer to, they wouldn't just do it willy nilly



Ooops sorry, my quote from raindog didnt work lol


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> spellweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> but with respect from what i saw it was like nazi breeding...as long as it look ok sod the consequencecs! i'm sorry if this offends but thats how i saw it.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't offend me - you are entitled to your own opinion just as I am. It merely saddens me that you are told that this happens in one or two breeds, and were shown one or two bad breeders, and now you believe it as the gospel truth in all breeds and all breeders - ah well, such is the power of the media. They wanted to shock and they succeeded.
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

Press Release from the KC,
Kennel Club Defends Pedigree Dogs
19-Aug-08

The Kennel Club is aware that a BBC documentary, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, is due to air on Tuesday 19 August and will explore the issue of the health of pedigree dogs.

We have not seen the documentary, despite repeated requests and so cannot comment on its content. However, the Kennel Club did agree to participate in its making on the understanding that the programme would be balanced and fair and contribute to the Kennel Clubs primary objective to promote in every way the general improvement of dogs. 

The number of healthy pedigree dogs is very high. Comparatively, pedigree dogs are healthier than the human population which suffers from some 4,000 different types of disease, compared to only about 400 in the dog population. Furthermore, around 90% of dogs will not suffer from health problems that have a detrimental impact on their quality of life  and that figure is improving, thanks to advances in science and the continued investment of time, care and money from the Kennel Club and responsible breeders.

The Kennel Club:

 Works directly and indirectly through funding research bodies, to develop health tests for pedigree dogs. The most common of these, hip scoring, has seen breeders invest £20 million in testing since the scheme began and the mean hip score across the top 20 most commonly tested breeds has reduced year on year, meaning the likelihood of these dogs suffering from hip dysplasia has significantly lessened. More and more DNA tests are being developed as the science becomes available.

 Encourages responsible breeding practices and the Accredited Breeder Scheme is a kite-mark of quality that was developed to ensure the breeding of healthy, well adjusted puppies. Accredited Breeders use all of the health tests required for their breed and will breed their dogs to ensure that they have the healthy characteristics that are incorporated within their breed standard. A common method of breeding is called line breeding, which is used to breed an animal for particular healthy characteristics. All responsible breeders have an intimate knowledge of the dogs that appear in pedigrees  and they use that knowledge to breed for positive traits in health and breed standard.

 Collaborated with Imperial College so they could analyse the level of inbreeding in pedigrees and identify the genes involved in inherited disease in the future. Unsurprisingly, the inbreeding coefficients were high because of the very nature of pure-breeding populations and the fact that many decades of dog breeding have led to problems. It is clear from the research that mating close relatives (mother/sons, fathers/daughters etc) is now uncommon and not the reason for the high inbreeding coefficients.

 The Kennel Club would never put looks above the health of pedigree dogs, and we actively discourage the exaggeration of features in any breed. The standards have been, and will continue to be amended when necessary to ensure the breeding of healthy, well conformed puppies; and dog show judges are educated to judge to those standards ensuring that dogs with obvious problems that could affect their quality of life do not win, and that the rewards go to fit, healthy dogs

Caroline Kisko, spokesperson for the Kennel Club, said: We welcome any discussion that will help to improve the health and welfare of dogs and we hope that this documentary will focus on what is being done and what can be done in the future to ensure the good health of pedigree dogs ultimately becomes first class.

We fully acknowledge that there are still some health problems that belong largely to a time when less was understood about animal health and we continue to work to eliminate them. 

As successive generations of pedigree dogs come through  and with the investment of time, care and money that the Kennel Club and breeders are putting into education, improved testing and carefully planned breeding programmes - the number of healthy pedigree dogs, which is currently high, will improve even further.


----------



## Guest

That programme was rediculous and insulting..

I agree that the kennel club should make it compulsary to test the dogs for th problems that effect the breed.. and if they test positive they cannot be bred but guess what the kennel club are more interested in their wallet

conversely they did not show breeders who do all the tests and dont breed from unhealthy dogs


----------



## cav

Sophiex said:


> For those who purchased a KC reg. pup, was it health tested? Oscar (toy poodle) was not tested but he is KC.


year all mine was  and i only breed from dogs that are clear..shame alot of breeders dont bother


----------



## JANICE199

griffpan said:


> this is what the programme set out to do, obliterate all the good work done by the kc and good breeders so people just see the bad side of things. the programme maker has just admitted on radio 5 she set out to shock people with this programme


pauls i know where your coming from..but how long has the kc. been about? they should have done far more than they have...its only my oppion but i feel sad and sickend........and may i add let down


----------



## Fade to Grey

I watched it, I am VERY disappointed by the Kennel Club. If this country doesn't do anything about this we'll have no pedigree dogs left by the time my great grandkids are about.


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> pauls i know where your coming from..but how long has the kc. been about? they should have done far more than they have...its only my oppion but i feel sad and sickend........and may i add let down


I feel the KC could do more but the people who have let these breeds down,are ultimatly the Breeders,they are selfish money grabbing downright ignorant people!!!!!!


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> I feel the KC could do more but the people who have let these breeds down,are ultimatly the Breeders,they are selfish money grabbing downright ignorant people!!!!!!


yep oh well at least its mainly the old folk who are set in their ways who wont do the health checks.. and theyr gonna die soon so meh


----------



## cav

Gundoggal said:


> yep oh well at least its mainly the old folk who are set in their ways who wont do the health checks.. and theyr gonna die soon so meh


year i wanted to slap a few of the oldies they spoke pure crap


----------



## Fade to Grey

Gundoggal said:


> yep oh well at least its mainly the old folk who are set in their ways who wont do the health checks.. and theyr gonna die soon so meh


LOL, i want to see the old style dogs. like is it me or do bassets look so much better in the 60s??

and whats with big dogs getting small. when we got crystal 10 years ago she'd be too small to show, not she's at the higher end of the standard. wish they'd stop changing the standards. maybe then we wont have such bad health problems in breeds, then again it's probably too late.


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> I feel the KC could do more but the people who have let these breeds down,are ultimatly the Breeders,they are selfish money grabbing downright ignorant people!!!!!!


Yes but like everything there will always be people like that, the Kennel Club need to make it harder for these people, at the moment they are giving them an easy ride.


----------



## Guest

Fade to Grey said:


> LOL, i want to see the old style dogs. like is it me or do bassets look so much better in the 60s??
> 
> and whats with big dogs getting small. when we got crystal 10 years ago she'd be too small to show, not she's at the higher end of the standard. wish they'd stop changing the standards. maybe then we wont have such bad health problems in breeds, then again it's probably too late.


couldnt agree more

pugs, bulldogs, bassets, and well probably most breed need to be completely dual purpose.. if they couldnt fulfull their purpose they should be chucked out of the ring in my opinion

apparently my lab is 'too athletic' - word for word a comment from a judge to me at a champ show
.. well at least she can fetch a stick without having a heart attack


----------



## Petowner

cavrooney said:


> year i wanted to slap a few of the oldies they spoke pure crap


Sad but true


----------



## JANICE199

well i'm back to my old way of thinking...kc reg isnt worth the paper its written on


----------



## cav

I think if more owners started taking bad breeders to court it might be a step in the wright direction,well i would if i had bought one of those pore ckc


----------



## Guest

Gundoggal said:


> apparently my lab is 'too athletic' - word for word a comment from a judge to me at a champ show
> .. well at least she can fetch a stick without having a heart attack


Was it you that posted about fat Labs getting placed above your fit and healthy Lab? That's a disgrace. I'm really begining to feel showing isn't for me, it's all so backwards.


----------



## cav

JANICE199 said:


> well i'm back to my old way of thinking...kc reg isnt worth the paper its written on


why are you blamein the kc and not the breeders?


----------



## cav

ajshep1984 said:


> Was it you that posted about fat Labs getting placed above your fit and healthy Lab? That's a disgrace. I'm really begining to feel showing isn't for me, it's all so backwards.


this is why i dont show heard to many bad things


----------



## Fade to Grey

Gundoggal said:


> couldnt agree more
> 
> pugs, bulldogs, bassets, and well probably most breed need to be completely dual purpose.. if they couldnt fulfull their purpose they should be chucked out of the ring in my opinion
> 
> apparently my lab is 'too athletic' - word for word a comment from a judge to me at a champ show
> .. well at least she can fetch a stick without having a heart attack


totally, dals are meant to be athletic strong and have a great deal of stamina, in the ring i'm not sure if i see that very often. same with labs, they're gundogs they should be strong, athletic, etc. makes me wanna stop showing, most judges can't tell a good dog from their sh*t


----------



## Fade to Grey

cavrooney said:


> why are you blamein the kc and not the breeders?


they KC don't make people do health tests and there's nothing to say you can't breed brother and sister, father and daughter etc. how unethical. then again both should be at fault breeder and KC.


----------



## Guest

I just wanna dog with a happy waggy tail lol


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> Was it you that posted about fat Labs getting placed above your fit and healthy Lab? That's a disgrace. I'm really begining to feel showing isn't for me, it's all so backwards.


Yep.. especially when she was younger.. she could go for hours and by the end of the show half of the labs i could see were collapsing all over the place..

i wouldnt bring up my labs any other way.. never have and never will..

Me too.. showing is all a bunch of absoloute crap most of the time.. however you get the odd judge who does the job properly and realises the ones who could never do what they were supposed to do


----------



## guineapigqueen

I must admit when I was watching it I was upset to see what the poor Cavis had to go through but I was completely shocked when the Boxer was having a fit they turned on the kitchen light so they could film it! Now to me that was unfair on the dog and as a used to be seziure sufferer I know that turning on a light could make the seziure last longer and pinning the dog down was unnecessary also, the owner could have caused more damaged to the dog as it would have been fighting against the power of the owner instead of being free and within a safe environment. Speaking from experience I had a bad arm for a few weeks due to my Mam pinning me to the bed when I had a fit, the doctors told her to make sure I was safe and leave me to come out of the fit on my own.

Emma x


----------



## JANICE199

cavrooney said:


> why are you blamein the kc and not the breeders?


well i think after that programe and seeing that healthy ridgebacks were pts even though they were in better health then the "required" for showing, topped it for me...


----------



## Guest

mrsdusty said:


> I just wanna dog with a happy waggy tail lol


compltetly agree im off to bed case closed


----------



## Tollisty

The thing that stood out for me was the Syringomyelia affected cavalier that had been used at stud. I cannot believe anyone would knowingly do that. Why have thest done and then ignore it.
Well, she can't hide it anymore!

The neopolitan mastiff  . And how can a pekingnese have a normal doggy life? And the bassett judge not knowing why they have loose skin, showed herself up a bit there didn't she!


----------



## cav

Fade to Grey said:


> they KC don't make people do health tests and there's nothing to say you can't breed brother and sister, father and daughter etc. how unethical. then again both should be at fault breeder and KC.


I would like to see the kc make all breeders do health checks but at the end of the day they are ones producing these poor dogs not the kc also think if kc does make breeders do health checks that the bad breeders will still breed just wont bother to register the litter


----------



## Guest

Tollisty said:


> The thing that stood out for me was the Syringomyelia affected cavalier that had been used at stud. I cannot believe anyone would knowingly do that. Why have thest done and then ignore it.
> Well, she can't hide it anymore!
> 
> The neopolitan mastiff  . And how can a pekingnese have a normal doggy life? And the bassett judge not knowing why they have loose skin, showed herself up a bit there didn't she!


Aaah some of the breeds really are very wrong. How anyone can justify it or enjoy an animal whom clearly cannot live life to the full. Quite frankly it is disgusting.


----------



## cav

JANICE199 said:


> well i think after that programe and seeing that healthy ridgebacks were pts even though they were in better health then the "required" for showing, topped it for me...


year but that was the pathetic breeders doing that surely any normal person would not consider doing that.

this programe realy upset me as well i had tears streamin down me face seeing them cavies


----------



## griffpan

JANICE199 said:


> pauls i know where your coming from..but how long has the kc. been about? they should have done far more than they have...its only my oppion but i feel sad and sickend........and may i add let down


yep i agree the kc could and should do more, but it's not just the kc, it's also up to the breeder and breed clubs etc the kc can't move mountains, everyone needs to come together to make things better, there has to be a little bit of give on all sides. i still personally would still buy a kc reg pedigree dog over a non kc reg.
why didn't the programme highlight health problems, breeders who don't kc reg their pups as well, probably because the programme was made to do as much damage as possible to the kc making it harder for anyone to take them seriously


----------



## Fade to Grey

cavrooney said:


> I would like to see the kc make all breeders do health checks but at the end of the day they are ones producing these poor dogs not the kc also think if kc does make breeders do health checks that the bad breeders will still breed just wont bother to register the litter


agreed, compulsory health tests is a good step, plus advice to new buyers about seeing and getting the paperwork.


----------



## bee112

The GSDs did it for me.. why are people breeding them to be deformed? Bloody awfull


----------



## cav

bee112 said:


> The GSDs did it for me.. why are people breeding them to be deformed? Bloody awfull


that was disgusting the poor thing could not walk properly
it as put me of showing in the futer


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> well i think after that programe and seeing that healthy ridgebacks were pts even though they were in better health then the "required" for showing, topped it for me...


Yes, but as the programme showed, the KC made the breed club take it out of their breed standard, or did you ignore that bit because it didn't fit in with your bias towards the KC?


----------



## Guest

bee112 said:


> The GSDs did it for me.. why are people breeding them to be deformed? Bloody awfull


What this programme "forgot" to mention was that GSD breeders are also saying the same thing, and that there is a lot of dissension in the GSD camp at the moment about the present breed standard. Like a lot of other things, it only reported the bad and ignored the good.


----------



## jackson

spellweaver said:


> Yes, but as the programme showed, the KC made the breed club take it out of their breed standard, or did you ignore that bit because it didn't fit in with your bias towards the KC?


Also, I doubt it is what happens in the majority of cases. They also didn't mention that although only ridged dogs get DS, parents/litters can be screened for it and not all ridged dogs get it.


----------



## Fade to Grey

spellweaver said:


> Yes, but as the programme showed, the KC made the breed club take it out of their breed standard, or did you ignore that bit because it didn't fit in with your bias towards the KC?


one good thing doesn't make up for a string of mistakes


----------



## Guest

Fade to Grey said:


> one good thing doesn't make up for a string of mistakes


I disagree - if we all thought that, no progress would ever be made.


----------



## bee112

spellweaver said:


> What this programme "forgot" to mention was that GSD breeders are also saying the same thing, and that there is a lot of dissension in the GSD camp at the moment about the present breed standard. Like a lot of other things, it only reported the bad and ignored the good.


yes of course, I do not think every breder is trying to achieve this deformed look.. we have always owned GSDs and not one of them has had the sloping back to that extreme.

Just the one they showed was awfull, yet considered breed standard.


----------



## Guest

spellweaver said:


> What this programme "forgot" to mention was that GSD breeders are also saying the same thing, and that there is a lot of dissension in the GSD camp at the moment about the present breed standard. Like a lot of other things, it only reported the bad and ignored the good.


They did mention the controversy but unless you knew about it that wouldn't have meant anything. There are people who think that is the way a GSD should look sadly.


----------



## griffpan

i can see how the programme damaged the kc's rep even more but what i can't understand is people saying they wouldn't trust or they're disgusted by the kc. 
It's not just the kc reg dogs that will suffer from these problems, non kc reg bred pups will as well and there will be just as many breeders who don't register their pups that breed in the same unethical way these highlighted on the programme do.


----------



## Guest

KC is crap, can't deny it BUT lets keep perspective; how many non-reg litters have you seen where the parents are health tested?


----------



## griffpan

ajshep1984 said:


> KC is crap, can't deny it BUT lets keep perspective; how many non-reg litters have you seen where the parents are health tested?


exactly


----------



## Sarber

I have just watched this programme and it deeply saddened me to think that the makers of Pedigree dogs exposed could say such things about Crufts the the kennal club.

this programme is trying to spread compleate rubbish. Yes i do agree that kc should make it compulsary for health tests before breeding but it was just blown way out of proportion like many other things mentioned.

Also, crossbreeds are not always healthier. Crossbreeds like two short muzzled breeds like pug x peek etc make worse health problems than pug x pug. But did they mention that, no.

_"When I watch Crufts, what I see is a parade of mutants. It's some freakish garish beauty pageant that has nothing, frankly to do with health and welfare._ This comment particuarly discusted me,how could the rspca, a organisation who is _supposed_ to _help_ dogs no matter what the breed say something like that! Yet another comment to make responsible dog lover,owners and breeders look like cruel puppy farmers.


----------



## Guest

griffpan said:


> i can see how the programme damaged the kc's rep even more but what i can't understand is people saying they wouldn't trust or they're disgusted by the kc.
> It's not just the kc reg dogs that will suffer from these problems, non kc reg bred pups will as well and there will be just as many breeders who don't register their pups that breed in the same unethical way these highlighted on the programme do.


Good Point,of course they do.
To make matters worse they have no traceable history so you can't do any research into the lines to find out which dogs have suffered from problems.

You will ALWAYS get show/(Supposed to be top Breeders) that are just as bad as BYB,in some cases worse.This is where research is needed into the Breeders and breed.


----------



## cav

griffpan said:


> i can see how the programme damaged the kc's rep even more but what i can't understand is people saying they wouldn't trust or they're disgusted by the kc.
> It's not just the kc reg dogs that will suffer from these problems, non kc reg bred pups will as well and there will be just as many breeders who don't register their pups that breed in the same unethical way these highlighted on the programme do.


well i will always use and buy kc dogs it as not put me off
showing side im not sure about as already heard bad things and this programe is the icing on the cake


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> KC is crap, can't deny it BUT lets keep perspective; how many non-reg litters have you seen where the parents are health tested?


I don't think the KC are totally crap; there are things that they could do better but they do some excellent work in some areas. I agree 100% about non-reg litters.


----------



## Guest

cavrooney said:


> well i will always use and buy kc dogs it as not put me off
> showing side im not sure about as already heard bad things and this programe is the icing on the cake


Well it's made me more adament that my dogs tail will f*cking fly whether the judges like it or not! That's where his tail should be, not stuck to his hairy arse! At the moment I really don't feel like showing anymore!


----------



## JANICE199

spellweaver said:


> Yes, but as the programme showed, the KC made the breed club take it out of their breed standard, or did you ignore that bit because it didn't fit in with your bias towards the KC?


i have never been bias towards the kc...if i was then why would i have got mia? she's kc reg...i think they are hypocrites.full stop....i honestly believe its all about money and looks.i've had 2 gsd in the past and i can say none of them loked as bad as the ones shown tonight. thank god.


----------



## cav

ajshep1984 said:


> Well it's made me more adament that my dogs tail will f*cking fly whether the judges like it or not! That's where his tail should be, not stuck to his hairy arse! At the moment I really don't feel like showing anymore!


the show side is pathetic from what i saw tonight  and the show breeders needed a good slap...stupid old farts


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> Well it's made me more adament that my dogs tail will f*cking fly whether the judges like it or not! That's where his tail should be, not stuck to his hairy arse! At the moment I really don't feel like showing anymore!


Aw Alan! Come on, you're more intelligent than that! What was shown on this programme was not typical of the whole show world - not to mention biased and untrue. In most cases, the breed standard is a reflection of the purpose the dog was bred for - in the case of the border collie, a tail set low helps the dog move faster when it is working sheep. Judges are, therefore, judging the dog on the purpose it was bred for, not judging a beauty contest as was stated by the RSPCA vet (and we all know how much the RSPCA do for dogs - not!) I can't pretend I think that the examples of breed standards it picked out did anything for the breeds it mentioned, but what the program didn't mention was the 200 and odd other breed standards that are accurate and good examples. And it didn't mention that one of the breed standards it highlighted - ie the GSD - is at the moment under review by its breed club and the KC. So if you enjoy showing, and Jayjay enjoys showing, why let a biased and sensation-seeking program stop you from doing something you enjoy?


----------



## clueless

My Tuppence worth------ I felt as if it was a bit biased. Why not mention the Pet owners who breed with no testing done and Puppyfarmers pumping out substandard pups brought up in poor conditions. 
The KC have rules and regulations but they are not able to "police" all breeders only advice and give out as much information as they can.
This could either go in 2 ways for the average pet dog owner. People will go out and buy cross breeds Or they may try to steer clear of the kc (as it was perceived in a negative way) and puppy farms become popular again and to me that would be a sad day.


----------



## cav

spellweaver said:


> Aw Alan! Come on, you're more intelligent than that! What was shown on this programme was not typical of the whole show world - not to mention biased and untrue. In most cases, the breed standard is a reflection of the purpose the dog was bred for - in the case of the border collie, a tail set low helps the dog move faster when it is working sheep. Judges are, therefore, judging the dog on the purpose it was bred for, not judging a beauty contest as was stated by the RSPCA vet (and we all know how much the RSPCA do for dogs - not!) I can't pretend I think that the examples of breed standards it picked out did anything for the breeds it mentioned, but what the program didn't mention was the 200 and odd other breed standards that are accurate and good examples. And it didn't mention that one of the breed standards it highlighted - ie the GSD - is at the moment under review by its breed club and the KC. So if you enjoy showing, and Jayjay enjoys showing, why let a biased and sensation-seeking program stop you from doing something you enjoy?


Yes but a look at that cavie that won 1st and it had health problems surely you dont agree with that and she was also using him for a stud dog


----------



## Guest

clueless said:


> My Tuppence worth------ I felt as if it was a bit biased. Why not mention the Pet owners who breed with no testing done and Puppyfarmers pumping out substandard pups brought up in poor conditions.
> The KC have rules and regulations but they are not able to "police" all breeders only advice and give out as much information as they can.
> This could either go in 2 ways for the average pet dog owner. People will go out and buy cross breeds Or they may try to steer clear of the kc (as it was perceived in a negative way) and puppy farms become popular again and to me that would be a sad day.


Well said Cluless. The woman who produced the program has admitted she wanted to shock on Radio 5 Live. If that was all she wanted to do, why didn't she decide to highlight puppy farms, or designer cross breeding, instead of attacking the people who are at least trying to do something aboutthe health and welfare of dogs? She has done no service to the dog world with this program.


----------



## ilovemybassetts

ive just watched the bbc programme and to say it was upsetting is putting it mildly the kennel club should be ashamed of what the standards are of these poor dogs . the people from the kennel club and the breeders were actully grinning as they were talking .the distress this so called club and credited breeders are doing to these animals is a disgrace. i own 2 dogs 1 is kc registered 1 isnt does that make one of my dogs better than the other i dont think so at this moment im ashamed of my kennel club pedigree certificate and as for the numorous breeders you get on sites bleating on about how we all should leave the breeding up to them well no thanks because your not bettering the breed all your doing is prancing around the arena to get some satisfaction for yourselfs do the dogs really enjoy all of this i dont think any dog was breed for this reason


----------



## Guest

cavrooney said:


> Yes but a look at that cavie that won 1st and it had health problems surely you dont agree with that and she was also using him for a stud dog


No I don't but as I said, the program showed only bad - and it could only produce one or two bad things to show at that. It didn't show the hundreds of good examples of the hundreds of breeds shown week in, week out- well how could it, because that would prove it was just a witch hunt!


----------



## clueless

ilovemybassetts said:


> ive just watched the bbc programme and to say it was upsetting is putting it mildly the kennel club should be ashamed of what the standards are of these poor dogs . the people from the kennel club and the breeders were actully grinning as they were talking .the distress this so called club and credited breeders are doing to these animals is a disgrace. i own 2 dogs 1 is kc registered 1 isnt does that make one of my dogs better than the other i dont think so at this moment im ashamed of my kennel club pedigree certificate and as for the numorous breeders you get on sites bleating on about how we all should leave the breeding up to them well no thanks because your not bettering the breed all your doing is prancing around the arena to get some satisfaction for yourselfs do the dogs really enjoy all of this i dont think any dog was breed for this reason


Thanks for your opinion I myself will ignore that as you are grouping Breeders together into a bad catagory. Why did you buy a KC dog??? and what do you do with yours????


----------



## Guest

ilovemybassetts said:


> ibleating on about how we all should leave the breeding up to them well no thanks because your not bettering the breed all your doing is prancing around the arena to get some satisfaction for yourselfs do the dogs really enjoy all of this i dont think any dog was breed for this reason


You are wrong. I defy you to come and watch my dogs at a show and say that they are not enjoying it. And as I show a rare breed (which is exactly as nature intended it to be and is totally untouched by man - something which can't be said for your chosen breed!) then showing my breed promotes it. So you are wrong again.


----------



## JANICE199

spellweaver said:


> Well said Cluless. The woman who produced the program has admitted she wanted to shock on Radio 5 Live. If that was all she wanted to do, why didn't she decide to highlight puppy farms, or designer cross breeding, instead of attacking the people who are at least trying to do something aboutthe health and welfare of dogs? She has done no service to the dog world with this program.


but seeing the gsd what did that do for dog breeding?and the was it basset hound? i get them muddled up with another dog..how some of the dogs used to look like was far better than some of the breeds we are seeing at crufts.i think its nothing short of cruel.


----------



## cav

spellweaver said:


> No I don't but as I said, the program showed only bad - and it could only produce one or two bad things to show at that. It didn't show the hundreds of good examples of the hundreds of breeds shown week in, week out- well how could it, because that would prove it was just a witch hunt!


It as just upset me this programe as i care so much about my breed and i carnt believe what i saw.


----------



## griffpan

spellweaver said:


> Well said Cluless. The woman who produced the program has admitted she wanted to shock on Radio 5 Live. If that was all she wanted to do, why didn't she decide to highlight puppy farms, or designer cross breeding, instead of attacking the people who are at least trying to do something aboutthe health and welfare of dogs? She has done no service to the dog world with this program.


she wouldn't even start on the puppy farms etc i don't think, after all it's much better for her to further her media career and make herself a name by blasting a pretty familiar UK association than it is to highlight a mere puppy farmer  most people have heard of Crufts and won't forget it easily and probably now it will be remembered for the wrong reasons by some  but joe bloggs the puppy farmer would possibly be forgotten after a week by many people


----------



## Guest

cavrooney said:


> Yes but a look at that cavie that won 1st and it had health problems surely you dont agree with that and she was also using him for a stud dog


I don't think anyone agrees with that at all,I think it's disgraceful 
But how many shows did the BBC go to to find a dog that was placed like that,remembering this programme took two years to make.....
I think we need to remember this programme was mean't to shock and by all accounts that has what has been achieved.
No information was forthcoming on health tests that are available to certain breeds,or how to find a well bred health tested puppy.
It was very negative...


----------



## clueless

JANICE199 said:


> but seeing the gsd what did that do for dog breeding?and the was it basset hound? i get them muddled up with another dog..how some of the dogs used to look like was far better than some of the breeds we are seeing at crufts.i think its nothing short of cruel.


Well here is the GSD Standard re Hindquarters

Overall strong, broad and well muscled, enabling effortless forward propulsion of whole body. Upper thighbone, viewed from side, sloping to slightly longer lower thighbone. Hind angulation sufficient if imaginary line dropped from point of buttocks cuts through lower thigh just in front of hock, continuing down slightly in front of hindfeet. Angulations corresponding approximately with front angulation, without over-angulation, hock strong. Any tendency towards over-angulation of hindquarters reduces firmness and endurance.

???????


----------



## Guest

Sorry folks - would love to stay and chat but I have to get up at 6.30 tomorrow -  today - and do a 13 hours shift. Nite nte!


----------



## clueless

spellweaver said:


> Sorry folks - would love to stay and chat but I have to get up at 6.30 tomorrow -  today - and do a 13 hours shift. Nite nte!


Nite Spellweaver Sleep Well


----------



## JANICE199

spellweaver said:


> Sorry folks - would love to stay and chat but I have to get up at 6.30 tomorrow -  today - and do a 13 hours shift. Nite nte!


nite nite.....


----------



## Sarber

I show kc reg dogs and will continue to do so. This programme has shown no good examples of dog showing. Why couldent they have highlighted the cruelness of puppy farming instead?


----------



## cav

sallyanne said:


> I don't think anyone agrees with that at all,I think it's disgraceful
> But how many shows did the BBC go to to find a dog that was placed like that,remembering this programme took two years to make.....
> I think we need to remember this programme was mean't to shock and by all accounts that has what has been achieved.
> No information was forthcoming on health tests that are available to certain breeds,or how to find a well bred health tested puppy.
> It was very negative...


Yes i agree but how do we educate people when they have just seen that programe.
I realy hope the kc make breeders start health testing or i carnt see no way forward
But must say it does prove that not all show dogs are.... top notch


----------



## clueless

Sarber said:


> I show kc reg dogs and will continue to do so. This programme has shown no good examples of dog showing. Why couldent they have highlighted the cruelness of puppy farming instead?


Here Here and then a lot of people would have been physically sick with how those poor puppies are kept/ bred


----------



## griffpan

ilovemybassetts said:


> i own 2 dogs 1 is kc registered 1 isnt does that make one of my dogs better than the other i dont think so at this moment im ashamed of my kennel club pedigree certificate and as for the numorous breeders you get on sites bleating on about how we all should leave the breeding up to them well no thanks because your not bettering the breed all your doing is prancing around the arena to get some satisfaction for yourselfs do the dogs really enjoy all of this i dont think any dog was breed for this reason


no it doesn't make either of your dogs better than the other but it also doesn't mean that every breeder is like the ones in the show either. 
as for prancing round the arena, well i do just that but i don't do it just for myself, we don't win loads, but my girl loves it and the attention she gets from the whole day



JANICE199 said:


> but seeing the gsd what did that do for dog breeding?and the was it basset hound? i get them muddled up with another dog..how some of the dogs used to look like was far better than some of the breeds we are seeing at crufts.i think its nothing short of cruel.


i think whether for the better or worst many breeds no longer look how they did years ago, i did like the old style bassets


----------



## clueless

cavrooney said:


> Yes i agree but how do we educate people when they have just seen that programe.
> I realy hope the kc make breeders start health testing or i carnt see no way forward
> But must say it does prove that not all show dogs are.... top notch


It also shows how not all Show Breeders/ People are Ethical. Education is the way forward Cav but even on a forum that is difficult so a Hard task to undertake for the KC as poeple will just not register pups, sell them cheaper and people will buy cheaper. I do not know tha amount of phone wasters I have had over the years wanting pups for next to nothing, not gettine a pup and move on to another phone call to find cheaper, non quality, non health tested as cheaper


----------



## Sarber

clueless said:


> Here Here and then a lot of people would have been physically sick with how those poor puppies are kept/ bred


i ment at least mentioned that responsible dog breeders arnt all what they were described in that show.


----------



## Guest

Another thing we have to remember is breeds have changed to make them more suitable as pets to live with.
As for prancing aroung the ring,I love it so do our dogs,I had a bitch that wouldn't show,try forcing a Stafford to do something it doesn't want to,you have no chance.
As for breeds been bred for what they used to do,well it's either prance around the ring or see our breed in the ring to face another dog,Sorry I know what I prefer....
Which one is cruel ?!?


----------



## Mese

> Originally Posted by Gundoggal
> yep oh well at least its mainly the old folk who are set in their ways who wont do the health checks.. and theyr gonna die soon so meh


Trouble is arent they (possibly) teaching younger people around them that their way is the best 

Im not a breeder , nor do I know a huge amount about dog breeds etc ... but if someone like me can see how sensationalised the programme was , surely most others who saw it could too


----------



## jeanie

Excuse me we are not all kids on this forum, have a little respect please, i have one Kc reg and one not both came from same breeder, one is no better than the other, both are beautiful and do not have such low backs and leg movement like it showed tonight , i would never encourage anyone to not have health checks i think they should be done on all parents and pups before selling,


----------



## jeanie

Good night from a getting there oldie who just might die soon


----------



## Guest

spellweaver said:


> In most cases, the breed standard is a reflection of the purpose the dog was bred for - in the case of the border collie, a tail set low helps the dog move faster when it is working sheep. Judges are, therefore, judging the dog on the purpose it was bred for, not judging a beauty contest as was stated by the RSPCA vet (and we all know how much the RSPCA do for dogs - not!)


Yeah but he's not working sheep in the ring, he is prancing around and enjoying himself which is why his tail is in the air wagging gently. He's a dog and to make him drop his tail when he's happy is like stopping a human smile.

I've no doubt if you put him in a field with sheep (as I hope to do in September) his tail would drop as he would be in work mode, in the ring he isn't working, if they want to see his tail down give him some sheep. If they were that concerned about their original purpose then sheep trials would be part of the standard not an unused add on.

Looking at the state of some breeds, I honestly think it's a complete disgrace that people are breeding these dogs, why anyone wants a dog with too much skin, too short muzzle or stumpy legs I will never understand. I really can't see the point in deliberatly breeding dogs that are unhealthy and can't live a full life. To me that is worse than cross breeding, it's deliberatly breeding for an unhealthy dog with some breeds.

Yes the programme was sensationalised and some of it was bullcrap but a lot of it was true even if they didn't show the other side. That they registered litters of pups from that Cavalier after the scan is criminal.


----------



## Debbie

Well this just proves how crap like that programme does make people say what they are saying - showing a very one sided programme - they didnt want to air the good that most of us are doing with our own breeds - they didnt show the good side they didnt show the good breeders etc etc....so most of you are all up in arms - just what they wanted. Congratulations to the programme makers.
There are good and bad in EVERY aspect of life so it no surprise there are bad in the showing and breeding world - why are you all so mad about it??? Its always been there - its been talked about openly on this forum and many other forums. Why do you think there are a few of us who bang on about bad breeding and careless breedings on this forum??????? Why do you think I care not if I upset if it means stopping people breeding the wrong way????
The KC is a shower of shite most of the time - education is the only way forward - I dont agree with breeding without health testing for your relevant breed etc but it came as no shock for me to see the few bad people they showed - but dont tar us all with the same brush - dont be so narrow minded to believe all you saw.
My breed is a very unhealthy breed - they have extra skin - they are short in muzzle - people are breeding them hand over fist - many are in the ring with dogs that really are terrible but does that stop me from showing mine??? NO 
I am angry that they aired this crap for all to see - just show a handfull of bad breeders/show people and not any of the other side. I KNOW they approached certain people but didnt want the good they wanted the bad!!!! What about they make a programme about the good that some clubs are doing - the good that some breeders are doing - the health tests that most of us do - the good side of the show world - the happy dogs who are fit and healthy loving every minute of being at dog shows....nah that wont happen will it?????
I better get off this subject now otherwise my reply will be 10 pages long!!!!


----------



## griffpan

well said Debbie 
the bbc could have shown the good side but why would they it makes "boring" viewing  
i believe as well that the vet Mark Evans who said that crufts was a show of freaks or mutants (or somthing like that) owns a Golden Retriever and a Labrador, both pedigree, poor love he must have a complex about owning mutant dogs musn't he


----------



## Debbie

Thankyou.
I think Mark Evans really talks out of his behind and tonight just proved that didnt it???
How dare he say crufts is full of freaks and mutants !!!!!! What a narrow minded little toad he is!


----------



## Sarber

griffpan said:


> well said Debbie
> the bbc could have shown the good side but why would they it makes "boring" viewing
> i believe as well that the vet Mark Evans who said that crufts was a show of freaks or mutants (or somthing like that) owns a Golden Retriever and a Labrador, both pedigree, poor love he must have a complex about owning mutant dogs musn't he


he said

Mark Evans, the RSPCA's chief vet, said: "When I watch Crufts, what I see is a parade of mutants. It's some freakish garish beauty pageant that has nothing, frankly to do with health and welfare.

"We've become completely and utterly desensitise to the fact that breeding these deformed, disabled, disease-prone animals is either shocking or abnormal."

a parade of mutants ??


----------



## Guest

For anyone that missed it or wants to watch it again: BBC iPlayer - Pedigree Dogs Exposed


----------



## joe1978

Sarber said:


> Mark Evans, the RSPCA's chief vet, said: "When I watch Crufts, what I see is a parade of mutants. It's some freakish garish beauty pageant that has nothing, frankly to do with health and welfare.
> 
> "We've become completely and utterly desensitise to the fact that breeding these deformed, disabled, disease-prone animals is either shocking or abnormal."


OK I'm a dog lover (with a Sheltie soft spot) just watched the show and was frankly horrified - I googled and came across this forum. After reading this thread I'm surprised that my reaction does not mirror the consensus of the forum. I'd like you to convince me that the show was sensationalised as a whole forum can't be wrong!

First of all... my observations from the show:-

* There are several breeds that have severe genetic health problems - pekingeses, bulldogs, ridgebacks, german shepherds etc. These health problems are far more common than in humans (as we do not artificially limit our gene pool, time and time again - in the few societies where this does happen, eg Pakistan, we see an increase in genetic health problems).

* As to whether cross-bred dogs are likely to be healthier than Pedigree dogs, it makes scientific sense to believe they are. After all they have a wider gene pool. And if any further convincing was needed, insurance companies build their business on assessing risk accurately - if they charge half price insurance for cross-breds compared to Pedigrees you can be damn sure Pedigrees are roughly double as risky to insure.

* The breeds with these inherent genetic problems experience a worse quality of life than dogs of healthier breeds/cross-breds. I've never thought pugs and pekingeses look like they have great lives - struggling to breath, their noses squished into their face. Be honest, bulldogs aren't healthy and their life expectancy is testament to the fact.

So my question is...

As dog-lovers, how can you justify continuing to put dogs through the misery of being born into a body that's not fit for purpose, struggling to breathe, struggling to walk? How can the KC be a protector of our dogs if it actively encourages and praises these breeds? Surely, if you really care about dogs, they should be eradicated or reduced as much as possible?

Can you not see why he called it a parade of mutants? For some of these breeds, mutants is exactly what they are.

What am I missing?


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> Yeah but he's not working sheep in the ring, he is prancing around and enjoying himself which is why his tail is in the air wagging gently. He's a dog and to make him drop his tail when he's happy is like stopping a human smile.
> 
> I've no doubt if you put him in a field with sheep (as I hope to do in September) his tail would drop as he would be in work mode, in the ring he isn't working, if they want to see his tail down give him some sheep. If they were that concerned about their original purpose then sheep trials would be part of the standard not an unused add on.
> 
> Looking at the state of some breeds, I honestly think it's a complete disgrace that people are breeding these dogs, why anyone wants a dog with too much skin, too short muzzle or stumpy legs I will never understand. I really can't see the point in deliberatly breeding dogs that are unhealthy and can't live a full life. To me that is worse than cross breeding, it's deliberatly breeding for an unhealthy dog with some breeds.
> 
> Yes the programme was sensationalised and some of it was bullcrap but a lot of it was true even if they didn't show the other side. That they registered litters of pups from that Cavalier after the scan is criminal.


I agree with you both about deliberately breeding dogs that are unhealthy and that the dreadful owner with the cav should be prosecuted. As a dog lover, I cannot condone this kind of thing. I understand why you are up in arms about it - any right-minded person would be. But to watch this and then think that _all_ showing and breeding is like this, or even that this is the norm, is a mistake. It is happening in a minority of breeds and in a minority of cases. Doesn't make it any easier to swallow when people treat animals with such disdain, I agree, because you can't get away from the fact that in these cases animals are suffering and something needs to be done about it. But I'm not sure that someone like yourself who genuinely cares about dogs and their welfare leaving the show scene is the best way forward - surely the more poeple there who genuinely care the more chance we have of ousting the idiots whose practice is criminal?


----------



## JANICE199

i doubt it will ever happen but perhaps now if the kc get enough complaints about the bad seen in this programe they will sort their act out.ie.stop allowing freak dogs to be seen or reg.


----------



## bailey210608

I haven't read all of the post as it's too long.

But I was horrified by the whole thing. I just dont know how people can justify breeding these dogs to be ill for there own self gain, money and down right snobery. 

Especially when some idot said that she would rather put a ridgeback down if it didn't have a ridge, MY GOD! or that poor dog rolling around in pain because its brain is too big for its head... it's evil and I dont know how anyone can condone it. That woman that won best breed knowing her dog had that illness, all should be ashamed of themselves. They actually put to the back of there minds what there doing.

I dont know anything about breeding but I do know when I see a dog in pain or can't breath properly. Shocked just shocked. I think the KC should do something about it, there just letting this happen. 

Animal abuse springs to mind..


----------



## alison

Imho its time for this:

The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals


----------



## Georges Mum

If I was a breeder in this day and age, following the programme I would have all my pups checked as much as possible by a vet before selling them I think there might be some repercussions from last night. Again I'm not a breeder and don't claim to know about this subject but if a poorly dog can win crufts that makes the whole thing questionable. They should have to pass a medical in order to apply for qualification of Crufts!


----------



## Guest

Ok,what we need to remember is this programme took two years to make,they wanted to expose the bad side of showing and breeding which they did.It took two years to make an hour long programme,that in itself proves what they were setting out to achieve.

I'm not going to deny certain breeds have health problems they do,most dogs whether it be crossbreeds or pedigrees have health issues,not once did they say tests for these diseases were available and good breeders test and only breed from clear dogs.
The RSPCA's Vet Mark Evans needs to get his own house in order before they even attempt to critize any other organisation,they fully supported the DDA,putting to sleep innocent dogs because of the way they look,I find that very hypocritical.He also mentioned about a beauty contest with no consideration for temprement and health,excuse me,every breed standard has temprement written into it and at the bottom of ours is the following,

Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to it's degree and it's effect upon the health and welfare of the dog.

I just hope this programme doesn't make people think it's ok to breed crossbreeds because there healthier,where's the evidence,scienfic facts to back this up?

There is good and bad in every aspect of life,unfortunatly this programme showed the bad side,but if it's that bad why do so many dogs show and I mean thousands ?

And what exactly do the RSPCA do?


----------



## JANICE199

i for one can't get last nights programe out of my head..ok it showed the bad side of things..people have said on this thread "why blame the kc."....well if they refused to allow these badly bred dogs perhaps people like myself that didnt know what goes on would have more respect for the kc.
i used to think, like a lot of people, people that showed their dogs or had kc reg dogs were snobs..i dont think that now..but i will still question why anyone would want to breed animals that are nothing short of deformed.


----------



## bee112

But to be fair the "bad side" of dog showing/breeding is a bit extreme and you would of thought the KC would have done something about it sooner.. rather than having poorly dogs winning "best of breed" etc.

I always imagined some underhand stuff would go on in any form of showing horse, cat, dog. But I was appauled seeing that


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> i for one can't get last nights programe out of my head..ok it showed the bad side of things..people have said on this thread "why blame the kc."....well if they refused to allow these badly bred dogs perhaps people like myself that didnt know what goes on would have more respect for the kc.
> i used to think, like a lot of people, people that showed their dogs or had kc reg dogs were snobs..i dont think that now..but i will still question why anyone would want to breed animals that are nothing short of deformed.


It all boils down to money Janice,the same can be asked why do people breed dogs with no health tests,un registered litters,crossbreeds?
The answer is simple because of man's greed.
The KC is not a governing body,it has no legislation over breeders,where would we be without the KC,the dog world I'm afraid would be in more of a mess than it currently is,they are going in the right direction regarding testing but you can't force somebody to test their dogs can you?

I don't think the KC refusing to register litters is the answer,it will result in more unreg,untested dogs,more sick dogs,dogs without a traceable history,it would be impossible to do any research into bloodlines to see what diseases are present within those lines...

In my opinion we need legislation in place for Breeders,we need tighter controls,the KC can't do this but our government can.


----------



## alison

Sally, The KC also allowed the DDA to come in and STILL refuse to call for change due to political climate. 

Mark Evans is bang on. Look at how our breeds have changed can you honestly say that is for the best? The KC are powerless to do anything by their own statment. So someone else needs to sort out the mess our breeds are in.


----------



## pepsimum

As far as health tests go, I think the KC could do a lot more to help people get all the health tests needed for their breed. I have rang round a number of so called local breed clubs to me (the nearest being about 100 odd miles away) to ask where to get my dogs heart tested only to be told that they do not know and to ring my local vets. I also rang the KC to ask, only to be told to ring the breed clubs and if I could'nt get any info from them, to call back and they would "see what they could do". If these health test were easier to get done, then surely it would become common place to make sure each and every dog is tested, not just the top show dogs. Some of us are not into showing our dogs but still would like to do the right thing and get the correct tests done. Its a bit like the secret service, come on breed clubs, surely you could make more of an effort.


----------



## JANICE199

ok as most of you know i think. i've never bred dogs, but am i right in saying that the kc set the standards required in a breed? ie in my breed .toy poodle, they should be no taller than 11inches....
"IF" its the kc..then they should change their standards...please remember i'm still learning. lol


----------



## griffpan

alison said:


> Sally, The KC also allowed the DDA to come in and STILL refuse to call for change due to political climate.
> 
> Mark Evans is bang on. Look at how our breeds have changed can you honestly say that is for the best? The KC are powerless to do anything by their own statment. So someone else needs to sort out the mess our breeds are in.


Mark Evans isn't bang on at all imo he's a media loving hypocrite (along with the rspca) he should go back to building cars or whatever he was doing on the discovery channel or whichever channel it was on tv that he graced.


----------



## alison

griffpan said:


> Mark Evans isn't bang on at all imo he's a media loving hypocrite (along with the rspca) he should go back to building cars or whatever he was doing on the discovery channel or whichever channel it was on tv that he graced.


So pugs are perfectly healthy animals?! The basset isnt over exagerated and causing health issues? The Bulldog? Those Gsd looked fine to you?
The dogs never used to look like that, its only since showing and the KC that they have changed so drastically.


----------



## cav

alison said:


> So pugs are perfectly healthy animals?! The basset isnt over exagerated and causing health issues? The Bulldog? Those Gsd looked fine to you?
> The dogs never used to look like that, its only since showing and the KC that they have changed so drastically.


Can i just say the kc did not breed the dogs its all down to bad breeding


----------



## alison

No they didnt, they just agree the standard, reg the dogs giving extra credibility, run many of the shows and give the prizes. Its all done under the KC banner, providing the kc with a massive income and therefore they have to force the changes. They arent.


----------



## JANICE199

cavrooney said:


> Can i just say the kc did not breed the dogs its all down to bad breeding


hi cav...i think this the bit that people are finding confusing..the kc might not have bred these dogs, but they except them.


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> He also mentioned about a beauty contest with no consideration for temprement and health,excuse me,every breed standard has temprement written into it and at the bottom


It may be there in black and white but how many judges actually take it into consideration when placing dogs? Granted I've only been to two shows but I haven't seen any looking at the dogs health or temprement, how can they? Showing is a beauty contest, it is all about looks.



bee112 said:


> But to be fair the "bad side" of dog showing/breeding is a bit extreme and you would of thought the KC would have done something about it sooner.. rather than having poorly dogs winning "best of breed" etc.
> 
> I always imagined some underhand stuff would go on in any form of showing horse, cat, dog. But I was appauled seeing that


Same here, it's shocking that people get away with some of the things they do. It might just be a minority, put why the hell are they allowed to get away with it? Why is no one doing anything about it!?! 



alison said:


> Mark Evans is bang on. Look at how our breeds have changed can you honestly say that is for the best? The KC are powerless to do anything by their own statment. So someone else needs to sort out the mess our breeds are in.


I couldn't believe the way some breeds have changed so much for the worse and that people can stand on camera and say it's for the better, who are they trying to convince, it's plain and simple some breeds are a complete mess and why anyone wants to be involved in consistently making them worse is beyond me.



pepsimum said:


> As far as health tests go, I think the KC could do a lot more to help people get all the health tests needed for their breed. I have rang round a number of so called local breed clubs to me (the nearest being about 100 odd miles away) to ask where to get my dogs heart tested only to be told that they do not know and to ring my local vets. I also rang the KC to ask, only to be told to ring the breed clubs and if I could'nt get any info from them, to call back and they would "see what they could do". If these health test were easier to get done, then surely it would become common place to make sure each and every dog is tested, not just the top show dogs. Some of us are not into showing our dogs but still would like to do the right thing and get the correct tests done. Its a bit like the secret service, come on breed clubs, surely you could make more of an effort.


Agree with this also, I have been looking into the health tests needed for Border Collies because I might want to stud out my boy, it was very hard to find out what was needed and even harder to find where to get it done. The KC could do an awful lot more to help educate people and make the information more readily available.

I think breeders should need a licence to breed and health tests should be mandatory.


----------



## cav

JANICE199 said:


> hi cav...i think this the bit that people are finding confusing..the kc might not have bred these dogs, but they except them.


janice i think at the end of the day bad breeding goes on all around us kc reg or not 
I think alot is down to the breeder i will be breeding my bitch soon and she got clear health checks and im doing it because i care about the dogs and puppys,if the kc make breeders health check...most bad breeders just wont register the pups

Also the kc is great for checking information how else can we check our lines for problems in our breed


----------



## griffpan

alison said:


> So pugs are perfectly healthy animals?! The basset isnt over exagerated and causing health issues? The Bulldog? Those Gsd looked fine to you?
> The dogs never used to look like that, its only since showing and the KC that they have changed so drastically.


for better or for worse the changes in these breeds (and i don't know anything about the breeds shown on the programme) weren't made overnight they have evolved over years & years so any good changes aren't going to happen overnight either. this programme wasn't made in a sensible light it was made purely to shock, inflame and further the career of the woman that made it. i know the kc should do more but imo ultimately this programme won't help as it's made both sides dig their heels in.



cavrooney said:


> Can i just say the kc did not breed the dogs its all down to bad breeding


exactly. the kc can't possibly police every breeder that reg's their puppies when there's 1000's of puppies being born a year. there's also many more 1000's being born not kc reg, so whose going to check on them



alison said:


> No they didnt, they just agree the standard, reg the dogs giving extra credibility, run many of the shows and give the prizes. Its all done under the KC banner, providing the kc with a massive income and therefore they have to force the changes. They arent.


again people must come together to change what needs to be changed in the breed standards etc, this programme won't help one jot.
the rspca also get a massive income to pay they're higherarchey staff generous salaries while also operating under a supposedly responsible banner, but many people wouldn't trust em with a stone never mind an animal


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> ok as most of you know i think. i've never bred dogs, but am i right in saying that the kc set the standards required in a breed? ie in my breed .toy poodle, they should be no taller than 11inches....
> "IF" its the kc..then they should change their standards...please remember i'm still learning. lol


The KC do not set Breed Standards,these are put together by Breeders and Breed clubs.


----------



## JANICE199

cavrooney said:


> janice i think at the end of the day bad breeding goes on all around us kc reg or not
> I think alot is down to the breeder i will be breeding my bitch soon and she got clear health checks and im doing it because i care about the dogs and puppys,if the kc make breeders health check...most bad breeders just wont register the pups
> 
> Also the kc is great for checking information how else can we check our lines for problems in our breed


ok.sorry if i'm going on, but i need to know.....take just the german shepherd in last nites programe,,we at home could all see there was something terribly wrong with its legs...why would the kc allow it to be shown in the first place?


----------



## joe1978

sallyanne said:


> The KC do not set Breed Standards,these are put together by Breeders and Breed clubs.


From Kennel Club Breed Standards - The Kennel Club

The Breed Standards are owned by the Kennel Club, and all changes are subject to approval by the Kennel Club General Committee.


----------



## Guest

joe1978 said:


> From Kennel Club Breed Standards - The Kennel Club
> 
> The Breed Standards are owned by the Kennel Club, and all changes are subject to approval by the Kennel Club General Committee.


Yes they maybe owned by the KC but they are set by the Breed Clubs and Breeders.They can be altered by the KC in conjunction again with the breed clubs.
If we want ours changing Breeders lobby the breed clubs who then get in touch with the KC.


----------



## joe1978

sallyanne said:


> Yes they maybe owned by the KC but they are set by the Breed Clubs and Breeders.They can be altered by the KC in conjunction again with the breed clubs.
> If we want ours changing Breeders lobby the breed clubs who then get in touch with the KC.


Maybe the KC should take a top-down approach and just delete various fundamentally unhealthy breeds from the Breed Standards that they own. Then the health problems would be better publicised, and the popularity of unhealthy breeds would decline as presumably they could no longer be shown at Crufts.


----------



## cav

JANICE199 said:


> ok.sorry if i'm going on, but i need to know.....take just the german shepherd in last nites programe,,we at home could all see there was something terribly wrong with its legs...why would the kc allow it to be shown in the first place?


Janice i also found that scene appaling all i can say i dont do the show side and i asked alot of questions last night as alot of members show they all said the majority of shows are not like this...it took 2 years of hunting to make this programe.

also after watching it im more determined to breed my little healthy dogs............maybe just one day others might follow


----------



## Guest

Another thing that bugs me is why should dogs that have hereditary conditions be banned from showing,How is a Judge supposed to know by looking at a dog which conditions if any are present ?

Dogs that are carriers or affected should not be bred from but should they be stopped from doing any acitivity they enjoy ?


----------



## cav

sallyanne said:


> Another thing that bugs me is why should dogs that have hereditary conditions be banned from showing,How is a Judge supposed to know by looking at a dog which conditions if any are present ?
> 
> Dogs that are carriers or affected should not be bred from but should they be stopped from doing any acitivity they enjoy ?


year agree with that but that wound me up that bimbo that was using her dog for stud purposes just because she makin some quick cash.....disgustin


----------



## Guest

cavrooney said:


> year agree with that but that wound me up that bimbo that was using her dog for stud purposes just because she makin some quick cash.....disgustin


I wonder if the bitch owners that used him as a stud knew about it!?!


----------



## cav

ajshep1984 said:


> I wonder if the bitch owners that used him as a stud knew about it!?!


eeerm


----------



## Natik

to be honest I didnt know much about the kc and i always assumed that the owners of dogs which are being showed have to show a health check before they can enter showing  

About gsd... I know for fact that some gsd are being starved to achieve the looks and if that deserves a medal then there is something seriously wrong with the kc.


----------



## minnie

sallyanne said:


> Another thing that bugs me is why should dogs that have hereditary conditions be banned from showing,How is a Judge supposed to know by looking at a dog which conditions if any are present ?
> 
> Dogs that are carriers or affected should not be bred from but should they be stopped from doing any acitivity they enjoy ?


agree but with the gsd's their problem is a little obvious with the wobbly legs

they didn't have solid proof that the cav in the show did have the brain problem though?


----------



## Jenny Olley

I haven't seen the show yet, as I was working, and understand Sally-Anne's point that untested dogs may be carriers of certain diseases, and the judge would not know, however if a dog has been tested and found to have a disease, surely it should be declared, and not be eligable to win best in breed, how can it be, it may be the most attractive looking, but it is certainly not a healthy specimen. Of course this may have a knock on effect that people will not have dogs tested.

When was hip dysplacia and all the other problems first noticed in dogs, and what caused them in the first place ?


----------



## Guest

You can watch it online Jenny: BBC iPlayer - Pedigree Dogs Exposed

I won't be showing Jayjay anymore. I feel that if I do continue to show him I am saying it's okay for this sort of thing to go on which is not the way I feel. Until the KC make changes I won't be having anything to do with them or showing.


----------



## Biawhiska

All I can say is I knew I was a cat lover for a reason


----------



## akoshi

i was watching this and i have to agree with what Mark evans was stating,
The programme shows spaniels with brains too big for their skulls and boxers suffering from epilepsy. The Kennel Club says it works tirelessly to improve the health of pedigree dogs. Pedigree animals make up 75% of the seven million dogs in the UK and cost their owners over £10m in vets' fees each week. its remarkable to think that their are soo many pedigrees out their with magnificant lines but the cross breeds are better off health wise. 
I also thought it was wrong when the owners of king charles spaniel was still studing/breeding their dog with syringomyelia, it is even hereditary and passed onto their litters so they have spoilt those puppies lives already.
thanks for listening and i owuld love to hear your views on this subject as it made me very angry, and very much sad for those dogs watching this also putting rhodesian ridgebacks down that are perfectly healthy because they have no ridge that is outrageous
many thanks and kind regards
jessica
im sorry if this has made people angry i really dso apologise for that


----------



## Angeli

fluffypurrs said:


> All I can say is I knew I was a cat lover for a reason


I was just wondering whether there are vets present at dog shows and whether all entrants have to be vetted in first as in the case of cat shows.
We would not be allowed to show a cat that had been tested positive for Leukaemia etc.


----------



## Georges Mum

Yes it was awful about the ridgebacks. 
I know a lot of people think it was sensationalism but until these people(in the minority) are exposed the general public will carry on buying and looking for the top pedigree without knowing what to look for. Ie It would be easy for an ignorant person to be impressed by having a pup from a crufts champion. The more you pay some people might think if they pay top dollar they will be guaranteed the best goods. 
What i do think may happen is with education of the public on some of the risks in animals, they may ask the sellers to justify the pups health(rather than just the pedigree side) and see evidence of testing. I know this does already go on a bit but there will be an increase?
An example of this is that gorgeous pug with all the problems.


----------



## Guest

Angeli said:


> I was just wondering whether there are vets present at dog shows and whether all entrants have to be vetted in first as in the case of cat shows.
> We would not be allowed to show a cat that had been tested positive for Leukaemia etc.


Is there balls, it's a beuaty contest, plain and simple.


----------



## akoshi

that is exactly my thoughts and then the kc said that she could still breed that pug with all thoughs problems healthwise, its disgusting then they carried on to say that if they wanted a health check for all the dogs that was going to breed they would loose many members but i would rather that than having payed top dolla for a puppy and then falling ill with a serious conditiona nd you going back to the breeder and sayin their dogs have ntohing wrong with them it was your fault not looking after them.


----------



## cav

I would just like to say the cavs recieved such bad press on last nights show...this is the reason i try my best to breed all my dogs with clear health checks please dont tar us all with the same brush


----------



## akoshi

sorry if i souded like i did in the statment above, but i meant all those that now their dog has got that serious illness and still breed them even though it is hereditary they spoilt the puppies lives before they even began im sorry if it sounded like that and im glad that atleast a cav breeder is doing the cprrect thing in getting them health checked and so on thank you and sorry


----------



## JasperCarrot

They Didnt Show It Here .. I Can Get My Dad To Download It Though But Not Sure I Want To Watch It Now .. 


Did They Say Anything About English Springer Spaniels ? 

Jaspers A Field Type Springie X Show Type .. He Is More Like Field Type Though His Fur Never Grows Long  ...


----------



## Debbie

Ok here we go again

The CKS head is not too small for its brain -it is caused by a malformation of the skull where the spinal cord enters & the brain herniates out stopping the cerebral fluid from draining from the brain ( taken from another forum where someone explains this condition in its reality! )
Also for the boxer with epilepsy - they had lights on the poor thing while he was fitting - he was overweight - I had an alsation years ago that suffered from it so I dont think showing 1 boxer with it really confines it to one breed! Its in ALL breeds.
What lengths did they go to to make an hours programme after 2 years of research - surely if the show world is as bad as they tried to make out it wouldnt have taken them that long to make it!!!!! I am not denying that the KC could improve in many areas but to scare monger is not the way forward......
If you really want to know what does go on go and find out for yourselves - dont believe a heap of shite that you see for an hour and then judge us all the same- Research is the key - the KC DO some good and although not perfect all the breed clubs etc need to be involved to make a change too.....these breeds didnt change over night as someone has pointed out already!!!!


----------



## Biawhiska

ajshep1984 said:


> Is there balls, it's a beuaty contest, plain and simple.


that's shocking


----------



## JANICE199

Debbie said:


> Ok here we go again
> 
> The CKS head is not too small for its brain -it is caused by a malformation of the skull where the spinal cord enters & the brain herniates out stopping the cerebral fluid from draining from the brain ( taken from another forum where someone explains this condition in its reality! )
> Also for the boxer with epilepsy - they had lights on the poor thing while he was fitting - he was overweight - I had an alsation years ago that suffered from it so I dont think showing 1 boxer with it really confines it to one breed! Its in ALL breeds.
> What lengths did they go to to make an hours programme after 2 years of research - surely if the show world is as bad as they tried to make out it wouldnt have taken them that long to make it!!!!! I am not denying that the KC could improve in many areas but to scare monger is not the way forward......
> If you really want to know what does go on go and find out for yourselves - dont believe a heap of shite that you see for an hour and then judge us all the same- Research is the key - the KC DO some good and although not perfect all the breed clubs etc need to be involved to make a change too.....these breeds didnt change over night as someone has pointed out already!!!!


i dont think the amount of time it took them to produce the show matters...
lets face it how long does it take for some groups to produce an album?
i understood they had been following the kc over 2 years.had they done it in a matter of weeks people would say that was wrong.
i'm not saying we saw everything..but you can't get away from what we did see...it was cruelty to say the least.


----------



## Georges Mum

The Pug:
It is totally irresponsible for anyone to endorse breeding from that pug. They are lucky to know about the problems but are there pugs out there that have problems with the owners being not aware yet and ?breeding. If I paid top dollar I would like to think I had a good dog. I'm not stupid enought to think it would guarantee it because there is a small element of luck with all animals - luck of the draw. I wonder if his father the prize winner had any of these problems?


----------



## Georges Mum

JANICE199 said:


> i dont think the amount of time it took them to produce the show matters...
> lets face it how long does it take for some groups to produce an album?
> i understood they had been following the kc over 2 years.had they done it in a matter of weeks people would say that was wrong.
> i'm not saying we saw everything..but you can't get away from what we did see...it was cruelty to say the least.


I agree . .. It was cruelty and it isn't acceptable to say oh well it only a small number... if its happening it should be stopped.


----------



## akoshi

JANICE199 said:


> i dont think the amount of time it took them to produce the show matters...
> lets face it how long does it take for some groups to produce an album?
> i understood they had been following the kc over 2 years.had they done it in a matter of weeks people would say that was wrong.
> i'm not saying we saw everything..but you can't get away from what we did see...it was cruelty to say the least.


i completley agree it is out off order to do this, breed from ill dogs then pass it onto their puppys they have spoilt thoughs dogs lives before they have even began 
many thanks and thanks for listeing
good points aswell


----------



## Guest

i know im a day late but that program was really upsetting 

those poor dogs  it had me all tearey eyed...its terrible


----------



## shunter

As a beagle owner of two brothers from the same litter - one recently passed away - I have paid out thousands of pounds for neck and back operations. Whilst the KC breeders where breeding for a more short legged 'effeminate' looking dog - to win prizes with judges who liked that type - they forgot to tell the dogs that their bodies where just not up to the wear and tear of the exercise that their beagle brains encouraged them to take. Now I know why the beagles in hunts look so much different to those winning shows. 

My mother is currently spending a fortune in vet's fees to treat her West Highland who seems to want to eat all her fur off. I tried to warn her of buying a West Highland because they are notorius for having skin problems but she wouldn't listen!

The Kennel Club has to take responsibility for the misery it is causing. By changing the breed standards over many years and awarding prizes to those who reach those standards, they have effectively engineered the changing of the look of these dogs over the years - albeit not to all breeds detriment.

This programme is a wake up call for the breed clubs and the Kennel Club. 

A major step forward could be made by assembling a database of all KC registered dogs and obtaining data on all veterinary treatment given to these dogs and vet certified health problems found in all these dogs. That way they could be more transparent and publish their findings for the general public so they could use them when deciding which dog to buy. 

For myself, the next time I go to get a beagle, I will go to a breeder who breeds one that look like those that could lead the hunt.


----------



## Debbie

ajshep1984 said:


> Is there balls, it's a beuaty contest, plain and simple.


Alan you have been to 2 shows and havent seen the bigger picture..
The judge goes over a dog to tell if it is put together correctly - he/she can tell of the dogs temprement by the way the dog reacts to the judge - the way it is in the ring with other dogs etc.....it may only be a small window but its there all the same - a judge watches a dogs movement-----ask your self why.....if its made right it moves right!!!!! So its NOT all about how a dog looks - its about how a dog is made etc.....
There are no vets checks - granted - but if a dog is that bad the judge will ask for that dog to leave the ring and not compete - if a dog shows agression it is reported and can be banned from being at a KC event....
I agree things could be a lot tighter controlled and the KC DO need to change things but it all takes time - they didnt show the other side to this at all - the clubs are doing their best to make these health tests compulsary - they recommend they are taken but cannot make someone do them - who would force another to do something they didnt agree with?
Good and bad in all walks of life - thats so true - but to base your view on the dog world by watching that crap last night is very small minded.
How many Ford cars crash each day? How many Ford cars have a problem that causes an accident? Therefore dont buy a Ford - you look further into it and realise that no matter the make all cars can be involved in an accident - are you going to decide not to drive any car b'cos of this?
How about a man down the street from where you live murders someone - and then the press come along and tar all the people who live on that street as murderers. Is that fair??? This is exactly how that programme has made us GOOD show people feel - they have taken a small minority of people ( WHICH TOOK 2 YEARS TO COLATE ) and made it look like this is how it is....shocking!!!!! They didnt even back it up with knowledge - they based it on emotion - what would tug on the heart strings of the general public - why show a poor dog fitting - he was in distress and they were all crowding him - shining lights on him etc.....oh yeah thats just great that is - all in the name of TV!!!!!


----------



## JANICE199

Eolabeo said:


> i know im a day late but that program was really upsetting
> 
> those poor dogs  it had me all tearey eyed...its terrible


i was just looking at bits of it again on my pc. so sad


----------



## Debbie

JANICE199 said:


> i dont think the amount of time it took them to produce the show matters...
> lets face it how long does it take for some groups to produce an album?
> i understood they had been following the kc over 2 years.had they done it in a matter of weeks people would say that was wrong.
> i'm not saying we saw everything..but you can't get away from what we did see...it was cruelty to say the least.


I think it does matter - if you follow anyone around for long enough you can uncover something bad!!
I am not denying that what we saw was bad - we dont live in a perfect world do we? Instead of moaning on on a forum ( not pointed at anyone in general ) DO something about it - take a positive outlook and find out what you can do to help.
Get in touch with the KC - get in touch with your breeds club and find out what can be done - how you can help etc!!!!


----------



## Guest

Debbie said:


> Good and bad in all walks of life - thats so true - but to base your view on the dog world by watching that crap last night is very small minded.


I'm not small minded thank you.  Shows are full of scum and I don't want anything to do with them. I only wish I'd followed my instincts and not wasted my money on the two shows I now won't be going to. This programme just reinforced the way I already felt. Show people calling me small minded doesn't exactly make me want to be involved anymore either!


----------



## Guest

Debbie said:


> I think it does matter - if you follow anyone around for long enough you can uncover something bad!!
> I am not denying that what we saw was bad - we dont live in a perfect world do we? Instead of moaning on on a forum ( not pointed at anyone in general ) DO something about it - take a positive outlook and find out what you can do to help.
> Get in touch with the KC - get in touch with your breeds club and find out what can be done - how you can help etc!!!!


Anyone who wants to do something about it can go here: The Pet Owners Parliament, a Positive Voice for Pets and their Owners At least people there aren't sweeping it under the carpet.


----------



## Debbie

ajshep1984 said:


> I'm not small minded thank you.  Shows are full of scum and I don't want anything to do with them. I only wish I'd followed my instincts and not wasted my money on the two shows I now won't be going to. This programme just reinforced the way I already felt. Show people calling me small minded doesn't exactly make me want to be involved anymore either!


And you saying shows are full of scum doesnt exactly have me thinking you are broad minded - making a blanket statement like that!!!!!
And if you reread what I put - I wasnt calling you small minded - I actually said " to base your view on the dog world by watching that crap last night is very small minded" That was aimed at anyone who did !!!


----------



## griffpan

ajshep1984 said:


> I'm not small minded thank you.  Shows are full of scum and I don't want anything to do with them. I only wish I'd followed my instincts and not wasted my money on the two shows I now won't be going to. This programme just reinforced the way I already felt. Show people calling me small minded doesn't exactly make me want to be involved anymore either!


this is exactly the reaction the programme makers wanted which is sad saying shows are full of scum is a bit of a sweeping statement and it seems to be tarring anyone who shows/breeds with the same brush. 
thats not ultimately helping anyone. did the programme help advise people how to buy a healthy pup and where/what to research? No not really  
a lot of people are saying the kc should do this or that (yep they should do more i agree) but the programme makers could have also done more as well in educating people responsibly. and was it responsible to have a film crew follow a boxer dog round waiting for it to fit, i think not


----------



## gillieworm

griffpan said:


> this is exactly the reaction the programme makers wanted which is sad saying shows are full of scum is a bit of a sweeping statement and it seems to be tarring anyone who shows/breeds with the same brush.
> thats not ultimately helping anyone. did the programme help advise people how to buy a healthy pup and where/what to research? No not really
> a lot of people are saying the kc should do this or that (yep they should do more i agree) but the programme makers could have also done more as well in educating people responsibly. and was it responsible to have a film crew follow a boxer dog round waiting for it to fit, i think not


Hear hear!! Totally agree with everything you have said griffpan. Puppy buyers need to take as much blame as bad breeders, because if everyone actually fully researched the breed they were interested in and the possible health problems they would know what questios to ask and what breeders to use as there are excellent breeders out there.

Puppy buyers need help because if they stopped buying the badly bred puppies, bad breeders would cease to exist.

The fitting boxer and the squealing in pain CKC made me cry my eyes out, the poor poppets being used as a circus freaks in the name of television is discusting


----------



## Guest

griffpan said:


> this is exactly the reaction the programme makers wanted which is sad saying shows are full of scum is a bit of a sweeping statement and it seems to be tarring anyone who shows/breeds with the same brush.


It's not tarring everyone with the same brush at all. If I said "there is plenty of scum at shows" would that be better?


----------



## griffpan

ajshep1984 said:


> It's not tarring everyone with the same brush at all. If I said "there is plenty of scum at shows" would that be better?


LOL there's also plenty of nice people who aren't scum at em as well


----------



## Debbie

griffpan said:


> LOL there's also plenty of nice people who aren't scum at em as well


Well said - there are plenty of nice people at shows who dont condone the activities of last nights programme


----------



## bailey210608

griffpan said:


> Mark Evans isn't bang on at all imo he's a media loving hypocrite (along with the rspca) he should go back to building cars or whatever he was doing on the discovery channel or whichever channel it was on tv that he graced.


What exactly was it that he said was wrong??? Cos it all sounded like some one who actually cared. No like people who breed ill pups in order to make money, like the lady with the fake lips and too much mascara...


----------



## bee112

bailey210608 said:


> What exactly was it that he said was wrong??? Cos it all sounded like some one who actually cared. No like people who breed ill pups in order to make money, like the lady with the fake lips and too much mascara...


ha ha was that the lady who started stuttering when the reporter mentioned the MRI scans and how many litters her ill dog had sired?!


----------



## Guest

Well I show my dogs so that makes me scum 

Both my dogs are tested,both have clear,unaffected results,but this doesn't matter because I show I'm scum 

Totally agree with your posts Debbie.


----------



## bailey210608

bee112 said:


> ha ha was that the lady who started stuttering when the reporter mentioned the MRI scans and how many litters her ill dog had sired?!


Oh you noticed that too, if there wasnt anything to be ashamed of then she would have been fine with those questions, the look said it all.


----------



## bailey210608

sallyanne said:


> Well I show my dogs so that makes me scum
> 
> Both my dogs are tested,both have clear,unaffected results,but this doesn't matter because I show I'm scum
> 
> Totally agree with your posts Debbie.


I think people like you are great this is what people want more of, normal, healthy dogs, I think the people that have got this discussion going are the people who parade there dogs and the people who allow those dogs to be in the "best breed" catagory when they clearly are not.

Keep doing what your doing and making healthy happy puppies...


----------



## cav

well i see this thread is going to get closed.

Debbie made i could point instead of moaning lets try and do something about it


----------



## noushka05

Debbie said:


> Well said - there are plenty of nice people at showswho dont condone the activities of last nights programme


w
i agree, i show my dogs & i would say most people in our breed who show, are responsible & care for the health of the breed, having all the health checks required & endorsing puppies registrations.

i worry that the KC is now going to promote its accredited breeders scheme as it did in GMTV this morning, i know some of the most unscrupulous breeders of huskies are members of this but the general public will now believe these people are the most responsible, its a joke

i was also really upset to see the poor cavaliers & the boxer & discusted with the with the owner of the cavie who was studing him out inspite of the fact any offspring could inherit this terrible illness, the ridgeback breeders were also dispicable


----------



## Sophiex

sallyanne said:


> Well I show my dogs so that makes me scum
> 
> Both my dogs are tested,both have clear,unaffected results,but this doesn't matter because I show I'm scum


Of course you're not! Some of the people on the programme ARE scum. It highlighted the bad end of the spectrum. I imagine there are plenty of other decent people who show, just like yourself.


----------



## JANICE199

please dont let this thread turn into another slanging match...so far its been a good open debate..lets keep it like that


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> Well I show my dogs so that makes me scum
> 
> Both my dogs are tested,both have clear,unaffected results,but this doesn't matter because I show I'm scum
> 
> Totally agree with your posts Debbie.


Yes well done Sally that is EXACTLY what I said. 

To say I am disappointed is an understatement, the very people I respected the most on this forum are the ones condoning this behaviour. Sweep it under the carpet and move on, it will be forgotten in a few days but all the ill puppies will still be there.

Why are you so passionate about puppy farms and Byb's but couldn't give two hoots about this? 

There are good breeders and bad breeders BUT this programme only highlighted a few of the bad breeders, there are hundreds more. That Cavalier might have been the only one highlighted but how many people defended her or ignored the issue on the way out? That is why I think PLENTY of show people ARE scum! Add to the that the way I have witnessed first hand people treating their dogs at shows, it's not a great picture and not one I want to be part of.

The KC condone these practises and in my eyes are no better than PETA or the RSPCA. It's about time the people with the means to make a difference started practising what they preach.


----------



## cav

ajshep1984 said:


> Yes well done Sally that is EXACTLY what I said.
> 
> To say I am disappointed is an understatement, the very people I respected the most on this forum are the ones condoning this behaviour. Sweep it under the carpet and move on, it will be forgotten in a few days but all the ill puppies will still be there.
> 
> Why are you so passionate about puppy farms and Byb's but couldn't give two hoots about this?
> 
> There are good breeders and bad breeders BUT this programme only highlighted a few of the bad breeders, there are hundreds more. That Cavalier might have been the only one highlighted but how many people defended her or ignored the issue on the way out? That is why I think PLENTY of show people ARE scum! Add to the that the way I have witnessed first hand people treating their dogs at shows, it's not a great picture and not one I want to be part of.
> 
> The KC condone these practises and in my eyes are no better than PETA or the RSPCA. It's about time the people with the means to make a difference started practising what they preach.


.............


----------



## Guest

This is why I and others tell people about health screening,why they should NEVER buy a puppy without proof of tests on the Parents.

I agree Alan,there are alot of bad breeders out there,this is why research and plenty of it is needed,you will always get bad breeders,the only way to get rid is not to buy from them,(how many times have we heard someone brought a pup because they felt sorry for it)This applies right through the dog world not just show breeders.
You will always get bad show breeders,you will also get good ethical reputable ones.
I know of a bad breeder that is an active commitee member on one of the breed clubs


----------



## Guest

My dad used to breed rottie and all his dogs even his pets were all KC registered he always looked at quality of the dog itself not how much like the breed standard it was, a breeder friend of his had a litter of rottie 5 pups 2 all blacks this turned out to be a rececive (?) gene and he was recommended by the KC to discretly have the blacks and the mother put to sleep as they were no good! They were a week old when he recieved the phone call , all 3 dogs are happy and healthy and look like rotties.
I have never been a big KC fan as I have seen some terrible things with my dads rotties and my mums chow chows but then if the KC were stricter with health testing and inbreeding then maybe some of these problems would go away untill they pull their finger out the worst affected breeds are going to go round and round in circles 
It is also down to the breeders if you love your dogs u want the best for them weither they are pets or for breeding from and if u want the best for them then you should get them health tested weither it is optional or not.
The programme was very one sided and it would have been nice to see some decent breeders and not just the old un's who agreed with culling RR's because they didn't have spinal bifida (?) 
Im glad I watched it im even more glad I dont breed and and dont show


----------



## Guest

Health testing should be made compulsory - end of. There is no excuse not to.

What I cannot get my head around is the breeds that are so 'cruel'. The pekingese, the pug. And others. They must live in daily discomfort. All because humans want them to 'look' that way. And the kennel club are condoning it. It is disgusting.


----------



## noushka05

mrsdusty said:


> Health testing should be made compulsory - end of. There is no excuse not to.
> 
> What I cannot get my head around is the breeds that are so 'cruel'. The pekingese, the pug. And others. They must live in daily discomfort. All because humans want them to 'look' that way. And the kennel club are condoning it. It is disgusting.


i agree, & i think they should scrap the accredited breeders scheme & like you say make it compulsary for dogs used for breeding to be health tested & only allow puppies to be registered if their parents passed those tests


----------



## cav

noushka05 said:


> i agree, & i think they should scrap the accredited breeders scheme & like you say make it compulsary for dogs used for breeding to be health tested & only allow puppies to be registered if their parents passed those tests


yes i agree but i think people would still breed and just not bother register the pups


----------



## clueless

ajshep1984 said:


> I'm not small minded thank you.  Shows are full of scum and I don't want anything to do with them. I only wish I'd followed my instincts and not wasted my money on the two shows I now won't be going to. This programme just reinforced the way I already felt. Show people calling me small minded doesn't exactly make me want to be involved anymore either!


I am one of these Scum people you are talking about Alan 2 shows does not make a person kowledgable to make a statement like that imo. As some members have said there is good and bad breeders out there. I do not condone the contents of that programme, I thought it was sad, but pinpointing show people only was wrong in my eyes.
How many ill pet bred litters do you think there may be out there?? No tests done etc... same as some show or KC dogs. 
How many pet breeders, byb, puppyfarms are concerned after the pups are sold??? You have too look at the big picture if you wish to condemn IMO


----------



## clueless

cavrooney said:


> yes i agree but i think people would still breed and just not bother register the pups


Health testing should be made compulsary and the Joe Bloggs out there should be educated to only buy from tested dogs and that may stop unethical breeders if pups not selling


----------



## bruno

pepsimum said:


> As far as health tests go, I think the KC could do a lot more to help people get all the health tests needed for their breed. I have rang round a number of so called local breed clubs to me (the nearest being about 100 odd miles away) to ask where to get my dogs heart tested only to be told that they do not know and to ring my local vets. I also rang the KC to ask, only to be told to ring the breed clubs and if I could'nt get any info from them, to call back and they would "see what they could do". If these health test were easier to get done, then surely it would become common place to make sure each and every dog is tested, not just the top show dogs. Some of us are not into showing our dogs but still would like to do the right thing and get the correct tests done. Its a bit like the secret service, come on breed clubs, surely you could make more of an effort.


This is exactly the problem the programme will cause..... Mass panic!! Can I ask why you suddenly want to check your dog's heart? Has he/she been showing signs of illness? Are you wanting to breed from the dog?

I am not critisising you for wanting to check your animal however it highlights the fact now people think because they have a pedigree animal it will have serious genetic problems! The chances are if you have not seen any signs of illness and your vet has not detected anything your dog will be absolutely fine and you will have been stressed due to this OVER BIASED programme.

Where were the animals that have been health screened prior to being bred from? Where were the animals who met the breed standard (or were close to it as in truth no animal meets the standard, all will ahve faults of some sort)? Where were the Rhodesian Ridgeback breeders who registered the pups without ridges and sold them as pets? Where were the cavalier breeders who do check their stock?

The answer is they were ALL AT THE SAME SHOWS but speaking to them and showing their good work in improving the various breeds IS NOT GOOD TELEVISION.


----------



## clueless

bruno said:


> This is exactly the problem the programme will cause..... Mass panic!! Can I ask why you suddenly want to check your dog's heart? Has he/she been showing signs of illness? Are you wanting to breed from the dog?
> 
> I am not critisising you for wanting to check your animal however it highlights the fact now people think because they have a pedigree animal it will have serious genetic problems! The chances are if you have not seen any signs of illness and your vet has not detected anything your dog will be absolutely fine and you will have been stressed due to this OVER BIASED programme.
> 
> Where were the animals that have been health screened prior to being bred from? Where were the animals who met the breed standard (or were close to it as in truth no animal meets the standard, all will ahve faults of some sort)? Where were the Rhodesian Ridgeback breeders who registered the pups without ridges and sold them as pets? Where were the cavalier breeders who do check their stock?
> 
> The answer is they were ALL AT THE SAME SHOWS but speaking to them and showing their good work in improving the various breeds IS NOT GOOD TELEVISION.


Very well put and WELCOME


----------



## marlynaveve

Jenny Olley said:


> I haven't seen the show yet, as I was working, and understand Sally-Anne's point that untested dogs may be carriers of certain diseases, and the judge would not know, however if a dog has been tested and found to have a disease, surely it should be declared, and not be eligable to win best in breed, how can it be, it may be the most attractive looking, but it is certainly not a healthy specimen. Of course this may have a knock on effect that people will not have dogs tested.
> 
> When was hip dysplacia and all the other problems first noticed in dogs, and what caused them in the first place ?


If, like in the cat fancy, there were classes and awards for NEUTERED dogs that are known to be carriers of hidden defects or diseases but are otherwise visually good examples of the breed, a lot of the said problems would die out surely. Not everyone who enjoys owning and showing dogs will want to breed so why not neuter. I also believe that a dog or bitch should have a signed vet. check which has to be produced when registering a litter of pups. All stud cats have to have a certificate of entirety registered with the GCCF before a litter of thier kittens can be registered. But of course whatever, there will always be 'back street breeders' that care not a jot about what they are doing.
Mary
x


----------



## Debbie

I dont think anyone is sweeping this under a carpet - but for gods sake hysteria is not going to make an ounze of difference - slagging other people off isnt either.
We all do what we can mostly for the breed we own - how can us show people make a difference in the hundreds of breeds?????
Small steps will count - helping out where you can in your own breed can make a difference - some of us help with rescue mixed breeds too - dont forget about the millions of cross breds in rescue that suffer every day of every year - help to stop that from happening aswell - its not ALL down to us show people - the majority of us DO health test and love our dogs - there will always be a minority that go against the grain - we all do something about it for our own breed - we are active in ways that you wont see.....we dont all wear a big badge telling all what we do and where etc.....I am not in it for recognition - I am in it for my breed....I have been involved with this for years - so a programme comes on the tv for an hour and the world is up in arms slagging us all off for something we have been trying to improve for years - working hard to promote health and temprement above all else! We dont kick and scream and do nothing we have been doing something for years! So it comes as no surprise to see what I did last night - I am not crying and moaning about it on a forum and then switching it off and forgetting about it - I cannot fight the good fight for all breeds - it needs anyone who has a pedigree to become more active and passionatte about their own breed to become involved with health and welfare - get in touch with your breed clubs and DO something - so condem me for not telling you all what I do - I dont want a bloody medal - I do what I do for the love of my breed. Its now gone past it with this subject - its out there just as all the other problems are - you want it to change then do something!!!!!!
My dogs are health tested - they are tret like royalty and are more loved than anything else in my life - I show them so what...that makes me a criminal????????? I dont think so - I dont do what the few people on the programme do - I am not agreeing with what they do - but for gods sake dont condem the few people on here who do show their dogs. They are as loved as your own pets too - we have done nothing wrong - its not swept under the carpet as others are claiming - we dont all need to shout from the roof tops about what we are doing about it. We have been working hard to stamp out the bad practises for years!!!!!


----------



## bruno

JANICE199 said:


> ok.sorry if i'm going on, but i need to know.....take just the german shepherd in last nites programe,,we at home could all see there was something terribly wrong with its legs...why would the kc allow it to be shown in the first place?


It has already been said on this topic that the GSD's shown at Manchester DID NOT WALK LIKE THAT, it was very selective editing. You say "IT HAD SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT'S LEGS" but in fact it was not just one dog shown, there were at least 3 different dogs shown in the space of about 10 seconds of television. Ask yourself.....If the dog was so disabled why not just show the one dog continuously? Another thing that wasn't mentioned was some of those GSD's were in the veteran class so AT least 7 years old!! and believe me they were there enjoying themselves (even though his ears were saying different) getting out in the ring again!!

Disappointingly the show did not mention the lengths the majority of the GSD community have gone through in developing and implementing hip and elbow scoring and blood testing of males for haemophilia which were both serious problems within the breed not that long ago!


----------



## bruno

joe1978 said:


> OK I'm a dog lover (with a Sheltie soft spot) just watched the show and was frankly horrified - I googled and came across this forum. After reading this thread I'm surprised that my reaction does not mirror the consensus of the forum. I'd like you to convince me that the show was sensationalised as a whole forum can't be wrong!
> 
> First of all... my observations from the show:-
> 
> * As to whether cross-bred dogs are likely to be healthier than Pedigree dogs, it makes scientific sense to believe they are. After all they have a wider gene pool. And if any further convincing was needed, insurance companies build their business on assessing risk accurately - if they charge half price insurance for cross-breds compared to Pedigrees you can be damn sure Pedigrees are roughly double as risky to insure.
> 
> will increase.
> 
> * The breeds with these inherent genetic problems experience a worse quality of life than dogs of healthier breeds/cross-breds. I've never thought pugs and pekingeses look like they have great lives - struggling to breath, their noses squished into their face. Be honest, bulldogs aren't healthy and their life expectancy is testament to the fact.
> 
> I fully agree.
> So my question is...
> 
> As dog-lovers, how can you justify continuing to put dogs through the misery of being born into a body that's not fit for purpose, struggling to breathe, struggling to walk? How can the KC be a protector of our dogs if it actively encourages and praises these breeds? Surely, if you really care about dogs, they should be eradicated or reduced as much as possible?
> 
> Can you not see why he called it a parade of mutants? For some of these breeds, mutants is exactly what they are.
> 
> What am I missing?


One major reason that insurance is cheaper for cross breeds is not the costs involved for vet fees but the cost involved to insure the animal against death as the pedigree animal will involve a higher payout to the owners as the cost insured is higher. Same as any other insurance you pay higher premium for a Porsche than you do for a mondeo as it costs more to replace! Insurance cover also generally covers 3rd parties ie. someone sueing you for a bite/damage done by an animal therefore since more claims may arise when dogs are taken regularly to public events such as dog shows/training clubs the premiums. Lets remember when were any of us happy with our latest car insurance quote but we need to pay it, many pedigree dog owners feel they are in the same boat and have to have insurance due to the outlay. The insurance companies probably loved the show as it should get them lots more business now!!

I am afraid you are missing the other side of the story to put it bluntly. I totally agree with your views JUDGING PURELY ON THE PROGRAMME however that is not the whole story. The breeds that can't breathe or breed naturally due to their appearance I cannot defend and wholly agree with you. However other breeds who's appearance has changed does not immediately mean it has changed for the worse. The truth is that the majority of people who show believe THEY TAKE HOME THE BEST DOG IN THE SHOW no matter where it finishes. They don't think ahh well didnt win today so better go and try to breed extreme faults into my dogs so that I can win. (OK there are some but unethical people exist in every corner of the world). Take for example the GSD's shown at Crufts. OK the dog looks different from the picture shown of one from years ago, but that doesnt mean it's wrong. The winner at Crufts is known WORLDWIDE and when shown in Germany and many other countries worldwide not only has to look glamorous but has also prove he is capable of working as he was bred to do. The dog wont even get in the show ring if it fails the working test on the first day! This dog has proven he can do the work he was designed to do so how can anyone say this is worse than before??


----------



## Guest

bruno said:


> It has already been said on this topic that the GSD's shown at Manchester DID NOT WALK LIKE THAT, it was very selective editing. You say "IT HAD SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT'S LEGS" but in fact it was not just one dog shown, there were at least 3 different dogs shown in the space of about 10 seconds of television. Ask yourself.....If the dog was so disabled why not just show the one dog continuously? Another thing that wasn't mentioned was some of those GSD's were in the veteran class so AT least 7 years old!! and believe me they were there enjoying themselves (even though his ears were saying different) getting out in the ring again!!
> 
> Disappointingly the show did not mention the lengths the majority of the GSD community have gone through in developing and implementing hip and elbow scoring and blood testing of males for haemophilia which were both serious problems within the breed not that long ago!


Welcome to the forum.
Great post,I agree with you,the programme did not offer any scienific evidence or facts.It never mentioned what breeders were trying to do with regards to health testing,it was lets shock the public and scare them s***less.


----------



## Debbie

This programme COULD have been so positive - why didnt they take the oppotunity to educate the public - explaining why its a must to buy from health tested parents - show the bad but back it up with the good - proving why the public should take greater care when buying a puppy being a KC reg dog DOES NOT mean its a healthy dog the public should know what tests are required they should make it their business when deciding to buy a puppy. The KC on the other side SHOULD promote health testing MORE than they do - they should refuse registry of untested parents litters. This programme could have really helped the dog world not just show dogs but all dogs - they should have shown the millions of people who breed any dog to any bitch and flog puppies on without a care in the world, they should have shown the millions of people that DO health test and care deeply for the puppies they produce - use the air time to promote health testing and the importance of research into breeds etc...but no they used it to stir up the crap they have - use it to push the public into buying a cross breed as they were told on tv that they are healtheir etc etc....I bet the puppy farmers are rubbing their hands now - knowing that people will be far too scared to buy from a show breeder cos they are all bad!!!!!!
In a few years time the programme will be showing how bad the puppy famers are as the general public will be making complaints about the unhealthy puppies they have bought from them - the circle continues - its about time everyone did something about this ----- The KC need a swift kick up the backside and so do the general public!!!!


----------



## JANICE199

bruno said:


> It has already been said on this topic that the GSD's shown at Manchester DID NOT WALK LIKE THAT, it was very selective editing. You say "IT HAD SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT'S LEGS" but in fact it was not just one dog shown, there were at least 3 different dogs shown in the space of about 10 seconds of television. Ask yourself.....If the dog was so disabled why not just show the one dog continuously? Another thing that wasn't mentioned was some of those GSD's were in the veteran class so AT least 7 years old!! and believe me they were there enjoying themselves (even though his ears were saying different) getting out in the ring again!!
> 
> Disappointingly the show did not mention the lengths the majority of the GSD community have gone through in developing and implementing hip and elbow scoring and blood testing of males for haemophilia which were both serious problems within the breed not that long ago!


sorry but i will disagree on this....i've had 2 german shepherds and i will say mine were FAR better looking than those i saw last night...but hey! mine never had papers.


----------



## Sadwall

sallyanne said:


> Interbreeding or in breeding is not the cause of hereditary conditions,the problems are already present.
> Good reputable ethical breeders will and do test there dogs which they breed from,it's up to puppy buyers to do there research and see all proof of health testing,if it's not available walk away.
> I really hope the programme doesn't damage the breeds and take them backwards,I would like to see a fair and unbiased programme I doubt that will be the case though.
> 
> Maybe a programme on BYB and PF's would be good it may actually go someway to educating the public on where and how to buy a well bred heath tested puppy.


I agree with some of what you Sallyanne but I don't think it feasible to put ALL the responsibility on the puppy buyer. We rely on the professional breeders to advise us (although nowadays how are you supposed to tell a reputable professional from a money maker - they all walk the walk and talk the talk).

We have a beautiful border collie bitch, when we purchased her we saw all the necessary docs and hip scores of parents (as you cannot get hip scores from puppies that young). My girl was diagnosed with hip dysplasia when she was 3, we were devastated. I have spoken to veterinary and oesteopedic specialists who say this is definitely an hereditary disease (and very uncommon in border collies!!!), they were surprised both the parents had clear hip scores (we can think what we like there) but said it can lay dormant in a generation but the gene will continue to be passed down and it is a lottery which generation and which puppy it attacks.

If breeders had sires and mates that were regulated with clean bills of health, this, and many other diseases and deformities would not be passed on. Also if I wanted blood tests, DNA tests, eye tests, heart tests etc etc done on a puppy: a) the breeder would say on yer' bike, b) it would cost a fortune and c) its not fair on the puppy at that age and wouldn't be necessary if health tests were regulated in the first place. Look at how house buying has developed, instead of every potential purchaser having to get the same survey done, the vendor now has to have it done once for all to view - makes perfect sense!

I'm not saying it's all breeders, I'm not blaming show people and I'm not saying the answer is quick and easy. But I am saying the KC have raised themselves into this position of responsibility who the public look up to and trust, they've taken the kudos and our money- they should be doing something about it. AND with the support of the public buying from only registered health checked breeders it has to be a positive way forward. We owe it to our pets.


----------



## JANICE199

sallyanne said:


> Welcome to the forum.
> Great post,I agree with you,the programme did not offer any scienific evidence or facts.It never mentioned what breeders were trying to do with regards to health testing,it was lets shock the public and scare them s***less.


sallyanne i hope you know by now i DO respect your posts...but i cant say that with the gsd anyone can show or tell me i was wrong in what i saw...i love the breed i've had 2...and i'm proud to say niether of them looked like those i saw last night.
i might add.i'm so confused now about the whole thing.


----------



## Jo P

Well Alan you've certainly stirred up a hornets nest here - frankly I'm shocked by your words. I dont think any of the responsible, ethical breeders on here have at any time said they condone what is going on. You, yourself, said that you were going to look into necessary health tests and stud out your dog - well is he breed standard? How do you know? And would that be breed standard as set by the BC clubs and adhered to by the KC?? There are many many people working tirelessly for the health of dogs - and dont tell me that the RSPCA is one of them cos we know after recent threads on here they are nothing to write home about.
And as for people ill treating dogs at shows - well welcome to the real world - animal abuse goes on all over the country every single day - we are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers but on the whole that is a load of old ****** - you only need to be involved on the fringes of rescue to see that


----------



## Jo P

Sadwall said:


> I agree with some of what you Sallyanne but I don't think it feasible to put ALL the responsibility on the puppy buyer. We rely on the professional breeders to advise us (although nowadays how are you supposed to tell a reputable professional from a money maker - they all walk the walk and talk the talk).
> 
> We have a beautiful border collie bitch, when we purchased her we saw all the necessary docs and hip scores of parents (as you cannot get hip scores from puppies that young). My girl was diagnosed with hip dysplasia when she was 3, we were devastated. I have spoken to veterinary and oesteopedic specialists who say this is definitely an hereditary disease (and very uncommon in border collies!!!), they were surprised both the parents had clear hip scores (we can think what we like there) but said it can lay dormant in a generation but the gene will continue to be passed down and it is a lottery which generation and which puppy it attacks.
> 
> If breeders had sires and mates that were regulated with clean bills of health, this, and many other diseases and deformities would not be passed on. Also if I wanted blood tests, DNA tests, eye tests, heart tests etc etc done on a puppy: a) the breeder would say on yer' bike, b) it would cost a fortune and c) its not fair on the puppy at that age and wouldn't be necessary if health tests were regulated in the first place. Look at how house buying has developed, instead of every potential purchaser having to get the same survey done, the vendor now has to have it done once for all to view - makes perfect sense!
> 
> I'm not saying it's all breeders, I'm not blaming show people and I'm not saying the answer is quick and easy. But I am saying the KC have raised themselves into this position of responsibility who the public look up to and trust, they've taken the kudos and our money- they should be doing something about it. AND with the support of the public buying from only registered health checked breeders it has to be a positive way forward. We owe it to our pets.


I have a friend who bought her Rott from hip scored parents, where the last 5 generations had been scored too - all scoring below the breed recommended score of 13 - her boys hips were scored at 78!!! Now either the Vet panel who were doing the scoring were hungover and couldnt see straight or HD can just crop up. It also has to be said environmental factors can play a huge part - not in my friends case as they were very experienced large breed owners who had taken all the necessary precautions re exercise/stairs etc


----------



## minnie

out of interest why do we breed gsd's to have such low hips? imo they look better with a streight back lol


----------



## bruno

JANICE199 said:


> sorry but i will disagree on this....i've had 2 german shepherds and i will say mine were FAR better looking than those i saw last night...but hey! mine never had papers.


Janice I am sure your dogs were beautifull  however this opens up a completely different debate.

There are two distinct GSD's the English type which I suspect you had and the Germanic type which were featured in the show. Both types are the ideal type in their own community and both have pro's and con's and both certainly have genetic problems. In fact if you go with what the show was saying you would have to say your preferred type, the English, are in more trouble as their genetic pool is confined to very few animals bred within the UK between the 1940's and today whereas the Germanic type has a far wider gene pool with numerous animals entering from the continent almost daily!!There is lots of debate about splitting the breed at present but in reality it doesnt matter if the breeder of either type is unethical!!


----------



## JANICE199

minnie said:


> out of interest why do we breed gsd's to have such low hips? imo they look better with a streight back lol


minnie very good question in my oppion...they should not mess with nature..i've had 2 gsd and i'm proud to say again mine where better looking.


----------



## bee112

original GSDs have a slight sloping back but the ones on last night were really exaggerated... the dog was walking pigeon toe'd.. and 7 yrs old isnt that old for a healthy well bred GSD


----------



## Guest

clueless said:


> I am one of these Scum people you are talking about Alan 2 shows does not make a person kowledgable to make a statement like that imo. As some members have said there is good and bad breeders out there. I do not condone the contents of that programme, I thought it was sad, but pinpointing show people only was wrong in my eyes.
> How many ill pet bred litters do you think there may be out there?? No tests done etc... same as some show or KC dogs.
> How many pet breeders, byb, puppyfarms are concerned after the pups are sold??? You have too look at the big picture if you wish to condemn IMO


Are you for real? I didn't say everyone at shows were scum, if I did that would have included myself and the people I went to the shows with who have been showing for years. I nearly didn't even make it to the second show the first left that bad an impression on me. My first reaction when I got there was I wish I'd have come in my own car and then I could have gone straight back home. First impresssions are everything, as they say. This programme has just highlighted to me that my initial feelings were right. 

For the record I don't associate with byb or puppy farmers either. If you take a look back I was actually the one that reminded people that it wasn't just the KC reg dogs that had these problems. I have also said in more than one post that there are good and bad breeders.


----------



## minnie

may i ask weather this is something we should be falling out over? from what i can see this is getting very personal and it might just be time to stop it?.


----------



## bruno

JANICE199 said:


> minnie very good question in my oppion...they should not mess with nature..i've had 2 gsd and i'm proud to say again mine where better looking.


Please do not take this as a personal attack, it is merely a comment on the above.

First we have to remember no dog has been created by nature, they did not develop through natural selection of wild animals. Every breed has been manipulated by man since day one. I am passionate about not messing with nature but people have to realise the difference. This does not mean we can do what we like with certain breeds because we (humans) created them but I am sure when the first labs/spaniels/shepherds etc were developed people thought WHAT THE H*LL HAVE THEY CREATED THAT MONSTER FOR!!

Secondly stating you are "proud to say your GSD's looked better" is why we have problems. Looking at animals cannot determine their suitability for breeding! Animals can look wonderfull, in fat the cavalier that won best in show but was revealed to have serious genetic problems was stunning and probably did look the best dog there! That does not mean we should perpetuate its lines! More problems are caused because someone thinks their dog looks better and breeding from it than someone who recognises a dogs faults and tries to correct these faults (I am not talking about hereditary life threatening diseases here) through carefull selection of a mate.


----------



## bruno

bee112 said:


> original GSDs have a slight sloping back but the ones on last night were really exaggerated... the dog was walking pigeon toe'd.. and 7 yrs old isnt that old for a healthy well bred GSD


Bee,

You are quite right that GSD's originally had sloped backs and yes it has changed but as a previous poster said the ones shown last night did not truly reflect how these actual dogs were they were a snapshot of a couple of seconds. Surely we have to accept what someone that saw with their own eyes says as opposed to a TV programme!

The dog was pigeon toed.... well yes again I agree but the whole point of showing is enjoyment, not everyone will have the same quality of dogs otherwise it would be very boring. Everyone starts with an animal and tries to improve on it. I must also say being pigeon toed is hardly in the same bracket as dogs being unable to breathe or having seizures due to genetic faults and deliberate breeding of traits. I have never heard of a dog dying or being in severe distress through having pigeon toes.

7 is not old but bear in mind the equivelant is a fifty year old human, I dont know about you but I dont think I will be quite as toned at 50 than I was at 20!! My post was meant to show that the dog was there for it and the owners to have a bit of FUN. I am sure they never went with thoughts of winning top honours. Surely thats better than the millions of pet dogs stuck in a house all day not even going out for a decent walk!!


----------



## JANICE199

bruno said:


> Please do not take this as a personal attack, it is merely a comment on the above.
> 
> First we have to remember no dog has been created by nature, they did not develop through natural selection of wild animals. Every breed has been manipulated by man since day one. I am passionate about not messing with nature but people have to realise the difference. This does not mean we can do what we like with certain breeds because we (humans) created them but I am sure when the first labs/spaniels/shepherds etc were developed people thought WHAT THE H*LL HAVE THEY CREATED THAT MONSTER FOR!!
> 
> Secondly stating you are "proud to say your GSD's looked better" is why we have problems. Looking at animals cannot determine their suitability for breeding! Animals can look wonderfull, in fat the cavalier that won best in show but was revealed to have serious genetic problems was stunning and probably did look the best dog there! That does not mean we should perpetuate its lines! More problems are caused because someone thinks their dog looks better and breeding from it than someone who recognises a dogs faults and tries to correct these faults (I am not talking about hereditary life threatening diseases here) through carefull selection of a mate.


ok puuting what i wrote into context
what i was trying to say was this.i would have both of my gsd again today if only...but going but what i saw last night the gsd were far from good."in my oppion"....but those we saw last night were to "breed standard?".and for looks....


----------



## Janee

I am Jo Public.

I watched the show. 

These are my impressions:

1. There was academic support for the findings - both genetic specialists and vetinary surgeons working within academia. This appears to have been ignored in this thread.

2. I agree that this show did not give a balanced view - it ignored those breeders that are ethical, test for health and genetic conditions before either breeding or selling progeny to the buying public/other breeders.

3. However, show standards demonstratively showed that breeds had been altered within a timespan of approx 70 years to the detriment of the breed. Who endorses these standards? 

My impression was that it was the KC on advice of breed clubs.

4. Whatever you might think, the programme demonstrated that best of breed, champions etc were judged as such even though they had health problems, which may or may not be visible, but were not checked for as part of the standards. 

5. Whatever you may think, breeders who seemed to be well respected amongst other breeders were breeding from dogs with hereditary/health problems which had been diagnosed.

Is there a conspiracy of silence?

6. Whatever you may think, it took an outsider to publicise the hereditary problem with spaniels. Where were the ethical breeders supporting her? There was one who was also an official within KC (?) who agreed with her and was prepared to express her views in this programme. But she 'threatened' name and shame, but why hasn't this been taken on board by the KC or by the breed club?

7. May I ask what your impression was of the show judge of the beagle who kept on about 'furniture'? Is this typical of judges?

8. Whatever you may think, having show champions increases breeder kudos. More champions you have the more you 'MAY' (not saying you will) ask for stud fees, breeding puppies, pet puppies. This was implied rather than expressly said within the programme.

(I know that some people show for the fun and because they have animals that do enjoy it, but that doesn't make the above statement any less true).

So what are ethical breeders going to do about the bad elements in their midst? What are your suggestions?

(BYB and puppy farms are a diversion  )


----------



## Guest

I also want to know what peeps think about the breeds that suffer because of they way they have been bred ie pugs and pekinese/ This cannot be cured by health testing - this is because of humans wanting the dog to look like that. And the KC are condoning it. That is very wrong.


----------



## jackson

Sadwall said:


> I agree with some of what you Sallyanne but I don't think it feasible to put ALL the responsibility on the puppy buyer. We rely on the professional breeders to advise us (although nowadays how are you supposed to tell a reputable professional from a money maker - they all walk the walk and talk the talk).
> 
> We have a beautiful border collie bitch, when we purchased her we saw all the necessary docs and hip scores of parents (as you cannot get hip scores from puppies that young). My girl was diagnosed with hip dysplasia when she was 3, we were devastated. I have spoken to veterinary and oesteopedic specialists who say this is definitely an hereditary disease (and very uncommon in border collies!!!), they were surprised both the parents had clear hip scores (we can think what we like there) but said it can lay dormant in a generation but the gene will continue to be passed down and it is a lottery which generation and which puppy it attacks.
> 
> If breeders had sires and mates that were regulated with clean bills of health, this, and many other diseases and deformities would not be passed on. Also if I wanted blood tests, DNA tests, eye tests, heart tests etc etc done on a puppy: a) the breeder would say on yer' bike, b) it would cost a fortune and c) its not fair on the puppy at that age and wouldn't be necessary if health tests were regulated in the first place. Look at how house buying has developed, instead of every potential purchaser having to get the same survey done, the vendor now has to have it done once for all to view - makes perfect sense!
> 
> I'm not saying it's all breeders, I'm not blaming show people and I'm not saying the answer is quick and easy. But I am saying the KC have raised themselves into this position of responsibility who the public look up to and trust, they've taken the kudos and our money- they should be doing something about it. AND with the support of the public buying from only registered health checked breeders it has to be a positive way forward. We owe it to our pets.


You were completely mis-infomed by your vet/specialist.

I breed Goldens, a breed that has to be hip scored, so it is my business to know as much about hip dysplacia as possible, in order to try and prevent it in puppies I breed. Recent research has shown that environmental factors, such as food and exercise strongly contribute to hip dysplacia/low/high hip scores.

As a breeder (a good one!) you do what you can to prevent problems in puppies you breed. For me, they are like my children, I hold them all very dear to me. I have all the required checks for my breed and also have the vet check the puppies over before they go go their new homes, which icludes basic sight testing, hearing tests, heart etc. However, there are no guarantees the pups will never have a thing wrong, we are dealing with a live animal, after all.


----------



## akoshi

i completley agree with you it is wrong. 

i agree with some of the opinions you have posted but after watching that it just shows how crufts only want the best dog because take the rhodesian ridgeback that they showed the breeder pts some of the healtheir puppie because they didnt have the ridge and she stated if they havent got the ridge they aint a ridgeback but they come from the same champion lines it isnt the puppies fault the puppies lives are ruined beofre they had begun it is sickingin about the extent that people will go to, to get the perfect show dog, any person would of taken thoughs dogs on she also stated that she would rather them pts than go to a person who will fight them, but she could of sold them half the price she was selling though puppies with the ridge but no she would rather put them to sleep.
many thanks for reading
kindest regards 
jessica and Luna
p.s i am not just picking on rhodesian ridge back breeders it is accuring in all breeds not happy until the perfect dog is born
i am not suggesting all breeders are like this.


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> ok puuting what i wrote into context
> what i was trying to say was this.i would have both of my gsd again today if only...but going but what i saw last night the gsd were far from good."in my oppion"....but those we saw last night were to "breed standard?".and for looks....


i thort thier backlegs looked bloody terrible...it was like they was gonna calaps any minute...the way they bowed in was discusting....didnt look healthy at all, no wonda they get hip probs.


----------



## akoshi

it isnt fair on anybreed that they show really it is just all competative, just to get rosettes, certifiactes so, some can be able to breed. i dont mind breeding but if they were all health checked hips,eyes ect


----------



## bee112

Eolabeo said:


> i thort thier backlegs looked bloody terrible...it was like they was gonna calaps any minute...the way they bowed in was discusting....didnt look healthy at all, no wonda they get hip probs.


Put it this way Loe, my parents have a rescue GSD, very poorly bred and has hip dysplacia and she does not walk like that!


----------



## bruno

bee112 said:


> Put it this way Loe, my parents have a rescue GSD, very poorly bred and has hip dysplacia and she does not walk like that!


This is my point ..... you cannot look at a dog and decide it's suitability for breeding. I know the dogs that were on the show and know for a fact that they are hip scored and well within the breed average and suitable for breeding with.( This is decided by vets and geneticists and not showers/breeders). I am not saying here they should be bred from as the suitability of the female has also to be taken into consideration.You generally cannot tell a dog with hip dysplasia by the way it looks. Those dogs had long hocks and had absolutely nothing to do with their hips however to the general public because it is at the back end it is hip problems!!


----------



## Guest

bruno said:


> Those dogs had long hocks and had absolutely nothing to do with their hips however to the general public because it is at the back end it is hip problems!!


Hips or hocks it still can't be healthy!?! I certainly wouldn't buy a pup with parents that looked like that.


----------



## Guest

bee112 said:


> Put it this way Loe, my parents have a rescue GSD, very poorly bred and has hip dysplacia and she does not walk like that!


Yes i understand wat u are saying...but surely u have to admit them dogs legs looked terrible???

i bet if u put them dogs wiv legs like that up aginst the normal legged gsd's i bet ya them dodgy legged type would have more probs then the normal legged type.


----------



## bee112

Eolabeo said:


> Yes i understand wat u are saying...but surely u have to admit them dogs legs looked terrible???
> 
> i bet if u put them dogs wiv legs like that up aginst the normal legged gsd's i bet ya them dodgy legged type would have more probs then the normal legged type.


Yeh thats what I mean.. we have a poorly GSD with bad hip dyaplacia and she does not walk as bad as the ones on TV last night.. and they are supposd to be breed standard!


----------



## clueless

ajshep1984 said:


> Are you for real? I didn't say everyone at shows were scum, if I did that would have included myself and the people I went to the shows with who have been showing for years. I nearly didn't even make it to the second show the first left that bad an impression on me. My first reaction when I got there was I wish I'd have come in my own car and then I could have gone straight back home. First impresssions are everything, as they say. This programme has just highlighted to me that my initial feelings were right.
> 
> For the record I don't associate with byb or puppy farmers either. If you take a look back I was actually the one that reminded people that it wasn't just the KC reg dogs that had these problems. I have also said in more than one post that there are good and bad breeders.


Full of Scum was your words If I am there and the show is full of Scum then thats what I am


----------



## Guest

bee112 said:


> Yeh thats what I mean.. we have a poorly GSD with bad hip dyaplacia and she does not walk as bad as the ones on TV last night.. and they are supposd to be breed standard!


Half of them would know their arce from their elbow if it slapped em in the face lol.

Shame all these poor animals ave gotta suffer tho aint it  all becoz the kennell club go by the so called breed standerd.

Last nite was good tho...wen they showed the pictures of german shepherds...one from years ago ( the origanal ones ) and ones of today, yet they was still saying the ones of today are the breed standered???? wtf ?


----------



## jackson

bee112 said:


> Yeh thats what I mean.. we have a poorly GSD with bad hip dyaplacia and she does not walk as bad as the ones on TV last night.. and they are supposd to be breed standard!


The thing is, I think it was cleverly worded. The breed standard Clueless posted was not what was shown on the programme last night. The GSD was shown, and they kept saying it was at a championship show, then they showed a picture of a red rosette. They didn't actually show that dog winning.

Also, at the same shows, for example where they showed the Ridgeback breeder who was saying she'd cull puppies without ridges, there would have been plenty of breeders who tested for DS and who wouldn't cull puppies born ridgeless, yet they didn't show any of them. Wouldn't make good TV, would it? 

Also, I don't know much about Ridgebacks, but someone who does breed them on another forum (and who sells her ridgeless pups to pet home) is sayind that DS is seen in ridgeles dogs aswell. A vet on another forum I use is saying that that is entirely possible.


----------



## Guest

clueless said:


> Full of Scum was your words If I am there and the show is full of Scum then thats what I am


If that's how you want to take it then go for it but I did not say everyone at shows were scum. Like you have so kindly pointed out I said "shows are full of scum" and I stand by that, the sort of people that were backing the BOB Cavalier are the kind of people I am refering to.

I found this interesting: Emma Milne Presentation


----------



## JANICE199

mrsdusty said:


> I also want to know what peeps think about the breeds that suffer because of they way they have been bred ie pugs and pekinese/ This cannot be cured by health testing - this is because of humans wanting the dog to look like that. And the KC are condoning it. That is very wrong.


thats what i'm on about mrsdusty with the gsd of today for "showing"...
my idea is.if the kc reject these dogs which in my oppion they should, then people wont be able to sale them as kc reg.
many people think kc reg is something to go by ie. a standard, well i dont like their standards. sorry folks


----------



## jackson

JANICE199 said:


> thats what i'm on about mrsdusty with the gsd of today for "showing"...
> my idea is.if the kc reject these dogs which in my oppion they should, then people wont be able to sale them as kc reg.
> many people think kc reg is something to go by ie. a standard, well i dont like their standards. sorry folks


Janice, the same GSD's you are talking about, inclusing the Crufts champion have to undergo working tests before they even get into the ring in Germany and some other countries. That shows they are fit and healthy to do a job.

A few seconds of footage cannot give someone enough information to create an informed opinion. As I also said above, the dog shown wa smerely at a show, it certainly didn't fit the breed standard Clueless posted, according tot he few seconds of footage shown, and it wasn't even shown winning anything. ANY dog that is registered can enter a championship show, regrdless of quality.


----------



## clueless

ajshep1984 said:


> If that's how you want to take it then go for it but I did not say everyone at shows were scum. Like you have so kindly pointed out I said "shows are full of scum" and I stand by that, the sort of people that were backing the BOB Cavalier are the kind of people I am refering to.
> 
> I found this interesting: Emma Milne Presentation


Okay Dokeynotice the tongue
That is a lot of reading, but will save it. I cannot argue re malformation of certain breeds as it does not affect my breed. My Breed has actually improved over the years especially conformation wise


----------



## clueless

JANICE199 said:


> thats what i'm on about mrsdusty with the gsd of today for "showing"...
> my idea is.if the kc reject these dogs which in my oppion they should, then people wont be able to sale them as kc reg.
> many people think kc reg is something to go by ie. a standard, well i dont like their standards. sorry folks


The Standard I posted does mention the fact about over angulation so imo nothing wrong with the Standard


----------



## JANICE199

jackson said:


> Janice, the same GSD's you are talking about, inclusing the Crufts champion have to undergo working tests before they even get into the ring in Germany and some other countries. That shows they are fit and healthy to do a job.
> 
> A few seconds of footage cannot give someone enough information to create an informed opinion. As I also said above, the dog shown wa smerely at a show, it certainly didn't fit the breed standard Clueless posted, according tot he few seconds of footage shown, and it wasn't even shown winning anything. ANY dog that is registered can enter a championship show, regrdless of quality.


so are you telling me what i saw was'nt for real? i dont believe that for one min.
call me stupid,blind whatever. but i do believe what i saw was for real.
an animal suffering for few seconds when not necessary is wrong.
people can make all the excuses they like to defend that programe but it want wash with me..my personal oppion and i'll stand by it!


----------



## jackson

JANICE199 said:


> so are you telling me what i saw was'nt for real? i dont believe that for one min.
> call me stupid,blind whatever. but i do believe what i saw was for real.
> an animal suffering for few seconds when not necessary is wrong.
> people can make all the excuses they like to defend that programe but it want wash with me..my personal oppion and i'll stand by it!


I am saying that I wouldn't put much past the programme makers, the thing was a witch hunt and little to do with fact. Things can be cleverly edited.

The programme makers showed cavvies having attacks of syringomyelia, looking in considerable pai, yet they kept on the collars abd leads, known to aggravate the problem? They showed a boxer having fits under lighting, lighting is known to aggravate fitting and they would have helped the dog by turning the lights off. Of course, that would mean they had to stop filming.  Fits can happen in any dog, not just boxers and not just pedigree dogs. The boxers owners were clearly not that concerned as they also had a younger boxer/boxer puppy.

I am not saying there are no problems, particularly in the 'extreme' breeds, but things are nowhere near as bad as that programme would have us believe.


----------



## Guest

jackson said:


> I am not saying there are no problems, particularly in the 'extreme' breeds, but things are nowhere near as bad as that programme would have us believe.


I don't believe that for one second. I've just had a scout around some other forums and so far this is the only one where people are actually defending the Kennel Club!?! For the life of me I can't understand why!?!


----------



## clueless

ajshep1984 said:


> I don't believe that for one second. I've just had a scout around some other forums and so far this is the only one where people are actually defending the Kennel Club!?! For the life of me I can't understand why!?!


I am not defending the KC I am defending Good Breeders and Good Show people not the ones that were shown on that programme


----------



## Guest

I think many of us including myself have admitted the KC can do better.

Veteran dogs which were shown in last nights programme are for dogs over 7 years old,how old were these dogs?Again the programme failed to mention that.
The disease in CKC is widely known about,I knew about it,yet I don't own the breed.

Only the best dogs should be bred from,I still stand by that.

Last nights programme for me was on Par with reporting done by the big national newspapers,i.e The Sun!!!!


----------



## Guest

i dint watch it but i will see if its on demand or something sounds worth a look to get this reaction


----------



## archiebaby

i would just like to add that i have 3 pugs who are all fit and healthy and tear around our field like little lunatics!!! their breathing is fine, the weight of the pug has a lot to do with its breathing also and the one in the show ring last night was breathing really heavy just standing on the table!!! and he was a really heavy looking pug. i defy anyone to walk down the side of our field without getting harrased by 3 very healthy pugs!!! they can give my sons staffs a run for the money as well!!!


----------



## clueless

On another point How many threads on here have been about designer cross breeds. Well IMO Be prepared for a whole lot more appearing from numpties jumping on the band wagon


For Sale Lovely Cross *******/****** healthy hybrid, much healthier than your Pedigree dogs as seen on TV

Also Breed Rescue centres are going to suffer tremendously and dogs will be dumped etc... especially the dogs mentioned on that program


----------



## archiebaby

mrsdusty said:


> I also want to know what peeps think about the breeds that suffer because of they way they have been bred ie pugs and pekinese/ This cannot be cured by health testing - this is because of humans wanting the dog to look like that. And the KC are condoning it. That is very wrong.


my little pugs do not suffer at all, they are very fit and agile and their breathing is fine, but i do not allow them to get overweight


----------



## Jenny Olley

ajshep1984 said:


> If that's how you want to take it then go for it but I did not say everyone at shows were scum. Like you have so kindly pointed out I said "shows are full of scum" and I stand by that, the sort of people that were backing the BOB Cavalier are the kind of people I am refering to.
> 
> I found this interesting: Emma Milne Presentation


I found that interesting too alan.


----------



## Guest

clueless said:


> On another point How many threads on here have been about designer cross breeds. Well IMO Be prepared for a whole lot more appearing from numpties jumping on the band wagon
> 
> For Sale Lovely Cross *******/****** healthy hybrid, much healthier than your Pedigree dogs as seen on TV
> 
> Also Breed Rescue centres are going to suffer tremendously and dogs will be dumped etc... especially the dogs mentioned on that program


exactly...and i bumped into one of them numpties down town today, someone my daughta knows, he has a cross lab/jackrussell ( he said lol )
and he was going on about the program last nite and how pedigree dogs are not healthy  he said gimmi a mongrol anyday....i so wernt botherd to try explain more coz i knew it wernt making a blind bit of difference...so i just stroked he dog wile ma daughta was chatting.

no doubt alot more uneducated people will see this program and be all for the half breeds becoz of the things they showed/said on last nites program.

to me wat this program did last nite was give all these half chat breeders a chance to cash in on half chat dogs.


----------



## Debbie

We have all agreed the KC need a kick up the backside - various threads all around this forum have us all complaining about the KC in one way or another.
Various breeds need help - my breed have bad hips and very bad movement - other breeds have other problems - the ethical amongst us are improving the health problems by careful breeding plans and research etc.....
Last nights programme showed the public the very bad side of things - the people who dont care about their breed - the people who will do anything for money - thankfully it is a small minority I dont associate myself with those kinds of people - but believe me there are plenty of good ethical breeders who are doing all they can to eradicate these health issues - breed clubs are trying to change the breed standards to help make their breed healthy - but there will always be a handful of people who will do as they please regardless of what a breed club says or the KC say. Who can hit home to those kinds of people that its wrong???? We all try in our own way to prevent bad breeding - thats pedigree or mixed breed.
We can all google for breeds of dog that are to the extreme - they are out there for people to see - it goes on in front of your eyes. Any dog being overweight will suffer in one way or another - Archiebaby owns pugs and has said they are fit and healthy - not allowed to be overweight etc...that should go for any dog pedigree or not....sometimes its as s imple as how someone treats their dog - do they allow the dog to become overweight resulting in a disorder - do they cage it up and not walk it etc maybe resulting in bad hips - do they feed it crap - this could lead to any amount of problems - they are not all genetic.
So what are people going to do then??? Anyone been in touch with their breed club concerning the breed standard or the health tests, has anyone been in touch with the KC to complain about the many things we saw last night?


----------



## clueless

Will be a sorry dog world immediately and in the near future as I said re rescue and dumped dogs etc...as that programme was scare tactics for probably most of the public with Pets. IMO They will start to panic if they have the breeds shown on that programme and may do the wrong thing


----------



## Guest

i just so wished they could of made the program alot betta.

like showing the hereditary problems in breeds...and how they can be improved wiv health testing...and then maybe show the effects of a dog that is unhealth tested, maybe that way it would of scared people into health testing 

instead to me they made pedigree dogs look like they have all sorts wrong wiv them, it made them look bad wen at the end of the day, their are decent breeders out their who are breeding healthy pups nd doing things the rite way.


----------



## Debbie

Eolabeo said:


> i just so wished they could of made the program alot betta.
> 
> like showing the hereditary problems in breeds...and how they can be improved wiv health testing...and then maybe show the effects of a dog that is unhealth tested, maybe that way it would of scared people into health testing
> 
> instead to me they made pedigree dogs look like they have all sorts wrong wiv them, it made them look bad wen at the end of the day, their are decent breeders out their who are breeding healthy pups nd doing things the rite way.


Well said Loe


----------



## Guest

Debbie said:


> Well said Loe


Thats a first for me aint it lol  i shall not forget this moment  lol


----------



## Guest

Eolabeo said:


> Thats a first for me aint it lol  i shall not forget this moment  lol


All your awards are going to ya head woman


----------



## bruno

JANICE199 said:


> so are you telling me what i saw was'nt for real? i dont believe that for one min.
> call me stupid,blind whatever. but i do believe what i saw was for real.
> an animal suffering for few seconds when not necessary is wrong.
> people can make all the excuses they like to defend that programe but it want wash with me..my personal oppion and i'll stand by it!


Janice,

The point is you didn't see it, you saw an extract of the days events in a TV programme designed, in the programme makers own words, to shock people.

I am afraid if you believe everything shown on TV programmes we will all be in a sad state of affairs. On a topical note did Gary Glitter not appear on TV along with some of his associates and say he was unaware the girls in Thailand were underage. Oh well dont bother with the Sex Ofeenders register when you come back Gary it must be true.....it was on the Telly!!


----------



## clueless

Eolabeo said:


> Thats a first for me aint it lol  i shall not forget this moment  lol


----------



## Guest

mrsdusty said:


> All your awards are going to ya head woman


Oh i didnt realize lol 


clueless said:


>


worship lol  hehehe.


----------



## clueless

bruno said:


> Janice,
> 
> The point is you didn't see it, you saw an extract of the days events in a TV programme designed, in the programme makers own words, to shock people.
> 
> I am afraid if you believe everything shown on TV programmes we will all be in a sad state of affairs. On a topical note did Gary Glitter not appear on TV along with some of his associates and say he was unaware the girls in Thailand were underage. Oh well dont bother with the Sex Ofeenders register when you come back Gary it must be true.....it was on the Telly!!


Yip I always wondered who cleans up the Cutting Room floor, I for one would not like that job


----------



## bruno

ajshep1984 said:


> I don't believe that for one second. I've just had a scout around some other forums and so far this is the only one where people are actually defending the Kennel Club!?! For the life of me I can't understand why!?!


I don't see anybody defending the KC. They certainly have a lot of work to do, however it is like all orginisations, things cant happen overnight. They, along with many individual breed clubs, are trying to improve breed. They have taken steps regarding showing for example banning illegally docked animals from being shown (which is another debate altogether and anybody that has seen a working dog with severe tail/back injuries that could be prevented through docking will testify it's short sightedness).

I think the point is breeders need to take more responsibility themselves. So what if the KC doesnt REQUIRE you to health screen your BREEDING stock, this doesnt mean you shouldnt ETHICALLY do it. The programme indicated that the KC dont require it so nobody bothers.....this simply is not an accurate account.

I do say BREEDING stock as opposed to show stock as in reality there is no need to screen SHOW dogs if they are not being bred from. A few pages ago on this topic I noticed a comment that I think cat breeders can show in a neutered class.....this is a great idea. People can show their animals that look good and have fun but there would be no worry of their genetic make up entering the pool of breeding animals.


----------



## canuckjill

I'm finding this very interesting and wish I could see the program but it's only available in the UK. I do agree that some dogs are bred for extremes and am happy that everyone here seems to be all for the health tests and the betterment of their individual breeds ...Jill


----------



## Debbie

Eolabeo said:


> Thats a first for me aint it lol  i shall not forget this moment  lol




I was rather proud of ya too


----------



## cav

Eolabeo said:


> Thats a first for me aint it lol  i shall not forget this moment  lol


hehe you make me laugh


----------



## Guest

Debbie said:


> I was rather proud of ya too


u will give me a big head lol  


cavrooney said:


> hehe you make me laugh


lmao  look at it wile u can, coz i doubt it will happen again lol.


----------



## cav

Eolabeo said:


> u will give me a big head lol
> 
> lmao  look at it wile u can, coz i doubt it will happen again lol.


hey you dont put ya self down ......... i think you offer good advice and you are always honest so their


----------



## Guest

cavrooney said:


> hey you dont put ya self down ......... i think you offer good advice and you are always honest so their


Ohhhhh thx


----------



## clueless

cavrooney said:


> hey you dont put ya self down ......... i think you offer good advice and you are always honest so their


Have you been drinking


----------



## cav

clueless said:


> Have you been drinking


yes i needed a drink tonight with watchin that bloody programe last night it realy upset me im a softie with animals


----------



## bruno

JANICE199 said:


> so are you telling me what i saw was'nt for real? i dont believe that for one min.
> call me stupid,blind whatever. but i do believe what i saw was for real.
> an animal suffering for few seconds when not necessary is wrong.
> people can make all the excuses they like to defend that programe but it want wash with me..my personal oppion and i'll stand by it!


Regarding the GSD shown and slated here by many people please consider the following

The GSD who won at crufts does have a high working qualification, one I doubt most dogs on here would be capable of achieving, he has also been hip/elbow xrayed under the SV (German breed club)and achieved his KKL (breed survey) this is not just about conformation but also temperement. I didnt see him go around at crufts but have seen him in a football stadium and on a natural surface there is nothing wrong with his movement, remember this was the first show that he had ever competed in an inside enviroment. Again the video footage of the shows had been edited just to show the bad parts.

To even be allowed to be shown under the German system, where this dog has come from, he had to compete in the AD, a 12mile endurance test, ask yourselves how many of your dogs are capable of gaiting(thats gaiting not walking) that far? Is this indicative of a dog or a breed which many on here are calling cripples? Then he would do the BH, then SchH levels 1,2 & 3, be guntested, breed surveyed etc How many of your dogs could compete in work at these levels? how many would freak out at the sound of a gun? how many can a complete stranger walk over to without the dog either being aggressive or shying away?

My points above merely try to demonstrate that the footage was shockingly cut in order to fit into their programme. No dog can do this type of work consistantly week after week and year after year without being in good health. To say this dog was suffering is again wholly innacurate and typical scaremongering.

A lot of people say they prefer the old type of GSD well the original shepherd was smaller and only weighed 26kg for an adult male! This is the original dog not the ones remembered from the 80's who often were crippled with HD and epilepsy amongst many others. This is the original type of dog so should we go all the way back to that standard? That would of course mean the dogs you favour yourself, which you imply were better than todays dogs, should also not be bred from as they are far heavier, taller, flatter backed and shorter in the legs than the original!!The picture the KC have on the breed standard is a very poor example of a pet bred dog that no doubt will not have been health tested. If you care to look back and see the dogs from yesterday even as early as 1960 the English lines were way over size and had dippy backs, and these are Champions i am talking about.

Before critising the good breeders of today remember they are trying to breed out the defects and genetics conditions that the breeders of yesterday bred into the breed.


----------



## cav

bruno said:


> Regarding the GSD shown and slated here by many people please consider the following
> 
> The GSD who won at crufts does have a high working qualification, one I doubt most dogs on here would be capable of achieving, he has also been hip/elbow xrayed under the SV (German breed club)and achieved his KKL (breed survey) this is not just about conformation but also temperement. I didnt see him go around at crufts but have seen him in a football stadium and on a natural surface there is nothing wrong with his movement, remember this was the first show that he had ever competed in an inside enviroment. Again the video footage of the shows had been edited just to show the bad parts.
> 
> To even be allowed to be shown under the German system, where this dog has come from, he had to compete in the AD, a 12mile endurance test, ask yourselves how many of your dogs are capable of gaiting(thats gaiting not walking) that far? Is this indicative of a dog or a breed which many on here are calling cripples? Then he would do the BH, then SchH levels 1,2 & 3, be guntested, breed surveyed etc How many of your dogs could compete in work at these levels? how many would freak out at the sound of a gun? how many can a complete stranger walk over to without the dog either being aggressive or shying away?
> 
> My points above merely try to demonstrate that the footage was shockingly cut in order to fit into their programme. No dog can do this type of work consistantly week after week and year after year without being in good health. To say this dog was suffering is again wholly innacurate and typical scaremongering.
> 
> A lot of people say they prefer the old type of GSD well the original shepherd was smaller and only weighed 26kg for an adult male! This is the original dog not the ones remembered from the 80's who often were crippled with HD and epilepsy amongst many others. This is the original type of dog so should we go all the way back to that standard? That would of course mean the dogs you favour yourself, which you imply were better than todays dogs, should also not be bred from as they are far heavier, taller, flatter backed and shorter in the legs than the original!!The picture the KC have on the breed standard is a very poor example of a pet bred dog that no doubt will not have been health tested. If you care to look back and see the dogs from yesterday even as early as 1960 the English lines were way over size and had dippy backs, and these are Champions i am talking about.
> 
> Before critising the good breeders of today remember they are trying to breed out the defects and genetics conditions that the breeders of yesterday bred into the breed.


..............


----------



## Guest

Bruno, so them gsd in the ring lastnite...did u think their back legs was/looked ok??? just asking btw


----------



## clueless

bruno said:


> Regarding the GSD shown and slated here by many people please consider the following
> 
> The GSD who won at crufts does have a high working qualification, one I doubt most dogs on here would be capable of achieving, he has also been hip/elbow xrayed under the SV (German breed club)and achieved his KKL (breed survey) this is not just about conformation but also temperement. I didnt see him go around at crufts but have seen him in a football stadium and on a natural surface there is nothing wrong with his movement, remember this was the first show that he had ever competed in an inside enviroment. Again the video footage of the shows had been edited just to show the bad parts.
> 
> To even be allowed to be shown under the German system, where this dog has come from, he had to compete in the AD, a 12mile endurance test, ask yourselves how many of your dogs are capable of gaiting(thats gaiting not walking) that far? Is this indicative of a dog or a breed which many on here are calling cripples? Then he would do the BH, then SchH levels 1,2 & 3, be guntested, breed surveyed etc How many of your dogs could compete in work at these levels? how many would freak out at the sound of a gun? how many can a complete stranger walk over to without the dog either being aggressive or shying away?
> 
> My points above merely try to demonstrate that the footage was shockingly cut in order to fit into their programme. No dog can do this type of work consistantly week after week and year after year without being in good health. To say this dog was suffering is again wholly innacurate and typical scaremongering.
> 
> A lot of people say they prefer the old type of GSD well the original shepherd was smaller and only weighed 26kg for an adult male! This is the original dog not the ones remembered from the 80's who often were crippled with HD and epilepsy amongst many others. This is the original type of dog so should we go all the way back to that standard? That would of course mean the dogs you favour yourself, which you imply were better than todays dogs, should also not be bred from as they are far heavier, taller, flatter backed and shorter in the legs than the original!!The picture the KC have on the breed standard is a very poor example of a pet bred dog that no doubt will not have been health tested. If you care to look back and see the dogs from yesterday even as early as 1960 the English lines were way over size and had dippy backs, and these are Champions i am talking about.
> 
> Before critising the good breeders of today remember they are trying to breed out the defects and genetics conditions that the breeders of yesterday bred into the breed.


Wow I did not realise that GSD had to endure all that before competeing Thanks for info


----------



## bruno

Eolabeo said:


> Bruno, so them gsd in the ring lastnite...did u think their back legs was/looked ok??? just asking btw


Dont worry I dont mind people asking, I wont bite!

On the TV footage alone NO their legs were not what I would call okay. However I was at the one show, as was another member on this board, and have seen the other dogs at other shows and the footage was not a true reflection of how they are. This was what I meant by being selective in what was broadcast.

It also has to be remembered that the owners of these dogs were not even spoken to, why was that? Most other breeds I remember during the show gave the owners an opportunity to talk. Was this because they discovered the dogs were hip scored, haemophelia tested, health screened and used in an ethical manner to improve the breed and therefore didn't quite fit in to their "unscrupulous breeder" category they were portraying.


----------



## Guest

bruno said:


> Dont worry I dont mind people asking, I wont bite!
> 
> On the TV footage alone NO their legs were not what I would call okay. However I was at the one show, as was another member on this board, and have seen the other dogs at other shows and the footage was not a true reflection of how they are. This was what I meant by being selective in what was broadcast.
> 
> It also has to be remembered that the owners of these dogs were not even spoken to, why was that? Most other breeds I remember during the show gave the owners an opportunity to talk. Was this because they discovered the dogs were hip scored, haemophelia tested, health screened and used in an ethical manner to improve the breed and therefore didn't quite fit in to their "unscrupulous breeder" category they were portraying.


i do see ur point there , thx for replying.


----------



## bruno

clueless said:


> Wow I did not realise that GSD had to endure all that before competeing Thanks for info


In the UK GSD's are not required to have these qualifications to be shown, although a lot of show dogs have at least some of these qualifications.

The work I referred to was required by the dog actually shown in the programme itself, he was the winner at Crufts, which has been widely critisised. He was required to achieve all these qualifications for him to compete at the German Sieger show, and other shows in Germany and across the world for that matter.


----------



## cav

bruno said:


> Dont worry I dont mind people asking, I wont bite!
> 
> On the TV footage alone NO their legs were not what I would call okay. However I was at the one show, as was another member on this board, and have seen the other dogs at other shows and the footage was not a true reflection of how they are. This was what I meant by being selective in what was broadcast.
> 
> It also has to be remembered that the owners of these dogs were not even spoken to, why was that? Most other breeds I remember during the show gave the owners an opportunity to talk. Was this because they discovered the dogs were hip scored, haemophelia tested, health screened and used in an ethical manner to improve the breed and therefore didn't quite fit in to their "unscrupulous breeder" category they were portraying.


ok my question what did you think about the poor cavs on last nights programe and cavaliers were defo the ones that got the most bad press...ive bin on the phone 3 times tonight on about this as im so angry


----------



## bruno

cavrooney said:


> ok my question what did you think about the poor cavs on last nights programe and cavaliers were defo the ones that got the most bad press...ive bin on the phone 3 times tonight on about this as im so angry


I was as horrified as everyone alse about this and have a few thoughts about it.

Firstly the fact that some breeders continue to breed from animals they know carry this genetic problem is scandalous. I think everybody will have the same opinion on the female exhibitor that was confronted and tried to worm her way out. To know your animal can pass this on and cause so much suffering is inhumane. (This is where as I mentioned before that a class for neutered animals would be great, she could still show her dog as he obviously was a carrier and had no physical signs of the problem)

I then ask myself why did she have him tested in the first place if she was going to ignore the results?

The answer I believe is not in wanting to win shows (which bear in mind the programme makers were trying to pin the blame for most of the problems) but to make money. It was simple greed, after all if it was only for the showing she could just refuse to allow her dog to be used at stud and nobody would even need to know the dog had the condition. She is even worse than someone who doesnt test their animals.

Secondly I was surprised about the condition itself being so prevelant. I dont know anything about cavaliers but have never heard of the condition which I think is surprising if it is as widespread as the show made out. After all mention a GSD to any member of the public and they always say ... ahh they have hip problems don't they??... which is genuinely outdated as a lot has been done to improve this. Cavaliers are a popular breed so I would have expected it to be relatively common knowledge and not just known within the showing community.

Thirdly I would also have to ask why do people looking to purchase an animal not do more research. A quick call to a vet asking about problems in a certain breed or in this age of the internet it is easy to research a topic. I did a quick check there and two out of the four web sites I looked at regarding Cavaliers mentioned the condition. This would immediately alert me to the fact and look at it more before looking to buy one. I would then be making sure both parents are checked for the problem and if not walking away from the breeder. If enough people do this then breeders will have to ensure their stock are clear and have certificates to prove it.

Fourthly I think we have to remember there are occassions when genuine breeders do all they can to ensure a genetic problem does not occur in a litter however it still does. These people should not be branded irresponsible and slated. They should be encouraged to speak up and reveal their dog is a potential carrier for the benefit of the breed so that other related animals can be checked.


----------



## bruno

cavrooney said:


> ok my question what did you think about the poor cavs on last nights programe and cavaliers were defo the ones that got the most bad press...ive bin on the phone 3 times tonight on about this as im so angry


Karen,

As a matter of interest I am pressuming you have cavaliers so can you answer a couple of questions.

How long have you had them and prior to last night had you ever heard or realised the condition was so widespread(according to the programme)?

Anyone with a certain breed always ends up with pals with the same kind, have any of them experienced these problems?

Has the programme put you off getting another?


----------



## cav

bruno said:


> Karen,
> 
> As a matter of interest I am pressuming you have cavaliers so can you answer a couple of questions.
> 
> How long have you had them and prior to last night had you ever heard or realised the condition was so widespread(according to the programme)?
> 
> Anyone with a certain breed always ends up with pals with the same kind, have any of them experienced these problems?
> 
> Has the programme put you off getting another?


I have owned this breed most of my life....so quite a few years.

Yes i was aware of the condition but not this widespreadbut heart murmers is the most common in this breed.

Yes i know of 2 breeders that have had dogs with this problem.

All my cavs have come from parents with clear health checks i will only ever buy a dog this way.

I will also be breeding a litter soon and both dogs will be both clear at mating and yes they will be kc registerd and im also endorcing the pups

Also would like to say i will always own this great breed of dog.


----------



## shunter

Interesting debate. The skull animations showed how the breeders over the years have carried out carefully selected breeding to change the shape of the dogs head without concern to increased problems to the dog. The question is not whether the pug can breathe but how much more difficult he finds it to breathe than if he had been born 100 years ago. 

Breeding to create exaggerated dwarfism in dogs over the years will also bring with it other complications for the breed concerned. 

There are many breeds of dogs where the basic dog shape etc appears to inflict no problems on the dog themselves so concentrating on health problems and selecting healthy dogs for mating should do a lot to help remove these problems.

However there are many breeds where the breed body shape causes many problems for the dog - too much loose skin, misshapen heads affecting breathing etc, over elongated bodies. I would like to see more draconian measures taken to rewrite the breed standard to get these dogs back to a shape that offers the dog a more active and heathly life.


----------



## JANICE199

bruno said:


> Janice,
> 
> The point is you didn't see it, you saw an extract of the days events in a TV programme designed, in the programme makers own words, to shock people.
> 
> I am afraid if you believe everything shown on TV programmes we will all be in a sad state of affairs. On a topical note did Gary Glitter not appear on TV along with some of his associates and say he was unaware the girls in Thailand were underage. Oh well dont bother with the Sex Ofeenders register when you come back Gary it must be true.....it was on the Telly!!


may i just say.I DON'T believe all i see on the telly....and what the heck has garry glitter got to do with the price of fish?
as for the prgograme setting out to SHOCK people why not?
if just one of these bad prctices is going on then at least now the public are aware.


----------



## bruno

cavrooney said:


> I have owned this breed most of my life....so quite a few years.
> 
> Yes i was aware of the condition but not this widespreadbut heart murmers is the most common in this breed.
> 
> Yes i know of 2 breeders that have had dogs with this problem.
> 
> All my cavs have come from parents with clear health checks i will only ever buy a dog this way.
> 
> I will also be breeding a litter soon and both dogs will be both clear at mating and yes they will be kc registerd and im also endorcing the pups
> 
> Also would like to say i will always own this great breed of dog.


Karen,

Thanks for your answers, it is generally what I expected and I think again shows that the programme has been sensationalist to say the least.

You obviously care passionately and are knowledgeable about the breed yet you were shocked at their claims of how widespread it is! Could this not mean they were exagerating the problem for their own ends ie. to make good TV and shock people? It wouldnt have been quite as shocking if they said 5% of the population had these problems would it?(I have no fact of the 5%, just an example)

You say you know about a couple of breeders with this problem, I think thats good. As I said it is better breeders are honest about these things rather than hiding the fact and continuing to use the stock, these people should be applauded for their honesty and not judged as "unethical breeders" (providing that is they are not used for breeding which I doubt from the impression I get from you). The programme has, in my opinion, now made people think twice about revealing they have these sort of conditions within their kennel, what benefit can that bring to the breeds?

You buy stock from health screened parents so why shouldnt everyone else insist on this, that is the quickest way to help control the situation. If at the end of the day a breeder cant sell the pups because the parents arent screened they will in future screen the parents. The problem is people cant see they often get what they pay for. A dog is £50 - £100 cheaper without its parents being screened so they think they are getting a bargain when in reality the breeder who has spent their money on TRYING to ensure their stock produces healthy animals are in fact the ones supplying the better deal in the long term. I do mean this generally as I have said before problems can crop up in litters of dogs screened for everything and anything, this is where nature does come into it!

I note you are saying your pups will have their papers endorsed, I congratulate you for this as this will also help the breed. For people not familiar with this it means Karen will sell her pups with KC papers declaring the parentage etc however the pups offspring cannot be registered with the Kennel Club until she removes this endorsement. In this way Karen can ensure the new owners health screen their dogs for genetic problems and provide evidence to her before she lifts the endorsement. Once the new owners do this they can then register the offspring from the dog. I agree the KC need to do a lot more however give them their due the KC set up this process and it is up to breeders to use it.

I wish you luck with your forthcoming litter and sincerely hope this programme has not put people off from owning a cavalier, In my limited contact with them I have always found them sociable, exciting and entertaining dogs to be around and generally loving pets.

Remember what I always say, it doesnt matter what breed or how the dog looks the one you have in your home is the best dog out there...... except from mine of course!!


----------



## Xiaoli

cavrooney said:


> I have owned this breed most of my life....so quite a few years.
> 
> Yes i was aware of the condition but not this widespreadbut heart murmers is the most common in this breed.
> 
> Yes i know of 2 breeders that have had dogs with this problem.
> 
> All my cavs have come from parents with clear health checks i will only ever buy a dog this way.
> 
> I will also be breeding a litter soon and both dogs will be both clear at mating and yes they will be kc registerd and im also endorcing the pups
> 
> Also would like to say i will always own this great breed of dog.


They are a lovely breed. A girl I work with has them and shows and is/was planning on breeding in the future.

When you say clear health checks - are you saying that you will get your dogs MRI scanned? I know of a breeder that has one of hers MRI scanned yesterday I think it cost about £200.

The program was really upsetting 

Good luck with your plans


----------



## bruno

JANICE199 said:


> may i just say.I DON'T believe all i see on the telly....and what the heck has garry glitter got to do with the price of fish?
> as for the prgograme setting out to SHOCK people why not?
> if just one of these bad prctices is going on then at least now the public are aware.


Janice,

My point is why set out to SHOCK people by not giving a fair and accurate version of events.

It could quite easily have said there are a percentage of show/breeders (bear in mind a lot of breeders Kennel Club their animals but dont show them) who carry out this practise and given advice on how to locate good ethical breeders but this wouldnt have been as entertaining.

This will not prevent bad practices, if people are doing these things it is through greed for money through the sale of puppies. Do you honestly think this will stop someone? It is going to hit the ethical concerning breeder not the person that couldnt give a damn in the first place.

I note you have toy poodles! Are you aware that these were developed over many years from a genetic form of dwarfism. Toy poodles have no working function and were purely developed for companionship! Can you tell me if you think this is ethical? Taking the programme litterally no Toy or Miniature poodle should be bred from, only the standard poodle as Toys and Miniatures are a genetic fault with a limited gene pool! Do you agree with that?


----------



## JANICE199

bruno said:


> Janice,
> 
> My point is why set out to SHOCK people by not giving a fair and accurate version of events.
> 
> It could quite easily have said there are a percentage of show/breeders (bear in mind a lot of breeders Kennel Club their animals but dont show them) who carry out this practise and given advice on how to locate good ethical breeders but this wouldnt have been as entertaining.
> 
> This will not prevent bad practices, if people are doing these things it is through greed for money through the sale of puppies. Do you honestly think this will stop someone? It is going to hit the ethical concerning breeder not the person that couldnt give a damn in the first place.
> 
> I note you have toy poodles! Are you aware that these were developed over many years from a genetic form of dwarfism. Toy poodles have no working function and were purely developed for companionship! Can you tell me if you think this is ethical? Taking the programme litterally no Toy or Miniature poodle should be bred from, only the standard poodle as Toys and Miniatures are a genetic fault with a limited gene pool! Do you agree with that?


Ii'' be the first to admit i know nothing about the genetics of dogs.....my whole point was as i keep stating i didnt like what i saw...


----------



## Xiaoli

bruno said:


> Janice,
> 
> My point is why set out to SHOCK people by not giving a fair and accurate version of events.


From what I have heard the BBC film crew gained access to the cav shows etc by telling the organisers that they were planning a program all about cavs to promote the breed - but this could be just hearsay.


----------



## bruno

Xiaoli said:


> They are a lovely breed. A girl I work with has them and shows and is/was planning on breeding in the future.
> 
> When you say clear health checks - are you saying that you will get your dogs MRI scanned? I know of a breeder that has one of hers MRI scanned yesterday I think it cost about £200.
> 
> The program was really upsetting
> 
> Good luck with your plans


Karen,

It all depends on each different breed. I think breeders need to look honestly at genetic problems within their chosen breed and decide, along with their vet, what tests need to be carried out.

I really dont know about cavaliers to advise on MRI scan but if that is what is required then yes do it. £200 in reality is not a lot to TRY to prevent a condition occuring. I have recently had my GSD's hip scored and male haemophelia tested (both these conditions were serious problems in the breed a few years ago but generally they are being controlled by good breeding practise) and it's not cheap, cost over £300 but the general public dont always realise the expenses involved in a litter of pups and only see how much they are spending when deciding bargains!

I agree the programme was very distressing but I think one of the things that needs to be remembered is it was very biased. The pictures of the cavalier in severe distress and the Boxer fitting were horendous however I would like to see the people who stood there and filmed these events FOR THE SHOCK VALUE asked....... why put these dogs through that suffering merely for Television? It has already been mentioned neither animal was being treated correctly to ease it's suffering. The cavalier was put on a collar and lead so that it could be filmed behaving like that, the lights were turned on so the cameraman could film the boxer! Who's welfare were the TV producers bothered about then, certainly not these animals!

Good luck with your breeding plans, I am certain you will do the best by your animals.


----------



## bruno

JANICE199 said:


> Ii'' be the first to admit i know nothing about the genetics of dogs.....my whole point was as i keep stating i didnt like what i saw...


Janice,

Dont feel I am having a pop at you, I merely chose poodles as I see you have them. I have no problem with toy or miniature poodles providing they are properly and ethically bred to prevent problems.

My point is what the programme showed was not a fair reflection of the truth.

Poodles have severe problems in the breed with their kneecaps dislocating. How would you have felt if the programme showed a poodle alledgedly having the problem (through carefull editing of the footage collected), then telling you this was due to unethical breeding and the majority of the breed had this and the majority of breeders condoned it? Would you have then even considered buying another poodle?

How would you feel if you have all your breeding poodles X-rayed and joints checked to try to prevent this occuring in your litter?

My questions about the genetics of the poodle was merely to say just because people change the appearance of a dog over many years it is not necessarily always for the worse. Providing you do not introduce problems there is no way it can be called unethical.


----------



## bruno

Xiaoli said:


> From what I have heard the BBC film crew gained access to the cav shows etc by telling the organisers that they were planning a program all about cavs to promote the breed - but this could be just hearsay.


I have no doubt this is true. I was at Manchester when they filmed the GSD's and they were all very nice stating it was for a BBC documentary promoting dog shows. Why not just be honest? Everybody in showing knows there are problems in EVERY breed so why not discuss the matter with people trying to correct these problems?

It seems to me they didnt want to portray there is an ethical side to breeding and just tarnish everyone with the same brush as the unethical breeders they did speak to!


----------



## Xiaoli

bruno said:


> I have no doubt this is true. I was at Manchester when they filmed the GSD's and they were all very nice stating it was for a BBC documentary promoting dog shows. Why not just be honest? Everybody in showing knows there are problems in EVERY breed so why not discuss the matter with people trying to correct these problems?
> 
> It seems to me they didnt want to portray there is an ethical side to breeding and just tarnish everyone with the same brush as the unethical breeders they did speak to!


Yes I totally agree. I wonder how many ethical breeders thy did speak to but chose not to include those bits! I know that in my breed there are a lot of breeders that believe we don't have problems and don't health test because the KC breed profile says we have no problems and no health testing is required! All breeding dogs should be tested before even thinking of breeding from them.


----------



## Guest

Another point we are missing is breed standards,at shows Judges are supposed to judge to the Breed Standard,that will be interpreted differently by different judges.What one Judge thinks is a fantastic dog and fits the breed standard ,another Judge may not and place a different dog,the same goes for exaggerations in the breed,one may think a dog is over done in certain departments,another maynot.

The same is true when it comes to breeding,again the breed standard can be interpretated differently.

You will always get people who prefer the dogs from bygone days,we see quite alot of that in my breed,but why I ask,were the dogs any healthier back then,I doubt it.We were in my breed breeding blind so to speak,the tests we had previously could only determine if a dog was affected or unaffected,times have moved on and we now have two DNA tests to establish if dogs are Clear,Carrier or Affected and I'm led to believe they are trying to establish another DNA test for PHPV,which is another eye condition.

The programme failed to mention the ongoing research into genetic / hereditary diseases in some breeds and how much money is been ploughed into the research.


----------



## JANICE199

sallyanne said:


> Another point we are missing is breed standards,at shows Judges are supposed to judge to the Breed Standard,that will be interpreted differently by different judges.What one Judge thinks is a fantastic dog and fits the breed standard ,another Judge may not and place a different dog,the same goes for exaggerations in the breed,one may think a dog is over done in certain departments,another maynot.
> 
> The same is true when it comes to breeding,again the breed standard can be interpretated differently.


so whats the point?
i'm finding all this about breeding and "standards" very confusing.if the judges can't agree then how is showing fair?

ps.....god i am having a few blonde days


----------



## houndies

sallyanne said:


> Another point we are missing is breed standards,at shows Judges are supposed to judge to the Breed Standard,that will be interpreted differently by different judges.What one Judge thinks is a fantastic dog and fits the breed standard ,another Judge may not and place a different dog,the same goes for exaggerations in the breed,one may think a dog is over done in certain departments,another maynot.
> 
> The same is true when it comes to breeding,again the breed standard can be interpretated differently.


This is so true! It is all very subjective. To use our beloved breed as an example. It is a REAL minority of Bassets that look like Fido (that's the dog's name that was used in the 1946 - present day comparison) . Also he is grossly overweight which makes them look much more exaggerated. Some judges go for this look and some really hate it. (personally I'm not a fan and I don't think any dog standard says the dog should be fat)


----------



## jackson

ajshep1984 said:


> I don't believe that for one second. I've just had a scout around some other forums and so far this is the only one where people are actually defending the Kennel Club!?! For the life of me I can't understand why!?!


You obviously haven't been looking on the right forums. 

I agree with clueless though, I am not defending the kennel club, but the pedigree dogs, and their breeders, who breed ethically and try to rule out health problems within the breed.

The programme talked about a few of the 200+ breeds, a few hidoeusly selfish and unethical breeders, then implied that the situation was the same for all pedigree dogs. They induced/prolonged fits in the boxer and syringolmyelia 'attacks' in cavaliers, for the purpose of televison. Please don't tell me you think this is right?

I notice the programme also conveniently 'forgot' to mentiont hat all the scientsts it wer etalking to who had researched inbreeding wer epart of a study insigate dby the KC itself. 

The fact is, the backlash from this programme will not be a change in the way idiots breed pedigree dogs, but that the general public refuse to buy any pedigree dog, as they won't differenciate between breeders. It is happening already, I know of breeders who have litters of pups, ethically and responsibly bred, and new owners are backing out due to this programme.


----------



## Natik

I think it was important that this program was shown... I always assumed kc is great and everyone who belongs to kc must be great too. ( but I still checked out my breeders anyway) 
This program wasn't about puppy farms, it wasn't about good breeders... It was simply about opening the
publics eyes that the are bad breeders in the kc as well and people should be carefull.

I think if the good breeders would pull back from showing with the statement that they dont want to show beside the bad ones then the kc would be forced to do something due to the money they would loose.


----------



## bruno

jackson said:


> You obviously haven't been looking on the right forums.
> 
> I agree with clueless though, I am not defending the kennel club, but the pedigree dogs, and their breeders, who breed ethically and try to rule out health problems within the breed.
> 
> The programme talked about a few of the 200+ breeds, a few hidoeusly selfish and unethical breeders, then implied that the situation was the same for all pedigree dogs. They induced/prolonged fits in the boxer and syringolmyelia 'attacks' in cavaliers, for the purpose of televison. Please don't tell me you think this is right?
> 
> I notice the programme also conveniently 'forgot' to mentiont hat all the scientsts it wer etalking to who had researched inbreeding wer epart of a study insigate dby the KC itself.
> 
> The fact is, the backlash from this programme will not be a change in the way idiots breed pedigree dogs, but that the general public refuse to buy any pedigree dog, as they won't differenciate between breeders. It is happening already, I know of breeders who have litters of pups, ethically and responsibly bred, and new owners are backing out due to this programme.


I fully agree, I heard of at least one GSD breeder who hip scores, elbow scores, haemopheilia tests all their stock who recieved an email yesterday morning from a couple who had paid a deposit for a puppy having visited both parents and chosen their pup saying following the programme they no longer wanted the puppy. This kennel had absolutely no connection to the animals shown in the programme but suffered the backlash. I hope the BBC producers feel ashamed of themselves, did they ever think what will happen to all these perfectly healthy animals ready for their new homes that will now possibly remain unhomed?


----------



## bruno

JANICE199 said:


> so whats the point?
> i'm finding all this about breeding and "standards" very confusing.if the judges can't agree then how is showing fair?
> 
> ps.....god i am having a few blonde days


Janice,

Dont worry quite often show people are confused by the judges decisions!!

The truth is there are breed standards set out by the KC and other Kennel organisations worldwide. This standard is the ideal dog however as mentioned before NO dog can fully fit this standard. Some will have slightly shorter than ideal length, some will be longer, some taller, some shorter etcetc. The judge has to decide which he/she feels comes closest to this standard. Therefore the judge has to weigh up the virtues of the dog and compare this to it's faults and decide which they prefer. This is where the differences come into the equation as some might prefer a slightly bigger dog whereas others will prefer a slightly smaller dog etc.

This of course is a very basic overview.

It should also be mentioned that dogs should not be identified in the ring (although in reality this is difficult) so even if a judge knows a certain dog (such as the cavalier that won Best in Show) has a genetic problem this cannot be taken into consideration. The dog should be judged on how it looks on the day.


----------



## bruno

houndies said:


> This is so true! It is all very subjective. To use our beloved breed as an example. It is a REAL minority of Bassets that look like Fido (that's the dog's name that was used in the 1946 - present day comparison) . Also he is grossly overweight which makes them look much more exaggerated. Some judges go for this look and some really hate it. (personally I'm not a fan and I don't think any dog standard says the dog should be fat)


Spot on. I know nothing about Bassets but could see that from looking at the animal. Also the judge seemed rather perplexed when asked about him. I have no doubt Fido has many qualities but was amused to hear his owner is a Championship show judge Is he perhaps judging in the next year or so??


----------



## Natik

bruno said:


> I fully agree, I heard of at least one GSD breeder who hip scores, elbow scores, haemopheilia tests all their stock who recieved an email yesterday morning from a couple who had paid a deposit for a puppy having visited both parents and chosen their pup saying following the programme they no longer wanted the puppy. This kennel had absolutely no connection to the animals shown in the programme but suffered the backlash. I hope the BBC producers feel ashamed of themselves, did they ever think what will happen to all these perfectly healthy animals ready for their new homes that will now possibly remain unhomed?


is that not a good reason for all the good breeders to get together and force the kc to do something about the bad ones which are members of the kc?

I'm sure some of bad breeders couldn't sell their either and that's a good thing.


----------



## jackson

Natik said:


> is that not a good reason for all the good breeders to get together and force the kc to do something about the bad ones which are members of the kc?
> 
> I'm sure some of bad brewers couldn't sell their either and that's a good thing.


Yes, potentially hundreds of healthy pedigree puppies having to be put to sleep is a good thing.  Well bred or badly bred, it is not the pup's fault.

I don't deny the problem needs to be tackled, and the way to do that is by educating the general public, but this programme was not the way to do it. It could have been so much more constructive, instead, the programme maker used it to cause scndal and further her own career.


----------



## bruno

Natik said:


> I think it was important that this program was shown... I always assumed kc is great and everyone who belongs to kc must be great too. ( but I still checked out my breeders anyway)
> This program wasn't about puppy farms, it wasn't about good breeders... It was simply about opening the
> publics eyes that the are bad breeders in the kc as well and people should be carefull.
> 
> I think if the good breeders would pull back from showing with the statement that they dont want to show beside the bad ones then the kc would be forced to do something due to the money they would loose.


I understand where u are coming from but again this shows the impression given to you by the programme is the MAJORITY of show people are bad breeders where in reality it is the MINORITY. Shows are run by Canine associations and clubs and not the KC therefore the good work these organisations do regarding welfare would be seriously hampered by good breeders not showing. You would also end up with POOR examples of the breed winning events and therefore being seen as what to aim for!

I know I seem to sound like I am putting barriers up at every suggestion but in reality I don't know what the answer is!!


----------



## Natik

jackson said:


> Yes, potentially hundreds of healthy pedigree puppies having to be put to sleep is a good thing.  Well bred or badly bred, it is not the pup's fault.
> 
> I don't deny the problem needs to be tackled, and the way to do that is by educating the general public, but this programme was not the way to do it. It could have been so much more constructive, instead, the programme maker used it to cause scndal and further her own career.


Put to sleep ?  why? 
Just because a breeder can't sell them?


----------



## bruno

Natik said:


> is that not a good reason for all the good breeders to get together and force the kc to do something about the bad ones which are members of the kc?
> 
> I'm sure some of bad breeders couldn't sell their either and that's a good thing.


I understand what you are saying about bad breeders not being able to sell their pups but I suspect in reality it would mean they would sell their pups for less and thereafter breed MORE litters to make up the difference in money. Remember if these people are in it for the money they will not give that income up easily!


----------



## JANICE199

i personaly am NOT saying all breeders are bad...thats not what i got from the programe.sure there are good and bad..but from the start its the kc.i'm having a problem with.
perhaps its time to have a goverment body to start up a similar thing.i dont know

the other thing is this.why can puppy farms kc reg their litters? am i the only one totaly confused ?


----------



## jackson

Natik said:


> Put to sleep ?  why?
> Just because a breeder can't sell them?


What do you think someone will do with a litter of up to 15 puppies if they can't sell them? It wouldn't be possible to keep them all.


----------



## bruno

JANICE199 said:


> i personaly am NOT saying all breeders are bad...thats not what i got from the programe.sure there are good and bad..but from the start its the kc.i'm having a problem with.
> perhaps its time to have a goverment body to start up a similar thing.i dont know
> 
> the other thing is this.why can puppy farms kc reg their litters? am i the only one totaly confused ?


Regarding puppy farms there are many ways to get around this. There are Kennel Club regulations as to how many litters and ages of the bitch for breeding purposes. In reality a dog will get KC papers if their parentage can be shown. Therfore the owner of the mother and father sign paperwork to say a mating took place. Thereafter when a litter is born they register the pups.

Puppy farmers will register say an extra 1 or 2 females in a litter that in reality never existed. They then technically can mate the mother of these "invisible bitches" but register the "invisible bitches" as the mother of the litter. This then appears the original mother is not breeding all these litters. Again when money is involved people will always try and get around rules and regulations.


----------



## JANICE199

bruno said:


> Regarding puppy farms there are many ways to get around this. There are Kennel Club regulations as to how many litters and ages of the bitch for breeding purposes. In reality a dog will get KC papers if their parentage can be shown. Therfore the owner of the mother and father sign paperwork to say a mating took place. Thereafter when a litter is born they register the pups.
> 
> Puppy farmers will register say an extra 1 or 2 females in a litter that in reality never existed. They then technically can mate the mother of these "invisible bitches" but register the "invisible bitches" as the mother of the litter. This then appears the original mother is not breeding all these litters. Again when money is involved people will always try and get around rules and regulations.


so surely as i said before those kc papers are'nt worth the paper they are written on..


----------



## Natik

jackson said:


> What do you think someone will do with a litter of up to 15 puppies if they can't sell them? It wouldn't be possible to keep them all.


then these people are not good breeders in my opinion.
I thought breeders breed to improve and not to sell. If u can't sell and can't put up with the responsibility looking after the dogs u couldn't sell then these breeders shouldn't become breeders in first place.

Bruno, they will sell pups for less but when the kc doesnt let them register then after a while I'm sure the bad ones would give up. 
Of course dog buyers should be educated well about bad breeders but low prize puts most people off as they think that there must be something wrong.


----------



## JANICE199

jackson said:


> What do you think someone will do with a litter of up to 15 puppies if they can't sell them? It wouldn't be possible to keep them all.


surely thats a risk any breeder takes,as has been said on here before..theres no guarantee that if you choose to breed that you will be able to find homes for your pups.


----------



## Natik

JANICE199 said:


> so surely as i said before those kc papers are'nt worth the paper they are written on..


that's true ... I thought the same


----------



## jackson

JANICE199 said:


> surely thats a risk any breeder takes,as has been said on here before..theres no guarantee that if you choose to breed that you will be able to find homes for your pups.


Yes, it is a risk, and that is why good breeders make sure that they have a waiting list before they even mate their bitch. Therefore, even if one or two drop out (which they usually do) it will not be hard to find homes for the pups, or possible to keep the pups that are left over.

However, people are now finding that those on their waiting lists are quickly dropping out.


----------



## bruno

JANICE199 said:


> so surely as i said before those kc papers are'nt worth the paper they are written on..


If you are looking for a health guarantee you are correct they are not worth anything.

If you are wanting proof of who your dog is bred from and therefore check the parentage and lines behind that to ensure you are not introducing genetic faults.

Remember regarding puppy farms although they will state on the paperwork it is the "invisible puppy" when someone goes to select a pup they should be checking the mother (and father if possible).


----------



## bee112

jackson said:


> What do you think someone will do with a litter of up to 15 puppies if they can't sell them? It wouldn't be possible to keep them all.


Thats rediculous.. why breed from a dog if you cannot deal with the possibility of pups not being sold?


----------



## jackson

Natik said:


> then these people are not good breeders in my opinion.
> I thought breeders breed to improve and not to sell. If u can't sell and can't put up with the responsibility looking after the dogs u couldn't sell then these breeders shouldn't become breeders in first place.
> 
> Bruno, they will sell pups for less but when the kc doesnt let them register then after a while I'm sure the bad ones would give up.
> Of course dog buyers should be educated well about bad breeders but low prize puts most people off as they think that there must be something wrong.


That's the wholepoint, the sort of people we are talking about aren't good breeders.

However, good, ethical breeders are suffering because of this. They will have compiled a waiting list before even breeding their bitches, sometimes up to 2 years in advance in some breeds, so they have done their utmost to ensure, prior to mating, good homes for pups they breed. It is not usual for one or two people to drop off a waiting list, but not, say 15. I haven't heard of this happening yet, but that doesn't mean it couldn't.

Keeping 15 puppies is certainly not good for the welfare of those 15. (although that is an extreme example)

As this programme has damaged the reputation of the KC, further fuelling the ignoranc eof Joe Public, so I doubt Joe public would really be bothered if their dogs were KC registered anyway, (some member on here already weren't bothered!) so why would the puppy farmers care? They can always dog lovers register their dogs anyway.


----------



## bruno

Natik said:


> then these people are not good breeders in my opinion.
> I thought breeders breed to improve and not to sell. If u can't sell and can't put up with the responsibility looking after the dogs u couldn't sell then these breeders shouldn't become breeders in first place.
> 
> Bruno, they will sell pups for less but when the kc doesnt let them register then after a while I'm sure the bad ones would give up.
> Of course dog buyers should be educated well about bad breeders but low prize puts most people off as they think that there must be something wrong.


One of the points the KC and the Head of the UK Veterinary association was trying to say was at least with the KC we have a record of breeders rather than them being driven underground. Therefore I doubt if they would give up, merely not register them, now that doesnt benefit the individual dogs!

I am afraid you are wrong with your assumption that people are put off by low prices. I would estimate about three quarters of people who inquire about pups are put off by the price, you would be amazed by the number of people saying .... but I saw some in the paper for less than that or someone else is selling them cheaper would you match their price!! I am afraid people see a cheaper price and immediately think BARGAIN.


----------



## jackson

bee112 said:


> Thats rediculous.. why breed from a dog if you cannot deal with the possibility of pups not being sold?


I think my head is going to explode!

That is the whole reason that good breeders compile a comprehensive waiting list prior to breeding, so they have a pretty good guarantee they are not going to end up with unsold pups.

Do you know anyone who could cope with say, 15 Doberman puppies? Even if they wer willing to try, it would never work out. Perhaps for that reason no-one should ever breed dobes.


----------



## Natik

jackson said:


> What do you think someone will do with a litter of up to 15 puppies if they can't sell them? It wouldn't be possible to keep them all.


that sentence made me actually feel really sick 
lets kill some pups we could not sell and then breed some new ones... And hey, if they don't sell who cares as a resposible breeder there is the pts jag to sort problems out like this. REDICULOUS! but let's blame it on the program that the breeders didnt think over these situations before they started to breed!
Responsible breeders wouldnt do that!


----------



## JANICE199

jackson said:


> That's the wholepoint, the sort of people we are talking about aren't good breeders.
> 
> However, good, ethical breeders are suffering because of this. They will have compiled a waiting list before even breeding their bitches, sometimes up to 2 years in advance in some breeds, so they have done their utmost to ensure, prior to mating, good homes for pups they breed. It is not usual for one or two people to drop off a waiting list, but not, say 15. I haven't heard of this happening yet, but that doesn't mean it couldn't.
> 
> Keeping 15 puppies is certainly not good for the welfare of those 15. (although that is an extreme example)
> 
> As this programme has damaged the reputation of the KC, further fuelling the ignoranc eof Joe Public, so I doubt Joe public would really be bothered if their dogs were KC registered anyway, (some member on here already weren't bothered!) so why would the puppy farmers care? They can always dog lovers register their dogs anyway.


the last bit on your post is absolute rubbish....my boy kai is not kc reg..but are you sying that people that buy dogs that are not kc reg. agree with puppy farms.i hope not!
that was avery unfair statement.


----------



## alison

Calls for new legislation

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - We Need a Change, We Need it Now and YOU Can Make it Happen



> Pedigree Dogs Exposed - We Need a Change, We Need it Now and YOU Can Make it Happen
> by Ryan O'Meara, Chairman of the Pet Owners Parliament
> 
> Following the broadcast of the documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the distressing footage of dogs writhing in agony as a result of bad breeding, congenital disease and outdated ideals of what dogs are supposed to look like the nation collectively recoiled in horror.
> 
> We absolutely can not and must not stand back and allow it to continue.
> 
> Man's best friend has been and is continuing to be exploited, mutilated and routinely abused in the name of breed standards and aesthetic trivialities.
> 
> True dog lovers have been appalled at the content of Pedigree Dogs Exposed but even more upsetting, many of us who have been in or around the organised canine world for any length time were not in the slightest bit surprised by what we witnessed in this programme.
> 
> Abnormal is now accepted as normal. For some dogs the ability to breathe, cool down, hear, walk properly and function as normal, happy, healthy dogs is impossible. The previously held notion that 'KC Registered' was a stamp of quality has been exposed as a complete fallacy. When corruption and health defects have made their way all the way to the pinnacle of the dog show world, Crufts, we have to accept that KC registration is simply a slip of paper, the credibility of which has been undermined irreparably.
> 
> Many dog breeds are in a perilous position, from which they will never recover if existing practices are allowed to continue. And continue they most certainly will be if the reaction of the Kennel Club is anything to go by. There is an obvious vacuum at the top within the organisation. Kennel Club chairman Ronnie Irvine insisted on Pedigree Dogs Exposed that the Kennel Club could outlaw first generation inbreeding only for the Kennel Club's secretary to claim via the media that they could not effect this change. If the chairman and secretary are on a different wavelength over such a fundamental and controversial Kennel Club rule, what hope for the future?
> 
> The Kennel Club has officiated over the world of pedigree dogs for more than a century. They are not a new organisation. The state of Kennel Club registered pedigree dogs is not an issue they can wash their hands of by passing the buck to the uncaring breeders who are actively operating outside the parameters of what normal people would consider to be good breeding practice, yet they still manage to get their registration certificates stamped, approved and therefore endorsed by the Kennel Club.
> 
> The Kennel Club's reasoning for not 'getting tougher' on these rogue breeders is 'because it will drive them away'. This would be highly amusing, were it not so abjectly pathetic. Why would the Kennel Club seek to keep these sub-par breeders under its wing when any right minded person knows full well that the Kennel Club has singularly failed to exert ANY influence over them in the first place? It is a laughable excuse and reasoning which beggars belief.
> 
> On the issue of first generation inbreeding (father to daughter / brother to sister) many other countries have banned this yet and for good reason however, the UK - a nation of animal lovers, hasn't. Why not?
> 
> The mess that dogs are in is not entirely the fault of the Kennel Club, they are but a mere breed registry, they are not the people producing the dogs. however the Kennel Club have ratified the breed standards, agreed the breed club charters and they have taken the money for the registrations. When the KC puts its famous logo on a registration document they simply cannot walk away from their responsibility to that animal or the fact that the public does (or at least did) place its trust in the system of KC registrations. Bad breeding practices have been tacitly endorsed by the Kennel Club for more than 100 years.
> 
> So what are we to do? What is the alternative?
> 
> Thankfully, there IS an alternative.
> 
> The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals has been signed and ratified by the following countries:
> 
> Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland.
> 
> The United Kingdom is conspicuous by its absence from this agreement. Why is that?
> 
> The Kennel Club holds the strong view that UK dogs are better off under 'self regulation'. What they actually mean by 'self regulation' is to keep the status quo, i.e Kennel Club regulation. The Kennel Club believes that it is best placed to 'fix' the problems affecting dogs today. The fact that they have presided over more than 100 years of pedigree dog regulation and we have reached the mess we are in today, seems to be lost on them.
> 
> The Kennel Club does not want the UK to sign the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals.
> 
> I, as a passionate dog owner, a dog lover over and above dog magazine editor, pet publisher, dog trainer or any other professional connection with canines, I desperately want the UK to sign and ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals without delay.
> 
> I'm not alone.
> 
> The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals is supported by many people who have spoken out about horrendous breeding practices in the pedigree dog world. The UK is doing a massive disservice to its dogs by not being a part of this.
> 
> The Kennel Club cites its Accredited Breeder Scheme as an alternative to the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. If you are in any doubt as to how toothless and equally open to abuse the Accredited Breeder Scheme is, please take the time to read this.
> 
> So if you, like me and many others like me genuinely want a change to take place, genuinely want the governance of dogs to be given teeth, genuinely want to be a catalyst for change in relation to canine health and standards of dog breeding, please support the Pet Owners Parliament motion for the UK to sign and ratify the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals.
> 
> Dogs will thank you for it now and for centuries to come.


----------



## ittybitty

i would agree with a lot of you regardng this show, It really opened our eyes and now understand why we are so reluntant to enter shows. But can anyone say is showing for the dogs or for the owners to have a socail life?


----------



## jackson

Natik said:


> that sentence made me actually feel really sick
> lets kill some pups we could not sell and then breed some new ones... And hey, if they don't sell who cares as a resposible breeder there is the pts jag to sort problems out like this. REDICULOUS! but let's blame it on the program that the breeders didnt think over these situations before they started to breed!
> Responsible breeders wouldnt do that!


What do you suggest responsible breeders do then? IMO, compiling a waiting list prior to breeding is responsible.

Do you think it is responsible to try and rear up to 15 large breed puppies? Maybe you think only those with large kennels and staff should breed in case of this eventuality?


----------



## Natik

jackson said:


> What do you suggest responsible breeders do then? IMO, compiling a waiting list prior to breeding is responsible.
> 
> Do you think it is responsible to try and rear up to 15 large breed puppies? Maybe you think only those with large kennels and staff should breed in case of this eventuality?


why would u have 15 puppies in first place anyway?
surely u make sure u have one litter at a time and if u can't sell these pups than surely u make sure u will not have a litter again until the other pups are well looked after. 
Its not a puppet which u can throw away if nobody wants it... Its a living creature. Wtf


----------



## jackson

Natik said:


> why would u have 15 puppies in first place anyway?
> surely u make sure u have one litter at a time and if u can't sell these pups than surely u make sure u will not have a litter again until the other pups are well looked after.
> Its not a puppet which u can throw away if nobody wants it... Its a living creature. Wtf


Because some large breeds have up to 15 puppies in one litter.


----------



## Natik

jackson said:


> Because some large breeds have up to 15 puppies in one litter.


but that's a really rare case... And I'm sure some of the pups would get sold... So the number wouldnt definitly not be 15... That's just crazy thinking.

I would rather sell the dog for les or even for nothing than put it down to sleep.

I'm really disgusted about this.


----------



## Guest

Natik said:


> why would u have 15 puppies in first place anyway?
> surely u make sure u have one litter at a time and if u can't sell these pups than surely u make sure u will not have a litter again until the other pups are well looked after.
> Its not a puppet which u can throw away if nobody wants it... Its a living creature. Wtf


How can you regulate how many puppies a bitch will have in her litter,how do you stop her having 11 or 15 puppies in one litter?
Good breeders have waiting lists for pups,so they have good homes lined up even before the litter is born.
I'm afraid the society we live in today is easy come easy go,some people breed without considering the full facts,expecting rescue to pick up the pieces.
I read a post recently on here whereby a breeder was considering handing an 8 week old pup over to rescue because they were struggling to home it.As a breeder you need to be prepared to keep pups if homes can't be found for them,good breeders do this.


----------



## ittybitty

I tatally agree with you babe, No one should breed if they dont even know where the pups are going, as you say a good breeder will have a waitinglist and people that have been waiting a while and have built a relationship with the breeder.


sallyanne said:


> How can you regulate how many puppies a bitch will have in her litter,how do you stop her having 11 or 15 puppies in one litter?
> Good breeders have waiting lists for pups,so they have good homes lined up even before the litter is born.
> I'm afraid the society we live in today is easy come easy go,some people breed without considering the full facts,expecting rescue to pick up the pieces.
> I read a post recently on here whereby a breeder was considering handing an 8 week old pup over to rescue because they were struggling to home it.As a breeder you need to be prepared to keep pups if homes can't be found for them,good breeders do this.


----------



## bruno

ittybitty said:


> i would agree with a lot of you regardng this show, It really opened our eyes and now understand why we are so reluntant to enter shows. But can anyone say is showing for the dogs or for the owners to have a socail life?


Good question.

I have to honestly say FOR THE MAJORITY of people it is both. There are some people and these were highlighted in the programme that will do ANYTHING to win.

The majority of people show know their dogs are not going to win Best of Breed but still show, so that must be for the fun and social side of it.

I would advise anyone to go to a breed show, not necesarilly a large all breed champ show which can be chaotic, but a show for the breed you like. Go and look at the dogs enjoying themselves, spending time with their family and socialising with other dogs. I know people can say that can happen at a local park but please just go and see for yourselves. An important thing to remember about dogs is to exercise their minds and not just their bodies. I know that my chosen breed, GSD's, certainly get lots of mental stimulation and physical exercise from training for and attending shows.

Before judging people on a TV programme go to a show and talk to the exhibitors, most will be willing to chat all day about their dogs (unless they are about to go in the ring when you should give them piece) and judge for yourselves. I think you might get a shock, these people are not monsters who breed deformed animals for the pet trade but in the majority people who care passionately for their own dogs and their chosen breed in general.


----------



## Natik

sallyanne said:


> As a breeder you need to be prepared to keep pups if homes can't be found for them,good breeders do this.


Thats a good point sallyanne!

No, u cant regulate how many pups will be in a litter but u have tobe prepared and u have to make sure all the pups are being looked after before u have the next litter!
And with looked after i dont mean pts!


----------



## bruno

Natik said:


> but that's a really rare case... And I'm sure some of the pups would get sold... So the number wouldnt definitly not be 15... That's just crazy thinking.
> 
> I would rather sell the dog for les or even for nothing than put it down to sleep.
> 
> I'm really disgusted about this.


I know this sounds like the right thing to do but I personally would NEVER give a dog away to someone unless it was a relative. Unfortunatly in this world people will always take something for free whether they need it or not! When people need to work and pay for something they are far more likely to cherish it's true worth. It is extremely irresponsible to just give away a puppy to someone!

I am not advacating putting the animal to sleep but you could be condeming an animal to a life of misery by simply giving it away.


----------



## Natik

bruno said:


> I know this sounds like the right thing to do but I personally would NEVER give a dog away to someone unless it was a relative. Unfortunatly in this world people will always take something for free whether they need it or not! When people need to work and pay for something they are far more likely to cherish it's true worth. It is extremely irresponsible to just give away a puppy to someone!
> 
> I am not advacating putting the animal to sleep but you could be condeming an animal to a life of misery by simply giving it away.


Thats not my opinien.
So many people can give a dog a lovely loving home but dont have 400-600 £ lying about in their house to pay for the dog.

In the case pts or give away to nice people, strangers? What would u choose?


----------



## jackson

Natik said:


> but that's a really rare case... And I'm sure some of the pups would get sold... So the number wouldnt definitly not be 15... That's just crazy thinking.
> 
> I would rather sell the dog for les or even for nothing than put it down to sleep.
> 
> I'm really disgusted about this.


It's not that rare at all actually.

I would rather do anything than put a healthy puppy to sleep. (or even an unhealthy one if there was a solution that meant it could have a happy, healthy life). After all, by the time they are 8 weeks old, I will have spent just about every waking minute of that 8 weeks with them, as I don't leave my pups at all really. I will also have spent around 5 week sleeping next to them, at least 48 hours afte rtheir birth with not a wink of sleep, and quite possibly spent the last 3 weeks getting up during thenight to check on them. I will have spent individual time with each one, know it's own little personality inside out. Not to mention the financial costs, which will have quite probably been around or over £3000, and we are not rich, just go without other things for our dogs.

I will have watched them play together, open their litte eyes for the first time, helped them suckle on Mm, making sure they all get their share of Mum's milk, helped them with their first solid feed, cleaned up after them, held them, cudled them, photographed them, hung on their every move, rushed out to them at the slightest squeek. Probably taken better care of them tan my children in that 8 weeks, certainly my children would have to wait for something if the puppies needed me first.

Do you honestly think, after all that, having any puppy put to sleep would come easily? Do you think that I wouldn't do anything I had to to ensure the welfare of those pups?


----------



## griffpan

ittybitty said:


> i would agree with a lot of you regardng this show, It really opened our eyes and now understand why we are so reluntant to enter shows. But can anyone say is showing for the dogs or for the owners to have a socail life?


we show for the social side, we only have one dog to show at the mo and she loves it and we get to meet up with friends. if we get placed fantastic, if we don't so what 
seeing this programme doesn't put me off showing because i know that there are fantastic breeders/show people out there who work tirelessly for their chosen breed, but the programme obviously didn't show this at all


----------



## ittybitty

That sounds very fair but aint we just supporting the Kennel Club, shouldnt we just all make a stand about what needs to change, The more we all contiue to go to these shows ignoring what is happening the more the chances of the Kennel Club doing anything. I do know a lot of great breeders but its always the bad ones that let us all down BUT ON A SERIOUS NOTE some of the show breeds have been taken too far, The ridgeback, king charles, pugs and english bull dogs. The german sheapered was shocking to both me and my partner, how anyone can possibly say that is a quality shape for any dog and its blantenly creating a physical deformaty in the name of fashion/showing. Personnaly as breeders we would never consider breeding mother to son, father to daughter, sister to brother & gentic stabilty is a 20th centry knowledge so why is the Kennel Club stuck in the early 19th centry with eugenics


bruno said:


> Good question.
> 
> I have to honestly say FOR THE MAJORITY of people it is both. There are some people and these were highlighted in the programme that will do ANYTHING to win.
> 
> The majority of people show know their dogs are not going to win Best of Breed but still show, so that must be for the fun and social side of it.
> 
> I would advise anyone to go to a breed show, not necesarilly a large all breed champ show which can be chaotic, but a show for the breed you like. Go and look at the dogs enjoying themselves, spending time with their family and socialising with other dogs. I know people can say that can happen at a local park but please just go and see for yourselves. An important thing to remember about dogs is to exercise their minds and not just their bodies. I know that my chosen breed, GSD's, certainly get lots of mental stimulation and physical exercise from training for and attending shows.
> 
> Before judging people on a TV programme go to a show and talk to the exhibitors, most will be willing to chat all day about their dogs (unless they are about to go in the ring when you should give them piece) and judge for yourselves. I think you might get a shock, these people are not monsters who breed deformed animals for the pet trade but in the majority people who care passionately for their own dogs and their chosen breed in general.


----------



## Sadwall

Petowner said:


> I have no doubt that this is a sore subject and maybe things aren't as bad as the BBC have made out. However, something has to do be done about this now before it gets worse. If that means a program like this needs to be made to make the public aware that things like this DO happen then in my book its a good thing.
> 
> When I looked for my dog (Golden Retriever) I made sure that I found a decent breeder, got a full medical of Mother and Father and hip and eye scores for both, I met both parents and got to know the breeders who were excellent people. Sadly, some breeders are in this for the money and the health and welfare of the dogs come way down the priority list...this is just plain wrong and sick!
> 
> We're all on here because we love animals and in particular dogs, if something can be done to help the suffering of dogs thats a good thing, even if the vast majority of the dogs are healthy something should still be done about the bad eggs surely?


Thats exactly the point we are all losing sight of, lets stop the blaming and start correcting it.


----------



## Jo P

bruno said:


> I know this sounds like the right thing to do but I personally would NEVER give a dog away to someone unless it was a relative. Unfortunatly in this world people will always take something for free whether they need it or not! When people need to work and pay for something they are far more likely to cherish it's true worth. It is extremely irresponsible to just give away a puppy to someone!
> 
> I am not advacating putting the animal to sleep but you could be condeming an animal to a life of misery by simply giving it away.


Sorry but that is rubbish - you only need look at the breed specific rescues (all breeds) to know that sadly some people have much, much, more money than sense


----------



## bruno

Natik said:


> Thats not my opinien.
> So many people can give a dog a lovely loving home but dont have 400-600 £ lying about in their house to pay for the dog.
> 
> In the case pts or give away to nice people, strangers? What would u choose?


I realise that so many people could give a dog a good home but I am afraid that is what rescues are for, they have the time, staff and organisation to completely vet applicants and after the dog has been rehomed repeatedly check the dogs welfare. You forget once you let a dog go the breeder has no control over it or authority to check it's welfare. Maybe as a police officer I am always suspicious of people but knowing how people can appear as nice as you can imagine but knowing what they are really capable of is an eye opener.

In answer to your question I would NEVER give a stranger a puppy. I would retain it until a suitable home was available.


----------



## jackson

Jo P said:


> Sorry but that is rubbish - you only need look at the breed specific rescues (all breeds) to know that sadly some people have much, much, more money than sense


It's not rubbish at all. Research carrie dout by rescue centres and animal charities has shown it to be true.


----------



## Natik

jackson said:


> It's not that rare at all actually.
> 
> I would rather do anything than put a healthy puppy to sleep. (or even an unhealthy one if there was a solution that meant it could have a happy, healthy life). After all, by the time they are 8 weeks old, I will have spent just about every waking minute of that 8 weeks with them, as I don't leave my pups at all really. I will also have spent around 5 week sleeping next to them, at least 48 hours afte rtheir birth with not a wink of sleep, and quite possibly spent the last 3 weeks getting up during thenight to check on them. I will have spent individual time with each one, know it's own little personality inside out. Not to mention the financial costs, which will have quite probably been around or over £3000, and we are not rich, just go without other things for our dogs.
> 
> I will have watched them play together, open their litte eyes for the first time, helped them suckle on Mm, making sure they all get their share of Mum's milk, helped them with their first solid feed, cleaned up after them, held them, cudled them, photographed them, hung on their every move, rushed out to them at the slightest squeek. Probably taken better care of them tan my children in that 8 weeks, certainly my children would have to wait for something if the puppies needed me first.
> 
> Do you honestly think, after all that, having any puppy put to sleep would come easily? Do you think that I wouldn't do anything I had to to ensure the welfare of those pups?


And after u put a puppy down to sleep how easily would u have another litter of pups in future?

Its not about u, its not about ur money u spent (Every breeder has his expenses he/she knew about before they started to breed), its about a LIFE. This pup didnt chose to be born, U chose it for him...And why does the pup has to die because the breeder couldnt make some bucks on it?

If u cant sell...then sell it for less or give it away for nothing than pts. Its UR responibility u took before the pups were born.
Choosing a large breed to breed from u must count with large litters!

When we wre out with our pups so many people stopped us saying they wished for pups like this but couldnt afford this money to pay at once (and so many breeders only take cash). Most decent people dont have the cash lying about but would offer a nice home for pups which bad breeders would pts!


----------



## cav

jackson said:


> What do you suggest responsible breeders do then? IMO, compiling a waiting list prior to breeding is responsible.
> 
> Do you think it is responsible to try and rear up to 15 large breed puppies? Maybe you think only those with large kennels and staff should breed in case of this eventuality?


I agree with jackson on this ive got a homes waiting for my next litter.


----------



## Natik

cavrooney said:


> I agree with jackson on this ive got a homes waiting for my next litter.


I agree on this one as well 
A waiting list is a great and responsible thing to do but there are people pulling out sometimes and then the pup is ur responsibility


----------



## bruno

Jo P said:


> Sorry but that is rubbish - you only need look at the breed specific rescues (all breeds) to know that sadly some people have much, much, more money than sense


If you look at my post it said MORE LIKELY TO CHERISH. If you take into consideration the numbers sold very few are in breed rescues purely because the owners cant be bothered anymore, you seem to forget many are there for genuine reasons. Owner has died, had health problems, dog has behavioural problems that have developed since purchase etcetc


----------



## cav

Natik said:


> I agree on this one as well
> A waiting list is a great and responsible thing to do but there are people pulling out sometimes and then the pup is ur responsibility


Yes and if im left with a puppy then i will keep it until a good home is found.
I also offer to buyer that they can return the puppy if they are not happy and i will rehome it i see the pups as my responsabilty


----------



## Suek

going back to the programme, two things strike me- 

to a lay person (cos i know diddly squat about GSD's but i do know that a spine should be straight), those dogs defo looked deformed, how GSD people can say that is normal is beyond belief and secondly

are there any Ridgeback owners on here brave enough to comment on what was said about their breed? cos again I know nothing about Ridgebacks but found that info re pup culling profoundly shocking


----------



## Guest

Natik said:


> And after u put a puppy down to sleep how easily would u have another litter of pups in future?
> 
> Its not about u, its not about ur money u spent (Every breeder has his expenses he/she knew about before they started to breed), its about a LIFE. This pup didnt chose to be born, U chose it for him...And why does the pup has to die because the breeder couldnt make some bucks on it?
> 
> If u cant sell...then sell it for less or give it away for nothing than pts. Its UR responibility u took before the pups were born.
> Choosing a large breed to breed from u must count with large litters!
> 
> When we wre out with our pups so many people stopped us saying they wished for pups like this but couldnt afford this money to pay at once (and so many breeders only take cash). Most decent people dont have the cash lying about but would offer a nice home for pups which bad breeders would pts!





Suek said:


> going back to the programme, two things strike me-
> 
> to a lay person (cos i know diddly squat about GSD's but i do know that a spine should be straight), those dogs defo looked deformed, how GSD people can say that is normal is beyond belief and secondly
> 
> are there any Ridgeback owners on here brave enough to comment on what was said about their breed? cos again I know nothing about Ridgebacks but found that info re pup culling profoundly shocking


agree wiv both these post.


----------



## jackson

Natik said:


> I agree on this one as well
> A waiting list is a great and responsible thing to do but there are people pulling out sometimes and then the pup is ur responsibility


I'm not talking about a few people pulling out, I am talking about an _abnormally large _number of people pulling out due to the backlash of this programme. Breeders know that it is likely several people will pull out, and also that it is likely they can find home for a few extra puppies, or care for them themselves if they need to.

In answer to your question, I cannot see myself ever having a healthy pup put to sleep in reality. However, if I ever had to have any pup put to sleep, even if it were due to a health problem, I doubt I'd ever breed again, as I would find it all too traumatic.


----------



## jackson

Suek said:


> going back to the programme, two things strike me-
> 
> to a lay person (cos i know diddly squat about GSD's but i do know that a spine should be straight), those dogs defo looked deformed, how GSD people can say that is normal is beyond belief and secondly
> 
> are there any Ridgeback owners on here brave enough to comment on what was said about their breed? cos again I know nothing about Ridgebacks but found that info re pup culling profoundly shocking


There is a ridgeback breeder on another forum I use who has said that dermoid sinus IS found is ridgeless puppies. They have also said tat very, very few breeders would cull a ridgeless puppy purely for that reason, despite what the breed club may have sugested.


----------



## bruno

Natik said:


> Thats not my opinien.
> So many people can give a dog a lovely loving home but dont have 400-600 £ lying about in their house to pay for the dog.
> 
> In the case pts or give away to nice people, strangers? What would u choose?


Another thing to consider is the booming trade in dogs to be used for baiting.

Are you aware that hundreds of dogs, particularly large breeds are stolen to be used to train Pit Bulls for dog fights. These dogs are muzzled so they cant defent themselves correctly and the Pit Bulls are set upon them to prepare them for fights!! The helpless dogs are literally torn apart.

As well as stealing the dogs for this purpose people scoure the internet and free papers to pick up cheap or free dogs for this purpose.How could you be sure you are not handing your dog over to someone that is looking for a dog for this reason, the answer is you cant be!


----------



## bruno

Suek said:


> going back to the programme, two things strike me-
> 
> to a lay person (cos i know diddly squat about GSD's but i do know that a spine should be straight), those dogs defo looked deformed, how GSD people can say that is normal is beyond belief and secondly
> 
> are there any Ridgeback owners on here brave enough to comment on what was said about their breed? cos again I know nothing about Ridgebacks but found that info re pup culling profoundly shocking


Sorry but I am confused now.... you say you know nothing about GSD's but they should have a straight SPINE.... who is suggesting their spines were not straight??


----------



## Natik

cavrooney said:


> Yes and if im left with a puppy then i will keep it until a good home is found.
> I also offer to buyer that they can return the puppy if they are not happy and i will rehome it i see the pups as my responsabilty


I wished all the breeders would have this way of thinking.
With this u prove that u should be on top of the list of good breeders cavrooney!


----------



## Guest

bruno said:


> Another thing to consider is the booming trade in dogs to be used for baiting.
> 
> Are you aware that hundreds of dogs, particularly large breeds are stolen to be used to train Pit Bulls for dog fights. These dogs are muzzled so they cant defent themselves correctly and the Pit Bulls are set upon them to prepare them for fights!! The helpless dogs are literally torn apart.
> 
> As well as stealing the dogs for this purpose people scoure the internet and free papers to pick up cheap or free dogs for this purpose.How could you be sure you are not handing your dog over to someone that is looking for a dog for this reason, the answer is you cant be!


How is anyone sure that the pup they sell isnt gonna end up as a bait dog or otherwise???

nothings garanteed in life...how ever carefull u go about selecting homes for ur pups.

u could put all the restrictions u want on a pup but it dont stop the new owners given away their dog in future...or selling it on.


----------



## Natik

bruno said:


> Another thing to consider is the booming trade in dogs to be used for baiting.
> 
> Are you aware that hundreds of dogs, particularly large breeds are stolen to be used to train Pit Bulls for dog fights. These dogs are muzzled so they cant defent themselves correctly and the Pit Bulls are set upon them to prepare them for fights!! The helpless dogs are literally torn apart.
> 
> As well as stealing the dogs for this purpose people scoure the internet and free papers to pick up cheap or free dogs for this purpose.How could you be sure you are not handing your dog over to someone that is looking for a dog for this reason, the answer is you cant be!


Heh 
*But surely if u give it away for free u will still check if the person will be a good owner, just like u would do if u would sell the pup *
U have no guarantee this will not happen if the person pays money for the dog 
That doesnt make sense to me what u said.


----------



## jackson

Natik said:


> Heh
> *But surely if u give it away for free u will still check if the person will be a good owner, just like u would do if u would sell the pup *
> U have no guarantee this will not happen if the person pays money for the dog
> That doesnt make sense to me what u said.


I think the point is that these type of people aren't prepared to pay £600 for a dog, instead they look for dogs that are free/cheap.

There are never any guarantees, but someone involved in dog fighting could seem outwardly like a perfectly respectable person who can offer a dog a good home.


----------



## cav

Natik said:


> I wished all the breeders would have this way of thinking.
> With this u prove that u should be on top of the list of good breeders cavrooney!


Thank you for the compliment

but some members dont agree because i am a classed as a pet breeder because i dont show my dogs  but they are all good examples of the breed


----------



## bruno

Eolabeo said:


> How is anyone sure that the pup they sell isnt gonna end up as a bait dog or otherwise???
> 
> nothings garanteed in life...how ever carefull u go about selecting homes for ur pups.
> 
> u could put all the restrictions u want on a pup but it dont stop the new owners given away their dog in future...or selling it on.


My point is who will spend 400 - 600 buying a puppy to use as bait!! The answer is noone, they will steal or try to find one being given away!


----------



## Sophiex

cavrooney said:


> Thank you for the compliment
> 
> but some members dont agree because i am a classed as a pet breeder because i dont show my dogs  but they are all good examples of the breed


The person who bred Oscar is the same as you. She calls herself a hobby breeder. She was amazing.  I'm sure you are too.


----------



## Natik

bruno said:


> My point is who will spend 400 - 600 buying a puppy to use as bait!! The answer is noone, they will steal or try to find one being given away!


and who says that a person who pays 600 £ for a dog will not abuse it and beat it up and ruin the dog?


----------



## Sophiex

Natik said:


> and who says that a person who pays 600 £ for a dog will not abuse it and beat it up and ruin the dog?


Or will get bored of it after they realise how much work it REALLY needs....


----------



## bruno

jackson said:


> I think the point is that these type of people aren't prepared to pay £600 for a dog, instead they look for dogs that are free/cheap.
> 
> There are never any guarantees, but someone involved in dog fighting could seem outwardly like a perfectly respectable person who can offer a dog a good home.


Looks like we were posting the same thing!

I am glad others can see my point, I was beginning to think I wasn't expressing myself correctly!


----------



## Natik

the chance to find a good home for a dog which is given away for free is much the same as selling the dog


----------



## bruno

Natik said:


> the chance to find a good home for a dog which is given away for free is much the same as selling the dog


Can I ask what experience you have in homing puppies to suitable people that means you can make a bold statement?


----------



## Natik

bruno said:


> Can I ask what experience you have in homing puppies to suitable people that means you can make a bold statement?


U dont need experience...u need to have a good judgment of people.
Just because i havent sold any puppies doesnt mean i dont know what im talking about.

Sounds to me like u run out of argumentive anwers  that u try to argue about me not having any experience 

If u rather put a dog to sleep, then u live with it, but dont force ur opinion on me!


----------



## Guest

bruno said:


> Before critising the good breeders of today remember they are trying to breed out the defects and genetics conditions that the breeders of yesterday bred into the breed.


What about all these breeds where they are deliberatly breeding for wrinkles, short muzzles, stumpy legs, ridges etc. Deliberatly breeding genetic faults in, that is wrong in my opinion.



shunter said:


> I would like to see more draconian measures taken to rewrite the breed standard to get these dogs back to a shape that offers the dog a more active and heathly life.


Couldn't agree more, why breed dogs that can't live a full life? It's as bad as deliberatly letting a dog get obese or breaking it's legs so it can't run around.



bruno said:


> I would advise anyone to go to a breed show, not necesarilly a large all breed champ show which can be chaotic, but a show for the breed you like. Go and look at the dogs enjoying themselves, spending time with their family and socialising with other dogs.


I've been to a champ breed show, it was horrible. Dogs stuck in the back of vans or in crates ALL day, only let out to go in the ring, people "checking" their dogs rediculously harshly, people hitting their dogs for flying their tails. I won't be going to another.


----------



## minnie

ajshep1984 said:


> I've been to a champ breed show, it was horrible. Dogs stuck in the back of vans or in crates ALL day, only let out to go in the ring, people "checking" their dogs rediculously harshly, people hitting their dogs for flying their tails. I won't be going to another.


this is why we need normal people like you and my self who go to enjoy not win to restore showing to a happy, healthy place for dogs and owners to be. please don't quit showing we're not all bad


----------



## Guest

minnie said:


> this is why we need normal people like you and my self who go to enjoy not win to restore showing to a happy, healthy place for dogs and owners to be. please don't quit showing we're not all bad


I know that but I just can't do it, at both the shows I went to I felt like kicking the living daylights out of some people. It's a horrible feeling to stand there and not do anything about the way people treat their dogs. It's horrible to think that some of the people around you are breeding unhealthy dogs and there's nothing you can do. For me the programme confirmed my feelings that it's just not for me.


----------



## bruno

Natik said:


> U dont need experience...u need to have a good judgment of people.
> Just because i havent sold any puppies doesnt mean i dont know what im talking about.
> 
> Sounds to me like u run out of argumentive anwers  that u try to argue about me not having any experience
> 
> If u rather put a dog to sleep, then u live with it, but dont force ur opinion on me!


No my point is you have no experience so you can't really comment on how difficult it is to find suitable people you are willing to trust with your dogs. I have refused to sell dogs to people I consider are not suitable.

U need to have a good judgment of people..... you sound like a social worker, take people on how you find them. Believe me people can be VERY manipulative when hiding the truth. I have interviewed dozens of "plausabile" people and if it wasnt for me knowing the truth through other peoples accounts or video evidence these people would fool anyone. I am considered to have a VERY good judgement of people but anyone can be fooled. Take a look in any court room up and down the country and people are walking free because they come across as an honest person on that day! You might not realise but people sometimes LIE to get what they want.

My point behind the whole thing is people will not spend hundreds of pounds on a dog to kill it within days!! They would however not think twice about killing and animal given to them for nothing!! I am afraid that is the real world, trying researching the internet for stolen dogs and you might realise the problem.

Can you tell me when I said I would put a pup to sleep? I think before typing you should get your facts straight.


----------



## minnie

ajshep1984 said:


> I know that but I just can't do it, at both the shows I went to I felt like kicking the living daylights of some people. It's a horrible feeling to stand there and not do anything about the way people treat their dogs. It's horrible to think that some of the people around you are breeding unhealthy dogs and there's nothing you can do. For me the programme confirmed my feelings that it's just not for me.


well if you're sure its not right for you and you're not enjoying it then do what you say after all the whole point of it is to have fun


----------



## Jo P

bruno said:


> If you look at my post it said MORE LIKELY TO CHERISH. If you take into consideration the numbers sold very few are in breed rescues purely because the owners cant be bothered anymore, you seem to forget many are there for genuine reasons. Owner has died, had health problems, dog has behavioural problems that have developed since purchase etcetc


I havent 'forgotten' My own rescue boy was there through no fault of his own - the fact remains that he ended up in rescue despite his previous owners paying good money for him


----------



## tashi

First time I have commented on this I know about the problem with Cavs as I have a friend who breeds them and know that they have done a lot of research into the 'brain' problem syringohydromyelia and was one of the people responsible for the implementing of the mri scans in the UK, I spoke to him yesterday and the people in the breed are so upset about the bad press which has been given the breed with thanks to the minority of breeders like the ones exposed in the TV programme - he was disgusted with the way that the collar and lead were left on the dog to 'trigger' the attack and to put the dog through it for the sake of the camera was just inhumane!!!!

As for the GSD's one of the dogs featured I have seen being shown and it doesnt move anything like it showed on the TV they say a camera never lies - well oh boy in that case it did !!!!!

Unfortunately, I dont think they actually spoke to people that really care for the breeds and as for the culling of the rhodesian's I thought that was absolutely awful.

Our dogs have all the NECESSARY health tests perhaps not all that they 'could' have but sometimes we put them through so much that we risk making them into nothing more than pincushions, but, there is always the problem of some genetic probs from generations ago raising its ugly head at some time and that is not 'inbreeding' some one I know took on a litter of crossbred dachshund x lab everyone was a fitter and they also had cataract and they were no where near inbred !!


----------



## Natik

bruno said:


> No my point is you have no experience so you can't really comment on how difficult it is to find suitable people you are willing to trust with your dogs. I have refused to sell dogs to people I consider are not suitable.
> 
> U need to have a good judgment of people..... you sound like a social worker, take people on how you find them. Believe me people can be VERY manipulative when hiding the truth. I have interviewed dozens of "plausabile" people and if it wasnt for me knowing the truth through other peoples accounts or video evidence these people would fool anyone. I am considered to have a VERY good judgement of people but anyone can be fooled. Take a look in any court room up and down the country and people are walking free because they come across as an honest person on that day! You might not realise but people sometimes LIE to get what they want.
> 
> My point behind the whole thing is people will not spend hundreds of pounds on a dog to kill it within days!! They would however not think twice about killing and animal given to them for nothing!! I am afraid that is the real world, trying researching the internet for stolen dogs and you might realise the problem.
> 
> Can you tell me when I said I would put a pup to sleep? I think before typing you should get your facts straight.


U never said that...but u are against giving it away for free, am i right?

But lets please dont argue 

I know breeders which didnt give away pups because of lies.
But to find a good home its all about how much effort u put in finding a good home. I personally would try to deliver the dog myself to see how the people live and i believe from doing this u would have a good picture about the person.
I know breeders which tried to deliever the dog and the person refused...so that would be a dodgy person in my eyes already.

I understand ur point but please understand mine that paying 600£ or so will not stop a new owner of abusing the dog either.


----------



## Guest

bruno said:


> My point behind the whole thing is people will not spend hundreds of pounds on a dog to kill it within days!! They would however not think twice about killing and animal given to them for nothing!! I am afraid that is the real world, trying researching the internet for stolen dogs and you might realise the problem.


No but people will pay £400-600 for a dog to breed it to death. Our previous neighbours had two Staffs that they bred season after season just to make money, the dogs were never walked or played with, they only seemed to be let onto the garden twice a day to go to the toilet.

Also as others have pointed out, people will pay a lot of money for a dog, realise it's not for them further down the line and sell it on to ANYONE. Or if they aren't bothered about the money just dump it.


----------



## bruno

ajshep1984 said:


> I know that but I just can't do it, at both the shows I went to I felt like kicking the living daylights of some people. It's a horrible feeling to stand there and not do anything about the way people treat their dogs. It's horrible to think that some of the people around you are breeding unhealthy dogs and there's nothing you can do. For me the programme confirmed my feelings that it's just not for me.


One good thing about the Kennel Club is if you do see acts of cruelty at a show you can report the offenders to them as shows are held under licence from the KC. The offenders can then be banned from showing at future shows.


----------



## satincollie

HTML:


I've been to a champ breed show, it was horrible. Dogs stuck in the back of vans or in crates ALL day, only let out to go in the ring, people "checking" their dogs rediculously harshly, people hitting their dogs for flying their tails. I won't be going to another.

As I was at that self same show I most say over exageration does not make your points very well. I persume you stood by all these vans all day to see the dogs only removed for the class they were in? 
We had 8 dogs with us please tell me where I safely put the other 6 while I show a dog puppy and the person with me shows a bitch puppy in the two rings that are running side by side and so on throughout the day? Each and everyone of those dogs also got exercised in the enclosed field at that venue and did I imagine all the other dogs being walked in that field as well?
Some handlers may well have used unacceptable methods however making such sweeping generalisations is very offensive to those of us that do not.


----------



## bruno

Natik said:


> U never said that...but u are against giving it away for free, am i right?
> 
> But lets please dont argue
> 
> I know breeders which didnt give away pups because of lies.
> But to find a good home its all about how much effort u put in finding a good home. I personally would try to deliver the dog myself to see how the people live and i believe from doing this u would have a good picture about the person.
> I know breeders which tried to deliever the dog and the person refused...so that would be a dodgy person in my eyes already.
> 
> I understand ur point but please understand mine that paying 600£ or so will not stop a new owner of abusing the dog either.


I don't mean to sound argumentative, sometimes you re-read something written and only see it then so I apologise if I came over that way.

You are right I would not give a dog away other than to family or well known friend.

As I say maybe I am overly suspicious of people due to my job, but I prefer that than risk a dog ending up used as a piece of meat.

I fully agree that people paying £600 will not prevent them abusing a dog, if they are of that mindset nothing will prevent them doing it. Breeders can only try and find good homes, we find as much as possible about people and their home situation before even considering selling a dog. We have put several people off because we asked more questions about them than they get to ask about the dog!

All I was saying was someone paying that sort of money is less likely to want the dog for illegal purposes.


----------



## bruno

ajshep1984 said:


> No but people will pay £400-600 for a dog to breed it to death. Our previous neighbours had two Staffs that they bred season after season just to make money, the dogs were never walked or played with, they only seemed to be let onto the garden twice a day to go to the toilet.
> 
> Also as others have pointed out, people will pay a lot of money for a dog, realise it's not for them further down the line and sell it on to ANYONE. Or if they aren't bothered about the money just dump it.


I fully understand your points but you have to understand as previously posted reputable breeders have spent nearly 3 months with the pups and are genuinely attached to them. You can only do your best to try and find a suitable permanent home for your pups. What happens after that is beyond a breeders control, there is no way to force someone to bring the dog back to you or prevent them from breeding themselves other than putting the restrictions on the KC paperwork I mentioned before. Even then this only means they cant KC register the pups, they can obviously breed them and sell them to people.


----------



## Guest

bruno said:


> One good thing about the Kennel Club is if you do see acts of cruelty at a show you can report the offenders to them as shows are held under licence from the KC. The offenders can then be banned from showing at future shows.


But would they actually ban them? I have little faith that they would. I am led to believe they often don't act on complaints:

For Example

_Four Yorkie pups from the same litter. One had no hip bone, one had systemic liver shunt, one was pts after two months and the fourth has perthes of back leg. In all cases testicles had not dropped which resulted in further surgery. Vets fees totalled £3,285. One furious owner was told by the KC that inbreeding is not illegal and refused to reveal the other owners names who had bought from the same litter. All pups were KC Reg. Letter from KC offering their condolences but stating that private sales of dogs do not come within their jurisdiction and advised owner to report to trading standards. Why has the KC not stopped this breeder from registering any more of her pups?

GSD pup with hip dysplasia at 8 months old. Vets fees over £1,000. According to the KC inbreeding is acceptable if Sire/Daughter but not Dam/Son. This GSDs grandfather is also the Dams father. The two sisters and the mother all suffered from the same problem, so no hip scoring was done. The owners vet rang the breeder and advised them not to breed again but, needless to say another litter is due before Christmas. This breeder has been taken to court many times but her pups are still being registered by the KC._


----------



## Guest

satincollie said:


> As I was at that self same show I most say over exageration does not make your points very well / making such sweeping generalisations is very offensive to those of us that do not.


I am not exageratting or making sweeping generalisations at all. I did not say ALL dogs were kept in crates all day (sorry they might have been allowed out to have a piss too, so that makes it okay) or that all owners man handled their dogs.



satincollie said:


> I persume you stood by all these vans all day to see the dogs only removed for the class they were in?


Yes that is exaclty what I did, I stood there allllll day! 



satincollie said:


> We had 8 dogs with us please tell me where I safely put the other 6 while I show a dog puppy and the person with me shows a bitch puppy in the two rings that are running side by side and so on throughout the day?


That is not what I'm talking about, I am talking about the people that leave their dogs in the crates ALL day, don't claim that it doesn't happen because it does and the last time I raised this people agreed with me! 

Personally if I had 8 dogs to show I would either bring people to look after the dogs while I was in the ring or not take all 8 to every show. I wouldn't want my dog couped up in a crate for that long but each to their own. 



satincollie said:


> Each and everyone of those dogs also got exercised in the enclosed field at that venue and did I imagine all the other dogs being walked in that field as well?


Exercised my backside, most dogs got a quick wander to have a piss and then back to their crates. These are Border Collie's we are talking about not little toy breeds that don't need much exercise. My boy was bored to death in a class of 15 (not at BCCW) never mind leaving him in a crate for hours on end.


----------



## bruno

ajshep1984 said:


> But would they actually ban them? I have little faith that they would. I am led to believe they often don't act on complaints:
> 
> For Example
> 
> _Four Yorkie pups from the same litter. One had no hip bone, one had systemic liver shunt, one was pts after two months and the fourth has perthes of back leg. In all cases testicles had not dropped which resulted in further surgery. Vets fees totalled £3,285. One furious owner was told by the KC that inbreeding is not illegal and refused to reveal the other owners names who had bought from the same litter. All pups were KC Reg. Letter from KC offering their condolences but stating that private sales of dogs do not come within their jurisdiction and advised owner to report to trading standards. Why has the KC not stopped this breeder from registering any more of her pups?
> 
> GSD pup with hip dysplasia at 8 months old. Vets fees over £1,000. According to the KC inbreeding is acceptable if Sire/Daughter but not Dam/Son. This GSDs grandfather is also the Dams father. The two sisters and the mother all suffered from the same problem, so no hip scoring was done. The owners vet rang the breeder and advised them not to breed again but, needless to say another litter is due before Christmas. This breeder has been taken to court many times but her pups are still being registered by the KC._


Sorry maybe I didnt make myself clear.

I meant if you witness dogs being badly treated or left all day in a car/van (Though I must agree with a previous poster that unless you stand there all day it is unfair to say the animals are left all day, I know I leave one of mine in the car when showing the other) whilst at a dog show governed by the KC you can make a complaint. If found to be true the exhibitor could be banned from showing and have their affix removed preventing them from registering any litters.

Your posts again highlight the problem of unethical breeders.

I think what a lot of people objected to about the programme itself and the resulting comments evident on many message boards is that everyone is being tarred with the same brush as these people you have just posted about. We are not all like that.


----------



## clueless

bruno said:


> I have no doubt this is true. I was at Manchester when they filmed the GSD's and they were all very nice stating it was for a BBC documentary promoting dog shows. Why not just be honest? Everybody in showing knows there are problems in EVERY breed so why not discuss the matter with people trying to correct these problems?
> 
> It seems to me they didnt want to portray there is an ethical side to breeding and just tarnish everyone with the same brush as the unethical breeders they did speak to!


Jemima also joined Champdogs and posted about a documentary. She asked a lot of questions and posted a few links to USA studies mostly. Not once did I see or hear any good said about Breeders who do health test and every reply on champdogs she had proved there was health testing going on, so makes me wonder why she omitted this info.
In my breed PRA is in a lot of lines from USA, there has never been a positive dog as yet( keeping fingers crossed) in UK


----------



## Natik

The kc will only do something about it when it starts loosing the good breeders. By going and showing beside the bad breeders its like accepting it. So aj is doing a good thing in my opinion. But he alone will not win the big fight.


----------



## clueless

jackson said:


> You obviously haven't been looking on the right forums.
> 
> I agree with clueless though, I am not defending the kennel club, but the pedigree dogs, and their breeders, who breed ethically and try to rule out health problems within the breed.
> 
> The programme talked about a few of the 200+ breeds, a few hidoeusly selfish and unethical breeders, then implied that the situation was the same for all pedigree dogs. They induced/prolonged fits in the boxer and syringolmyelia 'attacks' in cavaliers, for the purpose of televison. Please don't tell me you think this is right?
> 
> I notice the programme also conveniently 'forgot' to mentiont hat all the scientsts it wer etalking to who had researched inbreeding wer epart of a study insigate dby the KC itself.
> 
> The fact is, the backlash from this programme will not be a change in the way idiots breed pedigree dogs, but that the general public refuse to buy any pedigree dog, as they won't differenciate between breeders. It is happening already, I know of breeders who have litters of pups, ethically and responsibly bred, and new owners are backing out due to this programme.


Exactly my thoughts. Now the RSPCA on that programare they now going to improve themselves as they will have a lot more dogs to deal with due to this program imo. I hope they stand up and be accounted when the rescues are getting Pedigree dogs left at their centres due to the public getting scared


----------



## satincollie

Erm I think I know my dogs are Border Collies only having had them for 20 odd years starting with the old farm tyke. Oh by the way they are lying on the sofas around me as I type . This was the first Championship show for the Border Collie Club of Wales and so we decided to give a good entry for the first show to support them. We travel together to save on fuel costs. Where do I put the extra people needed as the van only has 3 seats? Strangly enough I didnt see you stood by our van at all but then I assume you didnt even watch your own dogs class then as you wouldnt be able to see it from beside most of the vans. Sorry you are wrong about the exercise they got as well but I'm sure you'll continue exagerating to your hearts content whatever I say.


----------



## Sadwall

jackson said:


> You were completely mis-infomed by your vet/specialist.
> 
> I breed Goldens, a breed that has to be hip scored, so it is my business to know as much about hip dysplacia as possible, in order to try and prevent it in puppies I breed. Recent research has shown that environmental factors, such as food and exercise strongly contribute to hip dysplacia/low/high hip scores.
> 
> As a breeder (a good one!) you do what you can to prevent problems in puppies you breed. For me, they are like my children, I hold them all very dear to me. I have all the required checks for my breed and also have the vet check the puppies over before they go go their new homes, which icludes basic sight testing, hearing tests, heart etc. However, there are no guarantees the pups will never have a thing wrong, we are dealing with a live animal, after all.


Nice to know there are such caring breeders out there Jackson, like you say you can never guarantee a puppy will not get sick but you can guarantee they won't be inheriting any live threatening and nasty genetic diseases, which is what we are talking about.

However, can you tell me where you think I was advised wrongly by the highly qualified and experienced vets and specialists??! Hip Dysplasia is a deformity of the hip joint - yes environmental factors can aggravate it obviously but they are not the cause. It is a genetic deformity, my girl had this condition passed down to her and was born with it, and quite severely too, I have seen quite a few x-rays - nasty stuff!


----------



## griffpan

minnie said:


> this is why we need normal people like you and my self who go to enjoy not win to restore showing to a happy, healthy place for dogs and owners to be. please don't quit showing we're not all bad


Couldn't agree more 



Natik said:


> The kc will only do something about it when it starts loosing the good breeders. By going and showing beside the bad breeders its like accepting it. So aj is doing a good thing in my opinion. But he alone will not win the big fight.


But why should the good breeders/show people stop doing somthing they love doing. if the good breeders stop then imo the bad breeders will be winning as they will have no competition and then be able to claim they've won this, that and the other, leading them to breed more & more unhealthy pups to sell to people.


----------



## clueless

ittybitty said:


> i would agree with a lot of you regardng this show, It really opened our eyes and now understand why we are so reluntant to enter shows. But can anyone say is showing for the dogs or for the owners to have a socail life?


But you have entered shows and were as proud as punch posting your winning results


----------



## Natik

griffpan said:


> Couldn't agree more
> 
> But why should the good breeders/show people stop doing somthing they love doing. if the good breeders stop then imo the bad breeders will be winning as they will have no competition and then be able to claim they've won this, that and the other, leading them to breed more & more unhealthy pups to sell to people.


idont mean stop forever... Stop as a protest against bad breeders. The money the kc would loose through this would make them to change things.

I think showing dogs is a great thing... I would love to show mine in future. But I think the bad breeders are ruining it. I would like to enjoy myself there and not be sad by the health of some of the dogs.


----------



## minnie

griffpan said:


> Couldn't agree more
> 
> But why should the good breeders/show people stop doing somthing they love doing. if the good breeders stop then imo the bad breeders will be winning as they will have no competition and then be able to claim they've won this, that and the other, leading them to breed more & more unhealthy pups to sell to people.


glad you agree


----------



## Guest

bruno said:


> I think what a lot of people objected to about the programme itself and the resulting comments evident on many message boards is that everyone is being tarred with the same brush as these people you have just posted about. We are not all like that.


I object to that too and have posted to that effect, but the KC do not do a lot (in my opinion) and they have the means to do much more but are refusing to do so. The attitude seen on here to me is one that won't make these changes happen.



satincollie said:


> Erm I think I know my dogs are Border Collies only having had them for 20 odd years starting with the old farm tyke. Oh by the way they are lying on the sofas around me as I type . This was the first Championship show for the Border Collie Club of Wales and so we decided to give a good entry for the first show to support them. We travel together to save on fuel costs. Where do I put the extra people needed as the van only has 3 seats? Strangly enough I didnt see you stood by our van at all but then I assume you didnt even watch your own dogs class then as you wouldnt be able to see it from beside most of the vans. Sorry you are wrong about the exercise they got as well but I'm sure you'll continue exagerating to your hearts content whatever I say.


Seeing as you are trying to justify your actions I presume you are one of the people I am talking about, otherwise you would have no need to justify yourself?


----------



## Guest

.......


----------



## clueless

Eolabeo said:


> .......


Can I have some


----------



## JANICE199

well its been said the show was out to shock people, well its done that.and i for one think its a good thing...we would'nt be discussing the kc in such depth had we not seen it...so if nothing else, it has shown how bad "some" breeders are, and how the kc should get their fingers out and change things.


----------



## satincollie

Please do not be offensive to justify your comments if you wish to question my integrity speak to the breeder and owner of your dogs sire. You dont even know me and I am becoming equally glad I will not get to know you.


----------



## Guest

clueless said:


> Can I have some


yep u sure can  sit back and watch the sparks fly


----------



## minnie

out of interest do you think we could build a new kennel club designed to work and not fail?


----------



## rottiesloveragdolls

Eolabeo said:


> .......


*PMSL .........*


----------



## JANICE199

minnie said:


> out of interest do you think we could build a new kennel club designed to work and not fail?


i think so..i think the kc "could" work...but i feel they don't do enough at the momment.


----------



## Sadwall

canuckjill said:


> I'm finding this very interesting and wish I could see the program but it's only available in the UK. I do agree that some dogs are bred for extremes and am happy that everyone here seems to be all for the health tests and the betterment of their individual breeds ...Jill


Hi Jill, Can you not access BBC iplayer over there through the internet, they show repeats for up to a week:

BBC iPlayer - Pedigree Dogs Exposed


----------



## minnie

yep, they are in a position to put a stop to this even if it could be a chalange but all they do is sit there, and did you notace that they were all old men?


----------



## JANICE199

minnie said:


> yep, they are in a position to put a stop to this even if it could be a chalange but all they do is sit there, and did you notace that they were all old men?


pmsl probably hoping to get a young bit of skirt


----------



## Suek

Isn't a ruler straight? And if that ruler is bent you wouldn't buy it Bruno - right?

I have seen pictures and indeed seen GSD's with straight backs (I'm also presuming that you have a straight back), so I stand by what I say - those dogs on that programme were deformed

ps Elobeao pls can i have a glass - is it voddy?


----------



## clueless

JANICE199 said:


> i think so..i think the kc "could" work...but i feel they don't do enough at the momment.


Here is a link with some interesting reading Janice

Dog genetic health


----------



## minnie

JANICE199 said:


> pmsl probably hoping to get a young bit of skirt


 probably, probably. i think it would benifit from some younger people who have been out and seen whats going on now, the man on the programme said he had no idea about the ridgeback culling!


----------



## clueless

Eolabeo said:


> yep u sure can  sit back and watch the sparks fly


Woo Hoo


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> But would they actually ban them? I have little faith that they would. I am led to believe they often don't act on complaints:


As far as I'm aware any complaint made to the KC will be investigated,for example,
Alyn & Deeside SBT Club CH Show last year(I think)
A dog with poor movement and a limp was given the RCC,complaints by other people were recieved by the KC who investigated the matter,the end result was the Judge that day,was banned from awarding CC's and subsquently I heard he resigned from the club.


----------



## JANICE199

clueless said:


> Here is a link with some interesting reading Janice
> 
> Dog genetic health


clueless the point i'm trying to put over is this.
i was achildminder ok, and for those who don't know this.ofsted the governing body have the right to turn up on your doorstep, unannounced and you can't refuse them entry....why can't the kc...have a similar system?


----------



## Sophiex

sallyanne said:


> As far as I'm aware any complaint made to the KC will be investigated.


Oscar's breeder (who is KC reg) complained that she made several complaints to the KC and they did nothing at al!


----------



## Guest

Sophiex said:


> Oscar's breeder (who is KC reg) complained that she made several complaints to the KC and they did nothing at al!


They will investigate,but it doesn't mean they will act sadly.


----------



## canuckjill

Hi no iBBC can only be watched overthere but I did get to see some of it on you tube so now at least I understand what everyone is upset about. I'm actually quite enjoting the debate because I do believe some good will come out of all this the CKC has it's share of similar problems. There are no real rules with testing . On another note I bought my female sheltie when she was 9 mnths old I didn't expect a discount I actually thought I would have to pay more but I didn't. I already knew she'd be in size that she had a nice outgoing personality a plus with shelties and she's had all her shots except Rabies. The breeder figured the last 3 would be with her forever as when they were 10 weeks old a family emergency arose so only the the reserved ones were sold cause she didn't advertise I found her by accident. Boy I was a lucky girl that day although we had 3 or 4 visits before I picked her up I would have waited a lot longer if I had needed to...Jill


----------



## clueless

JANICE199 said:


> clueless the point i'm trying to put over is this.
> i was achildminder ok, and for those who don't know this.ofsted the governing body have the right to turn up on your doorstep, unannounced and you can't refuse them entry....why can't the kc...have a similar system?


I know what you are saying, I previously posted that they cannot police breeders unfortunately. Pups are registered with the KC when they are weeks old when no hereditary disease are present, it is a difficult call really. I gave you the link as although I feel they could/ should do a lot more, they are not sitting on their asses, things are done


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> clueless the point i'm trying to put over is this.
> i was achildminder ok, and for those who don't know this.ofsted the governing body have the right to turn up on your doorstep, unannounced and you can't refuse them entry....why can't the kc...have a similar system?


The KC don't have any legal powers to do this.


----------



## JANICE199

clueless said:


> I know what you are saying, I previously posted that they cannot police breeders unfortunately. Pups are registered with the KC when they are weeks old when no hereditary disease are present, it is a difficult call really. I gave you the link as although I feel they could/ should do a lot more, they are not sitting on their asses, things are done


i appreciate that..and i did see the link...lol i was reading something on there a few weeks ago....see i'm not really a dumb blonde


----------



## clueless

JANICE199 said:


> i appreciate that..and i did see the link...lol i was reading something on there a few weeks ago....see i'm not really a dumb blonde


I never said you were
At the end of the day imo Buyers have to do their research etc....The KC is a registry body of Pedigree dogs. Presumptions are being made by some that Kc registration meant healthtests or good breeders etc. I'm not sure people would 'presume' a car was in good working order just because it was registered with the DVLA, the registry body of motoring...


----------



## marlynaveve

Some of you have mentioned inbreeding. There is nothing at all wrong with inbreeding, its the best way of establishing a 'line'. Farmers have been breeding stock this way for hundreds of years to produce thier pedigree herds. The problems arise when it is practiced by people who have no idea what they are doing. Only fit, healthy animals should be used, those which carry no defects or health problems and that takes years of experience to know, and I would say that these days there are very few dog breeders around with that kind of knowledge. A pedigree means nothing, everything has a one, its a family tree, thats all. A well bred animal is another matter all together. Just mating two dogs of the same breed hardly ever produces GOOD puppies, KNOWHOW and EXPERIENCE does that.


----------



## Debbie

marlynaveve said:


> Some of you have mentioned inbreeding. There is nothing at all wrong with inbreeding, its the best way of establishing a 'line'. Farmers have been breeding stock this way for hundreds of years to produce thier pedigree herds. The problems arise when it is practiced by people who have no idea what they are doing. Only fit, healthy animals should be used, those which carry no defects or health problems and that takes years of experience to know, and I would say that these days there are very few dog breeders around with that kind of knowledge. A pedigree means nothing, everything has a one, its a family tree, thats all. A well bred animal is another matter all together. Just mating two dogs of the same breed hardly ever produces GOOD puppies, KNOWHOW and EXPERIENCE does that.


A very good post


----------



## catman3000

I have to say I know very little of inbreeding with pedigree dogs but many people will have only just realised that this goes on and will think it's strange to say the least.

I guess there will be many arguments for and against but I think one thing is certain, there are far too many half-assed breeders in the business for nothing other than profit and possibly showing off at dog shows in the hope that their prize dog will lead to more sales, whether it is carrying a life threatening disease or not.

The breeders who care should not have too many worries about the BBC show but the KC needs to get with the times and put animal health first, not appearance.

Yet again human greed, ignorance and arrogance are causing extreme pain and suffering to so many animals and there really is not need for it.


----------



## JANICE199

sallyanne said:


> The KC don't have any legal powers to do this.


sallyanne this is my point.....this damn country of ours SHOULD make it so there is a governing body that is held to answer..the usa don't have this problem.so it can be done.
my question like so many others is....why is'nt it?
this is NOT aimed at you or anyone else.


----------



## bailey210608

I just so feel uncomfortable with imbreeding of any sort with any animal, I know nothing about breeding but something just tells me it's soooo wrong.


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> sallyanne this is my point.....this damn country of ours SHOULD make it so there is a governing body that is held to answer..the usa don't have this problem.so it can be done.
> my question like so many others is....why is'nt it?
> this is NOT aimed at you or anyone else.


I think you wil find the AKC (Amercian Kennel Club) Operate in much the same way as the UK KC.

American Kennel Club - About Registration
About Registration

The American Kennel Club, a not-for-profit organization established in 1884, maintains a purebred dog registry, sanctions dog events, and promotes responsible dog ownership.

*As AKC does not breed or sell dogs, it cannot guarantee the quality or health of dogs in its registry.* AKC reserves the right to refuse or to rescind the registration of any dog for cause.

The owners of registered dogs have access to numerous educational and informational services provided by AKC, as well as to various competitive events. The rules and regulations for each type of event should be referenced to determine specific eligibility and performance requirements.

Papers and Identification

When you buy a dog represented as AKC registrable, you should receive an AKC Dog Registration Application form properly filled out by the seller. When you complete your portion and submit it with the proper fee, this form will enable you to register the dog. When the application has been processed, you will receive an AKC Registration Certificate.

Under AKC Rules, any person who sells dogs represented as AKC registrable, must maintain records that make it possible to give full identifying information with every dog delivered even though AKC "papers" are not yet available. Do not accept a promise of later identification.

The Rules and Regulations of the American Kennel Club stipulate that whenever someone sells or delivers a dog registrable with AKC, the dog must be identified by providing the buyer with a properly completed AKC Dog Registration Application for a dog not yet individually registered or a properly completed AKC Registration Certificate for a registered dog. If neither of these is available, the person delivering or shipping the dog must furnish the person acquiring the dog with a bill of sale or written statement, signed by the seller, giving all of the identifying information listed below.

For a Dog Not Yet Individually Registered
Breed 
Sex and color and markings 
Date of birth 
Litter number (when available) 
Names and numbers of sire and dam 
Name of breeder
Date sold or delivered

For a Registered Dog
Breed 
Registered name 
Registration number
Date sold or delivered

This identifying information must be supplied with the dog even though AKC papers are not yet available, and even to a person who takes the dog only for resale as an agent or on consignment, and the same information must be passed on by him when he disposes of it. When you do receive the properly completed AKC registration papers, verify the papers against your bill of sale to ensure that all the information is correct. Please be advised that a dog will not be registered or transferred without the proper AKC registration papers.

If you are buying a dog that is supposed to be registrable with the AKC you should realize it is your responsibility to obtain complete identification of the dog or you should not buy the dog. Failure to get AKC "registration papers" causes more grief for buyers of purebred registrable dogs than any other problem except sickness. It has long been common practice to explain the inability saying "AKC hasn't sent the papers yet." The essence of this and similar excuses is that because the American Kennel Club is at fault, papers are not available. The fact is that the processing of any AKC registration item takes approximately three weeks. If a breeder is doing his paperwork in a regular, careful manner, there is ample time to obtain the necessary "papers" from AKC prior to the sale of any puppy. When "papers" are not available at the time of delivery, it is a red-flag warning sign to exercise extreme caution.

AKC Registration and Quality

There is a widely held belief that "AKC" or "AKC papers" guarantee the quality of a dog. This is not the case. AKC is a registry body. A registration certificate identifies the dog as the offspring of a known sire and dam, born on a known date. It in no way indicates the quality or state of health of the dog. Quality in the sense of "show quality" is determined by many factors including the dog's health, physical condition, ability to move and appearance. Breeders breeding show stock are trying to produce animals that closely resemble the description of perfection described in the breed standard. Many people breed their dogs with no concern for the qualitative demands of the breed standard. When this occurs repeatedly over several generations, the animals, while still purebred, can be of extremely low quality. Before buying a dog, you should investigate the dog's parentage (including titles, DNA and pedigree information), the breeder's breeding practices, the breed standard, and the genetic tests recommended by the Parent Club for the breed. For more information, go to About Buying a Dog and visit the Parent Club website.

How AKC Registration Functions

The American Kennel Club registration system can be described as a cycle, which is repeated every generation. A convenient starting point is the registration of a litter. In order for a litter to be eligible for registration, the sire (Father/stud dog) and the dam (Mother/bitch) must be individually AKC registered and the litter must be whelped in the United States. Registration of the litter must be completed before any of the pups from the litter can be individually registered with AKC. Application to register a litter must be submitted on a Litter Registration Application form. This form, as well as others mentioned here, is available upon request. The owners of the sire and dam should complete and sign the appropriate portions of the application and submit it to AKC with the required fee.


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> Yes well done Sally that is EXACTLY what I said.
> 
> To say I am disappointed is an understatement, the very people I respected the most on this forum are the ones condoning this behaviour. Sweep it under the carpet and move on, it will be forgotten in a few days but all the ill puppies will still be there.
> 
> Why are you so passionate about puppy farms and Byb's but couldn't give two hoots about this?
> 
> There are good breeders and bad breeders BUT this programme only highlighted a few of the bad breeders, there are hundreds more. That Cavalier might have been the only one highlighted but how many people defended her or ignored the issue on the way out? That is why I think PLENTY of show people ARE scum! Add to the that the way I have witnessed first hand people treating their dogs at shows, it's not a great picture and not one I want to be part of.
> 
> The KC condone these practises and in my eyes are no better than PETA or the RSPCA. It's about time the people with the means to make a difference started practising what they preach.


Ive not been able to join in this debate since Sunday night because of work commitments  Im able to view at work but not send replies. There have been far too many posts to answer individually, but I would just like to answer this one.

Alan, please dont have a knee jerk angry reaction to this  its not a get at you; its an attempt to ask to you stop and think and consider that there may just be a different approach to the problem. As youll see, your posts have had me really questioning what I believe in  I hope that you will give as good consideration to what Im going to say.

You say you are disappointed in the reactions of people on this forum who you respect. Have you stopped to ask yourself why the very people on this forum who you respect have had the reaction they did to the program? (Im going to presume you include me within this because Ive spoken out against this program and I hope you respected me until then!) Nothing can have changed with us and our beliefs in the space of an hour  we are still the same people, still passionately devoted to the welfare not only of our animals, of our particular breed, but of all animals; so something else must be happening for us to be feeling this way. Could it be that we are feeling this way because we have the experience and prior knowledge to know that this program has misrepresented and inflated the facts?

Alan, just as you were disappointed with the reactions of people who you respected on this forum, your replies have had me really looking at what I believe and why I believe it. You are a person who I *know* to be an excellent pet owner, who I *know* cares deeply about the welfare of all animals. So the fact that you were so upset over what this program had led you to believe really had me questioning my own beliefs. Was I right when I thought that this program had misrepresented and distorted facts? Was I right when I felt that what this program showed was happening in a minority of cases? Am I condoning what is being done to these animals by supporting the good initiatives of the KC? Was I right to continue to show?

These questions and more have been going through and though my head since the program. And then your phrase, It's about time the people with the means to make a difference started practising what they preach seemed to make it all fall into perspective.

I* am* practising what I preach, and I *do* believe I can make a difference. I believe that no-one ever influenced anything by standing on the sidelines and shouting at it. I believe that to alter something you have to be there, in the middle of it, doing your bit to make things better. The more good owners, breeders and showers there are, the more we can oust the ones that behave as the ones that were shown in this program. And just as my prior knowledge and experience helps me to *know *you are a good owner, my prior knowledge and experience of the show world helps me to *know *that this program misrepresented it, to *know* that most breeders and exhibitors care passionately about their animals, to *know* that most judges are judging the conformation, movement and temperament of a dog rather than its beauty, and to *know *that, whilst the KC is far from perfect, it is not the uncaring, didactic ogre that this program made it out to be.

My knowledge comes from years of direct experience; and I trust my own experience more than anything a witch-hunt of a program would try to make me believe. Im not naïve; I know there are practices that need to change and there are areas in which the KC could do much better  but I believe that the best way for me as an individual to change them is to be part of it and effect the change from within. For me, that means continuing to be a good owner, continuing to be a good breeder, and continuing to show so that I can reach as wide an audience as possible to promote these good practices.

I believe that by doing something positive like this to help my breed and dogs in general, I am in no way condoning the bad breeders and bad exhibitors. In every walk of life there are people who abuse animals, and I wish I could wave a magic wand and make it stop. I wish I could inflict severe injury on that stupid CKC breeder who knowingly let her dog continue to breed with such a dreadful disease. I also wish I could inflict severe injury on a camera crew who make a boxer having a fit suffer even more by switching on very bright lights, and make a CKC suffer by walking on a lead  all in the interest of making shock TV. Obviously I cant  but what I can do is make sure I am damn well doing my bit to promote the good side. You cant force people to change, but you *can* lead by example. And so I shall continue to show, and continue to work towards promoting good breeding and showing practices  in other words, I believe I *am *a person with the means to make a difference, and that I *am *practising what I preach.

Alan, I don't want us to fall out over this, and whatever happens I know I couldn't wish for a better owner for Jayjay than you. I just hope I've made you think a little - or at least understand that because someone has a different approach it is not necessarily wrong.


----------



## Biawhiska

hmmm no signs of this thread stopping yet, you'll have to make a new one soon or maybe this can be some kinda forum record. i know nothing about dogs, never had one etc...but it's an interesting read this.


----------



## Guest

tashi said:


> First time I have commented on this I know about the problem with Cavs as I have a friend who breeds them and know that they have done a lot of research into the 'brain' problem syringohydromyelia and was one of the people responsible for the implementing of the mri scans in the UK, I spoke to him yesterday and the people in the breed are so upset about the bad press which has been given the breed with thanks to the minority of breeders like the ones exposed in the TV programme - he was disgusted with the way that the collar and lead were left on the dog to 'trigger' the attack and to put the dog through it for the sake of the camera was just inhumane!!!!
> 
> As for the GSD's one of the dogs featured I have seen being shown and it doesnt move anything like it showed on the TV they say a camera never lies - well oh boy in that case it did !!!!!
> 
> Unfortunately, I dont think they actually spoke to people that really care for the breeds and as for the culling of the rhodesian's I thought that was absolutely awful.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I would surmise you are right about suggesting they did not speak to the people who really care for the breeds. I can personally vouch for that! They showed a bergamasco's coat that can only have been Calli or Siggi cos they've been the only two greys at Discover Dogs for the past few years. The voice over was going on about how man has altered the look of dogs. They couldn't have picked a worse example to illustrate their point - the bergie's coat is completely natural; it is exactly as nature intended it to be, and has been that way for over 2000 years. If they had come to speak to us at the stand, instead of filming illegally, we could have told them this. Of course, if they had some to speak to us it wouldn't have been in the program, because they weren't interested in showing positive things like that.


----------



## tashi

spellweaver said:


> tashi said:
> 
> 
> 
> First time I have commented on this I know about the problem with Cavs as I have a friend who breeds them and know that they have done a lot of research into the 'brain' problem syringohydromyelia and was one of the people responsible for the implementing of the mri scans in the UK, I spoke to him yesterday and the people in the breed are so upset about the bad press which has been given the breed with thanks to the minority of breeders like the ones exposed in the TV programme - he was disgusted with the way that the collar and lead were left on the dog to 'trigger' the attack and to put the dog through it for the sake of the camera was just inhumane!!!!
> 
> As for the GSD's one of the dogs featured I have seen being shown and it doesnt move anything like it showed on the TV they say a camera never lies - well oh boy in that case it did !!!!!
> 
> Unfortunately, I dont think they actually spoke to people that really care for the breeds and as for the culling of the rhodesian's I thought that was absolutely awful.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I would surmise you are right about suggesting they did not speak to the people who really care for the breeds. I can personally vouch for that! They showed a bergamasco's coat that can only have been Calli or Siggi cos they've been the only two greys at Discover Dogs for the past few years. The voice over was going on about how man has altered the look of dogs. They couldn't have picked a worse example to illustrate their point - the bergie's coat is completely natural; it is exactly as nature intended it to be, and has been that way for over 2000 years. If they had come to speak to us at the stand, instead of filming illegally, we could have told them this. Of course, if they had some to speak to us it wouldn't have been in the program, because they weren't interested in showing positive things like that.
> 
> 
> 
> I think they found the worst people to interview that they could the so called 'top' breeder of one of the featured breeds I am told is no more than a puppy farmer!!
> 
> PLEASE, PLEASE all you loving 'pet' people do not tar us 'show' people with the same brush as those portrayed on that programme we are not all so uncaring and if the tv crew had been in my house and had done what they did to either that poor boxer or that poor cavalier they would have had a rolling pin around their heads and I would now be up on an assault charge - how can anybody that says that they 'care' for their animal allow for them to do that even if for filming sake - I think they are sick!!!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## tashi

As for the bergamasco and indeed the hungarian puli I bet 'Val' you spent hours making that coat matt the same as we spend hours making the dreadlocks on the puli that Babytashi shows !!!!!!!!!!!

The only breed that we have here that has changed to suit the show ring is in fact the Tibetan terrier, apart from of course the two docked springers


----------



## JANICE199

i for one have found this thread SO interesting..great debate. keep it up folks


----------



## Sophiex

fluffypurrs said:


> hmmm no signs of this thread stopping yet, you'll have to make a new one soon or maybe this can be some kinda forum record. i know nothing about dogs, never had one etc...but it's an interesting read this.


*bursts into song*
This is the thread that never ends. It just goes on and on, my friends.


----------



## JANICE199

Sophiex said:


> *bursts into song*
> This is the thread that never ends. It just goes on and on, my friends.


lol.."those were the days my friend, i thought they'd never end"......mary hopkins?


----------



## bailey210608

Has anyone taken their dog for a walk today????


----------



## Sophiex

bailey210608 said:


> Has anyone taken their dog for a walk today????


No but my puppy is going for his first walk tomorrow.


----------



## Guest

alison said:


> No they didnt, they just agree the standard, reg the dogs giving extra credibility, run many of the shows and give the prizes. Its all done under the KC banner, providing the kc with a massive income and therefore they have to force the changes. They arent.


Just had to correct your wrong view of dog showing. The only show the KC runs is Crufts - breed clubs and dog clubs run (and hence get any profit from) all other shows. And prizes? Are any of you people who show aware that there are Prizes on offer?!! Allison, all you get is a card to say you have won - and maybe a rosette, if you are lucky. Not trying to pick an argument with you, but with statements like yours (ie stating as a fact something you obviously know nothing about) you could get a job with the makers of this program


----------



## bailey210608

Sophiex said:


> No but my puppy is going for his first walk tomorrow.


Yey oh its great fun, so many people will talk to you and coo and wanna stroke your pup, who is cute by the way. Have fun hun. let us know how it goes.


----------



## tashi

Can we try and keep this one on track please


----------



## bailey210608

Sorry I just wondered if anyone had actually taken there dog for a walk, after 51 pages.

I totally have no problem with showing a dog your proud of off to lots of people, I though the television programme was well made and very informative, I think they did go for the shock tactic because they want to show you how serious this matter is, if they showed you decent breeders it might not have made people seriously think about how stupid,selfish, money grabbing breeders (not all breeders, before you all start shouting at me) that are out there, if they didn't make it like that then surely we wouldn't be having this discussion!

That's my view, I think the KC need to take responsibility in some way, they hold Cruffs after all...


----------



## Jo P

spellweaver said:


> Just had to correct your wrong view of dog showing. The only show the KC runs is Crufts - breed clubs and dog clubs run (and hence get any profit from) all other shows. And prizes? Are any of you people who show aware that there are Prizes on offer?!! Allison, all you get is a card to say you have won - and maybe a rosette, if you are lucky. Not trying to pick an argument with you, but with statements like yours (ie stating as a fact something you obviously know nothing about) you could get a job with the makers of this program


Unless you enter the Stakes........................ stir stir  (soz Val )


----------



## Guest

satincollie said:


> Please do not be offensive to justify your comments if you wish to question my integrity speak to the breeder and owner of your dogs sire. You dont even know me and I am becoming equally glad I will not get to know you.


I was never questioning your integrity in the first place, I only questioned you because you seem so determined to defend yourself. The breeder of my dogs sire isn't someone that made a particularly good impression on me either. Why exactly do you feel the need to jusitfy yourself to me then as my initial statement was not even aimed at you.

I didn't need to stand by the vans all day because, as you well know, parts of the car park were clearly visable from the dog ring. Even if those dogs that were in their cages all the time they were in view just happened to be let out for the entire duration of the time I was in the canteen or toilet that would still only amount to them being out the cages for half an hour (possibly an hour) over the eight hours (?) we were there. That just isn't acceptable _in my opinion_.



spellweaver said:


> These questions and more have been going through and though my head since the program. And then your phrase, It's about time the people with the means to make a difference started practising what they preach seemed to make it all fall into perspective.


That comment was regarding the KC and the RSPCA not individuals.



spellweaver said:


> I* am* practising what I preach, and I *do* believe I can make a difference. I believe that no-one ever influenced anything by standing on the sidelines and shouting at it. I believe that to alter something you have to be there, in the middle of it, doing your bit to make things better. The more good owners, breeders and showers there are, the more we can oust the ones that behave as the ones that were shown in this program. And just as my prior knowledge and experience helps me to *know *you are a good owner, my prior knowledge and experience of the show world helps me to *know *that this program misrepresented it, to *know* that most breeders and exhibitors care passionately about their animals, to *know* that most judges are judging the conformation, movement and temperament of a dog rather than its beauty, and to *know *that, whilst the KC is far from perfect, it is not the uncaring, didactic ogre that this program made it out to be.


I don't doubt you at all, I know you do your best but in my opinion there are far too many people that don't. I don't want to associate with puppy farmers and byb's so why would I want to associate with the people shown on that show and the people that I have seen at the two shows I've been to. I am not the sort of person to hold my tongue, as the owner of the GSD that went for out three this evening will testify to, at these shows I can't say anything.



spellweaver said:


> Alan, I don't want us to fall out over this, and whatever happens I know I couldn't wish for a better owner for Jayjay than you. I just hope I've made you think a little - or at least understand that because someone has a different approach it is not necessarily wrong.


I understand that it isn't necessarily wrong because people think differently but I can't get my head around it. We don't need to fall out over this, so long as you do as I say! 

For clarification: my comment about scum was NOT aimed at anyone on this forum!



tashi said:


> Can we try and keep this one on track please


No, pee off!


----------



## Guest

bailey210608 said:


> Sorry I just wondered if anyone had actually taken there dog for a walk, after 51 pages.


Yes today has been the first day since I hurt my foot that I've managed to take them out for as long as they're used to!


----------



## tashi

ajshep1984 said:


> For clarification: my comment about scum was NOT aimed at anyone on this forum!


 glad about that 



ajshep1984 said:


> No, pee off!


behave yourself now young man


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> We don't need to fall out over this, so long as you do as I say!


Good grief, as if I don't get enough of that from Emma!  Did you see the post about her GCSE results btw?

Sorry Tashi, I'll go back on subject now!


----------



## bruno

Sadwall said:


> Nice to know there are such caring breeders out there Jackson, like you say you can never guarantee a puppy will not get sick but you can guarantee they won't be inheriting any live threatening and nasty genetic diseases, which is what we are talking about.
> 
> However, can you tell me where you think I was advised wrongly by the highly qualified and experienced vets and specialists??! Hip Dysplasia is a deformity of the hip joint - yes environmental factors can aggravate it obviously but they are not the cause. It is a genetic deformity, my girl had this condition passed down to her and was born with it, and quite severely too, I have seen quite a few x-rays - nasty stuff!


Sorry to disagree but it is impossible to GUARANTEE pups wont inherit genetic problems. Hip Dysplasia is a good example, you can breed from parents both with zero scores and still get pups with Dysplasia.


----------



## Guest

spellweaver said:


> Good grief, as if I don't get enough of that from Emma!  Did you see the post about her GCSE results btw?


Wow, not bad!  I can't even remember what I got in my GCSE's but I know they weren't that good!


----------



## tashi

bruno said:


> Sorry to disagree but it is impossible to GUARANTEE pups wont inherit genetic problems. Hip Dysplasia is a good example, you can breed from parents both with zero scores and still get pups with Dysplasia.


how true as I said in a previous post we do all we can to eradicate problems within our breed BUT unfortunately we can get throwbacks to previous generations OR some new owners DO NOT listen/read the information given to them when they pick up their pup and then do have problems but of their own doing!!!!


----------



## bruno

Suek said:


> Isn't a ruler straight? And if that ruler is bent you wouldn't buy it Bruno - right?
> 
> I have seen pictures and indeed seen GSD's with straight backs (I'm also presuming that you have a straight back), so I stand by what I say - those dogs on that programme were deformed
> 
> ps Elobeao pls can i have a glass - is it voddy?


Really confused now. This is not meant as being cheeky but do you know the GSD breed standard? There has never been the mention of a straight back, not from day one. An animal with a straight back could not carry out the work required from it.

A GSD was bred to watch over flocks of sheep and herd them. This required a great deal of agility, which would be impossible with a straight back. Yes I agree the slope has changed from the KC standard but why not take a look at the picture on the KC website for the breed standard. If you do, look how that straight back you crave SAGS in the middle. This has caused SEVERE problems in the English type of GSD because the back is not strong enough to stand up let alone WORK which is what the shepherd was bred to do. Now serach for the dog from Crufts he is called Zamp vom Thermodos and see what he has achieved worldwide, not just in the UK under the Kennel Club rules but worldwide. He has proven he can work as well as look good, and yes I do think he looks good.

You are now telling me a genetic fault causing severe spinal problems is the way I should be breeding. MMMhhh I dont think I will.


----------



## tashi

bruno said:


> Really confused now. This is not meant as being cheeky but do you know the GSD breed standard? There has never been the mention of a straight back, not from day one. An animal with a straight back could not carry out the work required from it.
> 
> A GSD was bred to watch over flocks of sheep and herd them. This required a great deal of agility, which would be impossible with a straight back. Yes I agree the slope has changed from the KC standard but why not take a look at the picture on the KC website for the breed standard. If you do, look how that straight back you crave SAGS in the middle. This has caused SEVERE problems in the English type of GSD because the back is not strong enough to stand up let alone WORK which is what the shepherd was bred to do. Now serach for the dog from Crufts he is called Zamp vom Thermodos and see what he has achieved worldwide, not just in the UK under the Kennel Club rules but worldwide. He has proven he can work as well as look good, and yes I do think he looks good.
> 
> You are now telling me a genetic fault causing severe spinal problems is the way I should be breeding. MMMhhh I dont think I will.


Just out of interest what 'type' do you have from what you are saying it sounds like 'middle of the road' ????


----------



## bailey210608

tashi said:


> how true as I said in a previous post we do all we can to eradicate problems within our breed BUT unfortunately we can get throwbacks to previous generations OR some new owners DO NOT listen/read the information given to them when they pick up their pup and then do have problems but of their own doing!!!!


But surely you wouldn't breed from that dog???


----------



## Guest

Jo P said:


> Unless you enter the Stakes........................ stir stir  (soz Val )


rats - forgot about the stakes!  But then the prize money usually comes from sponsers and not the KC.


----------



## tashi

bailey210608 said:


> But surely you wouldn't breed from that dog???


No I wouldnt but it wouldnt belong to me and the restrictions would not be lifted by us to allow the new owner to breed from it either


----------



## cav

Well i realy hope this programe does not leave a perment bad mark on the cavalier king charles as all the breeders ive spoken to are disgusted with this programe


----------



## bruno

tashi said:


> Just out of interest what 'type' do you have from what you are saying it sounds like 'middle of the road' ????


Yes, middle of the road leaning towards germanic.


----------



## bailey210608

tashi said:


> No I wouldnt but it wouldnt belong to me and the restrictions would not be lifted by us to allow the new owner to breed from it either


Sorry Im new to all this, surely if there's a will then there's a way. I wouldn't get rid of an unhealthy dog but I certainly wouldn't breed from it. God this is so sad.


----------



## tashi

bruno said:


> Yes, middle of the road leaning towards germanic.


ok used to handle some middle of the road dogs but the ones shown in the programme are not as bad on the move as they were portrayed one in particular I have seen 'in the flesh' and would not say that it moved as bad as that one did!!!!!!!


----------



## Guest

cavrooney said:


> Well i realy hope this programe does not leave a perment bad mark on the cavalier king charles as all the breeders ive spoken to are disgusted with this programe


I still love Cav's, I wouldn't get one with our lot though, they're just to rough for a sweet little Cavalier.


----------



## tashi

bailey210608 said:


> Sorry Im new to all this, surely if there's a will then there's a way. I wouldn't get rid of an unhealthy dog but I certainly wouldn't breed from it. God this is so sad.


yes they could breed from it but they couldnt register them with the kc and no we dont breed from unhealthy dogs please be aware that the ones portrayed in the programme are in the minority


----------



## bruno

bailey210608 said:


> But surely you wouldn't breed from that dog???


No you wouldnt breed from the pup with bad hips but theoretically you could mate a dog and bitch both with zero hip scores and get a litter where all the youngsters are then checked and score low. You could then repeat the mating of the same two dogs and get some with high hip scores!

Hip Dysplasia is still a bit of a mystery... genetic in origin but enviromental can also influence the severity.


----------



## cav

ajshep1984 said:


> I still love Cav's, I wouldn't get one with our lot though, they're just to rough for a sweet little Cavalier.


My 4 give as good as they get they also live with my lively staffie


----------



## Guest

cavrooney said:


> My 4 give as good as they get they also live with my lively staffie


Did you have your Staff first? We have a few clients with Cav's and they are all soft as sh*te. Suppose it's the way they are "raised" though. All our clients Cav's are scared of our lot.


----------



## cav

ajshep1984 said:


> Did you have your Staff first? We have a few clients with Cav's and they are all soft as sh*te. Suppose it's the way they are "raised" though. All our clients Cav's are scared of our lot.


I had 2 cavs then a staffie but ive had all my dogs from puppys so they seem to all get along but my staffie is defo the boss ....she wears the pants


----------



## bruno

tashi said:


> ok used to handle some middle of the road dogs but the ones shown in the programme are not as bad on the move as they were portrayed one in particular I have seen 'in the flesh' and would not say that it moved as bad as that one did!!!!!!!


I fully agree. I have seen all of the dogs shown in the film and that was certainly carefully edited footage. I think it tells a story that they could only find about 10 seconds of film between the 3 or 4 dogs!!! Why not show them doing a lap or two of the ring?


----------



## tashi

bruno said:


> I fully agree. I have seen all of the dogs shown in the film and that was certainly carefully edited footage. I think it tells a story that they could only find about 10 seconds of film between the 3 or 4 dogs!!! Why not show them doing a lap or two of the ring?


exactly and they showed them at the worst speed gait!!!!! didnt show them when they were in full flight so to speak and they never go that well in the walk as they just want to be let to 'go'


----------



## Sadwall

bruno said:


> Sorry to disagree but it is impossible to GUARANTEE pups wont inherit genetic problems. Hip Dysplasia is a good example, you can breed from parents both with zero scores and still get pups with Dysplasia.


Yes Bruno I know that only too well, both parents of my girl had clear scores, on previous posts we were talking about the benefits of health checks down the previous lines to start to rule out hereditary diseases.


----------



## Sadwall

tashi said:


> how true as I said in a previous post we do all we can to eradicate problems within our breed BUT unfortunately we can get throwbacks to previous generations
> 
> 
> HTML:
> 
> 
> OR some new owners DO NOT listen/read the information given to them when they pick up their pup and then do have problems but of their own doing!!!![/QUOTE]
> 
> THrowbacks to previous generations wouldn't happen if health checks started now.
> 
> Please be wary what you accuse new owners of as well, I took this personally as it was my original post. I can assure you my girls are like my babies and are treated so. Hip Dysplasia is a polygenic hereditary deformity of the bone joint passed on by generations and cannot be CREATED by environmental factors. I don't know much about health etc, but I have been researching Hip Dysplasia for 4 years and spoken to specialists etc. to prepare myself for Hollys' future.
> 
> I haven't been on this forum long but already I am dismayed at the way we all behave throwing blame around and oh so so quick to correct people and say I know better than you. Hopefully we all love our animals and we should be working together to keep all our breeds alive. I hope we all put this much energy into campaigning to keep our dogs ALIVE, not just free from disease!


----------



## jackson

Sadwall said:


> Yes Bruno I know that only too well, both parents of my girl had clear scores, on previous posts we were talking about the benefits of health checks down the previous lines to start to rule out hereditary diseases.


What were her parents hip and elbow scores, out of interest? Do you also have the grandparents scores?

They really don't know what causes or contributes to hip dysplacia. It is known that a dog that is genetically pre disposed ot it might never get symptoms if the environmental factors aren't there.

I can't speak for Tashi, and no doubt she is well able ot speak for herself, btu I think what she means is that as a breeder you do your utmost to produce healthy pups and give their new owners endless advice on how to fee, exercise etc, but some still think they know better or simply don't listen.

I,fo rexample, giv emy new puppy owners a very comprehensive puppy pack, detailing feeding and exercise, amongst many other things. Yet I still get a phone call at say 9 weeks saying that the puppy seems hungry and they haven't increased the food (It says to do this in the pupy pack) or that at 4 months the vet has told them off for giving 2 half hour walks a day (it gves a guide of 5 mins per day per month of age in puppy packs). It is very frustrating.


----------



## Sophiex

bailey210608 said:


> Yey oh its great fun, so many people will talk to you and coo and wanna stroke your pup, who is cute by the way. Have fun hun. let us know how it goes.


Aww thank you.  I'm a bit upset because I've sprained my ankle and walking is very painful but I'm going anyway! I shall have to rest with my ice pack when I get home. Oscar sits next to my bad foot and licks it.


----------



## tashi

Sadwall said:


> [/HTML]
> 
> THrowbacks to previous generations wouldn't happen if health checks started now.
> 
> Please be wary what you accuse new owners of as well, I took this personally as it was my original post. I can assure you my girls are like my babies and are treated so. Hip Dysplasia is a polygenic hereditary deformity of the bone joint passed on by generations and cannot be CREATED by environmental factors. I don't know much about health etc, but I have been researching Hip Dysplasia for 4 years and spoken to specialists etc. to prepare myself for Hollys' future.
> 
> I haven't been on this forum long but already I am dismayed at the way we all behave throwing blame around and oh so so quick to correct people and say I know better than you. Hopefully we all love our animals and we should be working together to keep all our breeds alive. I hope we all put this much energy into campaigning to keep our dogs ALIVE, not just free from disease!


BUt unfortunately it does happen it happens in humans as well that is why all of a sudden we have someone with epilepsy when it hasnt been in the family for a few generations that is genetics for you!!

And it was definately not aimed at you but it is also not helped by environmental factors as well and has been proved to be so!!!! FACT we have been breeding the same lines for 40+ years now and mostly we dont have a problem with health BUT we always hold our breath when we have the next generation tested, however, we have had two brothers one with a high hip score and one with an average hip score the first one due to an accident when the new owners allowed him to go up and down the stairs at a young age and he fell from top to bottom!!!! read also here where it says about environmental factors Canine hip dysplasia

And nobody throws blame around, this is a discussion forum and everyone of us is entitled to our own views if we all agreed that black was white it would be a pretty sad life! Please take this thread in the light that it started off with as a discussion of the programme that was on the other night 

and I think that you will find that the original poster was Katherna


----------



## tashi

jackson said:


> What were her parents hip and elbow scores, out of interest? Do you also have the grandparents scores?
> 
> They really don't know what causes or contributes to hip dysplacia. It is known that a dog that is genetically pre disposed ot it might never get symptoms if the environmental factors aren't there.
> 
> I can't speak for Tashi, and no doubt she is well able ot speak for herself, btu I think what she means is that as a breeder you do your utmost to produce healthy pups and give their new owners endless advice on how to fee, exercise etc, but some still think they know better or simply don't listen.
> 
> I,fo rexample, giv emy new puppy owners a very comprehensive puppy pack, detailing feeding and exercise, amongst many other things. Yet I still get a phone call at say 9 weeks saying that the puppy seems hungry and they haven't increased the food (It says to do this in the pupy pack) or that at 4 months the vet has told them off for giving 2 half hour walks a day (it gves a guide of 5 mins per day per month of age in puppy packs). It is very frustrating.


That is exactly what I mean I do the same they have a comprehensive puppy pack with copies of the parents health tests, a diet sheet, recommendations for exercise etc etc, but once they leave we can no longer watch over what the new owner does!!!! In the last golden litter to leave here one new owner changed the food as soon as the bag that we give with the puppy ran out to something I would not even give to the RSPCA kennels!! but thought it would be better because it was more of a household name!!! and not only that but exercised the pup for 2 hours every walk so that she would sleep when they got it home  needless to say they will never ever have another one of our pups


----------



## bruno

Sadwall said:


> [/HTML]
> 
> THrowbacks to previous generations wouldn't happen if health checks started now.
> 
> Please be wary what you accuse new owners of as well, I took this personally as it was my original post. I can assure you my girls are like my babies and are treated so. Hip Dysplasia is a polygenic hereditary deformity of the bone joint passed on by generations and cannot be CREATED by environmental factors. I don't know much about health etc, but I have been researching Hip Dysplasia for 4 years and spoken to specialists etc. to prepare myself for Hollys' future.
> 
> I haven't been on this forum long but already I am dismayed at the way we all behave throwing blame around and oh so so quick to correct people and say I know better than you. Hopefully we all love our animals and we should be working together to keep all our breeds alive. I hope we all put this much energy into campaigning to keep our dogs ALIVE, not just free from disease!


I dont think anyone is throwing accusations or blame around. I mentioned before I think sometimes when you read a post it is not always how the person has meant it. It sometimes "sounds" sarcastic or "harsh" but that is not how the author meant it.

I know that you are saying HD is genetic and fully agree with you HOWEVER in reality probably 95% plus of the canine world has Hip Dysplasia! If a score of 0-1 is registered that is technically Hip Dysplasia. I think what people are saying is a puppy has to be carefully managed to maintain correct bone development to minimise the risk of Dysplasi being made worse.


----------



## Katherna

Yeah it was me that posted the thread. I posted it in the breeding section as I thought it would be the most appropriate part of the forums, as 99% of you guys breed pedigree dogs. It was more a heads up that it was going to be shown. I've certainly found it interesting to read.

I agree that a lot of breeders (in the country) do the right thing and get their dogs tested and checked before breeding from them, but there are always going to be a few that don't. I also agree that the KC should be doing something to promote breeders to use all the tests and checks available for each bred - what I don't know as I've not been involved in the breeding side of things.

I never thought it would get to 54 pages when I posted the thread, but theres one thing I keep seeing over and over again in all this, the breeders on this site DO use the health checks and tests available to their own breed and promote to anyone who is looking to breed to do the same thing, therefore, hopefully encouraging new breeders to 'do the right thing' and try to minimise any problems that potential puppies might end up with.


----------



## JANICE199

Katherna said:


> Yeah it was me that posted the thread. I posted it in the breeding section as I thought it would be the most appropriate part of the forums, as 99% of you guys breed pedigree dogs. It was more a heads up that it was going to be shown. I've certainly found it interesting to read.
> 
> I agree that a lot of breeders (in the country) do the right thing and get their dogs tested and checked before breeding from them, but there are always going to be a few that don't. I also agree that the KC should be doing something to promote breeders to use all the tests and checks available for each bred - what I don't know as I've not been involved in the breeding side of things.
> 
> I never thought it would get to 54 pages when I posted the thread, but theres one thing I keep seeing over and over again in all this, the breeders on this site DO use the health checks and tests available to their own breed and promote to anyone who is looking to breed to do the same thing, therefore, hopefully encouraging new breeders to 'do the right thing' and try to minimise any problems that potential puppies might end up with.


its been a great post, i love a good debate, as long as it syays friendly


----------



## Guest

Ok,
I'm going to put the cat amongst the pigeons so to speak 
My breed has health issues but as a breed they are very rarely Hip Scored,infact top good breeders do the tests required for the breed but don't hip score routinely like it's done for other breeds.

Thoughts ?


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> Thoughts ?


My first thought is that I've never heard of a Staff with Hip problems. If its not a problem they won't test for it?


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> My first thought is that I've never heard of a Staff with Hip problems. If its not a problem they won't test for it?


Same here,
Yet we have a BMS,the dogs that have been scored have very low scores,one I can remember had a score of 0/0 and a few with 2/3 etc.


----------



## jackson

sallyanne said:


> Ok,
> I'm going to put the cat amongst the pigeons so to speak
> My breed has health issues but as a breed they are very rarely Hip Scored,infact top good breeders do the tests required for the breed but don't hip score routinely like it's done for other breeds.
> 
> Thoughts ?


Have you got any figures for dogs hip scored prior to 2006 Sallyanne?

The BMS is low, but not that much lower, and higher in some cases than breeds that routinely hip score.

I only have figures for 2006 and 2007, but to compare with my breed (as it is a prolific one routinely hip scored):

2006:

SBT: 34 dogs scored, BMS 12

Golden Retriever: 28,190 scored  BMS 19

2007:

SBT: 44 scored, BMS 13

Golden Retriever: 30, 258 scored, BMS 18

So, hip scoring seems to be working for Goldens, based on those figures (although I appreciate that two years of scores isn't comprehensive) as more dogs were scored and the BMS has come down, but for SBT's more were scored, but the BMS went up.

Thoughts?


----------



## Sadwall

tashi said:


> BUt unfortunately it does happen it happens in humans as well that is why all of a sudden we have someone with epilepsy when it hasnt been in the family for a few generations that is genetics for you!!
> 
> And it was definately not aimed at you but it is also not helped by environmental factors as well and has been proved to be so!!!! FACT we have been breeding the same lines for 40+ years now and mostly we dont have a problem with health BUT we always hold our breath when we have the next generation tested, however, we have had two brothers one with a high hip score and one with an average hip score the first one due to an accident when the new owners allowed him to go up and down the stairs at a young age and he fell from top to bottom!!!! read also here where it says about environmental factors Canine hip dysplasia
> 
> And nobody throws blame around, this is a discussion forum and everyone of us is entitled to our own views if we all agreed that black was white it would be a pretty sad life! Please take this thread in the light that it started off with as a discussion of the programme that was on the other night
> 
> and I think that you will find that the original poster was Katherna


Hi Tashi
As I said before, it is good to hear breeders that health check, it is reassuring to us owners after seeing a programme like that. All I was saying in the beginning that if health checks were put in place we could start to eradicate hip dysplasia as it is a genetically passed on disease. Yes environmental factors can bring on symptoms and create osteoarthritis but that puppy was born with it and it will show symptoms at some point - the earlier the better. Unfortunately our girl didn't show symptoms until she was 3 and she is not overweight, does not excessively exercise and is not kept out in the cold etc. - which is probably why it took so long to show considering how badly formed her joint is.

If you look back at previous posts things were starting to get nasty and I found that quite sad. I echo what you say with great intensity - every one should have their opinion - BUT not enforce it on others.

Katherna - I was not intimating I was the original poster of this whole thread - I know you were. I was pointing Bruno back to an original conversation I was having with someone else. No offense intended to you.


----------



## Sadwall

jackson said:


> What were her parents hip and elbow scores, out of interest? Do you also have the grandparents scores?
> 
> They really don't know what causes or contributes to hip dysplacia. It is known that a dog that is genetically pre disposed ot it might never get symptoms if the environmental factors aren't there.
> 
> I can't speak for Tashi, and no doubt she is well able ot speak for herself, btu I think what she means is that as a breeder you do your utmost to produce healthy pups and give their new owners endless advice on how to fee, exercise etc, but some still think they know better or simply don't listen.
> 
> I,fo rexample, giv emy new puppy owners a very comprehensive puppy pack, detailing feeding and exercise, amongst many other things. Yet I still get a phone call at say 9 weeks saying that the puppy seems hungry and they haven't increased the food (It says to do this in the pupy pack) or that at 4 months the vet has told them off for giving 2 half hour walks a day (it gves a guide of 5 mins per day per month of age in puppy packs). It is very frustrating.


Hi
Off-hand I can't remember the exact scores and we didn't see scores of any further generations - this is where the trouble comes in. Hip dysplasia is not a disease that border collies normally suffer from, so people are not looking for it. THis is where the KC would come in - all Holly's ancestors are KC reg and a lot of them are champions - so if KC insisted on a set of health checks for each KC reg dog - the likelihood of Holly having Hip Dysplasia would have been minimal.

I have to say my breeder did give me the bog standard info as well, although I have had dogs before and knew what the correct care was. But when I tried to contact the breeder and inform her she had a problem with a generation because of Holly - she took no action to look into it, which I suppose says it all. THe KC weren't interested either.


----------



## Sadwall

bruno said:


> I dont think anyone is throwing accusations or blame around. I mentioned before I think sometimes when you read a post it is not always how the person has meant it. It sometimes "sounds" sarcastic or "harsh" but that is not how the author meant it.
> 
> I know that you are saying HD is genetic and fully agree with you HOWEVER in reality probably 95% plus of the canine world has Hip Dysplasia! If a score of 0-1 is registered that is technically Hip Dysplasia. I think what people are saying is a puppy has to be carefully managed to maintain correct bone development to minimise the risk of Dysplasi being made worse.


Totally agree with you Bruno - it's the fact that it is there in the first place is the important and frightening factor. It's such a horrible disease (however not comparable with that awful Syreabalmyinga (or however you spell it)).


----------



## Biawhiska

yay seems no one has anything else to say


----------



## Katherna

Sadwall - none taken, it's certainly been very interesting reading


----------



## Guest

jackson said:


> Have you got any figures for dogs hip scored prior to 2006 Sallyanne?


Sorry I don't have any,must go searching for some....


----------



## Guest

It's actually been lovely to take part in a debate without members getting personal.
It has been a very good and interesting thread


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> It's actually been lovely to take part in a debate without members getting personal.
> It has been a very good and interesting thread


ya all poo poo heads


----------



## Guest

When I purchased my last pupster, I rang several breeders/litters prior to making a decision, One question I asked all was - what is the hip score of the dam, I was gobsmacked that some did NOT even know what I was on about.

I settled on the one I have as her mum had a 0/0 hipscore, her was her first litter and it seemed to me that she had done her homework. I am not naive enougt to think that because mum had the zero hipscore that my pup will follow. I have since losing my last do aged just 4 years been very interested in genes. I cannot imagine that I would ever want to breed but am always interested in my breed.


----------



## cav

sallyanne said:


> It's actually been lovely to take part in a debate without members getting personal.
> It has been a very good and interesting thread


year i agree

it does show we can debate with out things turning nasty


----------



## Petowner

What an excellent thread this has been, I've tried to keep up with it as much as possible and there's been some excellent views put over by everyone. Thanks, its restored my faith in the 'good' people of this world.

I have no doubt that the 'majority' of breeders and people who show their dogs are kind, loving and caring people and that its highly likely that the program focused on the people who are letting the dog community down. 

I'm not a breeder and I've never shown my dog or have any plans to do so. So my knowledge of the show/breeder circles is virtually none existent. From reading this thread its clear to me that change 'is' needed. I'm not saying things are as bad as the BBC program or that the KC are either. However, things aren't as good as they 'should' be and more should be done about it to oust the people who are letting you down. The ones that are being cruel to the animals that we all love, 'Man's best Friend'.

No matter what perspective you look at it this program can and will have a positive affect. Its created so much media attention, so much debate on forums like this that the people who are doing these things should really be looking over their shoulders now and wondering whats going to happen next. You have to keep this momentum going, those of you that are cabable of making a difference have to stand up to the critics and prove them wrong, if you know their are people who are acting so cruel....please work together and find a solution...you have to..you're the only people who can.

Once you have set this example to the public on how to care for animals and look after them, maybe just maybe the KC and the RSPCA would have greater power and influence to tackle the much wider issue of cruelty to animals by the people who own the dogs (and other animals) as 'pets' because I'm sure that's far worse and widespread than anything I could imagine.

Good Luck


----------



## jackson

Well, it apears the programme makers are either blatant liars or didn't do their research proprly, as dermoid sinus does exist in ridgeless ridgebacks, and in fact crossbreeds.

Some info here: Dermoid Sinus

Another point made on another forum regarding inbreeding was that the programme mentioned that of 10,000 pugs, there were only actually 50 DNA strings. The same study showed that out of 12,000 Rough collies there were also only 50 DNA string. But as rough collies are generally a healthy breed, that wouldn't make such a good story, would it?

It doens't exactly give the programme credibility, does it?


----------



## Guest

Well as the old saying goes, there's No smoke without fire, I think the programme demonstrated the importance that any 'buyer. research and check vigoursly the breeding/breeder of any pup they are considering. Just because a pup in KC reg this does not automatically mean that the pups are either healthly or wellbreed.

Also I do not think the KC scored any brownie points with their attitude and from some of the responses they made.

And to add, we all have our favorite breeds, but personally I think some of the dogs that are being breed now look totally ridecolous, and it does not take a fool to see that many of these dogs are not comfortable.
regards
sue


----------



## cav

DoubleTrouble said:


> Well as the old saying goes, there's No smoke without fire, I think the programme demonstrated the importance that any 'buyer. research and check vigoursly the breeding/breeder of any pup they are considering. Just because a pup in KC reg this does not automatically mean that the pups are either healthly or wellbreed.
> 
> Also I do not think the KC scored any brownie points with their attitude and from some of the responses they made.
> 
> And to add, we all have our favorite breeds, but personally I think some of the dogs that are being breed now look totally ridecolous, and it does not take a fool to see that many of these dogs are not comfortable.
> regards
> sue


I am sorry but i disagree

I dont think the programe did not alot to help new buyers .....if i watched that i dont think i would want to buy a dog full stop!!!!

It also should have said that you can find a good breeder if you are willing to look and not just buy the first puppy you see

I am getting a bit sick of the things that are being said about cavalier king charles as a result of this programe


----------



## Guest

jackson said:


> Well, it apears the programme makers are either blatant liars or didn't do their research proprly, as dermoid sinus does exist in ridgeless ridgebacks, and in fact crossbreeds.
> 
> Some info here: Dermoid Sinus
> 
> Another point made on another forum regarding inbreeding was that the programme mentioned that of 10,000 pugs, there were only actually 50 DNA strings. The same study showed that out of 12,000 Rough collies there were also only 50 DNA string. But as rough collies are generally a healthy breed, that wouldn't make such a good story, would it?
> 
> It doens't exactly give the programme credibility, does it?


It certainly doesn't. And that was only one erroneous fact among many that various posters on this thread have highlighted. I've already posted about their filming a bergie while the voiceover was speaking about what man has done to dogs. This was the worst possible example they could have given because the bergie's coat is totally unaffected by man; it is exactly as nature intended it to be and has been that way for over 2000 years. As I said, if they had come and spoken to us on the stand instead of filming illegally we could have told them this - and we could also have told them that the bergie is on the imported breeds register because the KC won't let us be on the full register until we have more DNA strings. However, if they had spoken to us and we had told them the above facts, I doubt they would have used any of the footage - the truth wouldn't have fit in with the facts they were manufacturing.  So I have personal knowledge that they did not do their research properly: if they did not do it in the case of my breed, why would I believe anything they said about any other breed?

I've not read any of the dog papers this week but I'd be very surprised if anyone with actual knowledge of the dog show world thought this programme presented the facts in an unbiased and fair manner. Sadly, the only people who will believe the half-truths, misrepresented facts and blatant lies are either people with no or very little knowledge of the dog show world, or people and organisations who have already got an axe to grind and will use this program as "proof". (The RSPCA, Beverly Cuddy and Emma Milne spring to mind immediately )


----------



## Guest

Further to my above post, I have now read the dog papers and I was right - not only do people of the dog world see this program as a witch-hunt, there are also letters from several very eminent people and organisations who wanted to go on record as supporting the KC. Here are a few:

*The British Vetinary Association*: "The BVA has for many years worked with the KC on the development of Canine Health Schemes designed to assist breeders to breed only from dogs which have no sign of inherited disease ..... the BVA believes that the KC deserves the support of all breeders in its ongoing efforts,not least in the work of its Charitable Trust"

*The Animal Health Trust* "The AHT, in conjunction with the KC, aims to eradicate inherited diseases in dogs by the appliance of scientific knowledge. For a number of years the Trust has focused on finding the genetic abnormalities responsible for a range of inherited diseases and then developing screening tests......... this work would not have been possible without the generous financial support provided by the KC and the willing co-operation of a large number of dog breeders"

*The Blue Cross* - For some time the KC, along with the veterinary profession, has been working towards eliminating the problems of inherited diseases and physical defects in dogs. The Blue Cross supports their work, and finds it disappointing that a such a program as this should reflect so little understanding of the progress which has been made"

*Marc Abrahams, Show Vet* (sent in before the show was aired) "What I bet they won't show is .... their hugely successful Accredited Breeders Scheme ...... their promoting microchipping, their charitable trust, their "open for dogs" campaign, their dog/human fitness campaigns ......... the KC are doing so much to promote both canine health and responsible pet ownership in this country"

There are more, but the few I've shown above go a long way to redress the balance, and to support what those of us with actual knowledge of the situation have been posting on here.

The question we should all now be asking ourselves is why the RSPCA vet was given so much air time on this program and none of the other animal welfare organisations were interviewed or quoted. I have two theories. My first theory is that the other organisations _were_ interviewed, but that their replies didn't fit in with the witch hunt and so weren't shown. My second theory is that the RSPCA were more interested in using this program as a tool in their long ongoing feud with the Kennel Club than actually portraying the truth.


----------



## clueless

spellweaver said:


> Further to my above post, I have now read the dog papers and I was right - not only do people of the dog world see this program as a witch-hunt, there are also letters from several very eminent people and organisations who wanted to go on record as supporting the KC. Here are a few:
> 
> *The British Vetinary Association*: "The BVA has for many years worked with the KC on the development of Canine Health Schemes designed to assist breeders to breed only from dogs which have no sign of inherited disease ..... the BVA believes that the KC deserves the support of all breeders in its ongoing efforts,not least in the work of its Charitable Trust"
> 
> *The Animal Health Trust* "The AHT, in conjunction with the KC, aims to eradicate inherited diseases in dogs by the appliance of scientific knowledge. For a number of years the Trust has focused on finding the genetic abnormalities responsible for a range of inherited diseases and then developing screening tests......... this work would not have been possible without the generous financial support provided by the KC and the willing co-operation of a large number of dog breeders"
> 
> *The Blue Cross* - For some time the KC, along with the veterinary profession, has been working towards eliminating the problems of inherited diseases and physical defects in dogs. The Blue Cross supports their work, and finds it disappointing that a such a program as this should reflect so little understanding of the progress which has been made"
> 
> *Marc Abrahams, Show Vet* (sent in before the show was aired) "What I bet they won't show is .... their hugely successful Accredited Breeders Scheme ...... their promoting microchipping, their charitable trust, their "open for dogs" campaign, their dog/human fitness campaigns ......... the KC are doing so much to promote both canine health and responsible pet ownership in this country"
> 
> There are more, but the few I've shown above go a long way to redress the balance, and to support what those of us with actual knowledge of the situation have been posting on here.
> 
> The question we should all now be asking ourselves is why the RSPCA vet was given so much air time on this program and none of the other animal welfare organisations were interviewed or quoted. I have two theories. My first theory is that the other organisations _were_ interviewed, but that their replies didn't fit in with the witch hunt and so weren't shown. My second theory is that the RSPCA were more interested in using this program as a tool in their long ongoing feud with the Kennel Club than actually portraying the truth.


Funny how the production team did not interview these people you havestatedSpellweaver.
I spoke with Bert Easton today at a Pom Seminar. He is totally disgusted, and I can understand why. I go to ringcraftwith Bert every Tuesday and his Peke's are totally nuts, they never stop chasing and playing and I know they are not breathless during these antics. 
Unfortunately Danny was portraited wrong as well, what the public do not understand is that Danny had been under hot lights etc... and his coat is like a double sheepskin rug Now I would be sweating and puffing under these conditions.
Bert has had journalists at his door constantly He also stated he spoke to one of the ladies in the program and she had been interviewed for nearly 3 hours, but funny all they screened was 3lines of her conversation


----------



## Guest

I think KC shouldn't register any any pups that have parents that are to closely related !


----------



## clueless

MrPedigree said:


> I think KC shouldn't register any any pups that have parents that are to closely related !


WHY Can you expand further on your opinion


----------



## Guest

clueless said:


> WHY Can you expand further on your opinion


I am not an expert BTW But they are saying that allot of these breeds are suffering from inherent problems caused by inter breeding ! 
Surely if the Kc made a stand and said it would not register litters to closely related then that would discourage breeders from breeding this practice!?
Just my two peneth worth


----------



## Guest

MrPedigree said:


> I am not an expert BTW But they are saying that allot of these breeds are suffering from inherent problems caused by inter breeding !
> Surely if the Kc made a stand and said it would not register litters to closely related then that would discourage breeders from breeding this practice!?
> Just my two peneth worth


That is rubbish!
You can have two unrelated dogs,if both are carriers for a condition then it will show in the puppies.
Inbreeding has it's place,likewise so does line breeding and outcrossing.


----------



## clueless

MrPedigree said:


> I am not an expert BTW But they are saying that allot of these breeds are suffering from inherent problems caused by inter breeding !
> Surely if the Kc made a stand and said it would not register litters to closely related then that would discourage breeders from breeding this practice!?
> Just my two peneth worth


Thanks for thatThats what THEY were saying and I have since foundout a lot they said had not been true. 
Due to Pedigree dogs Health issues can be traced along a lineage. They are stating Ped dogs are less healthy than Crossbreeds, now how they know that statistically as in my opinion they cannot possibly trace a Crossbreeds Ped!!!!
So in my opinion very biased, crossbreeds can suffer from epilepsy for example but they are not produced from relative matings.
Breeders who have been in their breed for years do have a slight advantage knowing their lines from several generations back and imo can make a responsible decision regarding same.
After all thatI do think the KC need to get their fingerout and sort outsome of the problems highlighted


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> That is rubbish!
> You can have two unrelated dogs,if both are carriers for a condition then it will show in the puppies.
> Inbreeding has it's place,likewise so does line breeding and outcrossing.


Sorry i was just giving my opinion ! 

I did say i wasnt an expert ! Did you have to be so aggressive and say my opinion was "That is rubbish" !? 
Couldnt you have just said i was wrong ?


----------



## clueless

MrPedigree said:


> Sorry i was just giving my opinion !
> 
> I did say i wasnt an expert ! Did you have to be so aggressive and say my opinion was "That is rubbish" !?
> Couldnt you have just said i was wrong ?


Welcome to the forum


----------



## Guest

clueless said:


> Welcome to the forum


Thanks


----------



## clueless

MrPedigree said:


> Thanks


No Probs. By the way when you join you have to click on all the dragons


----------



## Guest

clueless said:


> No Probs. By the way when you join you have to click on all the dragons


why ???
what dragons?


----------



## clueless

MrPedigree said:


> why ???
> what dragons?


Because I want you too LOL The ones in members signatures. Go on I know ya want too


----------



## Guest

clueless said:


> Because I want you too LOL The ones in members signatures. Go on I know ya want too


beg me


----------



## clueless

MrPedigree said:


> beg me


Ohhhh please, please,you wonderful, charming mmmmm wait a minute
JUST GET IT DONE


----------



## Guest

clueless said:


> Ohhhh please, please,you wonderful, charming mmmmm wait a minute
> JUST GET IT DONE


i did and nothing happend is this a wind up?


----------



## Guest

MrPedigree said:


> Sorry i was just giving my opinion !
> 
> I did say i wasnt an expert ! Did you have to be so aggressive and say my opinion was "That is rubbish" !?
> Couldnt you have just said i was wrong ?


Sorry I didn't mean it to come accross like that was busy and couldn't do a long reply.
Clueless has since summed it up


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> You can have two unrelated dogs,if both are carriers for a condition then it will show in the puppies.
> Inbreeding has it's place,likewise so does line breeding and outcrossing.


How do you feel about the KC refusing to register pups from closely related parents unless they have given prior permission for the mating. I know inbreeding does have it's place but I would guess that it's also abused and does produce genetic problems. If the KC had to approve these sort of matings then only the people that knew their lines and what they were doing could go ahead with it.


----------



## clueless

ajshep1984 said:


> How do you feel about the KC refusing to register pups from closely related parents unless they have given prior permission for the mating. I know inbreeding does have it's place but I would guess that it's also abused and does produce genetic problems. If the KC had to approve these sort of matings then only the people that knew their lines and what they were doing could go ahead with it.


Goos suggestion Alan, although it still would be difficult to root out the bad breedersas some can talk a good story

ps Have you washed your cups yet


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> How do you feel about the KC refusing to register pups from closely related parents unless they have given prior permission for the mating. I know inbreeding does have it's place but I would guess that it's also abused and does produce genetic problems. If the KC had to approve these sort of matings then only the people that knew their lines and what they were doing could go ahead with it.


Not sure,yes I'm sure it could cause problems that's why only very experienced breeders should undertake it,those with an extreme knowlege of their lines and breed,I know of people who have been granted permission to breed from their bitch after the age limit.
How close is too close for you AJ?


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> How close is too close for you AJ?


Too close as in shouldn't be done at all or too close as in that it should have to be approved by the KC before going ahead?

In all honesty I'm not knowledgable enough about it to comment on either!


----------



## clueless

MrPedigree said:


> i did and nothing happend is this a wind up?


Nope I was seriousMakes our eggs hatch and dragons grow and hopefully with no hereditary diseases
Anyway back on topic
Who thinks the demand for Cross breeds like the Cockapoo's, Jackapoo, Whatever a .......... will increase


----------



## Guest

clueless said:


> Who thinks the demand for Cross breeds like the Cockapoo's, Jackapoo, Whatever a .......... will increase


Oh yes, a good "healthy" designer dog is going to be in high demand now, the "breeders" will even be able to raise their prices!


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> Too close as in shouldn't be done at all or too close as in that it should have to be approved by the KC before going ahead?
> 
> In all honesty I'm not knowledgable enough about it to comment on either!


Lol,how do I answer that! 
I will be honest with you now,so you can either hate me or love me 

We had plans to breed from my bitch as you know,we were going to line breed back to her grandfather (first choice) or one of his son's.Yes it's a close mating but both our bitch and her grandfather are quality dogs,we wanted to keep the consistancy within the litter,breed type,quality,temprement and health.
Both dogs were clear and unaffected for the conditions found in our breed.
We were hoping to keep one or two puppies back from the litter,to show and further our lines.


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> Lol,how do I answer that!
> I will be honest with you now,so you can either hate me or love me
> 
> We had plans to breed from my bitch as you know,we were going to line breed back to her grandfather (first choice) or one of his son's.Yes it's a close mating but both our bitch and her grandfather are quality dogs,we wanted to keep the consistancy within the litter,breed type,quality,temprement and health.
> Both dogs were clear and unaffected for the conditions found in our breed.
> We were hoping to keep one or two puppies back from the litter,to show and further our lines.


I don't see anything wrong with that as I have no doubt that you and Meg's breeder and her grandsire's breeder if they are different  know what you are doing. But other people doing this type mating might not know their lines etc and shouldn't really be getting involved in that sort of mating, this is where I think close matings having to be approved by the KC would be of benefit. In your case you could easily show that your lines are free from any genetic problems and the mating could be approved.

Maybe I'm wrong or just dreaming but I feel as though the KC should be aiming for their registration to be a sort of seal of approval, KC reg should bring with it some sort of guarentee that the pup has been ethically bred, health tests done, good standard, good temprement and well treated. I do wonder what the point is in KC reg as it doesn't really offer much other than being able to see the dog's pedigree. Surely they should be aiming for more than that?


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> I don't see anything wrong with that as I have no doubt that you and Meg's breeder and her grandsire's breeder if they are different  know what you are doing. But other people doing this type mating might not know their lines etc and shouldn't really be getting involved in that sort of mating, this is where I think close matings having to be approved by the KC would be of benefit. In your case you could easily show that your lines are free from any genetic problems and the mating could be approved.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong or just dreaming but I feel as though the KC should be aiming for their registration to be a sort of seal of approval, KC reg should bring with it some sort of guarentee that the pup has been ethically bred, health tests done, good standard, good temprement and well treated. I do wonder what the point is in KC reg as it doesn't really offer much other than being able to see the dog's pedigree. Surely they should be aiming for more than that?


Yes they should and this is where the AB Scheme comes in,but again it doesn't go far enough for me.


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> Yes they should and this is where the AB Scheme comes in,but again it doesn't go far enough for me.


I asked earlier in the thread but can't remember what the answer was now:

Do they do checks that accredited breeders are following the guidelines?


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> I asked earlier in the thread but can't remember what the answer was now:
> 
> Do they do checks that accredited breeders are following the guidelines?


Not sure,it is supposed to be policed in conjunction with the breed clubs but we already know there can be dodgy breeders among them.
Accredited Breeder Scheme - How will the scheme be policed?
26-Jul-06

Policing the Scheme

Recent consultation with breed clubs has highlighted a lack of awareness of policing measures used in connection with the Accredited Breeder Scheme. The Scheme is policed by the Kennel Club in the following ways:

Prior to acceptance

Applicants Kennel Club records are checked.

Acceptance of Membership

All applications will be fully considered. Further information may be required so that the Kennel Club is satisfied the breeder is fully capable of meeting the requirements of the scheme.

An application may be subject to Committee approval by its Review Panel.

The Kennel Club reserves the right to refuse an application.

Any breeder subject to KC disciplinary penalties under Rule A42/43 will not be eligible for Accredited Breeder Scheme membership.

After acceptance

Names of new members are published in the Kennel Gazette and effectively policed by breed clubs who report names that are, in their opinion, inappropriate candidates to us. If this happens then the Kennel Club investigates carefully.

When Accredited Breeders register a litter

Every time an Accredited Breeder registers a litter, the sire and dam of that litter are checked for compulsory permanent identification (microchip, tattoo or DNA profile are currently acceptable). In addition, both sire and dam are checked for compulsory health screening scheme results that are relevant to their breed. All the usual Kennel Club rules and regulations must be complied with.

When Accredited Breeders sell their puppies

Accredited Breeders are required to use ABS puppy sales wallets for every puppy that they sell. Included in these wallets is a feedback form that the new owner is requested to return directly to the Kennel Club. There are questions on this form that inform us about the Accredited Breeders compliance with aspects of the Scheme that we are not able to police in any other way, for example whether the breeder provided advice on training, feeding, socialisation etc.

Feedback forms come back to the Kennel Club every day, and almost without exception are complimentary about the breeder concerned. Where any problems are mentioned, these are taken up with the breeder.

Litters and numbers of puppies registered by Accredited Breeders are monitored and compared with orders for additional puppy sales wallets. If Accredited Breeders do not seem to be purchasing adequate supplies of wallets, they are contacted regarding this matter. The Kennel Club has the facility for further investigation, as upon joining the Scheme all Accredited Breeders sign a declaration as follows:

I have read and understood the requirements of being an Accredited Breeder and I undertake to comply with them and hereby apply to be a Kennel Club Accredited Breeder. I will provide the Kennel Club upon request with the opportunity to review my compliance procedures and to investigate any anomalies or complaints. I accept that in the event of non-compliance, my name may be removed from the list of Accredited Breeders and I will no longer be entitled to use the Scheme literature or accreditation. This ensures that the Kennel Club can investigate any complaints thoroughly.

Breeder Adviser Visits

The breeder agrees that the Kennel Club may visit facilities upon giving reasonable notice.

If there are issues of concern arising from a visit and it is considered that the facilities fall short of the standards expected for an Accredited Breeder then this may result in the breeder being removed form the scheme.

Full details of what is involved and expected of an Accredited Breeder for a Breeder Adviser visit are available on request.

What happens if they breach any of the Scheme requirements?

Temporary Suspension - at any time during the investigation of a complaint a breeder may be suspended from using or operating under the scheme pending the conclusion of such an investigation. During such suspension, puppies must not be sold under the scheme. 
Grievance Procedure - there is a grievance procedure which will be followed in the case of a complaint by a purchaser of a puppy under the scheme. A copy of the Grievance Procedure is available on request. 
There has been some misunderstanding about the Scheme expressed in the canine press so it must be stressed that the Accredited Breeder Scheme is not any of the following:

A Scheme designed to set certain breeders apart as elite:
The Kennel Club recognises that there are some breeders who already offer their puppy buyers a service equal to or beyond the terms of the Scheme and who, for whatever reason, choose not to belong to it. For example, an established breeder who has a long list of people waiting for their puppies may not feel the need to advertise. 
A Scheme which only accepts established breeders
The Accredited Breeder Scheme is very much about what breeders agree to do once they have joined, so, while the Kennel Club naturally wants established breeders to join, equally it feels that newer breeders should be encouraged to do all the right things and be recognised for doing so. 
A Scheme designed to make lots of money for the Kennel Club
The cost to the Kennel Club of producing and sending out a members starter pack, for example, absorbs most of the £15 joining fee. 
A Scheme which recognises only breeders who have won lots of awards with their dogs
The Accredited Breeder Scheme is concerned less with the points looked for in the show ring than it is with the production of healthy, well-adjusted puppies for the puppy-buying public. Where breeders can achieve both, it is a bonus!


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> Sorry I didn't mean it to come accross like that was busy and couldn't do a long reply.
> Clueless has since summed it up


Thats ok  your forgiven


----------



## guineapigqueen

Going back to my favorite breed Shar-Pei's.
Back in the 1970's there was only a handful of purebred Shar-Pei's left in the world due to the war in China etc. Nearly 90% of Shar-Pei which are kept today and be linked back to the foundation stock of 20, some carrying the Flowered gene(white based dog with spots and splodges, which I love but disallowed as a shar-pei should be a solid dog). So to add to the Shar-Pei's quanity and build the numbers I would imagine some of these dogs have been line bred. 
Probably along with most of the breeds to get the traits the orginal breeders wanted from say the West Highland White Terrier or the Springer Spaniel etc etc etc. 

Changing it slightly we have various coat lenghts, colours and textures in Guinea Pigs and new breeds are emerging all the time, like my breed Skinny Pigs, these are not accepted here in the UK for showing. They were orginally bred in a Canadian lab and line bred to get the naked recessive traites. A lot of people see this as a bad thing due to the ill health of some skinnys but they were orginally found in the 70's and have been outcrossed to healthy normal coated pigs like I would imagine some dogs have been to create a health happy animal.

As people have said not all breeders or shows no matter the species can be tarnished with the same brush as some people like myself in the Guinea Pigs actually care for my animals, dont cull the litter due to it all being the same sex or an ear chewed etc etc.

Sorry for going off topic slightly but its not just dog people who breed or show or both who can make the whole issue bad for thoughs who keep pets. 

Emma x


----------



## Guest

It actually sounds pretty good, but that is what I'd expect for all breeders not just accredited breeders. If they can afford a £20,000,000 headquarters I'm sure they could afford to "police" ALL breeders as outlined above. Do you know how many accredited breeders there are?


----------



## Gil3987

Had posted theis in the wrong bit

It was ridiculus that they only centred on 5 or so breeds when they said themselves there are about 200 dog breeds out there. The other ridiclous thing is that pedigree dog breeders were likened to Natzi's, which i this is ridiculous.

There was one horrific scene where they showed a boxer having a fit and that was very upsetting, they also had cavleir king charles spaniels screaming as they were in soo much pain form their brain disease - where the skull is not big enough for the brain and the brain cant beat with the heartbeat, this same condition can occur in humans and the slightest thing can agrivate it such as ur shirt collar, but humand can say i am in pan, a dog cant - but even though a dog can be proven to have this disease there is NOTHING stopping the owner breeding from this dog - i think this is sick.

They also talked about Rhodesian Ridgebacks and this is just down right wrong - if a puppy is born without a ridge it is culled - this is in the breed code of ethics - these people are sick and need locking up in my opinion. The puppies that are born without the ridge are the healty pupppies as the ridge is actually a fault, it causes small holes in the skin and this allows infection into the dogs spinal cord or even the brain which kills the dog after it suffers in pain, all because these people are actually breeding for a fault and putting healthy puppies down, i still cant understand this.

They listed 10 breeds chow chow, boxer were a couple of them and said that only 10% of the bodlines are left compared to 40years ago.

They showed how much bassets, minature bull terriers and bulldogs had changed over the years beacuse they have been bred for cosmetic value and not for the health and well being of the dogs.

My parents own, breed and show Irish Red and White Setters, this is a breed that now have DNA tests that must be done before breeding these test for CLAD and Vonwilebrands (not sure of the spelling) and this programme just glossed over it.

I think that every breed should have a DNA test to test for the conditions which everybody knows are in the breed to help the suffering of the animals in the next generation, at the end of the day a dog is part of the family and these dogs are going to people with kids to be family pets and the kids are having to see the dog in pain and then eventually die that is not nice and certainly not right in my mind.


----------



## Gil3987

joe1978 said:


> So my question is...
> 
> As dog-lovers, how can you justify continuing to put dogs through the misery of being born into a body that's not fit for purpose, struggling to breathe, struggling to walk? How can the KC be a protector of our dogs if it actively encourages and praises these breeds? Surely, if you really care about dogs, they should be eradicated or reduced as much as possible?
> 
> Can you not see why he called it a parade of mutants? For some of these breeds, mutants is exactly what they are.
> 
> What am I missing?


I totally agree with what u are saying, i adore the minature bull terrier but after what the breed has changed from and to i wouldnt have one as like u say body not fit for purpose.

i want a happy healthy dog, i have never had a cross before but my next one will be, i was going to go for a shar pei but reading up on their health problemshas kinda made me wonder.


----------



## Guest

ajshep1984 said:


> It actually sounds pretty good, but that is what I'd expect for all breeders not just accredited breeders. If they can afford a £20,000,000 headquarters I'm sure they could afford to "police" ALL breeders as outlined above. Do you know how many accredited breeders there are?


I don't know figures Alan,but do know alot of good breeders already do what the AB Scheme requires,so therefore why should they be charged for doing what they already do?


----------



## Guest

sallyanne said:


> I don't know figures Alan,but do know alot of good breeders already do what the AB Scheme requires,so therefore why should they be charged for doing what they already do?


No I don't think they should be charged for it. Like I said they can afford a £20m headquarters so surely they are raking in enough to "police" all breeders more thoroughly. It shouldn't mean any changes for the good breeders but it will mean bad breeders can't register their litters unless they step into line.


----------



## RebeccaArmstrong

I just caught this programme last night (good old sky+) - i thought it was very one sided and badly put together - they clearly didnt show both sides although there was some heartbreaking stuff in there and i do agree with health testing and only breeding from healthy dogs - as would all reputable breeders - that woman with the CKCS who won the best in breed and denied putting him for stud despite knowing he had that brain condition was just an idiot and irresponsible.

Also that pompus woman who breeds the ridgebacks who said she culls ridgeless pups .... she said something like 'young vets have silly ideas about not putting healthy pups down so we go to an older vet who does it quietly' - quite frankly she needs a good slap - i saw red at her - she cannot claim to care and love dogs ..... and as for the old vet .. maybe he should be put down or at least struck off!!!!!!!


----------



## Sgurr

I'm a newbie and I apologise for not having read all the previous 57 or so pages of posts here. I too saw the programme and biased as it was, it had things to say that needed to be heard. The programme did not recognise the fact that the Imperial College study (which it cited) had received considerable funding from the KC and this was by no means fair to the KC. I am a KC Accredited Breeder for English Springer Spaniels. Before I joined the scheme I had done more than was necessary so far as health checks were concerned as I bred my first littter in 2006 (started health checks 2005) and joined the ABS in 2007.

For ESS approximately 15,000 pups are registered each year and only about 60-70 dogs are hip scored per year. I do not have info on numbers of eyetests (either per year or in total) but only around 400-500 ESS (in total) have been Dna tested for Fucosidosis - the specific problem that only Springers have, as the programme said. The main breeders testing for Fuco are show breeders whereas the most prolific breedings are from the working lines. I am aware of only a handful of ESS breeders (both show and working lines) who test and publish results. The ESS Club Code of Ethics requires members to use available tests but does not make a requirement to publish such results. I think it should. The USA is well ahead of us here.

But also there is a problem with buyers. I cannot let buyers see the puppies until we have gone over all the paperwork, including health checks, and my questions as to their suitability as owners. Let them see the pups and you don't get a sensible question or answer to anything - pups have that effect on people. So yes, breeders should be educating the clients but it is really hard work.

But I try, see Sgurr - English Springer Spaniels - Welcome for my best efforts so far.

No dog (in my opinion) should be bred to be unhealthy and the extreme examples as shown on the programme need to be addressed asap by the KC and the breeders. The KC can influence the Judges, more than that, can direct the Judges, and can revise breed standards where necessary.

I would say that for me the most important breeding point is good temperament and the KC pedigree helps to ensure it through tracability. A mongrel or cross breed also has a survival pedigree - in Darwin terms all ancestors were succsesful - but it is very, very difficult to get further than sire and dam, unless the progeny is a fashionable cross - Puggles - Labradoodles - etc.

In genetic terms, such out crosses are probably advisable in widening the gene pool. But out crosses give you the best and the worst - so what happens to the worst? Previously culling was acceptable but not now - unless it's a battery chicken or an indoor pig for slaughter at four months.

If a breeder has a Lab with good hip score, clear Optigen for PRA etc what is the likelyhood that that Lad will be parent to a Labradoodle? I do not know, not my breed, but I can guess it would be unlikely. Unless the selling price of a Labradoodle is considerably in excess of a good Lab puppy. 
Yes we do have to deal with ethics, legislation, education and hard cash if you breed a dog.

But puppies are lovely and you forget all the worrisome bits as soon as you have a litter....and then their eyes open ..... and the rapture begins again.

Cheers,
Sgurr


----------



## Kelso

I saw this program and was frankly horrified.

First of all, its seems that this is the first time a lot of people on here have been exposed to what the media can do to their specialist subject. Welcome to the modern world we live in. Just think of all the other stuff we watch and read and BELIEVE!!!

However what we were shown is that there is a proportion of the Dog world who seem to have lost sight of what dog breeding is all about. I doubt that proportion is very big, but it seems that they can get away with producing potential show winners that will pay a vets pension.

Two aspects of the film stood out.
1.) how much some of the breeds have changed over the last few decades.
2.) seemingly in adequate medical checks to confirm the health of show dogs.

What is the point of a breed standard if it changes? I look at some of the modern GSDs and wonder if they could shepherd ducks let alone sheep.

How can a breed win ANY show, let alone Crufts if it hasn't been vetted? (By that I mean had its vet records checked as well as a thorough examination on the day).

The RSPCA would not have said the things they said in the program lightly. If breeders, breed societies, the KC, vets and the RSPCA are really concerned about the welfare of dogs in this country they need to get together with the best dog geneticists and start talking turkey.

Sadly, though with the cost of puppies these days, popular breeds and Crufts winners are going to be in such demand that unethical breeding will be with us for some time to come.


----------



## Guest

Kelso said:


> The RSPCA would not have said the things they said in the program lightly. If breeders, breed societies, the KC, vets and the RSPCA are really concerned about the welfare of dogs in this country they need to get together with the best dog geneticists and start talking turkey.
> 
> .


Kelso, I would suggest you read my post #557. You will then clearly see that the Kennel Club* is *working with a number of prominent organisations (The BVA, the Animal Health Trust and the Blue Cross to name but three) doing exactly what you suggest. Something this program conveniently ignored. As for the RSPCA, sorry to burst your bubble about them but, as I said in that post, they have a long running feud with the Kennel Club and obviously chose to use this program to fuel that rather than portray the truth.


----------



## Kelso

Thanks for the prod Spellweaver - I must confess to have not read the whole thread. I am glad that something is being done and I hope some good comes of it. Unfortunately it will take regulation to enforce ethical breeding and regulation costs, leaving a gap in the market for "black market" puppies. Catch 22?

I am not necessarily pro RSPCA, meerly making the point that the RSPCA (as is the KC) is a well known institution and whilst maybe controversial, it won't be slanderous or libelous nor unaware of the facts. Sadly also the film makers will know exactly where the line in the sand is drawn and have been deliberately enflaming without leaving themselves open to a realistic legal challenge. Like I say, welcome to the modern media world.


----------



## Ridgielover

_"They also talked about Rhodesian Ridgebacks and this is just down right wrong - if a puppy is born without a ridge it is culled - this is in the breed code of ethics - these people are sick and need locking up in my opinion. The puppies that are born without the ridge are the healty pupppies as the ridge is actually a fault, it causes small holes in the skin and this allows infection into the dogs spinal cord or even the brain which kills the dog after it suffers in pain, all because these people are actually breeding for a fault and putting healthy puppies down, i still cant understand this."_
I've just trawled my way through this entire thread and have to respond to this inaccurate statement!

The ridge on the Rhodesian Ridgeback stems from the ridge that was found naturally on the Hottentot hunting dogs in Africa. These crossed with European breeds, and eventually the hunters found that the ridged dogs made the best working dogs and so the Rhodesian Ridgeback came into being. The ridge DOES NOT cause small holes in the skin of the dog. A condition called dermoid sinus causes this. It is found in the Ridgeback and in other breeds as well, and in thoroughbred horses I believe. (A link to DS has already been posted) Knowledgeable breeders check their puppies for this condition from birth.

And as Jackson has already said (thanks Jackson  ) - very few breeders would dream of culling a ridgeless puppy, even though it was in our code of ethics. I have had one ridgeless pup, she was booked by 2 days old. None of my friends would put down a ridgeless puppy. And the puppy farmers certainly won't - they sell them for far more than I sold mine!!


----------



## Guest

Ridgielover said:


> _"They also talked about Rhodesian Ridgebacks and this is just down right wrong - if a puppy is born without a ridge it is culled - this is in the breed code of ethics - these people are sick and need locking up in my opinion. The puppies that are born without the ridge are the healty pupppies as the ridge is actually a fault, it causes small holes in the skin and this allows infection into the dogs spinal cord or even the brain which kills the dog after it suffers in pain, all because these people are actually breeding for a fault and putting healthy puppies down, i still cant understand this."_
> I've just trawled my way through this entire thread and have to respond to this inaccurate statement!
> 
> The ridge on the Rhodesian Ridgeback stems from the ridge that was found naturally on the Hottentot hunting dogs in Africa. These crossed with European breeds, and eventually the hunters found that the ridged dogs made the best working dogs and so the Rhodesian Ridgeback came into being. The ridge DOES NOT cause small holes in the skin of the dog. A condition called dermoid sinus causes this. It is found in the Ridgeback and in other breeds as well, and in thoroughbred horses I believe. (A link to DS has already been posted) Knowledgeable breeders check their puppies for this condition from birth.
> 
> And as Jackson has already said (thanks Jackson  ) - very few breeders would dream of culling a ridgeless puppy, even though it was in our code of ethics. I have had one ridgeless pup, she was booked by 2 days old. None of my friends would put down a ridgeless puppy. And the puppy farmers certainly won't - they sell them for far more than I sold mine!!


Thanks for posting this Ridgielover - one of the worst things about this program is that it told lies and blatantly twisted and misrepresented the truth. And, of course, people with no actual knowledge of the world of pedigree dogs, showing and the KC are going to believe these lies. So the more of us who actually *know* and post about how the makers of this program twisted and misrepresented facts, the better it will be for pedigree dogs in general.


----------



## Guest

For those of you who feel that you would like to ask the Kennel Club about things this program said, please follow this link:

The Kennel Club Answers Back on Live Webchat on 27th August at 12 noon - The Kennel Club

Kennel Club Answers Back - Live webchat on 27th August at 12 noon
26-Aug-08

Join Caroline Kisko and Dr Jeff Sampson from the Kennel Club as they answer your questions and dispel concerns over pedigree dog breeding

Chat date: 27th August

Chat time: 12.00pm

Following the recent BBC programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the Kennel Club would like to clear up negative impressions of pedigree dog breeding and suggestions that the dog community is doing little or nothing to improve the health of pedigree dogs.

The Kennel Club assisted the production company with the programme and hoped that what would be portrayed would be a balanced view of the work the Kennel Club is doing and what needs to be done within the dog world to ensure that pedigree dogs lead long and healthy lives. Unfortunately the Kennel Club and the dog community have been left feeling that the programme was very one sided and so would like to address some of the issues the programme raised and answer some of the questions that viewers are concerned about by taking part in an online webchat.

If you are a dog lover and have any concerns or questions following the programme, then join our webchat to find out how Kennel Club health initiatives such as the introduction of the Accredited Breeder Scheme and research funding can help promote healthy breeding of pedigree breeds.

Live Webchat - Join Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary and Dr Jeff Sampson, the Kennel Clubs genetic advisor live on the 27th August at 12 to answer your questions and dispel concerns over pedigree dog breeding.


----------



## JasperCarrot

I Got Dad To Download It For Me .. Im Like Speechless


----------



## Guest

I couldn't get it - it kept saying the site was down. Was it interesting? What made you speechless?


----------



## Guest

Oooh - you can watch it now if you follow the link!


----------



## JasperCarrot

spellweaver said:


> I couldn't get it - it kept saying the site was down. Was it interesting? What made you speechless?


I Havent Watched The Kennel Club Answers Back Yet 

I Meant Pedigree Dogs Exposed I Just Couldnt Belive It .. And It Was Horrible Watching The Boxer Having A Fit And Everything .. And Then It Was Saying Stuff About Trying To Get The Best Race Of Humans !! Mad 

Im Just Looking At The Kennel Club Answers Back Now x

- 
Natalie x


----------



## Cassandra

Ridgielover said:


> The ridge on the Rhodesian Ridgeback stems from the ridge that was found naturally on the Hottentot hunting dogs in Africa. These crossed with European breeds, and eventually the hunters found that the ridged dogs made the best working dogs and so the Rhodesian Ridgeback came into being. The ridge DOES NOT cause small holes in the skin of the dog. A condition called dermoid sinus causes this. It is found in the Ridgeback and in other breeds as well, and in thoroughbred horses I believe. (A link to DS has already been posted) Knowledgeable breeders check their puppies for this condition from birth.


I'm new here (hi!) and I've just been reading through this most interesting thread.

I'd just like to add a comment to the above statement, as the ridge on a Rhodesian Ridgeback *predispose the dogs* to dermoid sinus. There's quite a bit of research that's been done in this area, including this paper:



> *Autosomal dominant mutation causing the dorsal ridge predisposes for dermoid sinus in Rhodesian ridgeback dogs.Hillbertz NH, Andersson G.
> Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Biomedical centre, Box 597, S-751 24 Uppsala, Sweden.*
> *OBJECTIVES: *To define the mode of inheritance of the dorsal ridge and investigate if the ridge predisposes to the congenital abnormality dermoid sinus in the Rhodesian ridgeback. *METHODS:* Segregation analysis was performed, including 87 litters (n=803) produced in Sweden between 1981 and 2002. Data were corrected to avoid bias in the segregation ratio. Chi-squared analysis was performed including 402 litters (n=3598) for the evaluation of a possible genetic correlation between the ridge and dermoid sinus. *RESULTS:* The ridge is inherited in an autosomal dominant mode and predisposes for dermoid sinus. The frequency of ridgeless offspring in the Swedish Rhodesian ridgeback population is estimated to be 5.6 per cent. *CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Rhodesian ridgeback dogs that carry the ridge trait are predisposed to dermoid sinus.*
> PMID: 16573760 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Autosomal dominant mutation causing the dorsal rid...[J Small Anim Pract. 2006] - PubMed Result

The studies showed that the ridgeless puppies don't develop dermoid sinus, ie if Rhodesian Ridgebacks didn't have the ridge, then dermoid sinus wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## jackson

Cassandra said:


> I'm new here (hi!) and I've just been reading through this most interesting thread.
> 
> I'd just like to add a comment to the above statement, as the ridge on a Rhodesian Ridgeback *predispose the dogs* to dermoid sinus. There's quite a bit of research that's been done in this area, including this paper:
> 
> Autosomal dominant mutation causing the dorsal rid...[J Small Anim Pract. 2006] - PubMed Result
> 
> The studies showed that the ridgeless puppies don't develop dermoid sinus, ie if Rhodesian Ridgebacks didn't have the ridge, then dermoid sinus wouldn't be a problem.


if you read back through the thread, you'll see that ridgeless puppies DO get dermoid sinus, as do crossbreeds and some other breeds.

Look here:

Dermoid Sinus


----------



## Rach

Well, have sat here this morning and read all 61 pages 

Would like to comment on the CKCS, The lady filmed has been very open open her dogs MRI scan when used at stud, she lives the other end of the country from me and I have no interest in her dog, but I knew the results of his MRI scan. Wether you think its right or wrong, the dog is Asystomatic and as part of a breeding plan set up by International Syringomyelia Conference in Nov 2006 a dog that has shown the malformation on an MRI scan (Grade D) can still be mated to a dog that has an A clear scan, were all the bitches he was used on A clear ? Well I don't know that 

Also a dog that is used for breeding and hasn't been MRI scanned, is to be classed as a D scan (fail) and is only to be mated to a dog with an A scan, which is no different to the dog that was filmed, so unless you have a clear scan for your dog and only mate with other dogs with an A scan, you are doing exactly the same as the lady filmed

Nothing was mentioned about the CKCS Clubs funding MRI scans, nothing was mentioned about the breeding guidelines, nothing was mentioned about the way the Specialists keep moving the goal posts, the Malformation is now thought to be "normal" in Cavaliers and not an indicator of Syringomyelia, and this is why a lot of breeders have stopped MRI scanning, until they find a DNA test, we can only do our best 

I have heard a few rumours about the Cavaliers filmed, one being that medication was withdrawn for filming, then the dog was PTS straight after the programme, the other that the collar and lead were left on the dog to cause that reaction, I have no idea if they are true

Lastly, nobody in Cavaliers can say they have healthy dogs as far as SM goes, nobody knows if there dog is a carrier, nobody knows when SM will rear its ugly head.....There for the grace of god go I 

Just my thoughts
Rach x

P.S Hi Tash, hope my girls are behaving


----------



## Cassandra

jackson said:


> if you read back through the thread, you'll see that ridgeless puppies DO get dermoid sinus, as do crossbreeds and some other breeds.


People get dermoid sinus too, but it's quite rare. The chances of most people (or dogs) getting it are very small indeed.

However, what the studies show is that the ridge actually PREDISPOSES Ridgebacks to dermoid sinus, ie the chance of them getting it is far, far higher than in the general dog community (or indeed in Ridgebacks that don't have a ridge).


----------



## jackson

Cassandra said:


> People get dermoid sinus too, but it's quite rare. The chances of most people (or dogs) getting it are very small indeed.
> 
> However, what the studies show is that the ridge actually PREDISPOSES Ridgebacks to dermoid sinus, ie the chance of them getting it is far, far higher than in the general dog community (or indeed in Ridgebacks that don't have a ridge).


Whatever studies have shown (and I haven't looked into it that closely) that is not what this programme said. It said that ridgeless puppies do not get DS.

I would be interested to know how many ridged ridgebacks actually get DS? There are clearly thousands who don't.


----------



## Cassandra

jackson said:


> I would be interested to know how many ridged ridgebacks actually get DS? There are clearly thousands who don't.


According to the Sydney University LIDA site, Rhodesian Ridgebacks are the only breed where Dermoid Sinus is significant. It's very rare in any other dogs.

The incidence in Rhodesian Ridgebacks is extremely high, and it's generally thought to occur in about 10% of Ridgebacks, ie 100 Ridgebacks in every 1000 will be born with Dermoid Sinus.

A recent Australian study found it to be even higher, occurring in 17% of Ridgebacks. However, they also found that it may be possible to reduce this to around 5% (ie 50 dogs in every 1000) by the addition of high folate levels to the mother's diet.


----------



## Ridgielover

I've experienced nowhere near 10% sinus, let alone 17%! I've bred 79 puppies (in 20 something years) and have had 2 puppies with sinus. So my experience is more like 2.5% 

There are different categories of sinus (I was at the RR World Congress in August, and attended the talk by the scientist who has been researching this). The 2 that I had were what used to be called tail base sinuses (can't remember their "new name"). One was operated on, she lived a normal long life. The other was left alone and didn't cause any problems at all.


----------



## lauren001

HI

I think the program highlighted the emphasis on cosmetic appearance in the dog breeding "industry" and the "hang the health" attitude of a lot of dog breeders.

The example dogs filmed were by the by, it really doesn't matter the ins and outs of each individual case, the problem in the dog breeding fraternity is one of extremism and breeding dogs with a lack of knowledge or the "sweep under the carpet" attitude that many animal breeders have when "genetic" faults are mentioned. 

Yes, there are breeds trying their best to monitor their health, but mostly after the horse has bolted.

Yes, there is far too much inbreeding, fine for a chance mating to "set" a trait but when you are speaking about repeat line breeding deep into the pedigree it is a different matter. 

The BBC was completely right to highlight these issues, the way they did it was to shock but otherwise how else was the message going to get across.

If I make a program about lung cancer, with the message to try and get people to stop smoking I don't go looking for 80 year olds who have smoked 60 a day all their lives with no problems, I look for the dying 28 year old father with his three, soon to be fatherless, children. It may be shocking, it may not be the average scenario, but it will make people think.
This program made the RSPCA and the Dog's Trust think.
Perhaps some breeders instead of trying to justify their practices, should also have a good long think as well.

Lauren


----------



## Cassandra

The RSPCA have now pulled out of Crufts:



> *RSPCA slams Crufts over "deformed dogs"*
> 
> LONDON (Reuters) - The RSPCA will boycott Crufts next year, accusing it of encouraging the breeding of deformed and disabled dogs.
> 
> The charity says the premier dog show concentrates too much on animals' appearance rather than their welfare and temperament.
> 
> "Intentionally breeding deformed and disabled animals is morally unjustifiable and it has to stop," said its chief veterinary adviser Mark Evans.
> 
> "Dog shows using current breed standards as the main judging criteria actively encourage both the intentional breeding of deformed and disabled dogs and the in-breeding of closely related animals," Evans added in a statement.
> 
> The charity will not attend Crufts next March nor the Discover Dogs show in November. It called for more research into illnesses and causes of death linked with pedigree dogs.
> 
> It has ordered a review of dog breeding, which is expected to report back later this year.
> 
> Preliminary recommendations from the review call for a radical change in the requirements for pedigree dog registration and breeding strategies.
> 
> "We want to see the emphasis shifted away from arbitrary appearance, so that health, welfare and temperament are considered first and foremost," Evans said. "All those who benefit from pedigree dogs have a collective responsibility to solve what is now a very serious and totally unnecessary animal welfare problem."
> 
> The organisers of Crufts, the Kennel Club, described the RSPCA's comments as "unhelpful".


The link is at Reuters

Lots of the sponsors are apparently considering whether or not to still support it, too.


----------



## Guest

lauren001 said:


> HI
> 
> I think the program highlighted the emphasis on cosmetic appearance in the dog breeding "industry" and the "hang the health" attitude of a lot of dog breeders.
> 
> The example dogs filmed were by the by, it really doesn't matter the ins and outs of each individual case, the problem in the dog breeding fraternity is one of extremism and breeding dogs with a lack of knowledge or the "sweep under the carpet" attitude that many animal breeders have when "genetic" faults are mentioned.
> 
> Yes, there are breeds trying their best to monitor their health, but mostly after the horse has bolted.
> 
> Yes, there is far too much inbreeding, fine for a chance mating to "set" a trait but when you are speaking about repeat line breeding deep into the pedigree it is a different matter.
> 
> The BBC was completely right to highlight these issues, the way they did it was to shock but otherwise how else was the message going to get across.
> 
> If I make a program about lung cancer, with the message to try and get people to stop smoking I don't go looking for 80 year olds who have smoked 60 a day all their lives with no problems, I look for the dying 28 year old father with his three, soon to be fatherless, children. It may be shocking, it may not be the average scenario, but it will make people think.
> This program made the RSPCA and the Dog's Trust think.
> Perhaps some breeders instead of trying to justify their practices, should also have a good long think as well.
> 
> Lauren


Your post shows exactly what was wrong with this program. You say you would make a program about lung cancer "to stop people smoking" - ie you would be making a program with a pre-set agenda and you would just look at facts that supported your agenda without looking at any other true facts that might contradict your agenda. (for example, you say yourself that 80 years olds who smoke 80 a day also die of lung cancer but you would not report that). You would therefore get a biased program that did not report the true facts of the matter. And if you put it out on prime time TV, you would get a program that made the sheep who watch these kinds of programs and believe everything they say, think that lung cancer only happens to young people. This is what this program did about pedigree dogs. It started with an agenda. It wanted to discredit the Kennel Club and pedigree dogs. It misreported statistics; it reported downright lies; and it ignored all the good that is already being done to eradicate the things it did report. Then it put it out on prime time TV, and hence it made the sheep believe what it reported was true.


----------



## raindog

spellweaver said:


> Your post shows exactly what was wrong with this program. You say you would make a program about lung cancer "to stop people smoking" - ie you would be making a program with a pre-set agenda and you would just look at facts that supported your agenda without looking at any other true facts that might contradict your agenda. (for example, you say yourself that 80 years olds who smokle 80 a day also die of lung cancer but you would not report that). You would therefore get a biased program that did not report the true facts of the matter. And if you put it out on prime time TV, you would get a program that made the sheep who watch these kinds of programs and believe everything they say think that lung cancer only happens to young people. This is what this program did about pedigree dogs. It started with an agenda. It wanted to discredit the Kennel Club and pedigree dogs. It misreported statistics; it reported downright lies; and it ignored all the good that is already being done to eradicate the things it did report. Then it put it out on prime time TV, and hence it made the sheep believe what it reported was true.


Brilliant post Spellweaver!!!

Mick


----------



## Jammy

coolkat said:


> I shall be watching and recording


Hiya any chance of borrowing the video when you have watched it ? Will pay postage

Juliet x


----------



## Guest

Jammy said:


> Hiya any chance of borrowing the video when you have watched it ? Will pay postage
> 
> Juliet x


You can watch it (in 6 parts) on Youtube: YouTube - Pedigree Dogs Exposed Part 1 of 6 !


----------



## lauren001

spellweaver said:


> You would therefore get a biased program that did not report the true facts of the matter. And if you put it out on prime time TV, you would get a program that made the sheep who watch these kinds of programs and believe everything they say, think that lung cancer only happens to young people. This is what this program did about pedigree dogs. It started with an agenda. It wanted to discredit the Kennel Club and pedigree dogs. It misreported statistics; it reported downright lies; and it ignored all the good that is already being done to eradicate the things it did report. Then it put it out on prime time TV, and hence it made the sheep believe what it reported was true.


*Agenda*
Of course it started with an agenda, the agenda was to report what is really happening in the pedigree dog world as regards health and expose the weaknesses, and the attitudes of dog breeders to those problems, and the establishment who is condoning the bad practices. I admit this may not be representative of all dog breeders but those that are practising good health screening and truly looking after the welfare of their dogs, need not be worried.

*Biased*
Of course it was biased, there wasn't pictures of lovely fluffy healthy puppies who lived till they were 19, that was not the point of the program, that would have been wasting time, when the true message needed to be got across.

*Shocking*
Of course it *was *shocking, if it had been namby-pamby we wouldn't be discussing it today nor would the RSPCA or Dog's Trust be withdrawing their support.

*Lies*
I doubt if these two large well respected canine organisations would be pulling out of Crufts if they thought the program "misreported statistics; it reported downright lies". I am sure they made sure of their facts before taking such a momentous step.

*The point*
The point was that there is huge concern re the breeding by the "establishment" of dogs that are less than healthy in the name of glory and showing success with little regard for the dogs themselves.

At Crufts, it is a celebration of the "dog breeding world". In fact what we are celebrating is the manufacture of creatures into shapes that they were not meant to be and into inbred sick mutants instead of healthy creatures.

*Cold Light of Day*
When you look at it in the cold light of day it is preposterous that this has been allowed to go on under our very noses. It is like the emperor's new clothes. We have been persuaded over the years that more and more extreme shapes are the norm and it is "normal" for dogs in certain breeds to have inbuilt *genetic* defects which means they do not reach their full life potential, or suffer eye, heart, neurological, breathing, hip, behaviour, reproductive and locomotion problems throughout their lives.

Someone just turned on the light and told us the emporer is actually naked, unfortunately, he is still under the delusion that he is in his finery and is fighting to regain some sort of dignity. A bit difficult when his "bits" are all on show.

Omerta - Code of Silence

Lauren


----------



## Guest

I havent commented on any of these threads because I missed the programme. I have just followed Alans link to part 1 on you tube and seen ten seconds, I cannot watch it, it will make me too upset


----------



## Guest

lauren001 said:


> *Agenda*
> Of course it started with an agenda, the agenda was to report what is really happening in the pedigree dog world as regards health and expose the weaknesses, and the attitudes of dog breeders to those problems, and the establishment who is condoning the bad practices. I admit this may not be representative of all dog breeders but those that are practising good health screening and truly looking after the welfare of their dogs, need not be worried.
> 
> *Biased*
> Of course it was biased, there wasn't pictures of lovely fluffy healthy puppies who lived till they were 19, that was not the point of the program, that would have been wasting time, when the true message needed to be got across.


True research and true reporting does not start with an agenda and is not biased. True research and true reporting looks at ALL the facts and then analyses the results. If this program had done that, then it would have reported all the good the KC has done, and is doing. If this program had done that, then it would have reached different conclusions. But it didn't. It decided it wanted to portray the KC in a bad light, and that's what it did. There is no way this can be called research. There is no way this can be called truth. To use your own example, if pedigree dogs *are* living 19 years, then of course that should have been reported because has a bearing on the truth. Put it this way, if a muder had been committed in your street, would you want all facts investigating? Or would you be content to find out that the police knew your partner just happened to be in the vicinity at the time, therefore he could have done it, therefore he must be the murderer?



lauren001 said:


> [When you look at it in the cold light of day it is preposterous that this has been allowed to go on under our very noses. It is like the emperor's new clothes. We have been persuaded over the years that more and more extreme shapes are the norm and it is "normal" for dogs in certain breeds to have inbuilt *genetic* defects which means they do not reach their full life potential, or suffer eye, heart, neurological, breathing, hip, behaviour, reproductive and locomotion problems throughout their lives.
> 
> Someone just turned on the light and told us the emporer is actually naked, unfortunately, he is still under the delusion that he is in his finery and is fighting to regain some sort of dignity. A bit difficult when his "bits" are all on show. Lauren


No, someone told you a fairy story and you have accepted it as truth.


----------



## lauren001

spellweaver said:


> True research and true reporting does not start with an agenda and is not biased. True research and true reporting looks at ALL the facts and then analyses the results.


If we have a program about a mass murderer, we don't spend half the program telling us about how good he was to his granny, and his Auntie May and how he spent his days feeding the ducks, and how good his sister is, we have a program about the nitty gritty of his crime. No one said the program should be balanced. This program wasn't about "good" welfare conscious dog breeders it was about "poor" welfare conscious ones and how ingrained attitudes that have nothing to do with good dog *welfare* are, in the established dog breeding fraternity. We are not talking about fringe breeders and BYBs here or puppy farmers in Ireland, the breeders highlighted in the programme are at the heart of the "proper" dog breeding world.
I think the real research was done before the program was ever made. The program is a protrayal and illustration of the conclusions drawn from that research.

If the KC are so wonderful then why are the RSPCA not defending them.
If the KC are so wonderful then why are the Dogs Trust, the UK's largest dog welfare charity, not defending them.

These charities are distancing themselves because they are dog *welfare* charities.

Cosmetic euthansia, epilepsy, elective caesarian sections, syringomyelia, MVD, hip dysplasia, and poor dogs wheezing through small nasal cavities, if you think these things need defending then go ahead. I am more concerned with healthy, happy animals, not the defence of breed standards and standing by a club that allowed breeders to continue down this unhealthy route.

Standing by and watching was exactly what they did, perhaps action is more appropriate and required on the part of it and the breeders it represents. 
_"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing" Edmund Burke _



spellweaver said:


> No, someone told you a fairy story and you have accepted it as truth.


I unfortunately am too old for fairy stories, I can see right through them, for what they are. This program cut through the fairy story that was Crufts, and showed it for what it really was, unfortunately it wasn't a Cinderella fairy story, more like Babes in the Wood.

Lauren


----------



## Guest

lauren001 said:


> I think the real research was done before the program was ever made. The program is a protrayal and illustration of the conclusions drawn from that research.
> Lauren


You only think that the research was done. I, on the other hand, have actual evidence that it was not done properly. They showed a picture of my dog's coat with a voice over that denigrated the things done to dogs by man. Now, if they had come and spoken to me instead of filming illegally, I could have told them the truth of the matter - that the bergamasco's coat is untouched by man, is as exactly as nature intended, and that it has been that way for over 2000 years. But they were not interested in the truth. They saw the coat and thought they could say what they wanted to to fit ito their pre-arranged agenda. That is only one instance of the hundreds of things this program said that was not true. When Offsted upholds the KC's complaint, and the Production Company are exposed for the charlatans they are, just watch how quickly ther RSPCA and the Dog's Trust come crawling back for all the money raised for them by the KC.

You are free to believe whatever lies you want - although how someone can believe anything that a production company who furthers the suffering of a boxer by switching on a light to make its fit worse, or makes a CKC walk on a lead and suffer considerable pain just to make shock TV, I am at a loss to uindertsand. Where is the caring for dog welfare in that? Believe whatever lies you want to - those of us in the dog world know the truth.


----------



## lauren001

spellweaver said:


> You only think that the research was done. I, on the other hand, have actual evidence that it was not done properly. They showed a picture of my dog's coat with a voice over that denigrated the things done to dogs by man. Now, if they had come and spoken to me instead of filming illegally, I could have told them the truth of the matter - that the bergamasco's coat is untouched by man, is as exactly as nature intended, and that it has been that way for over 2000 years. But they were not interested in the truth. They saw the coat and thought they could say what they wanted to to fit ito their pre-arranged agenda. That is only one instance of the hundreds of things this program said that was not true. When Offsted upholds the KC's complaint, and the Production Company are exposed for the charlatans they are, just watch how quickly ther RSPCA and the Dog's Trust come crawling back for all the money raised for them by the KC.
> 
> You are free to believe whatever lies you want - although how someone can believe anything that a production company who furthers the suffering of a boxer by switching on a light to make its fit worse, or makes a CKC walk on a lead and suffer considerable pain just to make shock TV, I am at a loss to uindertsand. Where is the caring for dog welfare in that? Believe whatever lies you want to - those of us in the dog world know the truth.


It is not about the tricks of broadcasting and the individual dogs seen.
There is a big picture here.

Whether the boxer had a light put on it or the Cavalier was made to walk on a lead is immaterial. Nasty for the individual dog for a short time but not when you consider their condition is permanent and they and others are suffering the same thing day after day, week after week and year after year. We are squeamish when it happens in front of the camera for a few seconds, but not when it happens behind closed doors in their daily lives.

The problem is why was the boxer fitting in the first place in the presence of a light and why can't a dog walk on the lead without pain. Those are the questions we need to ask?

So if the KC wriggles out of this you still think it is OK that dogs are suffering from genetic diseases caused by the breeder's quest for the perfect specimen.

It is OK to have Cavaliers with small skulls, it is OK to have Bassets with huge folds of skin on their incredibly short legs, OK for dogs to die of genetic heart diseases, OK for GSD's to have the terrible walking problems that they have due to the breed standard, OK for bulldogs to have elective Caesarians, OK for epilepsy, OK for cardiomyopathy, OK for breathing problems, the list goes on and on etc. etc. etc.?

This is complete madness, you have obviously been too long in the dog breeding world, to break out of it's collective delusion.



spellweaver said:


> the bergamasco's coat is untouched by man, is as exactly as nature intended, and that it has been that way for over 2000 years.


I don't have much problem with the Bergamasco's coat unless there are health problems associated with it, I would think nature didn't intend it, it is just a genetic mutation that man took up and decided to run with a long time ago. In fact they were almost extinct in this century, but in the 1960's they were salvaged and I am sure with a lot of inbreeding they have managed to survive into the animal we have today, I wonder if the old Persians would recognise the same dog.

Lauren

By the way, the fact it has been here for 2000 years is not necessarily a good thing. We are still stoning people to death in some countries, been the same for 2000 years.....


----------



## Guest

lauren001 said:


> It is not about the tricks of broadcasting and the individual dogs seen.
> There is a big picture here.
> 
> Whether the boxer had a light put on it or the Cavalier was made to walk on a lead is immaterial. Nasty for the individual dog for a short time but not when you consider their condition is permanent and they and others are suffering the same thing day after day, week after week and year after year. We are squeamish when it happens in front of the camera for a few seconds, but not when it happens behind closed doors in their daily lives.
> 
> The problem is why was the boxer fitting in the first place in the presence of a light and why can't a dog walk on the lead without pain. Those are the questions we need to ask?


I agree - these are the issues that need to be addressed - why waste time debating about the impartiality/non-impartiality of the BBC? Reporting, it can be argued, is virtually _never_ objective or impartial as it will always be written by a certain number of people who have their own views and agendas (however subconscious) to attend to. Saying this, I can see where you are coming from, I believe the BBC could have provided a stronger POV from the KC but as Lauren says, this is not the point!! The point is that this IS happening... no matter how dramatised by the programme...



> I don't have much problem with the Bergamasco's coat unless there are health problems associated with it, I would think nature didn't intend it, it is just a genetic mutation that man took up and decided to run with a long time ago. In fact they were almost extinct in this century, but in the 1960's they were salvaged and I am sure with a lot of inbreeding they have managed to survive into the animal we have today, I wonder if the old Persians would recognise the same dog.
> 
> Lauren
> 
> By the way, the fact it has been here for 2000 years is not necessarily a good thing. We are still stoning people to death in some countries, been the same for 2000 years.....


I don't agree with you here Lauren, from what I've read it doesn't seem like man "took up" and "decided to run with" the unusual coat of the breed. Yes it is a genetic mutation, as is everything in evolution, which was intended by nature to ensure the dogs were kept warm in the winter yet cool enough to survive in the summer. Also I'm not really sure you can compare an unchanging breed's coat to cultural acts of murder?!


----------



## Guest

lauren001 said:


> It is not about the tricks of broadcasting and the individual dogs seen.
> There is a big picture here.


There is an even bigger picture that you are not seeing. There is so much wrong with the world of dogs that this program could have highlighted, but it chose to attack the very organisation that is doing more to help dogs than any other.



lauren001 said:


> Whether the boxer had a light put on it or the Cavalier was made to walk on a lead is immaterial.


Not for people who genuinely care about animals it isn't. Are you saying you condone cruelty to animals just to make shock TV?



lauren001 said:


> So if the KC wriggles out of this you still think it is OK that dogs are suffering from genetic diseases caused by the breeder's quest for the perfect specimen.


But this is not happening, Lauren. If we were writing this about 30 years ago, you would be right and I would be agreeing with you. But contrary to what this program led you to believe with its lies and misrepresented facts, for years now the Kennel Club have been working to correct breed anomalies. Go onto their site and read about all they are doing, and all they have done for years. Read about the genetic research they have funded. Read about all their initiatives.



lauren001 said:


> I don't have much problem with the Bergamasco's coat unless there are health problems associated with it, I would think nature didn't intend it, it is just a genetic mutation that man took up and decided to run with a long time ago. In fact they were almost extinct in this century, but in the 1960's they were salvaged and I am sure with a lot of inbreeding they have managed to survive into the animal we have today, I wonder if the old Persians would recognise the same dog.


Lauren, please don't presume to lecture me on the bergamasco. I know more about this breed than you can ever imagine. There are no health problems associated with the breed, either with their coat or anything else - and this is because the breed is exactly as nature intended it, exactly as it has been for over 2000 years. And yes, the old persians would recognise the same dog. The breed was "salvaged" as you choose to put it in the 1960s by an Italian geneticist who carefully selected the original genes - no inbreeding, nothing sinister (sorry to disappoint you) just a dedicated scientist making sure the breed survived in its original format. As for the coat - nature, by process of natural selection, provides animals with the means to survive in their natural habitat and that is exactly what it did with the bergamasco. They are out on the mountains in hot summers and cold winters. Air gets trapped between the maps and keeps them cool in summer and warm in winter. They have natural predators such as wolves and snakes to deal with. The coat is thickest in the areas where wolves would attack - ie around the throat and the hocks - and it forms a natural armour through which snakes cannot strike. So (sorry to disappoint you!) - no genetic mutation, no manipulation by man, just a dog exactly as nature intended to be, just a dog that has been exactly as nature intended it to be for over 2000 years.



lauren001 said:


> By the way, the fact it has been here for 2000 years is not necessarily a good thing. We are still stoning people to death in some countries, been the same for 2000 years.....


Lauren, you can't have it both ways. Either it is bad for man to have altered the conformation of dogs, or it is bad for dogs to be the way they have been for 2000 years. Make up your mind which way you want to argue!


----------



## Guest

louise5031 said:


> I agree - these are the issues that need to be addressed - why waste time debating about the impartiality/non-impartiality of the BBC? Reporting, it can be argued, is virtually _never_ objective or impartial as it will always be written by a certain number of people who have their own views and agendas (however subconscious) to attend to. Saying this, I can see where you are coming from, I believe the BBC could have provided a stronger POV from the KC but as Lauren says, this is not the point!! The point is that this IS happening... no matter how dramatised by the programme...


The real point is that the Kennel Club are, and have been for a number of years, working to stop the things that this program dramatised to the point of absurdity. If the program had said this, however, it would not have made such good TV - in fact it would have made the whole program pointless. That is why it is not a waste of time to point out how biased reporting can make people think black is white.


----------



## Guest

spellweaver said:


> The real point is that the Kennel Club are, and have been for a number of years, working to stop the things that this program dramatised to the point of absurdity. If the program had said this, however, it would not have made such good TV - in fact it would have made the whole program pointless. That is why it is not a waste of time to point out how biased reporting can make people think black is white.


I see why you are annoyed and I do agree that the KC were painted in a bad light. I have only recently seen the programme and I havent read this whole thread so forgive me if I'm repeating something that has been discussed already, but what about the guidelines that were changed so suddenly in regards to culling ridgeless pups?

Don't get me wrong it was nothing but a good thing that those lines were removed... but if it wasn't for the pressure of the BBC programme do you believe they would've removed that of their own accord?

I understand the issues with biased reporting but in my eyes reporting itself will never be anything but biased. Yes it may have been unfair that the KC was painted in such a bad way despite their efforts over the recent yrs, and thankfully for these forums at least this can be explained to those who will listen. But the bottom line is the public needed to be shown what was happening not kept in the dark, whether the KC is helping the cause or not.


----------



## Guest

louise5031 said:


> I see why you are annoyed and I do agree that the KC were painted in a bad light. I have only recently seen the programme and I havent read this whole thread so forgive me if I'm repeating something that has been discussed already, but what about the guidelines that were changed so suddenly in regards to culling ridgeless pups?
> 
> Don't get me wrong it was nothing but a good thing that those lines were removed... but if it wasn't for the pressure of the BBC programme do you believe they would've removed that of their own accord?
> 
> I understand the issues with biased reporting but in my eyes reporting itself will never be anything but biased. Yes it may have been unfair that the KC was painted in such a bad way despite their efforts over the recent yrs, and thankfully for these forums at least this can be explained to those who will listen. But the bottom line is the public needed to be shown what was happening not kept in the dark, whether the KC is helping the cause or not.


I may be wrong here, but I'm sure I read somewhere that, depsite what this program said, the guidelines about culling ridgeless pups were removed well before it was highlighted by this program. I understand what you mean about the public needing to know what is happening, but just think how much better it would be for the public to have been told the truth - that this kind of thing happened in the past, but is now thankfully in the process of being stopped and reversed.


----------



## Guest

spellweaver said:


> I may be wrong here, but I'm sure I read somewhere that, depsite what this program said, the guidelines about culling ridgeless pups were removed well before it was highlighted by this program. I understand what you mean about the public needing to know what is happening, but just think how much better it would be for the public to have been told the truth - that this kind of thing happened in the past, but is now thankfully in the process of being stopped and reversed.


yeah cause that bit was the bit that peed me off the most - im not stupid, i let all the KC hatred stuff go over my head as it was obvious theres two sides to every story (plus when they got the nazis out i just switched my ears off lol, how ridiculous). but that bloody idiot breeder that said her vet wouldnt put down the ridgeless pups so she took them to some retired vet to do it!!!! arggggg making me angry now gonna leave this thread lol


----------



## Guest

louise5031 said:


> yeah cause that bit was the bit that peed me off the most - im not stupid, i let all the KC hatred stuff go over my head as it was obvious theres two sides to every story (plus when they got the nazis out i just switched my ears off lol, how ridiculous). but that bloody idiot breeder that said her vet wouldnt put down the ridgeless pups so she took them to some retired vet to do it!!!! arggggg making me angry now gonna leave this thread lol


Oooh, totally agree with you here - I also got very annoyed with the stupid CKC owner who let her dog be mated I can't remember how many times knowing it had syringolmelia.


----------



## Guest

spellweaver said:


> Oooh, totally agree with you here - I also got very annoyed with the stupid CKC owner who let her dog be mated I can't remember how many times knowing it had syringolmelia.


oh yeah and she blatently lied on camera saying he hadnt sired that many when it was like 40 litters or something ridiculous?!! anyway I will stop posting here, I just needed to talk about it as I only just watched it this afternoon!!


----------



## Guest

I suppose you can substantiate this claim? A search on the net has produced nothing about it - except a link to this forum. Please post your proof. If you can't, the mods should delete this because a link that is a lie is damaging to this forum.


----------



## Guest

spellweaver said:


> I suppose you can substantiate this claim? A search on the net has produced nothing about it - except a link to this forum. Please post your proof. If you can't, the mods should delete this because a link that is a lie is damaging to this forum.


what claim? was it something I posted last night?


----------



## Guest

louise5031 said:


> what claim? was it something I posted last night?


It was another members post that has been removed for the reason stated in Val's post.


----------



## Cassandra

spellweaver said:


> The real point is that the Kennel Club are, and have been for a number of years, working to stop the things that this program dramatised to the point of absurdity. If the program had said this, however, it would not have made such good TV - in fact it would have made the whole program pointless. That is why it is not a waste of time to point out how biased reporting can make people think black is white.


I see what you're saying, but I think the point is that the Kennel Club have been running things for over one hundred years, and the health of the purebred dogs they are supposed to be administering just continues to decline.

Clearly something is badly wrong, and needs to be urgently addressed. If this program can bring the issue to public attention, and help drive changes that will produce healthier and happier dogs, then more power to it. JMO.


----------



## dogman2dogs

Hi wow 64 pages so far,someone must think that this rubbish merits a debate this long, so just a couple of small points,
1/how many dog people would listen let alone trust their dog to a vet who spends more time as a tv presenter/producer than working as a Vet,try Googleing Mark Evans and see.
2/how many breeds listed by the KC, now how many shown on the programe with serious problems, how many exhibitors that breed a litter every 2-3 years for their next show dog in a breed unafected by the problems highlighted are now seen as bad dog owners because we show a dog, maybe had the BBC produced a programme on puppy farming where most of the pedigree rubbish comes from we would be applauding it rather than the the crap we saw, but then the RSPCAs High profile tame Vet Mr Evans would not be able to further the Societies aim of having more rights to enter your home,take your pets lock them away for months on end,and why because they need to finance there military looking inspectors(why two pips on there shoulders,are there no corporals) my parting shot, at Crufts a few years ago during the DDA debacle i told a young Lady on the RSPCA stand that i would never donate again to the RSPCA ,her very quick answer was that they did not rely on the tin rattlers but the large sums from big companies and legacies, now Google RSPCAs Watchdog and see if you can find what they are worth, Surprised!!!.
Bob


----------



## clueless

Welcome to the Forum Bob and imo a very nice first post


----------



## Guest

Cassandra said:


> I see what you're saying, but I think the point is that the Kennel Club have been running things for over one hundred years, and the health of the purebred dogs they are supposed to be administering just continues to decline.
> 
> Clearly something is badly wrong, and needs to be urgently addressed. If this program can bring the issue to public attention, and help drive changes that will produce healthier and happier dogs, then more power to it. JMO.


No, you are wrong. For a good number of years the Kennel Club had been working to reverse the trends of breeders of yore. If this program had been made 30 years ago, it would have had a point. Making this kind of program today, telling lies to make people think that things are getting worse, is on a par with the National Front saying the holocaust did not happen. Some people believe watch a TV program and believe that sort of thing.


----------



## Guest

dogman2dogs said:


> Hi wow 64 pages so far,someone must think that this rubbish merits a debate this long, so just a couple of small points,
> 1/how many dog people would listen let alone trust their dog to a vet who spends more time as a tv presenter/producer than working as a Vet,try Googleing Mark Evans and see.
> 2/how many breeds listed by the KC, now how many shown on the programe with serious problems, how many exhibitors that breed a litter every 2-3 years for their next show dog in a breed unafected by the problems highlighted are now seen as bad dog owners because we show a dog, maybe had the BBC produced a programme on puppy farming where most of the pedigree rubbish comes from we would be applauding it rather than the the crap we saw, but then the RSPCAs High profile tame Vet Mr Evans would not be able to further the Societies aim of having more rights to enter your home,take your pets lock them away for months on end,and why because they need to finance there military looking inspectors(why two pips on there shoulders,are there no corporals) my parting shot, at Crufts a few years ago during the DDA debacle i told a young Lady on the RSPCA stand that i would never donate again to the RSPCA ,her very quick answer was that they did not rely on the tin rattlers but the large sums from big companies and legacies, now Google RSPCAs Watchdog and see if you can find what they are worth, Surprised!!!.
> Bob


Hi and welcome! You make some good points here, especially about Mark Evans. I wouldn't truat him with any animal of mine! I think it speaks volumes that The British Veterinary Association are 100% behind the Kennel Club.


----------



## Cassandra

The British Veterinary Association website (Pedigree Dogs Exposed) actually reads:



> *BBC 1 programme 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed'
> 19 August 2008*
> 
> The BVA co-operated with the producers of this BBC programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed, broadcast on 19 August, and a very small extract of the President's interview was included.
> 
> The programme was, as its title makes explicitly clear, an exposé of the very worst elements of pedigree dog breeding.
> 
> The programme does however tie-in well with the recently published report from Imperial College London, compiled on the basis of Kennel Club records from 1970 onwards, into the extent of inbreeding in purebred dogs and how this reduces their genetic variation.
> 
> BVA nevertheless continues to work closely with the Kennel Club in the development of the Canine Health Schemes and has provided the Kennel Club with a message of support for its ongoing endeavours to improve the health of pedigree dogs not least through the work of its Charitable Trust. END


I'm glad the BVA supports the Kennel Club's endeavours to improve the health of purebred dogs. I'm sure we all do. However, I don't believe that this should be in any way misconstrued as blanket support for the Kennel Club systems that actually allowed the problems to proliferate in the first place.

Dogs affected by and carrying diseases _are still_ permitted to compete in Kennel Club shows, win the trophies, and go on to breed the next generation. As long as the Kennel Club continues to effectively "reward" genetic disease, there will be plenty of breeders more than willing to continue these practices and pick up the prizes, regardless of the damage they do to their chosen breed, or the pain and suffering they cause. JMO


----------



## Guest

Cassandra said:


> The British Veterinary Association website (Pedigree Dogs Exposed) actually reads:
> 
> I'm glad the BVA supports the Kennel Club's endeavours to improve the health of purebred dogs. I'm sure we all do. However, I don't believe that this should be in any way misconstrued as blanket support for the Kennel Club systems that actually allowed the problems to proliferate in the first place.
> 
> Dogs affected by and carrying diseases _are still_ permitted to compete in Kennel Club shows, win the trophies, and go on to breed the next generation. As long as the Kennel Club continues to effectively "reward" genetic disease, there will be plenty of breeders more than willing to continue these practices and pick up the prizes, regardless of the damage they do to their chosen breed, or the pain and suffering they cause. JMO


Good post, I agree - especially with the underlined.


----------



## Guest

Cassandra said:


> Dogs affected by and carrying diseases _are still_ permitted to compete in Kennel Club shows win the trophies


I have no problem with these dogs entering shows and enjoying the events,you can't tell by just looking at a dog in a show what diseases hereditary or otherwise they may be carrying.Why should a dog which has an hereditary condition be stopped from doing something which it enjoys ?



Cassandra said:


> and go on to breed the next generation.


Now this I have a major problem with,no dog with hereditary conditions should ever be bred from in my opinion.


----------



## Le Loup

Oh so you allwatched this? i thought of everyone on this forum as i watched it and i was actually shocked. The breeding is even worse than i thought. I thought it was disgusting that Rhodesian Ridgebacks are culled if they dont have ridges even though the ridges is actually a genetic problem with their spine! It's amazing that this is allowed.


----------



## posh pooches

This is why i breed cavadoodles they are very healthy.


----------



## JANICE199

posh pooches said:


> This is why i breed cavadoodles they are very healthy.


out of interest..what health tests do you have done on the poodles and cavvies?i havent asked that to pass any judgement thats not what i come on here for.


----------



## Sgurr

posh pooches said:


> This is why i breed cavadoodles they are very healthy.


How do you know?

Are the dogs you breed from hip-scored, eyechecked, MRI scanned, heart checked and DNA tested as appropriate? I hope you can say yes to every point, and assuming the results are OK, then once they have had their annual check up at the vets and got a clean bill of health, then yes you can say they are healthy.

*Any dog can be eyetested and hip-scored. This is the minimum, together with a vet check for a healthy dog.* Please post your results, it would be very interesting to see them.

My pair of ESS (male then female) hips 4/3 and 5/8, eyechecked - clear.
DNA tested for Fucosidosis, Progressive Retinal Atrophy cord 1 and Phosphofruckokinase Deficiency and are clear both genes in each case so their pups are genetically clear for these 3 conditions, and grandpups will never be affected either.
They are due to go for their annual vet check (and shots) by the end of the month and if all goes well, next week I'll be able to say they are very healthy. 

Sgurr


----------



## Ridgielover

Le Loup said:


> Oh so you allwatched this? i thought of everyone on this forum as i watched it and i was actually shocked. The breeding is even worse than i thought. I thought it was disgusting that Rhodesian Ridgebacks are culled if they dont have ridges even though the ridges is actually a genetic problem with their spine! It's amazing that this is allowed.


Firstly - you really shouldn't believe everything you see on the television!

That is not to deny that some disturbing scenes were shown but this programme was sensationalist and did not reflect RR breeders accurately. Very, very few people cull ridgeless puppies. I certainly haven't and wouldn't and none of my friends have done or would do. I've had RRs for over 20 years - all are correctly ridged and very healthy. The ridge is not a problem with the spine. However, the RR can suffer from a condition called dermoid sinus - as can other breeds and indeed ridgeless RRs - but it is more common in RRs and Thai Ridgebacks. For more discussion on this, look back over this thread!


----------



## Cassandra

Ridgielover said:


> The ridge is not a problem with the spine. However, the RR can suffer from a condition called dermoid sinus - as can other breeds and indeed ridgeless RRs - but it is more common in RRs and Thai Ridgebacks. For more discussion on this, look back over this thread!


It's probably worth restating that studies have shown that the ridge in Rhodesian Ridgebacks actually _predisposes_ them to Dermoid Sinus.

Ridgebacks are the only breed where Dermoid Sinus is significant, and it's very rare in any other breeds (or indeed in Ridgebacks that don't have a ridge). The incidence in Rhodesian Ridgebacks is extremely high, and it's generally thought that around 10% will be born with a Neural Tube Defect such as Dermoid Sinus.

A recent Australian study found it to be even higher, occurring in 17% of Ridgebacks. However, they also found that it may be possible to reduce this to around 5% by the addition of high folate levels to the mother's diet.


----------



## tashi

OK this thread is now going around in ever decreasing circles no-one appears to be listening to each others point of view just trying to make them in the wrong all the time I truly think it has run its course and moderating it is just taking much too much time


----------

